Author Topic: Pope Adrian IV, Laudabiliter, the Anglo-Norman Conquest of Ireland (Read 3273 times)

Dylan · « **on:** February 21, 2012, 12:22:40 PM »

Hi everyone,

It's been a long time since I last posted on here, but I'll be posting more often now.

A couple of days ago, I was having an online discussion with someone from Ireland in a topic about a restoration of the High Kingship of Ireland. Being that Ireland is a Catholic country and the majority of Irish people are Catholics and that a form of monarchy is the traditional Irish form of government, in addition to the fact that a Catholic monarchy is considered to be the the best form of government from a Catholic perspective, based on the teachings on numerous saints and popes, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Pius VI, I had said that a prospective Irish High King should be strongly Catholic and, like the Bourbon kings, considered most Christian. I realize that it is unlikely that Ireland will re-establish an independent Catholic monarchy any time soon, especially considering there is a strong leftist republican and secularist trend in the country, however, in principle based on Catholic political philosophy and social teaching, if it were, ideally, to do so the High King should be Catholic. However this individual I was talking to, apparently, doesn't like Catholicism and is into Neo-paganism and Druidism, etc. based on his comments.

This the exchange:

Quote from: Neo-pagan "Druid"

Being a Catholic cannot be a precondition to be a High-King of Ireland. The majority of Irish High-Kings were Pagan, with many of them practicing in the profession of Druidry.

Quote from: I

That was only in pre-Christian Ireland before the introduction of Christianity by St. Patrick in the 5th century and its completion in the 6th century. Christianity defeated paganism / Druidism in Ireland. The last pagan High King was Lugaid mac Lóegairi who reigned from 479-503. The first Christian (Catholic) High King of Ireland was Muirchertach mac Muiredaig who reigned from 504-527. Since then Ireland has been a Catholic nation.

Quote from: Neo-pagan "Druid"

Nonsense. If that was the argument one would argue that because the protestants beat the Catholics then they were entitled to the kingship. It was Catholic chieftains that agreed to the surrender and regrant system under foreign monarchs. The poets and brehons who were still the ethos of the Druidic order were the only ones who opposed this and claimed that the land was vested by ancient rights to people of their craft. The Catholic lords abandoned the kingship as did the Catholic Church who have always been England's ally, not Ireland's. A pagan Druid has every right to be a high king as an Irish Catholic. No Irish king can be under compliment to any foreign institution. Lets also remember that most of the Irish Christian high kings were of the Celtic Church and not the Roman one.

So, he's ultimately trying to blame the Catholic Church and Irish Catholics for England's invasion and occupation of Ireland and England's persecution of the Irish.

For some background, according to Wikipedia:

Quote

Another reason King Henry II of England invaded Ireland was because Pope Adrian IV, the only Englishman to have occupied the papal throne, had issued a papal bull Laudabiliter (1155) authorising the English monarch to take possession of Ireland. Religious practices in Ireland and organisation had evolved divergently from those of areas of Europe influenced more directly by the Holy See, although many of these differences had been eliminated or greatly lessened by the time the bull was issued in 1155. Further, the former Irish church had never sent its dues ("tithes") to Rome. Henry's primary motivation for invading Ireland 1171 was to control Strongbow and other Norman lords. In the process he accepted the fealty of the Gaelic kings at Dublin in November 1171, and he summoned the Synod of Cashel in 1172, which brought the Irish Church into conformity with English and European norms.

The pope asserted the right to grant sovereignty over islands to different monarchs on the basis of a docuмent, later proved to be a forgery, called the Donation of Constantine. Doubts were cast by eminent scholars on Laudabiliter itself in the 19th century, but its effect was confirmed by letters of Pope Alexander III and by the facts on the ground. The Papal power to grant also fell within the remit of Dictatus papae (1075–87). While Laudabiliter had referred to the "kingdom" of Ireland, the Papacy was ambiguous about describing it as a kingdom as early as 1185.

