Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Church influence on independent Ireland
Options
Comments
-
Apologies, I was taking your statement totally out of context.Firstly as per OP - the timeframe involved would be Ireland post independence. Saying that, I've not come across a work that suggested the Church was involved with food exports during the famine. Could you link?
I'm not a Soviet constitutional expert, but my reading of "A History of Communism" by Brown suggests that Latvia or Lithuania would not have been practically allowed to leave the USSR.
During the independence period, there was major upheavals worldwide. In Russia during the civil wars alone, 10 Million died - "World on Fire"- A. Read. Nearly all countries which have undergone a violent transition in political systems have suffered post-revoltuionary oscillation in repression. For instance in the independent USA, more people fled that country for political reasons than Revolutionary France (source whose name escapes me, but I think it was "A short history of the world").
The Church I contend was one of the social dampeners of this fissible behaviour of the newly formed state0 -
Maria Luddy of Maynooth looked at the prostitution topic in detail. Here she is in History Ireland.Irish nationalists argued that prostitution and venereal disease were symptoms of the British presence in Ireland and that it was only with Irish independence that they would disappear. Apparent rises in the rates of illegitimacy, venereal diseases and sexual crime in the 1920s suggest the simple-mindedness of that view.
http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume16/issue3/features/?id=114227
Lets not forget that venereal disease was a huge problem for the British Army in the 19th century.
Also, diseases like syphilis were really awful before the advent of antibiotics.0 -
The aims of many of the rebels of 1916 and the many who were in the IRA were that Ireland would be Gaelic Catholic and Free. Catholic infuence was there from the very beginning. De Valera and Collins were devout Catholics as were their entire generation.0
-
That may be the reality but in 1916 the proclamation said "The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens".0
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »That may be the reality but in 1916 the proclamation said "The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens".
And the main movers behind 1916 were the IRB and they were hardly altar boys and many protestants were involved. Sam Maguire who inducted Michael Collins into the IRB was protestant.
It is impossible to know the religious aspirations for any new state at the time and while the rising became associated with Sinn Fein it was a very bit player at the time.
That only happened when the political kicked in and indeed the extension of the franchise in 1918 to men over 21 and women over 30 in 1918 probably had something to do with it.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I think the below photo would just about sum up the self importance and arrogance of the Catholic Church in Ireland up until possibly the late 60's. It's like something out of the medieval era, I believe it's Ar$ebishop McQuaid -
0 -
thecommietommy wrote: »I think the below photo would just about sum up the self importance and arrogance of the Catholic Church in Ireland up until possibly the late 60's. It's like something out of the medieval era, I believe it's Ar$ebishop McQuaid -
But Ireland was not an industrialized nation but a " developing economy" with high levels of emigration.
You just can't change Ireland into something it wasn't, following independence Ireland was still the piss poor place it had been prior to their departure.
Independence did not cure all life's problems.0 -
The aims of many of the rebels of 1916 and the many who were in the IRA were that Ireland would be Gaelic Catholic and Free. Catholic infuence was there from the very beginning. De Valera and Collins were devout Catholics as were their entire generation.
While De Valera was staunchly Catholic the religious beliefs of Collins are not as clear cut. I remember reading a first hand account from the Easter Rising which recorded Collins as mocking people who started praying when the GPO was ablaze (I think I read that in Tim Pat Coogan's biography of Collins, I'll double check). He certainly wasn't a regular Mass attendee either. On the whole his Catholicism was a little bit suspect for that time in Ireland, he certainly was not devout by an means.
On the topic of that generation Connolly was probably an atheist until his death bed while the rest of the Citizen Army were socialists, not people known for sympathy to Catholicism or religion in general at the time.
Cathal Brugha was not known for overt displays of religion either. Griffith is a strange one, while his hatred of Freemasons and Jews in his younger years was well known (both indicators of Catholicism) I can't seem to find any books that make reference to his religion.
Interestingly, with the exception of De Valera all these men died.0 -
The French Revolution had a powerful effect on British affairs in Ireland [and elsewhere] and there was a push to stop Irishmen from going to France to study for the priesthood and coming home 'radicalised'. So the establishment of Maynooth in the 1790s with British money was one of the ways of keeping the Irish Catholic church in Ireland and within the control - or even the obligation - of the British. A beholden Irish Catholic Church was therefore something to encourage. But there were limits on how much to allow it to grow. Catholic lay education was a factor that took time to establish.
