A Protestant Ireland

catbear

robp wrote: »

There never was a means to formally be not Catholic as it is utterly unnecessary.

While you may feel comfortable with Rome claiming custody of your conscience others feel differently. I wrote to the local bishop telling him I was out, he replied and accepted the end of any claim on any of my being in this life and the next. I suggest you chat with your bishop before you speak on the churches behalf.

Manach

gozunda wrote: »

If is unfortunate indeed that it has taken nearly a century to free the country from the control of Sheehy, McQuaid and his ilk.

From that long account, that was the main coherent statement I could glem, however as we are now so in hock to the EU so might want to tone down your post-modern triumphalism a tad. :rolleyes:

gozunda

robp wrote: »

Totally off topic but this has to be corrected.

Thought that bring out staunch religious views

No not true actually.

Do explain why this is not true in your own opinion

No they don't! Its actually based on the census.

Check out the Vatican's own Statistical Yearbook of the Church and the march of Catholicism.... It is a global organisation with its own record keeping to record how many Catholics it has on its books.

Incorrect. There never was a formal process to leave the CC. Is there a formal process to leave the local GAA team or photography club? The change you referred to was Catholic marriage regulation. There never was a means to formally be not Catholic as it is utterly unnecessary.

Until 2009 it was known as the formal Act of Defection.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_act_of_defection_from_the_Catholic_Church . The Roman Catholic Church no longer allow any one to defect bit yes to answe your reply I can cancel my membership of the local sports club...

gozunda

catbear wrote: »

While you may feel comfortable with Rome claiming custody of your conscience others feel differently. I wrote to the local bishop telling him I was out, he replied and accepted the end of any claim on any of my being in this life and the next. I suggest you chat with your bishop before you speak on the churches behalf.

Good to hear.
I know of others who were informed otherwise and that no countenance would be giving to removing their details as being members of the Roman Catholic Church. There has been a rise in the numbers of people seeking to do so since the child abuse scandals of recent years. To stop the inevitable exodus the catholic hierarchy got rid of the Act of defection in 2009. Did you get a formal written and signed declaration of same - I don't have a lot of confidence in the veracity of the hierarchies declarations based on recent history.

robp

catbear wrote: »

While you may feel comfortable with Rome claiming custody of your conscience others feel differently. I wrote to the local bishop telling him I was out, he replied and accepted the end of any claim on any of my being in this life and the next. I suggest you chat with your bishop before you speak on the churches behalf.

Well if that letter reassures you good for you but I can promise you what you did was not leaving the CC. There is no way to leave in Canon law as as would be waste of time and resources. Now here is a quote from the response Archbishop Martin was sending out to people requesting a defection.

The law concerning defection, introduced in 1983, was designed especially to address the right to marry. The intention was to facilitate the exercise of the right to marry by those Catholics who due to their estrangement from the Church were unlikely to wish a Church ceremony. The measure was thus to ensure that any marriage entered into after formal defection would be valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

...
It may be of interest for you to note that the Archdiocese does not make use of the baptismal registers for calculating the Catholic population of the Archdiocese of Dublin. It relies solely on the data of the Central Statistics Office, obtained through the census, by which citizens themselves choose to record, or not, their religious affiliation.

Misleading website like Countmeout.ie and news articles traded on the myth that a process to leave the CC existed and thus we are left with a lot of people who are simply mistaken on the issue.

gozunda

Manach wrote: »

From that long account, that was the main coherent statement I could glem, however as we are now so in hock to the EU so might want to tone down your post-modern triumphalism a tad. :rolleyes:

The names not a tad....

?? No post modern triumphalism intended. One bad does not make any other less offensive.

Manach

gozunda wrote: »

?? No post modern triumphalism intended. One bad does not make any other less offensive.

Only thing offensive thing is your grasp of history, your hyped polly-annaish aspirations of how a non-Catholic Ireland could have developed and a general ennui as how easily you devolve into a simplified card-board villain cut out of past events involving the Church. Then again I cannot expect too much from the bright's view of history, derailed from their idealised version of society by the actual people of which the Church at least had some attempt to provide charity instead of exporting it overseas which seems to be the state's default policy

gozunda

robp wrote: »

Well if that letter reassures you good for you but I can promise you what you did was not leaving the CC. There is no way to leave in Canon law as as would be waste of time and resources. Now here is a quote from the response Archbishop Martin was sending out to people requesting a defection.
Misleading website like Countmeout.ie and news articles traded on the myth that a process to leave the CC existed and thus we are left with a lot of people who are simply mistaken on the issue.

