Italian unification and its impact on Irish nationalism

brianthebard

Was reading over Irish nationalism for grinds I'm doing tomorrow, and it mentioned that the CC was no longer seen as the threat that it had been by parliament. This was around 1868, soon after Italian unification, which also weakened the vaticans powers since most of its land was taken from the pope. It seemed possible that this had a knock on effect on the way the British government viewed the Catholic church. Does anyone else see a connection between the two?

guinnessdrinker

I don't know Brian, I have never heard of any link before. But in saying that it is possible. Then again I'm not sure the British gov had an adgenda in regards to the catholic church in 1868 anyway but I stand to be corrected. Interesting if true and if it did effect their thinking though.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Was reading over Irish nationalism for grinds I'm doing tomorrow, and it mentioned that the CC was no longer seen as the threat that it had been by parliament. This was around 1868, soon after Italian unification, which also weakened the vaticans powers since most of its land was taken from the pope. It seemed possible that this had a knock on effect on the way the British government viewed the Catholic church. Does anyone else see a connection between the two?

The Catholic Church was every bit the nasty empire builder that Britain, France and Spain were, maybe Italian unification was seen as removing a competitor?

Clutching at straws here.

Bubs101

brianthebard wrote: »

Was reading over Irish nationalism for grinds I'm doing tomorrow, and it mentioned that the CC was no longer seen as the threat that it had been by parliament. This was around 1868, soon after Italian unification, which also weakened the vaticans powers since most of its land was taken from the pope. It seemed possible that this had a knock on effect on the way the British government viewed the Catholic church. Does anyone else see a connection between the two?

After the unification of Italy the Church had to focus much more on Italy than it had to for centuries because it had to make ties with Cavour and co. but it's not that significant

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Catholic Church was every bit the nasty empire builder that Britain, France and Spain were, maybe Italian unification was seen as removing a competitor?

Clutching at straws here.

Yeah that's kind of what I was thinking. I was only thinking in general globalisation history terms, but there can often be a connection between two states that isn't immediately obvious.

Shutuplaura

I dunno really. The papal states weren't exactly a threat to the British empire. The only thing that stopped the Piedmontese taking over them was a french garrison wasn't it? A minor European state wouldn't have worried the British too mucvh, the hold a religious leader has over sections of its population was and is sort of a constant preoccupation.

Also, the Britsh governement bought the church's loyalty back in the early 1790's. Church involvement in the 1798 rebellion was minimal because the hierarcy realised that the staus quo was no longer hostile. Quid pro quo.

McArmalite

Shutuplaura wrote: »

I dunno really. The papal states weren't exactly a threat to the British empire. The only thing that stopped the Piedmontese taking over them was a french garrison wasn't it? A minor European state wouldn't have worried the British too mucvh, the hold a religious leader has over sections of its population was and is sort of a constant preoccupation.

Also, the Britsh governement bought the church's loyalty back in the early 1790's. Church involvement in the 1798 rebellion was minimal because the hierarcy realised that the staus quo was no longer hostile. Quid pro quo.

I thought the Catholic Church was VERY actively hostile to the rebels. Some of the sermons preached against it wouldn't be out of place with Paisley's anti nationalist bigotry ??

Shutuplaura

McArmalite wrote: »

I thought the Catholic Church was VERY actively hostile to the rebels. Some of the sermons preached against it wouldn't be out of place with Paisley's anti nationalist bigotry ??

Yeah, thats what I said, the hierarchy was no longer hostile to the status quo - ie, the British administraion in Ireland. The involvement of priests in the rebellion has been talked up post independance becasue it was popular with the new free state gvernement but at the time was tiny.

Fratton Fred

The relationship between the British monarchy and the Vatican changed with the wind back then. I guess support from Rome for an Irish uprising would have depended largely on who was sitting on the English throne at the time.

in 1868 Britain would have been very much anti Rome though, although the paranoia regarding Catholicism was waining.

McArmalite

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Yeah, thats what I said, the hierarchy was no longer hostile to the status quo - ie, the British administraion in Ireland. The involvement of priests in the rebellion has been talked up post independance becasue it was popular with the new free state gvernement but at the time was tiny.

True, the hierarchy was no longer hostile to the status quo, but their invovlement in 1798 from the pulpit denouncing the rebels wasn't a minimal, they were very invovled.