The British had tried to rule through Protestantism and this failed. They then tried to rule through Catholicism and this helped establish the Church into a position of power before Ireland became independence. The change in attitude from penal laws to state co-operation is interesting from both the Catholic church and the states points of view.0 -
Advertisement
-
HavingCrack wrote: »
On the topic of that generation Connolly was probably an atheist until his death bed while the rest of the Citizen Army were socialists, not people known for sympathy to Catholicism or religion in general at the time.
We know very little about Connolly's beliefs and I don't think that socialists were known to be anti religion at the time.
And some of the Citizen Army were suffragettes .
The idea that Larkin and Connolly were Scottish was not really publicised either.
I tried to address beliefs here on Jack Murphy
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056333127
There is a lot of variation between what socialist histories say and others say.
The reason I raised this before is that I knew a few very religious trade unionists growing up.It does not make sense to me that this was a belief system that they held so I can't see it being current at the time -1916 - if it wasn't current 25 and 30 years ago.
So maybe these beliefs existed in extreme groups like the CPI.Is there a bit of revisionism going on as there seems to have been with Jack Murphy's life story ?
Pagan O'Leary and the IRB/Fenians were more than likely to be anti church than Socialists at that time as they were members of a secret society.
http://www.astonisher.com/archives/mjb/irishlit/irishlit_ch10.html0 -
The aims of many of the rebels of 1916 and the many who were in the IRA were that Ireland would be Gaelic Catholic and Free. Catholic infuence was there from the very beginning. De Valera and Collins were devout Catholics as were their entire generation.
I would very much disagree that the return of 'Gaelic' Ireland was ever desired. Gaelic Ireland was a secular, decentralised, socially liberal, sexually promiscuous society which gave women extensive rights not to be seen again in Ireland until we joined the E.U and they made us legislate against discrimination.
If you mean they wanted a State based on a manufactured pseudo - history which is a unsubstantiated concoction of eternal and all embracing Irish Catholicism combined with Celtic twilight nonsense peddled as Irish history then I would agree - that is what they wanted.
I seriously doubted that is what James Connolly - the man most directly responsible for 1916 wanted.0 -
As an agnostic, this is my take on the RC Church/Free State relationship:
It's a bit like radical Islam in Arabia.
Catholicism was a rallying point, a flag, a badge, a refuge, a source of morale and a promise of ultimate victory in times of endless defeat - for the Irish who opposed invasion, cultural genocide and settlements.
After (partial) independence the Church were thus poised to dominate the State; bit like the Islamists after the Arab Spring.
It takes a while to shake them off; but temporary rule by religious nutters is a very small price to pay for freedom from imperialism and genocide.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Gaelic Ireland was a secular, decentralised, socially liberal, sexually promiscuous society which gave women extensive rights not to be seen again in Ireland until we joined the E.U and they made us legislate against discrimination.
That is so true. Unfortunately the Gaelic civilization you describe was headed the way of the Tasmanian aboriginals if they didn't adapt to the reality of overwhelming power.
They found a tool in the form of the internationally powerful RC Church - and used it to good effect.0 -
That is so true. Unfortunately the Gaelic civilization you describe was headed the way of the Tasmanian aboriginals if they didn't adapt to the reality of overwhelming power.
They found a tool in the form of the internationally powerful RC Church - and used it to good effect.
I disagree I'm afraid. I believe the RCC co-opted Irish nationalism and created a false history which allowed it to appear to be the saviour of the Irish people when in fact it was a co-oppressor and colonist in it's own right.
Extensive research into the Norman invasion of the 12th century has lead me to the conclusion is that the church of Rome was up to its eyeballs in justifying it. As originally conceived it was an attempt by Rome to use military force to coerce the Gaelic Church into toeing the line. The tool it sought to employ was Henry II of England and the Norman Conquest of Ireland. It's ploy backfired when Henry VIII later broke with Rome with devastating repercussions for Ireland.
One of the most insidious and destructive of these false premises promulgated by a RCC controlled education system, IMHO, is that Irish = Catholic - I certainly would not be the only historian to view this falsehood as a serious and divisive 'flaw' at the heart of our constructed national identity.