Apologies for referring to the unholies of Wikipedia but I really could be bothered typing out the relevant volumes of Canon law. Check out the reference section for direct links to the relevant statements on defection. Do you not know you can't take an interpretation of a statement from archbishops as a fact especially considering some of the stuff they have came out with in the last few years.

Of course there is one ultimate way to exit such religious nazism and that is good old excommunication. I am sure that intelligent objectors to enforced Catholicism could come up some quite inventive means of exiting the aforesaid organisation.

And finally to misquote Marx...
I don't want to belong to any club that will not allow people like me to leave

Reekwind

catbear wrote: »

Can't disagree with any of the RCC stuff, a former kingmaker of Europe...

Elaborate, please

The movement that became known as Republican had its roots in the reformation. The propensity for protestant schism lead to the an eventual contract whereby everyone could agree to disagree, also known as freedom of speech.

This is at best Whig history and at worst simply projecting current biases back into history. Even a most cursory glance at the Reformation (say hello, Calvin) shows that neither Protestant preachers nor their noble supporters were inherently prone to freedom of speech. Try telling the Anabaptists about Protestant tolerance.

Similarly, the Wars of Religion were fought not over freedom of conscience but the right of the great lords to legally establish and profit from their own state churches - essentially settling up mini-Vaticans (cuius regio, eius religio). Certainly it's hard to see the emerging Protestant churches as little other than blunt instruments of state control (eg the Prussian Union of Churches).

What you're doing is conflating two very different processes: Protestantism and parliamentarism. Both were immeasurably aided by the printing press but there the direct link ends. This approach both denies the long history of the pre-Reformation republics (the vibrant Italian city states have already been referred to) and the fact that modern republicanism* was born in Catholic France. In contrast to the latter, Protestant Prussia was hardly a beacon of liberalism.

*That is, in the form that directly inspired a slew of similar movements through the 19th C (including Ireland) and pretty much shaped modern liberal thought. The French First Republic remains a staggeringly influential period of history.

gozunda

Manach wrote: »

Only thing offensive thing is your grasp of history, your hyped polly-annaish aspirations of how a non-Catholic Ireland could have developed and a general ennui as how easily you devolve into a simplified card-board villain cut out of past events involving the Church. Then again I cannot expect too much from the bright's view of history, derailed from their idealised version of society by the actual people of which the Church at least had some attempt to provide charity instead of exporting it overseas which seems to be the state's default policy

Miaow!

Do Read again! I made no predictions on how a non catholic Ireland could or would have developed. I presented my opinion as you are welcome to do so without the naive nationalism that explodes at any critical appraisal of the Roman Catholic church. The RC church have been their own worst enemy. If you believe they really were the common mans champions of history and righteousness then so be it. Although I don't agree with you and I refrain from mud slinging. Coherent argument is always the more intelligent approach.

ledgebag1

turnikett1 wrote: »

Mo chairde. Been reading an AMAZING book lately, it's called "The Isles", by Norman Davies. It's an expansive big book that spans the whole history of Britain and Ireland, the peoples that inhabited them and their relationship with one another. It's great because the author makes a point of being anti-Anglocentric. It spans from the dawn of humans in Britain and Ireland right up until the present day, without going into too much detail I would highly highly recommend it, it's absolutely phenomenal. My favourite history book that I've read (and I've read a lot!)

Now, I am reading about Tudor Britain and Ireland and the Protesant Reformation. The author makes a point that in Wales, the locals adopted Protestantism and as a result the Welsh language was standardized from having been translated from the Bible and also, many schools funded by the now reformed Church were set up which taught education to the common folk in both Welsh and English. So, at the cost of their religion the Welsh managed to (somewhat) save their language. You can see this today in certain areas of Wales where Welsh is very prominent as is the identity of the Welsh language.

The opposite, happened in Ireland. We got to save keep our religion, but, largely at the cost of our language. As a result of defying Protestantism, the Irish language had no standard nor a medium with which to express and perserve itself, and of course being Catholic made only matters worse with regards to the English who would continue this cultural oppression (it's argued that Wales and Scotland had a much fairer treatment as a result of adopting Protestantism). This of course wasn't the sole factor in the decline of Irish. The Famine was probably the biggest blow. However this was definitely the big trigger in the doom of Irish, only to be exasperated by other factors in the years to come.

