nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

[Political theory stuff] Theocratical Ireland?

jank

Fries-With-That wrote: »

Its naive to think that, we were not a theocracy, when all aspects of Irish society, Justice, Eductation, Health, Sporting and Political were all under the direct or indirect control/influence of the RCC.

Do you even know what a theocracy means? Have a look at Iran post the 1979 revolution. That could be described as a theocracy and even that is not a 'pure' theocracy either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

To state that Ireland was a theocracy in all but name is just playing the liberal revisionist card that goes down well on some sections of the internet where some extremists lap it up but in mainstream discourse even in historical higher learning circles such claims would be rightly met with scepticism.

Amazing in a thread where we are looking for they truth for this sad discovery that some people are willing to throw the truth out just to get their oar in.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Mark Hamill

jank wrote: »

Whatever about this story itself above is not true. The church was not the ultimate authority. Ireland was not a theocracy. It was puritan, more so than its neighbors given the historical years we are talking about but the RCC did not hold the country under some Stalinist spell.

The Constitution of Ireland (which came into force in 1937) was part-written by the then archbishop of Dublin and presented for review multiple times to the Vatican.

Fries-With-That

jank wrote: »

Do you even know what a theocracy means? Have a look at Iran post the 1979 revolution. That could be described as a theocracy and even that is not a 'pure' theocracy either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

To state that Ireland was a theocracy in all but name is just playing the liberal revisionist card that goes down well on some sections of the internet where some extremists lap it up but in mainstream discourse even in historical higher learning circles such claims would be rightly met with scepticism.

Amazing in a thread where we are looking for they truth for this sad discovery that some people are willing to throw the truth out just to get their oar in.

I don't have an oar as you describe it, and I am not throwing out the truth, the truth lies buried in many unmarked graves the length and breadth of this country.

Theocracy

the·oc·ra·cy [thee-ok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural the·oc·ra·cies.
1.
a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2.
a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3.
a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

I think that describes Ireland, at a time when all these religious orders were allowed it appears to do what they wanted, when they wanted, to whomever they wanted, by exercising direct control over its people.

The people in those historical higher learning circles you put faith in to disavow the fact that Ireland, its people,its morals and its governance was controlled by the clergy have surely published something somewhere to this effect.

Please for my illumination point me in the direction of a modern missive authored by one of these scholars that hasn't been overtaken by the many revelations of the horrors perpetrated by members and hierarchy of an organisation that believed it had the best interests of its people at heart.

jank

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The Constitution of Ireland (which came into force in 1937) was part-written by the then archbishop of Dublin and presented for review multiple times to the Vatican.

Yes, and goes to prove my point that Ireland was not a theocracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Charles_McQuaid#.22Co-maker_of_the_Constitution.22_1937

Chapter 8 of John Cooney's "John Charles McQuaid, Ruler of Catholic Ireland" is entitled "Co-maker of the Constitution" and begins:

“ From early 1937 Eamonn de Valera was bombarded with letters daily – sometimes twice a day – from Fr. John McQuaid C.S.Sp. They were crammed with suggestions, viewpoints, documents and learned references on nearly every aspect on what was to become Bunreacht na hEireann – the Constitution of Ireland. McQuaid was the persistent adviser, 'one of the great architects of the Constitution, albeith in the shadows'. However, McQuaid's efforts to enshrine the absolute claims of the Catholic Church as the Church of Christ were frustrated by de Valera.

In a theocracy the above in bold would not have happened.

Dermot Keogh has a even more hardline view on this historical fallacy.