What are some good, factual responses to the implied claims of this neo-pagan individual that the actions of Pope Adrian IV and his issuance of the papal bull Laudabiliter in 1155 constitute the Catholic Church, itself, supposedly "selling out" the Irish Catholics to the English (who were also Catholic at the time) and that the Catholic Church is supposedly "responsible" for England's theft of native Irish lands and its persecution of the Irish throughout history, as well as responses to these specific assertions that he made?:

Quote

1. It was Catholic chieftains that agreed to the surrender and regrant system under foreign monarchs.

Quote

2. The poets and brehons who were still the ethos of the Druidic order were the only ones who opposed this and claimed that the land was vested by ancient rights to people of their craft.

Quote

3. Irish Catholic lords abandoned the Irish kingship as did the Catholic Church who have always been England's ally, not Ireland's.

Quote

4. No Irish king can be under compliment to any foreign institution.

Quote

5. Lets also remember that most of the Irish Christian high kings were of the Celtic church and not the Roman one.

Regarding #5. he is asserting a common idea among some protestants that the the Celtic Rite of the Culdees in Ireland weren't Catholics but, a separate church that didn't accept the papacy.

For those who are familiar with Irish Catholic history, how should I respond / answer these claims and their implications?

Dylan · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2012, 06:19:36 PM »

Here's an anti-Catholic Protestant article which makes similar claims:

Quote

How the Popes Gave Ireland to England

GENERATIONS of Roman Catholic Irish have proclaimed loud and long that the source of all of Ireland's woes has been the presence of the English. The Emerald Isle, once famed as a land of Saints and Scholars, has been drenched in blood down the centuries, as inhuman fiends posing as patriots have murdered, maimed and massacred, rebelled and waged cινιℓ ωαr, often with the blessing of the Roman Catholic clergy, in the supposed cause of Irish freedom.

However the suppressed facts of history are that when King Henry II of England landed with an army of 4,000 at Waterford in October 1171, he came at the Pope's behest and carrying as his authority the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, by which the Roman Pontiff claimed the right to bestow Ireland as a gift to the English King on condition that he suppressed the ancient Celtic or Culdee Church, and brought the island and its people into submission to Rome.

We reproduce herewith the Bull Laudabiliter by which Pope Adrian IV gave Ireland to England:

"Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our well beloved son in Christ, the illustrious King of the English greeting and Apostolic Benediction. Laudably, and profitably, does your majesty contemplate spreading the glory of your name on earth and laying up for yourself the reward of eternal happiness in heaven, in that as becomes a Catholic Prince, you propose to enlarge the boundaries of the Church, to proclaim the truths of the Christian religion to a rude and ignorant people (the Irish), to root out the growth of vice from the field of the Lord; and the better to accomplish this purpose you seek the counsel and goodwill of the Apostolic See. In pursuing your object the loftier your aim and the greater your discretion, the more prosperous we are assured with God's assistance will be the progress you will make: for undertakings commenced in the zeal of faith and the love of religion are ever wont to attain to a good end and issue. Verily as your excellency doth acknowledge, there is no doubt that Ireland, and all the islands on which Christ the sun of righteousness has shone, and which have accepted the doctrines of the Christian faith, belong to the blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church, wherefore the more pleased are we to plant in them the seed of faith acceptable to God, inasmuch as our conscience warns us that in their case a stricter account will hereafter be required of us.

Whereas then well beloved son in Christ you have expressed to us your desire to enter the island of Ireland in order to subject its people to law (Papal Canon Law) and to root out from them the weeds of vice (the ancient Culdee faith) and your willingness to pay an annual tribute to the blessed Peter (the Pope) of one penny from every house, and to maintain the rights of the Churches of that land whole and inviolate. We therefore meeting your pious and laudable desire with due favour, and according a gracious assent to your petition, do hereby declare our will and pleasure, that with a view to enlarging the boundaries of the Church, restraining the downward course of vice, correcting evil customs and planting virtue and for the increase of the Christian religion (Romanism) you shall enter that island and execute whatsoever may tend to the honour of God, and the welfare of the land; and also that the people shall receive you with honour and revere you as their Lord: provided always that the rights of the Churches remain whole and inviolate and saving to the blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church the annual tribute of one penny for every house. If then you should carry your project into effect, let it be to your care to instruct that people in good ways of life ... that the Church there may be adorned, that the Christian religion (Romanism) may take root and grow ... that you may deserve at God's hands the fulness of an everlasting reward and may obtain on earth a name renowned throughout the ages."