It got me thinking - what if Ireland had adopted Protestantism en masse? Would our language be more spoken today? Would the English have treated us better? Wouldn't we have suffered less post-independence, having rid ourselves from the cruel, conservative dictatorship of the Roman Catholic Church? Would our Proestant work ethic have driven us to greater economic propserity and combatted corruption?

It also begs me to ask a different question - what would life be like if we had stayed a part of the United Kingdom? Arguably we would have better infrastructure, less corruption and wouldn't have suffered the Troubles but at the cost of much of our language and culture (I will safely assume anyways). Personally, I'm not against an equal union of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales it's just very unfortunate that it ended up being completely Anglocentric...

Thoughts, opinions, comments!

I think you need to read that Norman Davies book again and a few more you are fairly wide of the mark in relation to Ireland Wales Scotland and the British reformation/ plantation of them all

Manach

Just let me know when you get around to it, once you've passed your sophormoric phase of vast generalisations such as "The RC has always been about power and holding into power to the detriment of the individual and a pluralist society" and of course descending to Godwinism, always a classic move. By co-inflating the RCC with Nazism (or other nationalist idealogical movements) demonstrates a failure to grasp any form of real-world contextual differentials that seems to suggest your take of history is a simplified version of idealised 21st century modes of behaviour retro-fitted into an historical context. The RCC might have a chequered history at least makes a pretence to learn from mistakes, instead of just holding to holding to a simplified black/white history dynamic which is more about supporting current paradigms than engaging in what is true or not.

deirdremf

catbear wrote: »

As others have pointed out membership of a particular sect is no guarantee of material success and anyone thinking it should has a rather unchristian view of humanity.

In Ireland although we identify with catholicism in practice we're increasingly more protestant. The sense of individual conscience is very much a protestant ethos whereas the RCC has guidelines, hence while we may now have family planning which was resisted by the RCC we still have an RCC inspired ban on abortion. The right to abortion is not left to the individual conscience to decide

And incase anyone thinks the RCC has gone away they've only just lost its appeal against family planning in the Philipines. To the RCC large families were preferable regardless of the strain on resources and the poverty entailed.

The catholic church is an important organisation, but in other catholic countries, it lost much of its power earlier than it did here.
For instance, sexual mores have long been very different in the Latin countries than in Ireland. I wonder if this was to some extent a result of trying to keep the native Irish (catholic) people separate from the English colonists (protestant)?

Ireland probably straddles both RCC and Protestant values.

I think that what people call catholic and protestant values are more the stated values of the dominant class, very often at variance from their actual values in practice.

To be clear many protestants view the Church of England as just a watered down RCC and not truly reformed.

Well, I'd say you're left with just a rump of protestants, then. In Europe, episcopalian protestant is very much dominant, with other brands being important only in Scotland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Wales. And the Netherlands and Switzerland are both traditionally 40-50% Catholic at least.
It is only in the south-eastern USA that there are large numbers of non-episcopalian protestants, mainly baptists and methodists. And in the States as a whole, they are a smallish percentage, in the range of 10-20%, IIRC.

As far as I'm concerned the whole argument about catholic and protestant values in general misses the point.
For me, the real division here is another one. Europe is divided into three main religious areas - and I think that for whatever reason, this division is mainly a linguistic division, with certain exceptions.
The Germanic linguistic group went protestant, the Latin group remained catholic, the Slavic group became orthodox.
Within Germany & Holland, most of the catholic areas were part of the Roman empire, and these links endured even after the reformation, while the Reformed areas were never part of the Empire, and even managed to defeat the Empire.
There are smaller countries with their own languages here and there who went with whatever was dominant in their part of Europe - Latin-speaking Romania became orthodox, and Slavic Poland, Slovakia and the Czechs became & remained mainly catholic rather than orthodox for whatever reason.

gozunda

Manach wrote: »

Just let me know when you get around to it, once you've passed your sophormoric phase of vast generalisations such as "The RC has always been about power and holding into power to the detriment of the individual and a pluralist society" and of course descending to Godwinism, always a classic move. By co-inflating the RCC with Nazism (or other nationalist idealogical movements) demonstrates a failure to grasp any form of real-world contextual differentials that seems to suggest your take of history is a simplified version of idealised 21st century modes of behaviour retro-fitted into an historical context. The RCC might have a chequered history at least makes a pretence to learn from mistakes, instead of just holding to holding to a simplified black/white history dynamic which is more about supporting current paradigms than engaging in what is true or not.

