DES KEENAN'S BOOKS ON IRISH HISTORY online version |
Pre-Famine Ireland LINKS TO INDIVIDUAL CHAPTERS CLICK PRE-FAMINE TO RETURN TO BOOK LIST; CLICK HOME PAGE TO RETURN TO HOME PAGE Pre-Famine
The CatholicsSummary of chapter. This chapter describes the position of the Catholic Church in Ireland, the rights of Catholic laymen to attain public office, and the rise of the political priests in the Catholic Church which contributed so much to polarising Ireland on sectarian lines.
(iii) Relations between Catholics and Protestants ******************************************************************************************************* In Ireland
Catholics always refer to themselves as 'Catholics'; Protestants always call
them 'Roman Catholics'. The reason for this is that Protestants consider themselves part of the true Catholic and It
is much easier to describe the Catholic Church than the various Protestant
Churches, because there was only one Church and its structure, doctrine, and
practice, was uniform over the whole island. In many ways it resembled the Dissenting
Churches. Its churches were small and plain, without spires or belfries, its
ritual reduced to the minimum allowed by Canon Law and with the least possible
external display. The clergy dressed little differently from laymen though, in
the nineteenth century, were forbidden coloured clothes, and were bound to wear
black or dark cloth. The priests, like the ministers, subsisted entirely on the
contributions from their congregations. Legally
the Catholic religion was tolerated and had been since the beginning of the
eighteenth century. Strictly speaking the presence of Catholic bishops was
illegal, though this law was not cited since 1745. The Irish Government had
indeed frequent communications with the Catholic bishops. Strictly speaking too
the exercise of jurisdiction given by the Pope was illegal, but nobody bothered
when it was confined to spiritual administrations to their own flocks, a point
expressly recognised by the courts. The Catholic bishops were officially
recognised as clergymen or ‘clerks in Holy Orders’ by the Government in the
1790's when it wished to provide for the education of Catholic priests, and an
annual subsidy was paid for the upkeep of The
organisation of the Catholic Church was almost identical with that of the
Established Church as both were derived from the same After
the Reformation the Catholic clergy lost the right to the tithes of the parish
and so for their income had to depend on gifts or offerings. The size of the
parishes was arranged to allow an average income of about £100 for a parish
priest and curate, of which sum the curate might get £30 or £40. The revenue of
some parishes was much greater than this so senior priests
were promoted into the wealthier parishes. An estimate about 1825 considered
that the average income of a parish priest was by then about £150. The income
of bishops was derived from one or two parishes they were allowed to retain for
their support, placing an administrator in the parish, and also from a
contribution from the parish priests. In 1800 the average income of a Catholic
bishop was considered to be about £300. In
1800, Lord Castlereagh asked for information regarding the number of parishes
and clergy. The returns showed that there were 1,026 unions of parishes and
1,824 priests, 400 of whom were members of religious
orders. As not all of the latter worked in parishes we can conclude that there
were between 500 and 600 curates. By 1869 the number of curates had risen to
1,446. In
doctrine the Catholic Church accepted the teaching of all the Ecumenical
Councils recognised in the Latin or However in However,
as the nineteenth century advanced, larger and more dignified churches than the
small thatched 'mass-houses'
they had used in the previous century were provided. Also when possible a
parochial house was provided in each parish. This implied a legal recognition
that parishes and dioceses as corporate bodies could hold real property. Previously each priest had to rent or build
his own. In the latter case his relatives claimed it on his death. As
in the Established Church standards of education were gradually improved among
the clergy. In the previous century there were numerous burses available for
students to study on the Continent but the outbreak of the French Revolution
and the beginning of the War with Educational
standards in the Royal College of Maynooth were quite high, but were not of
university standard. Some Greek was taught, but it was not expected that a
priest could easily read the Greek New Testament. But he was required to be
able to read Latin with some fluency as all theology textbooks were in that
language, besides all the liturgical books.
Standards in diocesan seminaries could be quite low. But each bishop, by
taking advantage of burses on the Continent, and places in Maynooth, was always
able to provide his diocese with several well-educated priests at least. As
candidates for Orders normally came from the lower middle classes, especially
the strong farmers, it may be supposed that the education they could afford was
provided. As
in the other Churches great efforts were made in the nineteenth century to
improve the morals of the laity. Better
churches were built, and frequent attendance at church was insisted on.
Voluntary societies were established to teach Christian Doctrine. A summary of
Catholic teaching was provided in a catechism, and the Catholic clergy insisted
rather on a knowledge of the catechism than on reading
the Bible. Bible-reading, though not forbidden, was not encouraged because it
was so easy to get confused by apparently contradictory texts. Catholic
teaching was derived from various sources, the text of the Bible, the
definitions of General Councils, the witness and interpretation of early
writers, the ‘Fathers of the Church, the traditions of the churches, in
particular the church in The
supreme authority in the Catholic Church resided in the Pope or in a General
Council or General Synod if one happened to be assembled. The clergy of the
diocese did not strictly elect Irish bishops. These could choose the names of
three priests, whom they regarded as suitable, which they forwarded to
Legally,
communication with the Pope was forbidden, but it had been customary for over a
century for Protestant gentlemen visiting The
Government, both in The
question of the Catholic Church and education will be dealt with under
education.