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."

This was indeed what King Henry did and one of his first acts was to call the Council of Cashel in 1172 at which the ancient Celtic Church of Ireland was brought into submission to the yoke of Roman bondage. 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?

The Roman Catholic writer O'Driscoll admits:

"The Christian Church of Ireland was founded by St. Patrick, existed for many centuries free and unshackled ... and differed on many points from Rome. From the days of Patrick to the Council of Cashel was a bright and glorious career for Ireland. From the sitting of that Council to our own times the lot of Ireland has been unmixed evil and all her history a tale of woe." Views of Ireland, Vol. 2, Page 84.

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. Papal policy is best summed up in this letter sent to the Irish rebel leader Shane O'Neill by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Mentz - dated in Rome April 28th, 1528:

"My dear son O'Neill, thou and thy fathers are all along faithful to the Mother Church of Rome. His Holiness Paul III, now Pope, and the Council of the Holy Fathers there, have lately found a prophecy of one Saint Lazerianus Bishop of Cashel, wherein he saith that the Mother Church of Rome falleth, when in Ireland the Catholic Faith is overcome. Therefore for the glory of the Mother Church, the honour of St. Peter, and your own secureness suppress heresy and His Holiness' enemies, for when the Roman Faith there perisheth (in Ireland) the See of Rome falleth also. Therefore the Council of Cardinals have thought fit to encourage your country of Ireland as a Sacred Island, being certified whilst the Mother Church hath a son of worth as yourself, and those that shall succour you and join therein, that she will never fall but have more or less hold in Britain in spite of fate." Mant's History of the Irish Church, page 40.

The Irish Republican terrorists currently waging their war of genocide against the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland, loudly demand that we:

"Break the British connection."

and boldly declare that:

"Ireland unfree will never be at peace."

Their political philosophy and hence their murder campaign is based on a perversion of Irish history and the deliberate suppression of facts. The real truth is that:

Ireland will only truly enjoy peace and liberty when the chains of Roman Catholicism are broken by the Gospel of Christ, and the blight of priestcraft and Popery are banished from our island home for ever.

I would really appreciate any help anyone could offer on addressing this subject. How should one respond to / answer these allegations?

Thanks.

Dylan · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2012, 08:41:54 AM »

How should these allegations be answered?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2012, 10:19:43 AM »

Hey Dylan, welcome back.

Sorry, not ignoring you, I just am not an expert on this subject. I'll let someone else answer your question.

God Bless.

Caraffa · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2012, 11:10:51 PM »

Dylan, you're right, one of the underlying presupposition here is that early Celtic Christianity and the Celtic Church was an entirely different Christianity from Roman Christianity. This Celtic Christianity, these types usually say was one that was more pagan friendly, non-magisterial proto-Protestant, or both. As one historian, Patrick Wormald says, "One of the common misconceptions is that there was a ‘Roman Church’ to which the ‘Celtic’ was nationally opposed" (The Times of Bede, p.207)

Quote from: Cardinals to Conn O'Neill

for when the Roman Faith there perisheth (in Ireland) the See of Rome falleth also.

Its always interesting to find quotes like this. Has this not happened in Ireland since Vatican II?

Nishant · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2012, 09:56:10 AM »

Well, Dylan, let's take the Protestant claim first. I'm always amused when I hear them speak of "the pure Gospel of Christ". Wait, is that the Lutheran, Calvinist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, Anglican, Assemblies of God or Seventh day Adventist's "Gospel"?

