Has the Papacy been ANTI-Irish since before and after the Reformation?

[WJL]

I've seen several related objections made by opponents of Catholicism and Irish nationalism (typically anti-Catholic Protestants of the Ian Paisley variety, amongst others) who, in an attempt to discredit Irish Catholics and want them to deem the Catholic Church and / or Irish nationalism unworthy of their historically strong dedication, allege that the Papacy under Pope Adrian IV had authorized perpetual and unconditional English occupation and subjugation of Ireland to King Henry II of England and his successors.

A typical example of a website alleging this would be this article entitled "How the Popes Gave Ireland to the England": http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/popsirlnd.html

(The article also claims that the early Celtic Church--or what they term the "Culdee Church"--in Ireland was supposedly a proto-Protestant church that not was not in Communion with the See of Rome and that the Synod of Cashel in 1172 is "what finally brought the island and its people into submission to Rome." However, that issue whether the Celtic Church was Catholic has been resolved in another thread, as it has been shown that it was, indeed, in Communion with Rome and acknowledged the Papacy prior to the Norman invasion and Synod of Cashel in 1172).

Quote from the article:

Pope Adrian's successor Alexander III wrote to the Bishops of Ireland calling on them to submit to King Henry:

"Understanding that our dear son in Christ, Henry, illustrious King of England stirred by divine inspiration and with his united forces has subjected to his dominion, that people a barbarous one, uncivilized and ignorant of the Divine Law - we command and enjoin upon you that you will diligently and manfully assist the above said King to maintain and preserve that land and to extirpate the filthiness of such great abominations. And if any of the Kings, Princes or persons of the land shall rashly attempt to go against his due oath and fealty pledged to the said King you shall lay ecclesiastical censure on such a one."

In a similar vein Pope Alexander addressed these words to the Princes of Ireland:

"Whereas you have received our dear son in Christ, Henry, illustrious King of England as your king and Lord and have sworn fealty to him ... we ward and admonish your noble order to strive to preserve the fealty which by solemn oath you have made."

The same Roman Pontiff in a letter congratulating Henry on his conquest of Ireland wrote:

"We have been assured how you have wonderfully triumphed over the people of Ireland and over a Kingdom which the Roman Emperors, the conquerors of the world left untouched, and you have extended the power of your majesty over the same people, a race uncivilized and undisciplined. We understand that you, collecting your splendid naval and land forces have set your mind upon subjugating that people ... so we exhort and beseech your majesty and enjoin upon you that you will even more intently and strenuously continue ... and earnestly enjoin upon your majesty that you will carefully seek to preserve the rights of the See of St. Peter."

... As for the Papal insults that the Irish were a rude, ignorant, uncivilized people, had not the missionaries of Patrick's Celtic Church brought the uncorrupted Gospel not only to the rest of the British Isles but to Europe? Was it a savage people who produced such beautifully illuminated Christian manuscripts as the Book of Kells, and who preserved the primitive Christian faith in their communities even under Viking attack, whilst Papal Rome was sunk in, the depths of vice and superstitions?

However, towards the end of the aforementioned article it claims,"It was only when the rest of the British Isles and the British Monarchy embraced Protestantism at the Reformation, that the Papacy changed its policy and began to pose as the champion of Irish freedom. The bloody wars, wholesale massacres, and midnight assassinations incited by the Romish clergy in the name of Irish patriotism were in fact conflicts fought purely and simply to secure the continued domination of this island by Roman Catholicism."

Even in the post-Reformation period, there are claims of anti-Irish Vatican foreign policy. For example, it is said that Pope Gregory XVI condemned all rebellions against royal authority even in Catholic lands like Ireland and Poland being ruled by non-Catholic monarchs, and in Ireland he urged Irish Catholics to be loyal to their Protestant British monarch.

"Soon, [Pope] Gregory XVI was perhaps the most hated man in Europe amongst leftist circles, not only in Italy but also in places abroad like Ireland where he urged Irish Catholics to be loyal to their Protestant British monarch. He sympathized with them naturally but his bottom line was absolute opposition to any revolution."

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/20...egory-xvi.html

"Since Gregory knew the Papal States would be threatened by Italian unification, he was even less sympathetic to their struggle for independence than he’d been to Poland, Ireland or Belgium, all under Protestant rule. 'St. Peter and the Vatican, The Legacy of the Popes' states, 'At a time when many Catholic populations were seeking independence from oppressive non-Catholic rule—in Ireland, in Belgium, in Poland—Gregory’s determination to stamp out and to distrust political movements with modernist ideas were unhelpful convictions in a pope. (For example,) in 1832, he condemned the Polish rising against Russian rule, leaving Polish Catholics with a deep sense of betrayal. For European liberals he became in his last years the living symbol of a church in denial: reactionary, truculent, at odds with the world around it.'"

http://www.papalartifacts.com/pope/29

Those who oppose Catholicism and Irish independence, namely British / Ulster Scots Protestants, use this material to the effect of saying to Irish Catholics "see, even the Pope said that Protestant Britain has the right to rule Ireland yet, you still support them!" I've even seen some modern Catholic supporters of the Plantagenet and Stuart dynasties (e.g. Jacobites) also using this claim to justify Britain's claim to Ireland, saying that Ireland "still rightfully belongs to the descendants of Plantagenet dynasty" or "still rightfully belongs the descendants of the Stuart dynasty" based on the Laudibiliter of Pope Adrian IV, rather than to the native people of Ireland who have fought for their self-determination from an occupying force in their own land for c. 800 years. How, on a Catholic basis, can the Irish nation be shown to not be bound to the Laudibiliter, and that the Irish people have the right to their own sovereignty, independence, and self-determination apart from Britain and its monarchy?

Another question is how would one address the claim, often levied by the same types of individuals, that the Catholic Church supposedly "did nothing" to help the starving Irish people during the Famine of 1847-1852? While attempting to research this issue, a link came up about a book entitled "Why the Church Abandoned the Starving Irish" by John A. Nolan. An individual posting on www.boards.ie made the following claim: "The Catholic Church previously brought down Irish Nationalism in the 19th Century by attacking Parnell so much so that the Church itself went against the wishes of the Irish people. Prior to that church did very little to help the starving people - one bishop in Kerry fled to an Island off the coast so not to share his own provisions."

How should patriotic Irish Catholics answer or address these accusations based on a credible, in context, historical and magisterial analysis of this issue?

Thanks.