In contrast historian Dermot Keogh (co-author with Andrew McCarthy of "The Making of the Irish Constitution 1937") has written:

“ The chapter entitled "Co-maker of the Constitution", is an example of this overstatement. The author does not appear to understand the complexity involved in handling the McQuaid papers relating to the drafting process. Many documents are undated and it is quite difficult to determine their respective influence on those who drafted the final document. The term 'co-maker' implies that the archbishop enjoyed an equal share with de Valera. However, this is to further compound a fundamental misunderstanding of the drafting process: de Valera was not the ‘other’ author of the 1937 constitution.
To over-personalise in this way the functioning of government under Fianna Fáil is to distort a complex reality. If there was a single author of the 1937 constitution then that author must have been John Hearne, the legal officer in the Department of External Affairs. Maurice Moynihan was also a significant force. McQuaid played an important role in the whole process. That is not in dispute. But to suggest that he was the "co-maker" of the constitution is simply not defensible.

jank

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Boo-fucking-hoo. The Church deserves to be suffocated in criticism for how they've raped this country. The only differences between Church-dominated Ireland and Franco's Spain is that Franco's Spain had better weather and that there wasn't a veneer of democracy.

Really? Eh, one was an actual dictatorship where some reports that up to 2 million died as a result and it only ended in 1975. The other as a Constitutional Parliamentary democracy.

Are we just going to throw all historical objectivity out the window and go off on another round of Irish self examination in the vein of "We are the worst country in the world!!"

Again, amazing how so many are trying to get the truth out (and rightfully so once its done objectively) regarding this and other similar matters are so eager to lose all rationality and historical context when discussing it. What is more disappointing is the fact that highly intelligent, rational people don't call them up for it. It frightens me how quick a mob mentality can arise from a multitude of situations, ironic given the topic at hand!!

jank

Fries-With-That wrote: »

I don't have an oar as you describe it, and I am not throwing out the truth, the truth lies buried in many unmarked graves the length and breadth of this country.

Theocracy

the·oc·ra·cy [thee-ok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural the·oc·ra·cies.
1.
a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2.
a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3.
a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

I think that describes Ireland,

Which one point describes Ireland because neither of those 3 descriptions are accurate in their description of Ireland. Last time I looked the RCC were not the government or there was no priest/spirtual leader at its head like they have in Iran. We have common law in Ireland, not cannon law. When was the last time you were in a religious court? We are not a commonwealth of states either.

So again, we are NOT or were not a theocracy. We still have the same constitution and system of government now. Therefore are we a theocracy now and if not how did this 'magically' come about?

Fries-With-That wrote: »

at a time when all these religious orders were allowed it appears to do what they wanted, when they wanted, to whomever they wanted, by exercising direct control over its people.

McQuaid wanted Dev to have Catholicism as the official religion of Ireland. This was rebuffed and a compromise of sorts was reached where the special position of the church was acknowledged. IF the RCC were all powerful then this would not have happened. These are basic historical facts that can't be brushed away.

Fries-With-That wrote: »

The people in those historical higher learning circles you put faith in to disavow the fact that Ireland, its people,its morals and its governance was controlled by the clergy have surely published something somewhere to this effect.

So its a conspiracy now..... :pac: Are you saying that John Cooney and Dermot Keogh are just mouth pieces for the church, if so what proof do you have only for the fact they publish books that do not conform to your world view.

Fries-With-That wrote: »

Please for my illumination point me in the direction of a modern missive authored by one of these scholars that hasn't been overtaken by the many revelations of the horrors perpetrated by members and hierarchy of an organisation that believed it had the best interests of its people at heart.

So you want emotions to override historical objectivity. The internet is the right place for you so.

Mark Hamill

jank wrote: »

Yes, and goes to prove my point that Ireland was not a theocracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Charles_McQuaid#.22Co-maker_of_the_Constitution.22_1937

In a theocracy the above in bold would not have happened.

Dermot Keogh has a even more hardline view on this historical fallacy.