Your site says "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", but this is another fond Protestant fiction. Not only was St.Patrick unequivocally and demonstrably Catholic, the Apostle of the Emerald Isle was originally sent there by Rome, commissioned specifically for the charge by Pope St.Celestine I. Likewise, Rome was instrumental in sending St.Augustine (of Canterbury, not Hippo) to England, St.Boniface to Germany etc, all of whom brought the light of Christian Faith to these lands. In fact, almost all the West was evangelized by missionaries directly or indirectly from Rome and used the Latin rite, as missionaries sent to parts of what is now Russia from Constantinople used the Byzantine or Greek rite.

The 1172 Synod of Cashel and its acts is reported by Wiki here. As you can see, it contains no formal abjurations of heresy that would have been required by Rome had the Culdee monks believed the "Gospel" of the Protestants. Rather, most were disciplinary, some concerned abuses, some related to morals etc. So these were Christians who more or less were still in communion with Rome but had fallen into decadence in some areas, did not pay tithes etc.

And just consider the example of St.Malachy a Saintly Archbishop who lived in Ireland who died 24 years before this Council, who knew St.Bernard, visited Rome, reformed discipline and morals etc and in every way showed that the indigenous Irish Church in general was conscious of and depended on communion with Rome and the universal Catholic Church unlike what the Protestant writer maintains. You can also read here that some local lords themselves appealed for or approved of Henry II's actions. This was therefore not "an abandonment of the kingship" but something that was in their own mutual interests.

Compare all this with Henry VIII. He broke from Rome and founded a new nationalist sect, divorced and remarried several mistresses, and compounding all his prior injustices, England not only launched a bloody invasion of Ireland, but even suppressed native dissidents roughly. What St.Patrick and other Catholic missionaries had gained for the Church from the world wrapped in pagan darkness by right, prayer and preaching, the Protestants usurped from the Church by wrong, power and oppression. So even quite apart from the fact that heresy has no claims over truth, there is no possible grounds for any comparison such as that your friend makes, one only for stark contrast, in Ireland, England or elsewhere.

Besides all this, coming to the erroneous claim that religion cannot be a precondition for princes, that is a species of secularism. And it is based on the false premise that truth and error are to be esteemed the same, and is therefore itself an error. One cannot be "neutral" between truth and error anymore than one can be such between light and darkness, for that is blindness itself.

A country's Christian values cannot be peripheral to its civic life, much rather it must be foundational, the Bible held more dear than any human constitution however noble, the Fathers of the Church esteemed more than all founding fathers however wise, and the judgment of the Magisterium more binding than that of any court however learned, and its kings finally truly confessing Him who is by right their King, the Prince of Peace.

Religious liberty for adherents of error can be granted to the extent of practical toleration.

Finally, coming back to St.Malachy, he foretold that all this tumult between Ireland and England would end gloriously for the Faith.

Quote

"This prophecy, which is distinct from the prophecies attributed to St. Malachy concerning the popes, is to the effect that his beloved native isle would undergo at the hands of England oppression, persecution, and calamities of every kind, during a week of centuries; but that she would preserve her fidelity to God and to His Church amidst all her trials.

At the end of seven centuries she would be delivered from her oppressors (or oppressions), who in their turn would be subjected to dreadful chastisements, and Catholic Ireland would be instrumental in bringing back the British nation to that Divine Faith which Protestant England had, during three hundred years, so rudely endeavoured to wrest from her."

Dylan · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2012, 09:26:18 AM »

Thanks everyone for the very helpful replies.

What this individual is ultimately trying to say (and the premise that I'm seeking to refute) is that the Catholic Church and the Catholic Irish chieftains and lords "betrayed", "sold-out," and "abandoned" Ireland and its High Kingship by submitting to Henry II and that the Catholic Church--whom he claims has always been England's ally, not Ireland's--and Irish Catholics, themselves, are supposedly "responsible" for England's occupation of Ireland and its persecution of the Irish throughout history, while he claims that it was only the "ethos of the Druidic order," the poets and brehons, who opposed this and "claimed that the land was vested by ancient rights to people of their craft." This individual's comments imply that he is a neo-pagan "Druid." So, he is implying that it was only pagan Druids (or what remained of their "ethos") who opposed the English subjugation of Ireland, while the Irish Catholics supposedly "betrayed their homeland by agreeing to the surrender and regrant system under foreign monarchs," and that the Catholic Church, with the support of Pope Adrian IV and Pope Alexander III, supposedly "betrayed" and "abandoned" Ireland and its High King, Ruaidrí Ó Conchobhair, in favor of Henry II of England.