In today's Irish TimesDiarmaid Ferriter hit the nail on the head when he wrote about the creation of an Irish State with
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0326/1224313893518.html?via=mrsociety so homogeneously Catholic, abrogating responsibility to the Catholic church in too many crucial areas, including education
By allowing the Catholic Church to control education, the State allowed that organisation to define what it means to be 'Irish' and to ignore or downplay it's own role in the conquest of Ireland and the role played by non-Catholics in the centuries of struggle for Irish independence.
Lets look briefly at the facts of the conquest - although Pope Adrian's 1155 Papal Bull Laudabilitor is now believed to have been a forgery - Pope Alexander III did confirm it in 1172 - so in effect the Papacy granted legitimacy to the overlordship of Ireland by the Monarch of England http://www.libraryireland.com/HullHistory/Appendix1a.php.
Why? Because the Gaelic Church was not following the rules as laid down by Rome - it existed as a quasi-independent rival power base and was therefore a threat to the holy grail of religious homogenisation.
In structure the Gaelic Church was completely monastic and, for reasons that remain unclear, seems to have owed more in terms of its organisation and ethos to the Egyptian Coptic Church then it did to Rome.
The Gaelic Church did not evangelize. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Since at least the 6th century Rome believed that in order for the Second Coming of Christ and Judgement Day (deemed to be good things) to occur all the people's of the world must not just be Christian, but believe exactly the same things. This was the impetus behind Pope Gregory I's evangelical missions across Europe - Gregory was determined to spread a homogeneous, Roman, form of Christianity across Europe. This belief persisted after the Reformation - Luther was very PO'd when everyone didn't automatically convert to his new improved Christianity - he blamed the Jews...
In Gaelic Christian Europe (Ireland, Scotland and parts of northern England) the church was content to let people come to it ( vocations)- rather then go out and 'get' them (you are whatever religion your prince is/forced baptisms count).
The result in Ireland was that Gaelic society was secular. Brehon Law was the dominant legal code and even a cursory read of Kelly's Guide to Early Irish Law shows that Gaelic Ireland was sexually liberal, granted extensive rights to women, and was based completely on civil, not religious, imperatives.
For some strange reason we are not taught about this thing we should be boasting about in school....
Conflict had existed between Ireland and Rome from the beginning -in the 7th century the Synod of Whitby brought Rome and the Gaelic Church into direct opposition. In the 12th century there was a potential schism within Ireland between the Roman 'reformers' such as St Malachy and the Gaelic traditionalists. In was within this context that the Papacy moved against the Gaelic Church traditionalists in an effort to bring it into line with Rome.
Although political events - the possibility that Strongbow, de Lacy etc may create 'kingdoms' in Ireland was considered a real possibility - forced Henry II to come here and impose his authority upon his feudal subjects, the fact remains that the Papacy gave legitimacy to the Norman conquest after the creation of the Lordship of Ireland.
Rome gave us to England. Not once, not twice, but three times.
When Henry VIII broke with Rome that undermined this legitimacy forcing Henry to create the Kingdom of Ireland - Henry declared himself king of the entire island, including areas that had never been under English control such as Tir Connell, Umhall, Iar Chonnacht, Beara, etc it must be noted that this was the first time in history that Ireland was united as a single kingdom under a central authority.
A united Ireland is both a Tudor concept and an enforced English imposition.
In the 1550s the Papacy regranted and relegitimised this control during the reign of Mary I - the same Catholic Mary Tudor who introduced Plantations to Ireland.
This policy was continued by her sister Elizabeth and her cousin James Stuart - who oversaw the Plantation of Ulster and the influx of Scots Presbyterians - whose descendants invented Irish Republicanism.
The events of 1798 were inspired by the French Revolution - not religion. Westminster responded with the Act of Union - with the full support of the RCC.
Events in 1848 grew out of the Famine and the Revolutions spreading across Europe. In both '98 and '48 most of the leaders were from Protestant backgrounds. In both cases Rome utterly condemned these 'anarchists'.
The impetus behind the 1916 Rising was the Socialist Connolly and the Citizen's Army. What was the response of the RCC to the war for Irish independence? It excommunicated republicans.