In an independent state the constitution would not have been part-written by an agent of another state, and then sent to that state for review. Ireland may not have been a full theocracy, but we weren't far off. The underlying claim that you are trying to make (that Ireland was not a theocracy and therefore was not kowtowing to the RCC at every opportunity) is clearly nonsense and just betrays your mindless pro-RCC agenda.
Tell me jank, exactly how many dead children stuffed into underground tanks should we find before you stop mindlessly defending that poisonous organisation.

jank

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In an independent state the constitution would not have been part-written by an agent of another state, and then sent to that state for review. Ireland may not have been a full theocracy, but we weren't far off. The underlying claim that you are trying to make (that Ireland was not a theocracy and therefore was not kowtowing to the RCC at every opportunity) is clearly nonsense and just betrays your mindless pro-RCC agenda.
Tell me jank, exactly how many dead children stuffed into underground tanks should we find before you stop mindlessly defending that poisonous organisation.

First of all thanks for accepting the basic fact of my original post. I glad you now agree with me.

Secondly, you contradict yourself in that post. You accept that Ireland was not a Theocracy, therefore an elected democratic government was the ultimate power of the state. With that accepted as fact how can you then say that the government of day did whatever they were told to do by the RCC? A pure contradiction.

Lastly, Where expressly am I defending the actions of the RCC and what specific action am I defending. You are mistaking my call for historical clarity of the facts to defending the RCC. A classic misnomer when one can't argue with the original argument put forward.

Fries-With-That

jank wrote: »

Which one point describes Ireland because neither of those 3 descriptions are accurate in their description of Ireland. Last time I looked the RCC were not the government or there was no priest/spirtual leader at its head like they have in Iran. We have common law in Ireland, not cannon law. When was the last time you were in a religious court? We are not a commonwealth of states either. (commonwealth or state)

In my opinion if a state or its people are placed under rules and regulations which do not come from its elected representatives directly but from its elected representatives under the influence of a religious institution then that is as close to a theocracy as you could get in a state with an elected government.

jank wrote: »

McQuaid wanted Dev to have Catholicism as the official religion of Ireland. This was rebuffed and a compromise of sorts was reached where the special position of the church was acknowledged. IF the RCC were all powerful then this would not have happened. These are basic historical facts that can't be brushed away.

Regardless of what McQuaid wanted is it not fair to say, the church had a hand in every decision that was made in this country from the parish pump to parliament.

jank wrote: »

So its a conspiracy now..... :pac: Are you saying that John Cooney and Dermot Keogh are just mouth pieces for the church, if so what proof do you have only for the fact they publish books that do not conform to your world view.

I didn't mention either gentleman, I asked you to point me in a particular direction. My first search of Mr Cooney pointed me to an article where he claimed Archbishop McQuaid was a homosexual paedophile.

jank wrote: »

So you want emotions to override historical objectivity. The internet is the right place for you so.

HaHa

I look forward to reading The Vatican, The Bishops and Irish Politics. Thank you for pointing me in this direction.

I also look forward to reading an explanation from those responsible for this latest revelation.

jank

Fries-With-That wrote: »

In my opinion if a state or its people are placed under rules and regulations which do not come from its elected representatives directly but from its elected representatives under the influence of a religious institution then that is as close to a theocracy as you could get in a state with an elected government..

Ireland is engaged in social partnership with the unions who are unelected body which in turn effects the tax rates and public services that everyone in Ireland has to pay. Does that mean we are some quasi-communist-authoritarian state. No. Groups lobby, Powerful groups lobby a lot and have huge influence. The very fact that a group has to lobby means that they are not ALL POWERFUL. I do not deny the influence of the RCC in Ireland but I do stop at the notion that it was a theocracy in all but name with the bishops acting as puppet masters to the government. Perpetrators of that line usually have an ax to grind and as I have shown does not hold up to historical scrutiny.

Fries-With-That wrote: »

Regardless of what McQuaid wanted is it not fair to say, the church had a hand in every decision that was made in this country from the parish pump to parliament.

Every decision of course... except for making Catholicism the official religion of the state.... that fact alone blows your theory away.