The whole invovlement of Fr. Murphy and a handful of others ( denounced at the time ofcourse ) and hyped up as if the Catholic Church was sympathetic to the people was one of the greatest cons ever foisted on the people of Ireland, no doubt about it.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

True, the hierarchy was no longer hostile to the status quo, but their invovlement in 1798 from the pulpit denouncing the rebels wasn't a minimal, they were very invovled.

The whole invovlement of Fr. Murphy and a handful of others ( denounced at the time ofcourse ) and hyped up as if the Catholic Church was sympathetic to the people was one of the greatest cons ever foisted on the people of Ireland, no doubt about it.

Religions are all pretty much the same though, it's all about bums on seats and they will say and do pretty much whatever is needed to control the masses. If trying to prevent an uprising helped foster a closer relationship with the British ruling classes, then so be it.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The relationship between the British monarchy and the Vatican changed with the wind back then. I guess support from Rome for an Irish uprising would have depended largely on who was sitting on the English throne at the time.

in 1868 Britain would have been very much anti Rome though, although the paranoia regarding Catholicism was waining.

True relations between britian and the CC, Catholic Church, was frosty to say the least before 1798, but with the success of the French revoloution, a new alliance began between old advseries against what they perceived to be a much greater threat, Revoulotionary France. ( Not just the CC and britian, but all the crown states of Europe, Austria, Spain, Prussia etc began to put their differences aside against what they perceived to be a much greater threat to their status quo, Revulotionary France.)

brianthebard

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Yeah, thats what I said, the hierarchy was no longer hostile to the status quo - ie, the British administraion in Ireland. The involvement of priests in the rebellion has been talked up post independance becasue it was popular with the new free state gvernement but at the time was tiny.

Good point, it did mention that the church viewed the British empire as a means of spreading catholicism.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

True relations between britian and the CC, Catholic Church, was frosty to say the least before 1798, but with the success of the French revoloution, a new alliance began between old advseries against what they perceived to be a much greater threat, Revoulotionary France. ( Not just the CC and britian, but all the crown states of Europe, Austria, Spain, Prussia etc began to put their differences aside against what they perceived to be a much greater threat to their status quo, Revulotionary France.)

The British aristocracy feared revolution more than anything else, which is why, I believe, they came down so heavily on the Irish. There was the obvious anti Catholic sentiment, but how many wealthy Irish Catholics were persecuted? If you look at the Peterloo massacre, if that happened in Ireland it would be held up as a typical example of British oppression in Ireland, but it is an event hardly spoken of in the UK.

As I remember reading on these forums, the British working.under classes did not have the benefit of nationalist sentiment to over throw the ruling classes, but Britain did have some of the earliest Trade Unionist (Who, I'm sure you are aware, ended up in the same sunny spot as Irish "trouble makers").

I also think this shows up in the make up of British political parties as opposed to Irish ones, in Britain there is (or was up until new labour) a very clear distinction between left and right wing, that is not as clear in Irish politics.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Good point, it did mention that the church viewed the British empire as a means of spreading catholicism.

I would imagine they viewed it the same way they did the Spanish or Portugese empires, both were very good at spreading catholicism.

My old Lecturer in International Trade described the Vatican as the first global trading company, exporting religion and importing gold.

SpitfireIV

Shutuplaura wrote: »

The involvement of priests in the rebellion has been talked up post independance becasue it was popular with the new free state gvernement but at the time was tiny.

Whats this Arch Bishop Troy of Dublin described those priest who took part in the rebellion as? 'the very feces of the church'....nice :rolleyes:

The 'Catholic' involvement, particularly that of priests in the rebellion was popularised just in time for the centinery celebrations of 1898, I guess the church was trying to capture the hearts and minds of the population and get in on the new wave of nationalism and gaelic revival. The leadership of the rebellion was taken out of Protestant hands, and portrayed as a glorious priest led rebellion, popularised by the work of the Wexford franciscan, Father Patrick Kavanagh in the late 19th century. I guess at this period in history it was safer and more convinient that the rebellion should be seen as solely a catholic struggle (and a playing down of the prodestant involvement)

No wonder why you find people whom believe that Father Murphy led the rebellion in Wexford, no doubth an important figure, and one of many priests who were involved, but by no means any of the major figure heads.

ejmaztec

Didn't the British government hand over a sizeable portfolio of Irish properties to the Catholic church in the 1850s (to include schools, church buildings etc..)? I seem to remember hearing something about this a few years ago, but I'm blowed if I can find any references to it.