But - because the RCC is allowed to control education it is able to spin history and portray itself as the driving force behind Irish Independence - it rebranded it as a war of Religious freedom (non-Catholics need not apply)- not the desire for political self-determination. The RCC did not want self-determination - it wanted us to be controlled by Rome rather then Westminster.
In our 'under the patronage of the Bishop' National schools we are instructed in fidelity to the RCC not the State. IMHO our State schools should be teaching civics and ethics not religion -perhaps then we might breed a generation of politicos who understand duty to the State and what it means to serve the people.0 -
That is so true. Unfortunately the Gaelic civilization you describe was headed the way of the Tasmanian aboriginals if they didn't adapt to the reality of overwhelming power.
They found a tool in the form of the internationally powerful RC Church - and used it to good effect.
Actually the history of the Catholic Church itself in Ireland is an interesting one and not what you might expect. So we could also consider the influence of Irish Gaelic life on early Irish Catholicism.
From the earliest times of Christianity being established the Irish church was more 'Gaelic' than Roman - and like the description that Bannasidhe gives of Gaelic life, the church formed more along those lines than the European/Roman model. Ireland developed a monastic model for Christianity early on, and not the urban Roman diocesan model - but they were monastic families, with married Abbots passing the monastery along to sons. Bishops - those without any monastic connection - were virtually powerless - unlike the Roman model. And there is evidence that women held powerful positions with the possibility of some Abbesses holding the title of Bishop.
Even after the so called twelfth century reforms of the Irish Church, some things did not conform to Rome and there is evidence that married clergy continued on into Tudor times.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Extensive research into the Norman invasion of the 12th century has lead me to the conclusion is that the church of Rome was up to its eyeballs in justifying it.
We know that!
I'm talking from the Reformation and after.
Official Islam has sold out Arab nationalism for centuries; that's beside the point.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »
perhaps then we might breed a generation of politicos who understand duty to the State and what it means to serve the people.
Mental note to self to explain corporate statism & party whips to teenage daughter.0 -
We know that!
I'm talking from the Reformation and after.
The Papacy reconfirmed English control of Ireland to Mary Tudor - this was after the Reformation and the opening salvo in the Counter-Reformation.
What actual steps did Rome take exactly to support Irish independence that were not part of it's intrigues in England? The limited support - Papal troops at Dún an Óir, coercion of the Spanish to interfere in Ireland as a way of attacking Elizabeth - was part of a ploy to regain England, not to free Ireland from the control of the English throne but to ensure a Catholic sat on that throne.
The Stuarts after the Restoration were considered dangerously open to Catholics. James II converted to Catholicism. James brought his war to our shores - would Ireland have Scottish king of England or a Dutch king of England was our monarch. That was what they fought for. Or do you think that had James won he would have granted Irish independence? Do you think Rome would have urged him too? I don't - I think Rome would have been content to maintain the status quo as long as England was part of it's dominion.
What role did the RCC play in 1798? It condemned revolutionaries - it's main concern however was with France.
Did the RCC advocate Ireland remain outside the Union in 1800/1801? No. It threw it's vocal support behind the Act of Union in exchange for concessions of the Penal Laws and an extensive programme of church building.
Where was the RCC in 1848? It was condemning anarchists who sought to impose democracy, break-up Imperialist Empires and allow small ethnic groups self-determination.
Where was it in the War of Independence? It was excommunicating republicans and condemning the war from the pulpit.
Rome and Westminster reached an accommodation in the late 18th century- yes, there was pushing and shoving and the prize was control of Ireland. At no point did the wishes of the Irish people enter into this super-power struggle. Rome - the greatest spin doctors the world has ever seen - managed to parley Irish Independence into a victory for them. Ireland was handed to them on a plate when we let them control education.
People believe Roman Catholicism was an ally and supporter of Irish Independence because that is what we are taught in school.
Who has controlled education since the formation of the State? Could it be...the Roman Catholic Church??????0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »
People believe Roman Catholicism was an ally and supporter of Irish Independence because that is what we are taught in school.
Who has controlled education since the formation of the State? Could it be...the Roman Catholic Church??????
I'm not disagreeing with any of what you say; the institutional RC church was as traitorous and indifferent/hostile to Irish/Gaelic sovereignty as suited it's geopolitical interests. I recall having serious rows with my religious parents and teachers on this very issue when the North was in flames in the early 1970s!
