Was Catholic Church Oppression Really a Class War?

JupiterKid

We've all heard, pretty much ad nauseam now, how the Catholic church exercised almost complete control of Ireland until the last decades of the 20th century. The sexual oppression of society and women in particular and the sickening child abuse and treatment of poor children by the religious orders is now well documented.

I found an article written from a very socialist/Marxist perspective but I though it was interesting because it asserts that essentially the power of the Chruch only crystallised after the Great famine and that the priests and nuns represented the class of well-to-do farmers who benefited the most from the aftermath fo the famine. It makes for some very interesting reading because it suggest that the middle class in pre-1960s Ireland were favoured by the church and that the poor were treated with contempt by the religious. I'm finding myself in agreement with this opinion. Anyone care to share an opinion on the matter?

Here's the link:
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj91/horgan.htm

Manach

Duplicate of AH post?

JupiterKid

I was looking for serious input in this forum on the matter.:) I know socialism and the Catholic church are complete enemies, but the paper has a lot of opinion which I believe to be correct.

It appears that you were wealthy and influential enough in pre-1960s Ireland, you could get away with things whereas the poor were oppressed spiritually, materially, socially and economically.:(

Milk & Honey

There were a few influences which commenced in the 19th century which led to an emerging middle class.
After the famine there was a policy of land clearance by landlords. the previous practice of subdividing holdings to maximise the rent had exhausted the land.A farmer could not divide land amongst his sons because the landlord would not allow it.
There was a puritanism developing in Britain under Queen Victoria. It was adapted for Irish conditions to keep landholdings together. A man could not marry until he had land.
The National school system was set up in the mid 19th century. The religious orders got involved in education and effectively subsidised education by re-investing their salaries into the system.
The middle class began to form from amongst those who were educated to second level. Farmers had and still have a keen interest in education, more so than the urban poor. The sons of farmers became the policemen and civil servants of the late 19th century. After independence this class then began to penetrate the professions.
The church was opposed to the expansion of second level education. In 1960 only about 10% of school leavers had the Leaving Cert. The church was well aware that an uneducated populace was more docile than an educated one.
Members of religious were highly class conscious.

looksee

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There were a few influences which commenced in the 19th century which led to an emerging middle class.
After the famine there was a policy of land clearance by landlords. the previous practice of subdividing holdings to maximise the rent had exhausted the land.A farmer could not divide land amongst his sons because the landlord would not allow it.
There was a puritanism developing in Britain under Queen Victoria. It was adapted for Irish conditions to keep landholdings together. A man could not marry until he had land.
The National school system was set up in the mid 19th century. The religious orders got involved in education and effectively subsidised education by re-investing their salaries into the system.
The middle class began to form from amongst those who were educated to second level. Farmers had and still have a keen interest in education, more so than the urban poor. The sons of farmers became the policemen and civil servants of the late 19th century. After independence this class then began to penetrate the professions.
The church was opposed to the expansion of second level education. In 1960 only about 10% of school leavers had the Leaving Cert. The church was well aware that an uneducated populace was more docile than an educated one.
Members of religious were highly class conscious.

I've never heard of that point, it can't be as simple as that, how did it work?

philologos

It'd be great if we could read something impartial on the subject. Marxism has traditionally taken an atheistic / anti-theistic position. I'm not sure if this is productive.

Although I do have some disagreements with RCC teaching, I don't necessarily think this is a useful POV to see it from.

The Corinthian

It's not such a crazy idea, as long as you filter out the whole Marxist class war slant.

Prior to the French revolution and the Enlightenment, the Church kept somewhat of a symbiotic relationship with the aristocracy. It gave legitimacy to monarchs to rule through the divine right of kings, who then in turn recognised it's moral authority. Not the most stable or friendly of relationships (as evidenced by the Reformation), but a mutually beneficial one for the most part, nonetheless. The Russian Orthodox church did the same, I may add.

That they would have adapted to form a similar 'understanding' in the modern World would follow; they are a super-national, largely non-temporal power; they require protection at the end of the day. So without examining the research behind the article in question, I would not dismiss it's core hypothesis out of hand (the class war nonsense, I would however).