SpaceTime

jank wrote: »

Ireland is engaged in social partnership with the unions who are unelected body which in turn effects the tax rates and public services that everyone in Ireland has to pay. Does that mean we are some quasi-communist-authoritarian state. No. Groups lobby, Powerful groups lobby a lot and have huge influence. The very fact that a group has to lobby means that they are not ALL POWERFUL. I do not deny the influence of the RCC in Ireland but I do stop at the notion that it was a theocracy in all but name with the bishops acting as puppet masters to the government. Perpetrators of that line usually have an ax to grind and as I have shown does not hold up to historical scrutiny.

Every decision of course... except for making Catholicism the official religion of the state.... that fact alone blows your theory away.

I'm not going to get into a big political theory debate but the above is described as 'corporatism' or in Ireland's case now probably 'neocorportism'.

The state in the past was definitely corporatist. That means incorporating influential groups and organisations into the fabric of the state services and public policy formation almost as organs of government.

Classical corporateism is not regarded as a good idea and it's something that's commonly seen in fascist states like Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain.

What we have now is supposedly neo corporatism which has more defined limits and democratic oversight.

However, I think the alternative model is better where organisations can lobby in a transparent way rather than being brought in house like our system tends to do.

A lot of political scientists wouldn't be overly keen on corporatism as a way of running a country. It tends to lead to corruption an power grabs... Clearly demonstrated here with the corporatism that existed in the past.

The social partnership model is regulated neo corporatism which is probably useful but it's also slightly anti democratic.

You can see that in terms of special interests having special access speculative investors, the Catholic church etc etc etc

Open lobbying and more transparent and formalised structures would mean that we would know who was lobbying whom and for what purpose. That would solve a lot of problems here!

source

Re Ireland being a theocracy this is the preamble to the constitution:

the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

That to me seems to fit nicely into the first option of the definition.

As for what happened those children, I feel sickened and this has only helped drive an even bigger wedge between me and the church.

My wife who is a sort of laissez faire catholic (for the benefit if her parents) has started to doubt her liking of the church because of this.

Fries-With-That

jank wrote: »

Ireland is engaged in social partnership with the unions who are unelected body which in turn effects the tax rates and public services that everyone in Ireland has to pay. Does that mean we are some quasi-communist-authoritarian state. No. Groups lobby, Powerful groups lobby a lot and have huge influence. The very fact that a group has to lobby means that they are not ALL POWERFUL. I do not deny the influence of the RCC in Ireland but I do stop at the notion that it was a theocracy in all but name with the bishops acting as puppet masters to the government. Perpetrators of that line usually have an ax to grind and as I have shown does not hold up to historical scrutiny.

I have no axe to grind with the RCC.

I think you're clutching at straws when you compare the lobbying of unions and social partnership to the massive influence the RCC had on the social fabric of society.

I think you were the one initially suggested that I was saying Ireland was a theocracy.

I was pointing out that everything that has happened in this state since its foundation has had the fingerprint of the church pressed upon it.

Theocracy,might not be the correct description, but if you have another label for a state that has bowed to the wishes of a religious organisation I'd gladly accept it.

jank

Fries-With-That wrote: »

Theocracy,might not be the correct description,

Correct its not the right description because Ireland was not one. Again, glad we cleared this up.

Mark Hamill

jank wrote: »

First of all thanks for accepting the basic fact of my original post. I glad you now agree with me.

I never said that Ireland was a theocracy. My point is, to repeat the very post you just quoted:
The underlying claim that you are trying to make (that Ireland was not a theocracy and therefore was not kowtowing to the RCC at every opportunity) is clearly nonsense and just betrays your mindless pro-RCC agenda.
The underlying claim, if you cant follow, is that Ireland kowtowed to the RCC at almost every opportunity and that makes it a de-facto theocracy.

jank wrote: »

Secondly, you contradict yourself in that post. You accept that Ireland was not a Theocracy, therefore an elected democratic government was the ultimate power of the state. With that accepted as fact how can you then say that the government of day did whatever they were told to do by the RCC? A pure contradiction.

