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.

[WJL]

From what I understand about this historical period, the liberal ideas which Pope Gregory XVI condemned would appear to be those of the Society of the United Irishmen, who were led by the famous Theobold Wolfe Tone and were also the main organizing force behind the Irish Rebellion of 1798 (in which Fr. John Murphy, commemorated in the song "Boolavouge," led his Catholic parishioners). The Irish Rebellion of 1798 is still celebrated by patriotic Irish Catholics to this day.

For some background on this particular Rebellion, Wikipedia states the following:

"Since 1691 and the end of the Williamite war, Ireland had chiefly been controlled by the minority Anglican Protestant Ascendancy constituting members of the established Church loyal to the British Crown. It governed through a form of institutionalised sectarianism codified in the Penal Laws which discriminated against both the majority Irish Catholic population and non-Anglican Protestants (for example Presbyterians). In the late 18th century, liberal elements among the ruling class were inspired by the example of the American Revolution (1776–1783) and sought to form common cause with the Catholic populace to achieve reform and greater autonomy from Britain. As in England, the majority of Protestants, as well as all Catholics, were barred from voting because they did not pass a property threshold. Another grievance was that Ireland, although nominally a sovereign kingdom governed by the monarch and Parliament of the island, in reality had less independence than most of Britain's North American colonies, due to a series of laws enacted by the English, such as Poynings' law of 1494 and the Declaratory Act of 1720, the former of which gave the English veto power over Irish legislation, and the latter of which gave the British the right to legislate for the kingdom.

When France joined the Americans in support of their Revolutionary War, London called for volunteers to join militias to defend Ireland against the threat of invasion from France (since regular British forces had been dispatched to America). Many thousands joined the Irish Volunteers. In 1782 they used their newly powerful position to force the Crown to grant the landed Ascendancy self-rule and a more independent parliament ("Grattan's Parliament"). The Irish Patriot Party, led by Henry Grattan, pushed for greater enfranchisement. In 1793 parliament passed laws allowing Catholics with some property to vote, but they could neither be elected nor appointed as state officials. Liberal elements of the Ascendancy seeking a greater franchise for the people, and an end to religious discrimination, were further inspired by the French Revolution, which had taken place in a Catholic country."

The United Irishmen were a republican revolutionary society influenced by the ideas of the American and French revolutions, and wanted to unite "Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter" in Ireland to create an Irish Republic. Wikipedia, in its articles on the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and on the United Irishmen under the section titled "The United Irishmen and sectarianism," states the following:

"The prospect of reform inspired a small group of Protestant liberals in Belfast to found the Society of United Irishmen in 1791. The organisation crossed the religious divide with a membership comprising Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, other Protestant 'dissenters' groups, and some from the Protestant Ascendancy. The Society openly put forward policies of further democratic reforms and Catholic emancipation, reforms which the Irish Parliament had little intention of granting. The outbreak of war with France earlier in 1793, following the execution of Louis XVI, forced the Society underground and toward armed insurrection with French aid. The avowed intent of the United Irishmen was to 'break the connection with England'; the organisation spread throughout Ireland and had at least 200,000 members by 1797. It linked up with Catholic agrarian resistance groups, known as the Defenders, who had started raiding houses for arms in early 1793.

Despite their growing strength, the United Irish leadership decided to seek military help from the French revolutionary government and to postpone the rising until French troops landed in Ireland. Theobald Wolfe Tone, leader of the United Irishmen, travelled in exile from the United States to France to press the case for intervention.

"... Thomas Paine and his Rights of Man were extremely influential in promoting this ideal in Ireland ..."

"Most of the United Irish leadership and ideologues were born into Presbyterian families. While the United Irish had declared themselves to be non-sectarian from 1791, there were other liberal Protestants in the Irish Parliament who were also anti-sectarian and sought a more democratic franchise, such as Henry Grattan and John Curran. Although the United Irishmen was a staunchly non-sectarian body which sought to unite all Irishmen, regardless of religion or descent many among their ranks were former Defenders, a term applied to many loosely connected, exclusively Catholic, agrarian resistance groups. Many of these men, as well as their Presbyterian counterparts in Ulster, had been shaped by the sectarianism that was prevalent in eighteenth century Ireland and it was no mean feat to persuade Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter to put aside their differences and view each other simply as fellow Irishmen. Although the project met with remarkable success, it was quickly recognised by the establishment that sectarianism was a useful ally in the fight against the United Irishmen

The formation of the Orange Order in 1795 was to prove particularly useful as it provided the Government with allies who had detailed local knowledge of the activities of their enemies. The brutal disarming of Ulster in 1797, where the United Irish had successfully radicalised both Protestants and Catholics, saw thousands of Catholics driven from counties Antrim, Down and Armagh, and the murder, torture and imprisonment of hundreds of Protestants suspected of United Irish sympathies.