In other words, he's trying to paint the pagan Druids as "patriotic Irishmen" who opposed the English while painting the Irish Catholic kings, chieftains and lords as "cowards," "sell-outs" and "traitors" who "meekly submitted to a foreign king." He maintains that the actions of Pope Adrian IV and his bull Laudibilter as well the actions of Pope Alexander III, who confirmed Laudibiliter and said that the Irish (despite having been Christians for roughly 670 years and Ireland being known as the "Island of Saints and Scholars") were a rude, ignorant, uncivilized people who needed "[to be taught] the truths of the Christian faith," constitutes the Catholic Church, itself, "selling-out" the Irish Catholics to the English (who were also Catholic at the time). He also implies that Christianity / Catholicism is "foreign" to Ireland and the Irish people, and that the Irish should "return to Druidry" (or rather convert to neo-paganism / neo-Druidism), since (according to him) the Catholic Church "sold-out" Ireland to the English.

How should I respond to these allegations? I would really appreciate any help that any one can offer in tackling / addressing / answering these particular claims.

Thanks in advance.

Dylan · « **Reply #7 on:** March 18, 2012, 02:53:22 AM »

The same neo-pagan guy made this comment about St. Patrick recently:

Quote

According to the Brehon Laws, St. Patrick supported Divorce, Concubines, and Clerical marriage.

Basically, he's saying that since St. Patrick slightly changed the Brehon Laws to conform with Christianity, he supposedly either allowed or (according to him) "supported" divorce and concubinage and this allegedly either "discredits" him or "proves" that the Celtic Church wasn't Catholic. I can't find anything that references these issues of allowance of divorce and concubinage directly. How should one respond to this claim?

LordPhan · « **Reply #8 on:** March 18, 2012, 05:20:33 AM »

Why do you care what an uneducated idiot has to say about the matter.

Read the Cambridge Medieval History Volume 1 and 2, covering 500-700(Vol 1) and 700-900(Vol 2) and refute everything he says.

I don't have time to do the research for you, but here is a bit from it.

Quote

By ad 500, it is likely that Christianity had been preached throughout
Ireland,16 but far from certain that it had yet been embraced by a majority
of the population. The first Christian bishop in Ireland was a continental
churchman, Palladius, who was sent ‘to the Irish believing in Christ’ in 431
by Pope Celestine. Christianity had presumably spread to Ireland in casual
ways: chiefly, we may surmise, through links with Britain. Palladius’ mission,
probably to Leinster (then embracing central eastern as well as south-east
Ireland), was portrayed as a success in Rome; and Columbanus, a Leinsterman
writing c.600, could still recall that Ireland had received its Christianity from
the pope.17
The other fi fth-century missionary to Ireland who is known by name is the
Briton, Patrick. His mission was later than that of Palladius, and was arguably
to the northern half of Ireland.18 Armagh, which later claimed that it was his
principal church, was probably just one of his foundations, and one scholar
has contested even that.19 Patrick makes no explicit reference to Palladius,
and it is impossible to say whether he had any link with the earlier mission
or not. Fortunately two of Patrick’s own writings survive, a letter, and his
Confession. These vividly portray the problems and the dangers of missionary
work in fi fth-century Ireland. As a foreigner, with no kin at hand to protect
him, Patrick found himself despised by the Irish, and compelled to cultivate
the goodwill of the powerful in order to remain free to travel and to preach:
kings were able to grant protection to outsiders (as were other classes, but only
for brief periods). Hence we fi nd Patrick giving gifts to kings and to judges
(brehons?); he also paid for a retinue of kings’ sons to accompany him. For
all that, he was frequently attacked, and in peril of death.20 Patrick succeeded
in converting ‘many thousands’, including both children of kings and slave
women.21 The conversion of Ireland, however, was a slow process: a missionary
would have had to work t´uath by t´uath. He would have gone to the king and
to the nobles and privileged classes for support (though Patrick certainly did
not restrict his work to these classes); but Irish kings, even if favourable, had
no sweeping powers to abolish paganism, while the druids were probably in a
position to present a coherent and forceful opposition.22 In addition, the earliest
missionaries do not seem to have been adequately supported from abroad: the
papacy seems not to have maintained contact with Palladius’ mission, while
Patrick was apparently operating in the face of opposition from at least some
in Britain – though he also drew some fi nancial support from there.23 In time,
however, Patrick’s mission bore fruit: as well as his Irish converts, including
native boys whom he trained for the priesthood, he inspired some Britons
to follow him. Only one of these, Mauchteus of Louth, is known by name;
but extensive British involvement in the fi fth- and sixth-century Irish church
can be deduced from the fact that the Irish acquired their Latin from British
speakers.24