Shutuplaura

McArmalite wrote: »

True, the hierarchy was no longer hostile to the status quo, but their invovlement in 1798 from the pulpit denouncing the rebels wasn't a minimal, they were very invovled.

The whole invovlement of Fr. Murphy and a handful of others ( denounced at the time ofcourse ) and hyped up as if the Catholic Church was sympathetic to the people was one of the greatest cons ever foisted on the people of Ireland, no doubt about it.

Again, thats what i said, the church's involvement in the rebellion was minimal. Typical of the church they sided with the winners - the British. An easing of some of the restrictions against catholics and establishing Maynooth College in 1795 bought them over, along with annual grants etc.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The British aristocracy feared revolution more than anything else, which is why, I believe, they came down so heavily on the Irish. There was the obvious anti Catholic sentiment, but how many wealthy Irish Catholics were persecuted? If you look at the Peterloo massacre, if that happened in Ireland it would be held up as a typical example of British oppression in Ireland, but it is an event hardly spoken of in the UK.

As I remember reading on these forums, the British working.under classes did not have the benefit of nationalist sentiment to over throw the ruling classes, but Britain did have some of the earliest Trade Unionist (Who, I'm sure you are aware, ended up in the same sunny spot as Irish "trouble makers").

I also think this shows up in the make up of British political parties as opposed to Irish ones, in Britain there is (or was up until new labour) a very clear distinction between left and right wing, that is not as clear in Irish politics.

Well, I don't think there was too many wealthy Irish Catholics around at the time, but if I'm wrong I'm wrong. Indeed the Presbyterians invovled were treated just the same as any C., but a century later the whole thing was usurped by the C.C. as "the cruel heathen English and poor Irish Catholicism." The Peterloo massacre was indeed the ordinary English persons Bloody Sunday. It wasn't the first or last time the british ruling class showed that they held their own peole in as much contempt as they did anyone else, e.g. Churchill wanted the british army to be used to fire on striking miners.

As for " but Britain did have some of the earliest Trade Unionist (Who, I'm sure you are aware, ended up in the same sunny spot as Irish "trouble makers")". Many of the leaders of the early Trade Union movements in britian were Irish, dockers, navies, etc. I'll see if I can dig up some names. Likewise in America, Australia etc, it was Irish Republicans who founded most of the major unions, in fact in Aussie most of the unions today still have the Eureka Flag as their emblem, the emblem used by the mainly Irish miners who revolted at the Eureka stockade in 1854.

CroppyBoy1798 wrote: »

Whats this Arch Bishop Troy of Dublin described those priest who took part in the rebellion as? 'the very feces of the church'....nice :rolleyes:

The 'Catholic' involvement, particularly that of priests in the rebellion was popularised just in time for the centinery celebrations of 1898, I guess the church was trying to capture the hearts and minds of the population and get in on the new wave of nationalism and gaelic revival. The leadership of the rebellion was taken out of Protestant hands, and portrayed as a glorious priest led rebellion, popularised by the work of the Wexford franciscan, Father Patrick Kavanagh in the late 19th century. I guess at this period in history it was safer and more convinient that the rebellion should be seen as solely a catholic struggle (and a playing down of the prodestant involvement)

No wonder why you find people whom believe that Father Murphy led the rebellion in Wexford, no doubth an important figure, and one of many priests who were involved, but by no means any of the major figure heads.

Not too often I agree with you Croppy, on this one I'm a 100%. " The 'Catholic' involvement, particularly that of priests in the rebellion was popularised just in time for the centinery celebrations of 1898, ". It's ironic that the C.C. had the hard neck to portray themselves as been on the side of the people and get away with it. Indeed it was very correctly said that the biggest winners in 1798 and after was the Catholic Church :mad:.

kreuzberger

brianthebard wrote: »

Was reading over Irish nationalism for grinds I'm doing tomorrow, and it mentioned that the CC was no longer seen as the threat that it had been by parliament. This was around 1868, soon after Italian unification, which also weakened the vaticans powers since most of its land was taken from the pope. It seemed possible that this had a knock on effect on the way the British government viewed the Catholic church. Does anyone else see a connection between the two?