Also in 1795 the Dublin administration funded the new St Patrick's College seminary for Roman Catholic priests, which ensured the support of the Irish Catholic hierarchy. The church was opposed to republicanism, though individual priests were supportive. The French government that supported the United Irish had engaged in a policy of "dechristianisation" for some years, and in February 1798 its army had expelled Pope Pius VI from Rome and formed the short-lived "Roman Republic". The Catholic hierarchy was therefore in a difficult position, being opposed to the United Irish while fully aware of the underlying social grievances of its members."

"Loyalists across Ireland had organised in support of the Government; many supplied recruits and vital local intelligence through the foundation of the Orange Order in 1795. The Government's founding of Maynooth College in the same year, and the French conquest of Rome earlier in 1798 both helped secure the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to rebellion; with a few individual exceptions, the Church was firmly on the side of the Crown throughout the entire period of turmoil."

[WJL]

According to these Freemasonic websites hosted in Ireland:

"The political influence of the Volunteers combined with the success of the American War of Independence and the French Revolution created new ideals of democracy in Ireland. Following the founding of the Society of United Irishmen several Lodges, particularly in the north of Ireland, made public proclamations in the press about the need for reform of the Constitution. Whilst the vast majority of Lodges that did this disavowed violence as the means to an end, some were quite rebellious in their proclamations. Other Lodges, it must be said, publicly dissociated themselves from their more revolutionary Brethren.

Government pressure was brought to bear on Grand Lodge and notices were sent out reminding Lodges of the Grand Lodge Law forbidding quarrels of a religious or political nature to be brought within the doors of the Lodge. However, several well-known United Irishmen including Henry Joy McCracken, Henry Monroe, and Archibald Hamilton Rowan were also Freemasons."

http://www.munsterfreemason.com/Free...in_Ireland.htm

"In 1826 the papal Bull of Leo XII against secret societies was widely promulgated in Ireland unlike the previous bulls issued against Freemasonry in the eighteenth century. Catholic members of the Order were threatened with excommunication if they failed to resign from their Lodges. One of the most prominent figures in Irish history to have been a Freemason, Daniel O'Connell, resigned after pressure was put on him by Archbishop Troy of Dublin."

http://www.irish-freemasons.org/Page...e_History.html

How should patriotic Irish Catholics, faithful to the teachings of the Church and also loyal to their nation, view the Society of United Irishmen in hindsight considering their liberal and Freemasonic connections as well as the 1798 rebellion considering many devout Irish Catholics, such as the Defenders, fought alongside members of the United Irishmen and soldiers of Revolutionary France attempting to drive the British out of Ireland? Also how should they view the agrarian Catholic group known as the Defenders who aligned with the United Irishmen during the 1798 Rebellion?

Thanks.

[WJL]

Could someone who perhaps is familiar with these historical issues related to Catholicism suggest how to address / answer these claims and objections?

Thanks.

[Zeno11]

Originally Posted by WJL

Could someone who perhaps is familiar with these historical issues related to Catholicism suggest how to address / answer these claims and objections?

Thanks.

Pope Adrian IV (c. 1100 – 1 September 1159) was the only English man to ever hold the Papacy. In 1155, three years after the Synod of Kells, Adrian IV published the Papal Bull 'Laudabiliter', which was addressed to the Angevin King Henry II of England. He urged Henry to invade Ireland to bring its Celtic Christian Church under the Roman system and to conduct a general reform of governance and society throughout the island.

The bull made Ireland a feudal possession of the King of England under the nominal overlordship of the papacy. The title the English King was to hold over Ireland was "Lord of Ireland". The theory of western Christendom was that certain states were recognised and others were not; Laudabiliter formally brought Ireland as a political entity into the European polity.

So I don't think you can really argue or defend this-it is a fact of history. As an Irishwoman, I was astounded when I learned of these things.

[WJL]

*bump*

[The_Scott]

Originally Posted by Zeno11

Pope Adrian IV (c. 1100 – 1 September 1159) was the only English man to ever hold the Papacy. In 1155, three years after the Synod of Kells, Adrian IV published the Papal Bull 'Laudabiliter', which was addressed to the Angevin King Henry II of England. He urged Henry to invade Ireland to bring its Celtic Christian Church under the Roman system and to conduct a general reform of governance and society throughout the island.

The bull made Ireland a feudal possession of the King of England under the nominal overlordship of the papacy. The title the English King was to hold over Ireland was "Lord of Ireland". The theory of western Christendom was that certain states were recognised and others were not; Laudabiliter formally brought Ireland as a political entity into the European polity.