The New Cambridge Medieval History Volume 1 c.500–c.700

Dylan · « **Reply #9 on:** March 21, 2012, 12:18:21 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Why do you care what an uneducated idiot has to say about the matter.

Well, obviously I don't particularly care one way or the other what he thinks or has to say but, I've heard similar claims levied in the past by several Irish apostates left unanswered, so I'd like to compile good responses to the claims, not for his sake but, for the sake of those that may be reading his misinformation and slander plus, while I know quite a bit about Irish and European history, I'm not familiar with these specific areas of it and would like to find out the reality from accurate and reliable sources.

Quote

Read the Cambridge Medieval History Volume 1 and 2, covering 500-700(Vol 1) and 700-900(Vol 2) and refute everything he says.

I don't have time to do the research for you, but here is a bit from it.

...

The New Cambridge Medieval History Volume 1 c.500–c.700

Thanks for the quote.

Dylan · « **Reply #10 on:** March 21, 2012, 01:08:07 AM »

Here's another comment I was sent from another individual with similar views to previously mentioned individual:

Quote

The effects of secularization have removed many Irish people's faith in the Catholic Church...who did nothing for Eire when she was gradually taken over, made a target of the potato genocide*, fought a cινιℓ ωαr, got invaded by Protestant soldiers serving a Masonic regime etc etc...

It seems like he's just trying to demonize the Catholic Church. It sounds like now he's implying that because the Catholic Church supported different Crusades against heretics, pagans, and non-Christians and had a Papal Army and different military orders, they could have liberated Ireland from Protestant Britain or could have aided the starving Irish during the famine but, didn't because (according to him) "they didn't even really care about the plight of the Irish Catholics because the Church is greedy and corrupt." That seems to be his argument.

How should one respond to these allegations?

---

*He's referring to Britain's exportation of Irish livestock, flour, grains, meat, poultry and dairy products from Ireland to Britain, while a large number of the native Irish Catholic population, who were, for the most part, all wretchedly poor, starved to death.

Quote

Ireland starved because its food, from 40 to 70 shiploads per day, was removed at gunpoint by 12,000 British constables reinforced by the British militia, battleships, excise vessels, Coast Guard and by 200,000 British soldiers (100,000 at any given moment) Thus, Britain seized from Ireland's producers tens of millions of head of livestock; tens of millions of tons of flour, grains, meat, poultry & dairy products; enough to sustain 18 million persons.

http://www.irishh0Ɩ0cαųst.org/britain%27scoverup

Dylan · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2012, 12:58:41 PM »

Any suggestions on how to respond to these other allegations and objections?

Thanks.