By 1798 the British had taken the firm decision to reintroduce the catholic church to public life in Ireland but under their own terms . Maynooth itself was established by royal charter with all priests swearing an oath of allegiance to the British crown . Prior to this Irish priests were educated abroad in the Irish colleges of Louvain and other Irish universities within european centes of learning . The British realised that the waves of enlightened social theory setting europe alight were being absorbed and discussed within such universities and then passing back to Ireland through the surreptitious education of its preisthood abroad . A similar process was underway in cities like Edinburgh , in which Irelands preotestant middle class was being radicalised and it was from this twin process that Irish republicanism was born as theory .
Britian decided it was much more in their interests to have the catholic church legalised firmly under their control and to utilise it as an agent of social control over the Irish people . With Britain establishing maynooth under royal charter they could determine the emphasis on doctrine , replacing the previously more enlightened and cultured European influences of the underground church with thir own narrow and sex obsessed English version . One needs only to look at the native Irish literature pre 1798 , the likes of Brian Merriman for example to see sexual matters and gender equality being openly discussed by the Irish peasantry , male and female . Post 1798 that type of literature simply disappeared . At the same time the Catholic authorities in Ireland grasped the opportunity to become part of the actual establishment and outlaws no longer . Both the Irish Catholic church and the British authorities rallied together against the revolutionary wave sweeping Europe and Ireland . From 1798 onwards the British definitely took the view that the catholic chruch in Ireland was a firm ally and no threat to it whatsoever . Both British and Clerical interests firmly intertwined .
what we then got was a deeply uncultured and sex obsessed church being utilisd and encouraged by the state to corral and direct the Irish people . And of course we suffered greatly from it . The catholic church was instrumental in the destruction of the Irish language , eradicating it throughout the country on a scale the British could never hope to do .

kreuzberger

CroppyBoy1798 wrote: »

Whats this Arch Bishop Troy of Dublin described those priest who took part in the rebellion as? 'the very feces of the church'....nice :rolleyes:

The 'Catholic' involvement, particularly that of priests in the rebellion was popularised just in time for the centinery celebrations of 1898, I guess the church was trying to capture the hearts and minds of the population and get in on the new wave of nationalism and gaelic revival. The leadership of the rebellion was taken out of Protestant hands, and portrayed as a glorious priest led rebellion, popularised by the work of the Wexford franciscan, Father Patrick Kavanagh in the late 19th century. I guess at this period in history it was safer and more convinient that the rebellion should be seen as solely a catholic struggle (and a playing down of the prodestant involvement)

No wonder why you find people whom believe that Father Murphy led the rebellion in Wexford, no doubth an important figure, and one of many priests who were involved, but by no means any of the major figure heads.

amazingly the political heirs of Daniel OConnell also hogged the scene of the centenary along with the church . Both OConnell and the church bitterly opposed 98 . OConnell was even a militia officer hunting down the rebels and putting down rebellion . Yet when Ireland acheived what some refer to as Independence they named the main street of the capital after him . Pathetic .
Many individual european educated priests were sympathetic to the rebellion , but they were bitterly condemned by their own church . But by 1898 the church were eulogising the likes of Lord Edward Fitzgerald as an example of how the pious catholic gentry supported this fight for catholic Ireland . what they neglected to point out though was that Edward Fitzgerald , although catholic , was a committed republican not just in the Irish but european sense and bitterly anti clerical . He even wore a red hankerchief around his neck in identification with the French revolutionaries who dispatched Bishops to the guillotine . Had he assumed power the inhabitants of maynooth would surely have faced a similar fate .

As regards Fr Murphys involvement in the rebellion it happened completely by accident . Redcoats and yeomanry along with the orange order were enaging in atrocities against the mainly catholic population whilst carrying out searches for arms , althousgh protestants were murdered by them as well . Murphy persuaded his parishioners to collect all their arms together and hand them over to the authorities in order to be spared . The British and the orangemen happily collected the arms and then proceeded to rape and massacre the aforesaid parishioners regardless , mainly due to the fact theyd been handily disarmed beforehand and couldnt fight back . It was after this episode that Murphy then rallied them to rebel .