So I don't think you can really argue or defend this-it is a fact of history. As an Irishwoman, I was astounded when I learned of these things.

I think it must be emphasized ad nauseum that Adrian IV was English. Of course he would be interested in pro-English politics; it isn't surprising, then, that he would want to give Ireland to England.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by The_Scott

I think it must be emphasized ad nauseum that Adrian IV was English. Of course he would be interested in pro-English politics; it isn't surprising, then, that he would want to give Ireland to England.

Not necessarily.

Nationalism as we experience it today did not really exist, but even if it did that would not justify an abuse.

Most of these deals were personal, a friend of a friend kind of thing. Countries were 'properties', not nations. England was ruled by Normans, and any Pope would much rather these bandits and thieves were rampaging in northern Europe than in Italy near Rome. The Papacy had been at times both terrified by the Normans and also benefited handsomely by learning to work with them.

[Mintaka]

So many issues in one thread! Sheesh!

Re: Pope Adrian, he was mostly responding to a lot of ruckus raised by St. Bernard of Clairvaux. St. Bernard was raising ruckus, because a saintly (and curmudgeonly) Irish bishop (St. Mael Madoc, usually known as St. Malachy) had ended up dying at Clairvaux. Before he died, this bishop talked to Bernard about all the Church abuses and behind-the-times-ness going on in Ireland because the times were disordered, and because Ireland was slow to adopt the reforms on the continent. Since St. Bernard was a reformer, he wrote up the guy's biography after he was dead, detailing all the stuff going on in Ireland, and demanding that somebody Do Something. King Henry immediately offered to Do Something.

(And things were pretty disorderly, although a lot of the problem was that it took Ireland longer to come back from all the Viking raiding than it took bigger countries like France and England. The problem was that Malachy's idea of a solution was lots of monks doing stuff like Clairvaux and making it cool to be orderly, whereas Bernard was French and had different ideas. The moral of the story is not to die sad and complaining at a famous and influential blogger's... er, preacher's... monastery.)

So since St. Bernard said the Pope ought to Do Something, Pope Adrian did. He figured that bad management meant a bad king, King Henry was pretty good at this centralization thing, and he'd already volunteered. And since it had worked okay for William of Normandy to come take over lordship of England in a disorderly time (though of course William did have some excuse, given that King St. Edward the Confessor had made him his heir at one point), it would work okily-dokily to have King Henry come and take over Ireland.

The main problem wasn't church reform; that went okay. Ask an Irish churchman to live a more ascetic life, and you'll get lots of support from the Irish (and even from the Irish churchmen, since Celtic spirituality is very into walking barefoot over stones all night).

There was a lot of unhappiness about Pope Adrian pulling out the "heir to the Roman Empire" card, and claiming that all Irish land had been removed from the keeping of the lords (although really, he should have said "the clans") and given to King Henry to pass out. Especially since Ireland never was part of the Roman Empire, and hence couldn't possibly be Pope Adrian's to pass out.

And people who were being good Church people were unhappy with being lumped in with the problem children and given all sorts of punishment. Nope, they weren't happy. But they were prepared to accept it and offer it up, especially since they were sure that Pope Adrian would read all their cards and letters and send Henry back home, since nobody could possibly believe some dead bishop and some French guy more than a zillion living Irish people. But they never did get any joy from that.

The main problem was that King Henry wasn't prepared not to mess with the Irish law system, which had been around a lot longer than Saxon, Norman, or French law. He wanted to drag Ireland into the 12th century (as defined by him), and Ireland doesn't deal well with that. (Especially since the English used to come to Ireland to get schooled in not being barbarians.)

The Irish law system also provided for heirs to be chosen by election from among three generations of male relatives, which really really messed with the English system of primogeniture and no Salic inheritance. The Irish didn't have a feudal system At All, and all alliance agreements were pretty temporary. There was no land ownership as such; all clan properties were corporate properties that were passed out by lottery every year to be farmed by the various clan stockholders, which messed with the fundamentals of land-owning and government. The language and custom differences between English/Norman French and Gaelic were also pretty severe, and the English back home disliked the way the English in Ireland kept going native. Thus, freaking out ensued, and things didn't go well.

(We won't even get into the humorous spectacle of Welsh guys writing books for King Henry, claiming that their Welsh Celtic law system was awesome, whereas the Irish one stunk.)

Anyway... Pope Adrian didn't have much to do with it, except for not choosing a more inactive solution when urged to Do Something.

Please remember this whenever you demand that the Pope send in his ninja Swiss Guard and Do Something. Even saints don't necessarily make great decisions.