But that didn't prevent the people from clinging to it as a refuge; just like oppressed Arabs do today (not to the RC church, obviously!)
And it left the RC very well position to control the Free State.
Another analogy might be with the "liberation theology" Church in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s which was betrayed by the Vatican and JPII at the behest of the Americans.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »
IMHO our State schools should be teaching civics and ethics not religion -perhaps then we might breed a generation of politicos who understand duty to the State and what it means to serve the people.
I must grovel a bit here; my area of most interest are modern geopolitics (and modern Irish nationalism) - and being a bit of a "keyboard warrior" - I missed the fact that you are clearly a knowledgeable historian.
I am familiar with the facts as presented by you but was really referring to what drove ordinary Catholics in 1798 through the Fenians to O'Connell to Pearse and onwards to Dev and the Blueshirts to embrace the Church - despite the facts you outline.
Look at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which for years had an accommodation with Mubarak - they were allowed organize mosques and schools and welfare in exchange for not being strung up for opposing him!
Now the latest developments show that they are likely to control the educational system in Egypt. The Brotherhood stood back while secularists (partly) overthrew the regime. But no prizes for guessing what their role in the revolution will be - as taught to the next several generations of Egyptian schoolkids.
Mainstream history is written by the winners. As I'm sure you, of all folk, will agree. But that's hardly novel or specifically Irish situation.In our 'under the patronage of the Bishop' National schools we are instructed in fidelity to the RCC not the State.
I sent my kids to a local Gael Scoil; founded in the mid-1990s. I was part of the original group who instigated it, along with a group that included two Dutch couples, several secularist/ex Catholics and a several Protestants from the local CoI community.
When it came to the crunch, the Committee voted to put the school 'under the patronage of the (Catholic) Bishop'.
So, we ended up losing probably half the CoI parents; though most of the us just pulled out of the organizational side and still sent the kids there.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »
Who has controlled education since the formation of the State? Could it be...the Roman Catholic Church??????
In fairness, the nuns were mega successful even pre independence in establish control of education and hospitals and the Magdalen laundries.
Independence or not , they were in.
So Nunpower was very focused and the orders were independent of Rome.
They are not given enough credit for their success.0 -
In fairness, the nuns were mega successful even pre independence in establish control of education and hospitals and the Magdalen laundries.
Independence or not , they were in.
So Nunpower was very focused and the orders were independent of Rome.
They are not given enough credit for their success.
Yes agree - I was about to make the same comment. The Catholic Church had gained control of education in Ireland in the nineteenth century - and had established a cozy relationship with Westminster over the issue. The ultimate establishment of the Catholic University and schools were all part of that - prior to independence.
In fact the RC church were so concerned with loosing that control under Home Rule that they were lukewarm to the idea of Home Rule - and it was only when Parnell and the Home Rulers established what is known as the Clerical Nationalist alliance with the church in 1885 that guaranteed the church continued control over education - should the Home Rule bill succeed - that they gave their support to Home Rule.
But it was not a very warm and enthusiastic support and some historians, especially Emmet Larkin who has done a lot of work on this subject - suggests that they regretted the alliance and remained suspicious that their control of education would continue after a Dublin government was installed. So when Parnell's private life came out into public view [and how that even happened is still a debate] , it was the church which shouted the loudest against him and denounced him. This vicious condemnation contributed in no small way to Parnell's downfall in Ireland amongst the Irish electorate - and the downfall of Home Rule for a generation.0 -
In fairness, the nuns were mega successful even pre independence in establish control of education and hospitals and the Magdalen laundries.
Independence or not , they were in.
So Nunpower was very focused and the orders were independent of Rome.
They are not given enough credit for their success.
Just wanted to add on that score - that yes, the ordinary priest, brother, and nun who taught in the schools were successful and worked hard, with very little pay, to establish an educational system that cost the newly independent government very little.0 -
In fact the RC church were so concerned with loosing that control under Home Rule that they were lukewarm to the idea of Home Rule - and it was only when Parnell and the Home Rulers established what is known as the Clerical Nationalist alliance with the church in 1885 that guaranteed the church continued control over education - should the Home Rule bill succeed - that they gave their support to Home Rule.