That's not a contradiction at all. Ireland was not a pure theocracy, it did have publicly elected officials. But those officials kowtowed to RCC at every opportunity, to the point that agents of the RCC where involved in making and reviewing the constitution that those officials operated under.

jank wrote: »

Lastly, Where expressly am I defending the actions of the RCC and what specific action am I defending. You are mistaking my call for historical clarity of the facts to defending the RCC. A classic misnomer when one can't argue with the original argument put forward.

You jump into a thread discussing 800 dead children discarded by the RCC in a water tank to argue trite semantics. Don't pretend you have the higher ground.

jank

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never said that Ireland was a theocracy. My point is, to repeat the very post you just quoted:
The underlying claim that you are trying to make (that Ireland was not a theocracy and therefore was not kowtowing to the RCC at every opportunity) is clearly nonsense and just betrays your mindless pro-RCC agenda.
The underlying claim, if you cant follow, is that Ireland kowtowed to the RCC at almost every opportunity and that makes it a de-facto theocracy.

It was not a theocracy ... but was a theocracy (even though we had a democratically elected parliament)... make up your mind.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That's not a contradiction at all. Ireland was not a pure theocracy, it did have publicly elected officials. But those officials kowtowed to RCC at every opportunity

I have already dealt with this contradiction. There is documented proof that the irish government rejected 'suggestions' put forward by the RCC, therefore officials did no kowtowed to the RCC at every opportunity.... simple logic really.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You jump into a thread discussing 800 dead children discarded by the RCC in a water tank to argue trite semantics. Don't pretend you have the higher ground.

Clarifying the historical fact that Ireland was not a pseudo-catholic dictatorship is now just trite semantics?

You said I was defending the RCC and its actions, what action specifically did I defend? Examples please.

Turtwig

Folks please, unless it's absolute somehow relevant to political theory side of your post, try to refrain from dragging the parent thread into this.

Thanking yous,

Mark Hamill

jank wrote: »

It was not a theocracy ... but was a theocracy (even though we had a democratically elected parliament)... make up your mind.

Or you could stop strawmanning me. Ireland was a defacto theocracy, with a democratically elected parliament that followed a RCC part-written and reviewed constitution.

jank wrote: »

I have already dealt with this contradiction. There is documented proof that the irish government rejected 'suggestions' put forward by the RCC, therefore officials did no kowtowed to the RCC at every opportunity.... simple logic really.

Our constitution opens with a heaping of praise on god, our schools and hospitals were given to religious orders, with constitutional protection for them to enact their desired discriminations they wish. Ireland was a defacto theocracy.

jank wrote: »

Clarifying the historical fact that Ireland was not a pseudo-catholic dictatorship is now just trite semantics?

You said I was defending the RCC and its actions, what action specifically did I defend? Examples please.

You want an example? You jumped into a thread discussing 800 dead children discarded by the RCC in a water tank to argue trite semantics.

jank

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Or you could stop strawmanning me. Ireland was a defacto theocracy, with a democratically elected parliament that followed a RCC part-written and reviewed constitution.

Yes a democratically elected parliament. Therefore not a theocracy, defacto or not.

Simples..

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Our constitution opens with a heaping of praise on god, our schools and hospitals were given to religious orders, with constitutional protection for them to enact their desired discriminations they wish. Ireland was a defacto theocracy.

You may wish to believe what you want but believing that Ireland was a theocracy or a defacto theocracy is an assumption based on faith, emotions and bias rather then fact and historical objectivity.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You want an example? You jumped into a thread discussing 800 dead children discarded by the RCC in a water tank to argue trite semantics.

Again, what specific action by the RCC am I defending here. Please specify please.

I reminded by this quote

Carl Sagan wrote:

“The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.”

pauldla

Ireland maintained a banned book list for many years. The Committee advising the Department of Justice comprised of two clergymen and three laymen, and was regarded to have a strong Catholic influence. One notable ban was The Tailor and Ansty by Eric Cross, a harmless enough take on the life and reminiscences of an elderly country couple. Frank O’Connor (himself on the list, as almost any decent Irish writer of the time was) relates in the second volume of his autobiography that, after the book was banned, two clergymen went out to the Tailor’s house and forced him to burn a copy of the book in his own fireplace. And of course, the old man had to submit to them; for what else could he do?