Milk & Honey

looksee wrote: »

I've never heard of that point, it can't be as simple as that, how did it work?

It wasn't a written law, but it was a strong custom. A woman would not marry a man who had no means of support. With little or no industry there were very few jobs so a marrying a landowner was the only option. This led to late marriages for many men and lifelong bachelorhood for many more.

goose2005

Milk & Honey wrote: »

It wasn't a written law, but it was a strong custom. A woman would not marry a man who had no means of support. With little or no industry there were very few jobs so a marrying a landowner was the only option. This led to late marriages for many men and lifelong bachelorhood for many more.

Not to mention a steady supply of unmarriageable people to become priests, nuns and brothers.

Emme

goose2005 wrote: »

Not to mention a steady supply of unmarriageable people to become priests, nuns and brothers.

Ironically many priests and nuns were children of wealthy farmers.

goose2005

Emme wrote: »

Ironically many priests and nuns were children of wealthy farmers.

Can't divide the land, boss.

mariaalice

I don't think it was class war as such, the organized church in Ireland as we know it today took hold after the famine, in Victorian time and as such the church assumed the culture around it, which was very judge mental of the poor ( idea such as the deserving and undeserving poor etc ).

Lefticus Loonaticus

JupiterKid wrote: »

We've all heard, pretty much ad nauseam now, how the Catholic church exercised almost complete control of Ireland until the last decades of the 20th century. The sexual oppression of society and women in particular and the sickening child abuse and treatment of poor children by the religious orders is now well documented.

I found an article written from a very socialist/Marxist perspective but I though it was interesting because it asserts that essentially the power of the Chruch only crystallised after the Great famine and that the priests and nuns represented the class of well-to-do farmers who benefited the most from the aftermath fo the famine. It makes for some very interesting reading because it suggest that the middle class in pre-1960s Ireland were favoured by the church and that the poor were treated with contempt by the religious. I'm finding myself in agreement with this opinion. Anyone care to share an opinion on the matter?

Here's the link:
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj91/horgan.htm

Capitalism(or the oppression of the working classes as some some would put it) and the church have always gone hand in hand in many respects. The main factor contributing to the industrial school system was the profit the religious orders were making per head of child population incarcerated.

Follow the money -> always.

newmug

It never ceases to amaze me the crap people will make up about the Catholic Church. Why? Just why?

JupiterKid wrote: »

We've all heard, pretty much ad nauseam now, how the Catholic church exercised almost complete control of Ireland until the last decades of the 20th century.

So like the gestapo or something? Powers of arrest for not paying your TV license? Complete control how?

JupiterKid wrote: »

The sexual oppression of society and women in particular

I've never once, in my entire life, sexually oppressed anyone.

JupiterKid wrote: »

and the sickening child abuse and treatment of poor children by the religious orders is now well documented.

Child abuse is indeed sickening. But there are far more non-Catholic paedophiles out there than Catholics. But because this is Ireland, where the vast majority of people are indeed Catholic, by virtue of statistics there will obviously be a higher number of "Catholic" child abusers in this country. Likewise in Germany, the number of Protestant child abusers will be high, simply because Protestantism is the major religion there. So by your logic, does that mean ALL Christians are paedophiles?

Milk & Honey wrote: »

A man could not marry until he had land.

Thats just pure bull. I hope you dont go around saying that.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The National school system was set up in the mid 19th century. The religious orders got involved in education and effectively subsidised education by re-investing their salaries into the system.

EXACTLY! Hospitals, schools, basically anything with a social element to it was ran, voluntarily, by priests and nuns purely out of benevolence. Thats theessence of Christianity.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The church was opposed to the expansion of second level education. In 1960 only about 10% of school leavers had the Leaving Cert. The church was well aware that an uneducated populace was more docile than an educated one.
Members of religious were highly class conscious.