But it was not a very warm and enthusiastic support and some historians, especially Emmet Larkin who has done a lot of work on this subject - suggests that they regretted the alliance and remained suspicious that their control of education would continue after a Dublin government was installed. So when Parnell's private life came out into public view [and how that even happened is still a debate] , it was the church which shouted the loudest against him and denounced him. This vicious condemnation contributed in no small way to Parnell's downfall in Ireland amongst the Irish electorate - and the downfall of Home Rule for a generation.
Was this not them keeping a foot in each camp? They were traditionally luke warm to any attempts to change administration but allowed individual priests independence to support same after attempts at rebellion had failed. This meant that they were never going to be in a position that their power could be removed.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Was this not them keeping a foot in each camp? They were traditionally luke warm to any attempts to change administration but allowed individual priests independence to support same after attempts at rebellion had failed. This meant that they were never going to be in a position that their power could be removed.
Maybe we should define who or what exactly the 'church' is here in this context. Because there was some difference between the Irish clergy - that is the ordinary priests who supported nationalists - and the hierarchy who were under pressure from Rome.
The correspondence between Rome and the Irish hierarchy is very interesting on that score. Rome - Pope Leo XIII - really thought that an independent Ireland would be of little value compared to having possibly over 100 Irish Catholics MPs sitting in the Westminster parliament - one of the most powerful in the world at that time - so he kept the pressure up on the Irish to resist Home Rule. He condemned the boycotting campaign for instance and forbade Irish Catholics from participating. He was largely ignored in Ireland on this.
But the Irish hierarchy were not unified in support of Rome either - and also not so fond of taking orders from Rome. When a letter came from the papacy to be read out to people at Masses condemning some of the actions of the Land League and Irish Catholic Home Rulers there was some outrage amongst the Irish hierarchy and - off the top of my head I can't remember the name - one Irish bishop wrote back to Rome in a complaint, and refused to read the letter to his diocese.0 -
. So when Parnell's private life came out into public view [and how that even happened is still a debate] , it was the church which shouted the loudest against him and denounced him. This vicious condemnation contributed in no small way to Parnell's downfall in Ireland amongst the Irish electorate - and the downfall of Home Rule for a generation.
OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHhhhhh Scandal and it was juicy.
The skeet is here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056115564
How it ever came out :rolleyes:
You didn't need the church to do anything.0 -
Maybe we should define who or what exactly the 'church' is here in this context. Because there was some difference between the Irish clergy - that is the ordinary priests who supported nationalists - and the hierarchy who were under pressure from Rome.
The correspondence between Rome and the Irish hierarchy is very interesting on that score. Rome - Pope Leo XIII - really thought that an independent Ireland would be of little value compared to having possibly over 100 Irish Catholics MPs sitting in the Westminster parliament - one of the most powerful in the world at that time - so he kept the pressure up on the Irish to resist Home Rule. He condemned the boycotting campaign for instance and forbade Irish Catholics from participating. He was largely ignored in Ireland on this.
But the Irish hierarchy were not unified in support of Rome either - and also not so fond of taking orders from Rome. When a letter came from the papacy to be read out to people at Masses condemning some of the actions of the Land League and Irish Catholic Home Rulers there was some outrage amongst the Irish hierarchy and - off the top of my head I can't remember the name - one Irish bishop wrote back to Rome in a complaint, and refused to read the letter to his diocese.
The divisions are interesting in that they never materialise into a serious split, they just remain in place and I would say that it still the case today. It was a no lose situation for the Church regardless of the differences within. James Connolly wrote of this split in his Harp publication in 1908. He was predicting that despite the opposition expressed by some in the Church that they would adapt to a socialist state if it were to materialise. I presume he was saying this to convince people that they would not be exiled if they supported his ideas.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »I presume he was saying this to convince people that they would not be exiled if they supported his ideas.
Why are you presuming this ?
Was Connolly anti-church or not and what was his stance ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Why are you presuming this ?
Was Connolly anti-church or not and what was his stance ?
Here is some of what he had to say:
'The New Evangel Socialism and Religion.The Known and the Unknowable' 1899.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1901/evangel/socrel.htm
'Labour, Nationality and ReligionBeing a discussion of the Lenten Discourses against Socialism delivered by Father Kane, S.J., in Gardiner Street Church, Dublin, 1910.'
http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1910/lnr/index.htm0
Advertisement