To me, such are the mechanism of theocracy. They don’t all have to have a Shah.

shruikan2553

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. Ireland is not a theocracy but the church, ruled from and outside state, had far more say in the running of the country than it should have.

Cabaal

Talking of bans,

Life Of Brian was banned for years in Ireland, when it was eventually unbanned it came with a 18's cert.
I'm sure the catholic church did not influence this ban....
:rolleyes:

Mark Hamill

jank wrote: »

Yes a democratically elected parliament. Therefore not a theocracy, defacto or not. Simples..

Strawman of my point: Ireland was a defacto theocracy.

jank wrote: »

You may wish to believe what you want but believing that Ireland was a theocracy or a defacto theocracy is an assumption based on faith, emotions and bias rather then fact and historical objectivity.

I have given the facts that support my conclusion (the wording, writing and reviewing of the constitution, the abdication of the running of schools and hospitals). You have strawmanned my position, repeatedly. It's clear whose position is only based on faith, emotions and bias, and it's not my position.

jank wrote: »

Again, what specific action by the RCC am I defending here. Please specify please.

I never said a specific action, I said that you mindlessly defend the RCC. And if you want an example, then:
You jumped into a thread discussing 800 dead children discarded by the RCC in a water tank to argue trite semantics.

jank wrote: »

I reminded by this quote

It would be nice if you could remind yourself of what my quotes actually are before you post :rolleyes:.

Turtwig

Language pedantry aside, every major facet of It Irish society was controlled by the Catholic church. To be a priest or nun was a prestigious position. Church had control over state education and state healthcare. Schools and hospitals were accountable to the oversights of the clergy.

Call that whatever the correct term is but there can be no denying the level of power and influence the church held.

BuilderPlumber

Whether it was a true theocracy or not, Ireland's early years were deeply rooted in the Catholic religion and even the very founding of the state was based upon a Catholic identity. No doubt about it, the Catholic religion practised in Ireland was far stricter than that in France or even Italy at the time. It was zealous and its zeal made it an all conquering force that did not tolerate any perceived threats. But this religion never had total control over Ireland and in the conventional sense Ireland was not a theocracy.

Unfortunately, primitive religion proved even more successful elsewhere. Iran was mentioned earlier. Quite a sophisticated society in the 1970s, this country became a shell of its former self in the 1980s. Due to poor leadership, superpower jostling, greed over oil and .. [peasant interpreted] religion. With peasant militias besotted with their own [tribal, mixed up] brand of 'Islam' (Islam meet tribalism more like it), the end result was like a milder version of the 'tribalism meets communism' the Khmer Rouge earlier mastered. No doubt other fascist movements like this influenced Iran's new religious military regime. Still, though, was it truly a theocracy? I don't buy it that 80 year Fr Khomeini was in control (he was a handy front for a military junta to legitimise repression via religion). The end result was really another military/fascist dictatorship hiding behind religion, pretending to care for the poor but aiding and abetting the rich (Bazaars, military, politicians and big business: yes, the priests had to be made rich/allowed be politicians too to keep them onboard; even Fr Khomeini objected to priests being presidents at first but capitulated later). Later theocracies like the Taliban likewise copied such models (military dictatorships with very narrowminded ways: unlike Iran's priests who were officially qualified as priests, the Taliban's clergy's qualifications was more akin to a diploma mill: many were actually totally uneducated peasants who could neither read nor write) but took it to even worse levels.

Ireland's early state was based on three principles: Catholicism was one but equally important ideologies were Irish language and Gaelic games/GAA. The latter is the only one that was truly embraced and a passion for sport over religion or having our own language remains more important to most Irish people it seems.