I am in awe of how ignorant this post is. The reason why only 10% of the population had second level education was because you had to PAY for secondary school that time. Poverty restricted education, not the Church. And incidentally, of those 10%, the majority were actually Protestant! They were the wealthy middle-class you speak of!

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

Capitalism(or the oppression of the working classes as some some would put it) and the church have always gone hand in hand in many respects. The main factor contributing to the industrial school system was the profit the religious orders were making per head of child population incarcerated.

Follow the money -> always.

Follow the money? Like to the Congo, Liberia, the Phillipenes? Yeah!


Bottom line, that article is totally wrong. There was a "middle-class" in Ireland pre 1960's alright, but they weren't even Catholic, they were PROTESTANT! Indeed that is why Catholicism was so popular here, because of the history we have in this country of Protestantism domineering and oppressing hand-in-hand with the Brits. Its historical FACT!

paddyandy

Manipulating the Masses goes on all the time these days through films tv advertising and pop music .People must have 'this or that' and do things 'this way or that way' .I don't hear any complaints about it .WE are every bit as Sheepish and Docile as previous generations .Look at the dress codes and behaviour on the street .Conformity writ big .Different conformity but conforming it is to todays demands .No ? Oppression is it not ???? Are not the Fashion Houses of today our dictators along with the Movie Icons and Rap Singers .They are the New Clergy and don't forget it or you are an outsider .

Finnbar01

JupiterKid wrote: »

I was looking for serious input in this forum on the matter.:) I know socialism and the Catholic church are complete enemies, but the paper has a lot of opinion which I believe to be correct.

It appears that you were wealthy and influential enough in pre-1960s Ireland, you could get away with things whereas the poor were oppressed spiritually, materially, socially and economically.:(

You're joking right???

Incidentally, the state also played a massive part in the abuse of children in this country.

newmug

paddyandy wrote: »

Manipulating the Masses goes on all the time these days through films tv advertising and pop music .People must have 'this or that' and do things 'this way or that way' .I don't hear any complaints about it .WE are every bit as Sheepish and Docile as previous generations .Look at the dress codes and behaviour on the street .Conformity writ big .Different conformity but conforming it is to todays demands .No ? Oppression is it not ???? Are not the Fashion Houses of today our dictators along with the Movie Icons and Rap Singers .They are the New Clergy and don't forget it or you are an outsider .

Rap singers are the dictators of today, and you must conform or you will be an outsider?

I cant believe someone actually thanked that. I better start talking like a rapper from now on - yo ho ho mud or migga wigga nagger

Milk & Honey

Thats just pure bull. I hope you dont go around saying that.
[/QUOTE]

It has been observed many times.

newmug wrote: »

I am in awe of how ignorant this post is. The reason why only 10% of the population had second level education was because you had to PAY for secondary school that time. Poverty restricted education, not the Church. And incidentally, of those 10%, the majority were actually Protestant! They were the wealthy middle-class you speak of!

No they were not. The protestant population was only three per cent of the total.
The catholic church opposed free education and opposed free hospital treatment.

newmug

Milk & Honey wrote: »

No they were not. The protestant population was only three per cent of the total.
The catholic church opposed free education and opposed free hospital treatment.

Its a good time of year for spreading dung.

Milk & Honey

newmug wrote: »

Its a good time of year for spreading dung.

I see that you are taking full advantage of the opportunity.

Finnbar01

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The catholic church opposed free education and opposed free hospital treatment.

Have you got a link to back up this?

Am genuinely interested.

Milk & Honey

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Have you got a link to back up this?

Am genuinely interested.

This for a start.

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2011/04/11/today-in-history-the-mother-and-child-scheme/

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0125/D.0125.195104120041.html

http://publish.ucc.ie/ijpp/2009/01/corcoran/05/en

Victor

To put it down as a church thing may be misguided. The richer someone is, generally the more capable they are of doing anything / getting away with anything - look at court outcomes based on class or politics.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Have you got a link to back up this?

The Mother and Child affair, where, if I have it right, it was assumed that free medical care to pregnant and nursing mothers would eventually lead to abortion and socialism.