Dylan · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2012, 12:04:45 AM »

Quote from: Dylan

It seems like he's just trying to demonize the Catholic Church. It sounds like now he's implying that because the Catholic Church supported different Crusades against heretics, pagans, and non-Christians and had a Papal Army and different military orders, they could have liberated Ireland from Protestant Britain

I did happen to find some information regarding this which shows that the Pope did, in fact, send Papal troops to aid the Irish Catholics against the Protestant English:

"Following the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth I in 1570, Pope Pius V had ruled that Irish Catholics did not owe allegiance to Protestant England. Pope Gregory XIII backed the Irish War effort during the Second Desmond Rebellion (1579-1583) with Papal money and troops. It was also planned that King Philip of Spain would take over the monarchy of Ireland. In October 1580, 600 Papal troops (Italians and Spaniards) commanded by Sebastiano di San Giuseppe (Sebastiano da Modena) were defeated by the English, as were the Irish lords and rebels. After a three-day siege against their fort at Dún an Óir, commander di San Giuseppe surrendered on 10 October 1580. Arthur Grey, 14th Baron Grey de Wilton ordered the massacre of the invasion forces, sparing only the commanders. Italian and Spanish troops, and Irish men and women, were beheaded and their bodies thrown into the sea. This event is known as the Siege of Smerwick."

How would one address the claim that the Catholic Church supposedly "did nothing" to help the Irish during the Famine of 1847-1852, though?

Dylan · « **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2012, 12:23:20 AM »

Quote from: Dylan

It seems like he's just trying to demonize the Catholic Church. It sounds like now he's implying that because the Catholic Church supported different Crusades against heretics, pagans, and non-Christians and had a Papal Army and different military orders, they could have liberated Ireland from Protestant Britain ...

I did happen to find some information regarding this which shows that the Pope did, in fact, send Papal troops to aid the Irish Catholics against the Protestant English:

"Following the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth I in 1570, Pope Pius V had ruled that Irish Catholics did not owe allegiance to Protestant England. Pope Gregory XIII backed the Irish War effort during the Second Desmond Rebellion (1579-1583) with Papal money and troops. It was also planned that King Philip of Spain would take over the monarchy of Ireland. In October 1580, 600 Papal troops (Italians and Spaniards) commanded by Sebastiano di San Giuseppe (Sebastiano da Modena) were defeated by the English, as were the Irish lords and rebels. After a three-day siege against their fort at Dún an Óir, commander di San Giuseppe surrendered on 10 October 1580. Arthur Grey, 14th Baron Grey de Wilton ordered the massacre of the invasion forces, sparing only the commanders. Italian and Spanish troops, and Irish men and women, were beheaded and their bodies thrown into the sea. This event is known as the Siege of Smerwick."

How would one address the claim that the Catholic Church supposedly "did nothing" to help the Irish during the Famine of 1847-1852, though? Another individual on 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."

Dylan · « **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2012, 12:31:46 AM »

A friend of mind posted this video this video from YouTube titled "" on Facebook; in it, it states the following:

"Pope Gregory XVI condemned all rebellions against royal authority even in Catholic lands like Ireland and Poland being ruled by non-Catholic monarchs."

It didn't list a particular source, but what's the truth regarding that statement?

These sites state the following regarding the aforementioned quote:

"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/2010/03/papal-profile-pope-gregory-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

It appears that Pope Gregory may have considered the desire of Irish Catholics for independence from Protestant Britain to have been influenced by liberal ideas* and apparently condemned it. Those who oppose Catholicism and Irish independence, namely British / Ulster Scots Protestants, would use this information to the effect of saying to Irish Catholics "see, even the Pope said that Protestant Britain has the right to rule Ireland."

My question is, how should Irish Catholics answer this sort of accusations, based on a credible historical analysis of this issue?

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 Pres byterians). 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 1798 Rebellion 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, Pres byterians, 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 ιnѕυrrєcтισn 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 Pres byterian 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."

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/Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ_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 Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ 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/Pages_GL/Grand%20Lodge_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 fought alongside members of the United Irishmen and soldiers of Revolutionary France attempting to drive the British out of Ireland, such as a Catholic priest named Fr. John Murphy who led his Catholic parishioners in battle against English troops? Also how should they view the agrarian Catholic group known as the Defenders who aligned with the United Irishmen during the 1798 Rebellion?