[Top] One
of the burning topics in the first thirty years of the nineteenth century was
Catholic Emancipation. This is another term that is nowadays largely
misunderstood. The odd term 'emancipation', derived from the contemporary
campaign to free the Negro slaves, had a precise meaning. Emancipation meant
the opposite of ascendancy. Some Protestants wished that no further concessions
should be made to Catholics; some Catholics campaigned ceaselessly for further
concessions. The concession they especially wished for was to be able to sit in
Parliament. The
Irish Penal Code or Penal Laws in Matters Ecclesiastical was largely directed
against laymen. It was never illegal in Catholics
could be magistrates and Grand Jurors in a county but not sheriffs. They could
serve legally in The
disabilities which remained chiefly affected Catholic gentlemen like Daniel
O’Connell who had the property qualification to become sheriffs, or Members of
Parliament, or who could afford colonelcies in the army, and such like.
Exclusion from Parliament was given symbolic importance, but there were
scarcely a score of Catholic gentlemen who had both the necessary property
qualification and who had the desire to become Members. The ostensible
grievance is of course not necessarily the real grievance. For most
middle-class Catholics it was probably more important to get positions in the
counties from which they could collect fees and use their office to give jobs
to their own relatives. Such motives would never be admitted, but the historian
cannot ignore them.
The
Irish Catholic noblemen were not numerous, numbering not more than half a
dozen. Nevertheless they had been the traditional leaders of the Catholics and
large Catholic meetings were normally chaired by one or other of them. As peers
of the realm they had the same rights of access to the king as other peers, and
the Government always treated them with the courtesy due to their rank. But
even in the eighteenth century there were some Catholic merchants who felt that
they were too subservient to the Government, too willing to make concessions,
too unwilling to stand up for supposed Catholic rights.
In
1804 the campaign for Emancipation was resumed under the leadership of the
Catholic Earl of Fingall. He however agreed with William Pitt and Charles James
Fox that the king's determined opposition to further concessions made
application to Parliament inopportune at the time. In the Catholic meetings a
rough-tongued merchant named John Keogh who was supported by a majority
demanding instant concessions denounced Fingall. This ill-advised haste led to
the fall of the Whig Ministry of all the Talents in 1807. The Tories returned
to office for the next twenty three years.
In
1808 it was proposed to offer 'securities' to the crown in return for
Emancipation. The chief security was to be a royal veto regarding particular
names proposed to the Pope for appointment as bishops. The Pope himself, when
finally consulted, willingly conceded this veto, which was to take effect after
an Emancipation Act was passed. The Catholic noblemen and a number of the
middle classes among whom were Thomas Wyse, Stephen Woulfe, and Richard Sheil,
favoured the concession of the veto. Hence they were named 'Vetoists'. Keogh's faction, now
dominated by O’Connell, refused all concessions to the crown, and so were
labelled 'Anti-vetoists'. The Emancipation campaign ground to a halt about 1815
amid mutual recriminations. In
the 1820's the campaign for admission to Parliament took precedence in the public
mind above all else. It was renewed in
1824 and a truce was declared. But it was only a truce, and O’Connell never
forgot that his principal adversary was the Earl of Fingall and his son Lord
Killeen. In 1828, before Lord Killeen could offer to stand for Parliament in
county Meath where he had a good chance of being elected, O’Connell gambled
with the livelihoods of the Forty-Shilling freeholders in county Clare and won.
Fearing a civil war The
election in Clare settled another point as well. It represented a victory for
O’Connell and the hard-liners over the Catholic noblemen and the moderates. The
victory was not immediate or overwhelming, nor irreversible, for the Catholic
Whigs remained influential for many years. But it marked the beginning of the
ascendancy of O’Connell and the clerical intransigents like MacHale, an
ascendancy that was to be strengthened in 1850 when the Holy See backed MacHale
against Archbishop Murray. After
Emancipation the former Vetoists almost unanimously sided with the Whigs and
became the Catholic Whigs. The Whig Prime Ministers always found room for them
either in the Irish Government or in the Government in (iii)
Relations between Catholics and Protestants Relations
between Catholics and Protestants were quite good between 1800 and 1830 despite
the occasional outbreaks of agrarian crime. After the Act of
Union both Catholics and Protestants felt reasonably secure, as William Pitt
had intended. Protestants were outnumbered in The
Catholic parish priest was likely to be on good terms with the Protestant
rector, though lower than him on the social scale. The rector would regard both
Catholic or Popish priests and Dissenting ministers as validly ordained
Christian clergymen though mistaken on some points. (It was not until the
second half of the century that an attempt was made to topple the Protestant
clergymen from their dominant social position. The Catholic priests and
Dissenting ministers paid their tithes like everyone else.) If the Catholic
priest was a graduate of a Continental university he was likely to be on good
terms with the gentry as well. Priests and rectors served together on
charitable committees. The Catholic poor frequently went to the rector's house
to obtain alms. Archbishop Murray noted that Catholics were careful to avoid
using hurtful words like 'heretic', preferring to use terms like 'separated
brethren'.
But as early as 1820 there were signs of incipient disharmony.
The proximate cause of this was the attempted poaching of adherents by the
members of the Bible Societies, which was fiercely resented by some Catholic
priests. As the Emancipation campaign reached its climax so too did the
expectation of some Catholics, who seemed to feel that they soon would get back
the land allegedly owned by them. Wyse noted that in some places separate
meetings of Catholics and Protestants had to be held to allow Catholics greater
freedom to denounce Protestantism. This
era of goodwill came to an abrupt end about 1830. This was partly O’Connell's
fault. Firstly, the tactics he favoured carried an implicit threat of civil
war. This was never his own intention, but Wellington was very conscious of the
fact that if he were not allowed to take his seat in Parliament control of the
mob could easily slip from his hands into those of more violent and determined
men. The Irish Protestants were conscious of this fact too. Secondly, after
Emancipation was obtained, he immediately began a campaign for the restoration
of a native Irish Parliament under Catholic control. As his rhetoric was filled
with references to past injustices by Protestants, in seizing the lands of
Catholics, for example, the Protestants could reasonably assume that that the
Catholics would seize the land back. There is little doubt that both the
Protestants and O’Connell's followers had similar views on this point.
Similarly, with regard to appointments to public offices Protestants could
expect to be excluded. No matter what
O’Connell would protest, an independent Irish Parliament would be a Catholic
Parliament, and the Catholic voters would expect to see the alleged wrongs of
centuries righted. Other
events occurred in 1830 and the years immediately following, which brought
about a sudden and rapid deterioration in relations. The first was the refusal
of a considerable number of the Catholic middle classes in south Protestants of liberal leanings were
astonished at the sudden change in attitudes that followed Emancipation. The
Act was passed to remove the last source of irritation, and it seemed to be
having the reverse effect. After a few years the violence died down but
irreparable damage had been done to community relations. For many Protestants
in rural areas the memories of the massacres in 1641 and 1798 assumed a very
concrete importance. Another
aspect was the growth of anti-Protestant feelings among the Catholic clergy.
This was first noticeable in the writings of the Rev John MacHale about 1820.
As the century advanced these feelings became more marked. Cardinal Cullen was
bitterly anti-Protestant in sentiment. These priests shunned contact with
Protestants, and were unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt. They
suspected Protestant plots to overthrow the Catholic religion everywhere. The
fact that a Protestant bishop like Archbishop Whately could approve
schoolbooks for use in schools in MacHale's diocese was regarded as an outrage
and an insidious plot. The fact that Archbishop Murray did not protest only
showed that he was in danger of eternal perdition. Archbishop MacHale was
educated in a small local school in county Mayo, went to Maynooth College at
the age of sixteen, and studied there for seven years but not to degree level.
He then taught theology in Maynooth for eleven years until he was appointed as
an assistant bishop in Mayo. He was later promoted to be an archbishop, but
remained narrow-minded, dogmatic, and bigoted all his life. Archbishop Murray,
by contrast, had spent several years at the University of Salamanca. Though
the Catholic clergy were primarily responsible for the growth of these
sectarian feelings it cannot be said that many Protestant clergymen went out of
their way to allay them. On the contrary they always voted with the extreme
Tories, resisted any attempts to ease conditions for the Catholics, and in
general hankered for the old days when the clergy of the Established Church
were indisputably in charge. Archbishop Whateley and his followers were even
more of a minority in his Church than Archbishop Murray and his followers were
in his. There
were only two groups who tried to promote good relations between Catholics and
Protestants. (Peel's belated attempt bore little fruit in the first half of the
century, though there was the occasional Catholic Tory.) These were the Whigs
and Young Ireland. The first considered that Catholics and Protestants should
be able to live in harmony within the United Kingdom. The other felt that a new
spirit of 'nationalism' and a pride in being Irish should take precedence over
pride in religious affiliation. For this to happen however both sets of
clergymen would have to agree to retire from politics and agree that secular
nationalism was more important than religion. There was never any likelihood
that this would happen. In the event Catholic nationalists redefined
nationalism to include only Catholics and to exclude Protestants. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright Desmond J. Keenan, B.S.Sc.; Ph.D. ;.London, U.K.
|