The reference to an ideology comparison ie nazism - was in relation to the very specific refusal of the RC church to allow any designated 'member' the freedom to extricate themselves from a ideological belief system they do not subscribe to. So your dredging and mud slinging of Godwinism is a null argument.

As for the bits that go "...sophormoric phase of vast generalisations"..."demonstrates a failure to grasp any form of real-world contextual differentials that seems to suggest your take of history is a simplified version of idealised 21st century modes of behaviour retro-fitted into an historical context.

First would you translate that into standard English and sentence structure. Thanks. Because I don't have a clue what you are talking about...

I get you think the RC church are attempting to reform but I happen to disagree. You are of course welcome to your own opinion.

Reekwind

deirdremf wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the whole argument about catholic and protestant values in general misses the point.
For me, the real division here is another one. Europe is divided into three main religious areas - and I think that for whatever reason, this division is mainly a linguistic division, with certain exceptions.
The Germanic linguistic group went protestant, the Latin group remained catholic, the Slavic group became orthodox.

I don't think language is relevant here at all. The exceptions are so numerous as to make the rule worthless.

For example: Catholic Austria/Bavaria (Germanic), Catholic Poland and Croatia (Slavic, the map is wrong in both cases), Catholic Hungary (none of the above), Orthodox Romania (Romance), Ireland (Celtic/Germanic). In fact, the map presented is pretty incorrect in a number of places.

Now for each of the above areas there is a set of reasons as to which religion dominated. For example, the Latin/Orthodox divide in Eastern Europe is largely a product of 9th C geopolitics - the Bulgarians and Rus aligned with Constantinople while the Poles and Croats (plus later Hungarians) took their lead from Rome and the East Franks. In all cases it was a matter of local dynasties making use of an external framework to legitimise their rule. The one they chose depended on conditions at the time.

I could go into detail on the later shifts but, again, local circumstances prevailed over language groups. The Czechs "remained Catholic" because they lost one battle, while it took decades of religious war for Catholicism in France to emerge victorious. And so on.

Trying to boil this down to a simple ethnic/language split is at best overly reductionist.

Judgement Day

That's a seriously scary map - it's no wonder I feel under siege.

dubhthach

deirdremf wrote: »

The catholic church is an important organisation, but in other catholic countries, it lost much of its power earlier than it did here.
For instance, sexual mores have long been very different in the Latin countries than in Ireland.

Sexual mores were basically different in Ireland prior to 1603 then basically anywhere else in Europe. It's only really in post-famine era that "catholic mores" can be said to have been imposed in the way that most people imagine them.

Gaelic Ireland if anything was quite a Licentious place when it came to sexual morality as the English kept on liking to point out throughout the 16th century.

robp

dubhthach wrote: »

Sexual mores were basically different in Ireland prior to 1603 then basically anywhere else in Europe. It's only really in post-famine era that "catholic mores" can be said to have been imposed in the way that most people imagine them.

Gaelic Ireland if anything was quite a Licentious place when it came to sexual morality as the English kept on liking to point out throughout the 16th century.

I am not sure that religious practise should be defined by sexual mores. I appreciate you are probably not trying to do that but its still worth pointing out.

dubhthach

robp wrote: »

I am not sure that religious practise should be defined by sexual mores. I appreciate you are probably not trying to do that but its still worth pointing out.

I was responding to Deirdre's point (policing mores to prevent mixing with protestant colonists etc.) . In case of Ireland the church had fairly minimum impact on general Gaelic society really until the war's of the 16th and 17th century (5 major ones) brought a counter-reformation zeal into it. This ties in with the first generation of Clerics trained on the continent in the new Irish colleges, and thus exposed to more "mainstream catholic rites/teachings" (The Geraldines could be blamed for setting the counter-reformation tone).

Our concept of catholic policing of sexual morality in Ireland is really only something that dates from 19th century onwards, particularly in post famine period when the Church reaches it's zenith under men like Cullen. (pre-famine church attendance rates were on order of 30-40%).

Busted Flat.

Going by experience when tendering for work, something I have had years ago, Catholic's will have the money put by for the job intended, Jews will argue the price before you start and beat you down, but when the job is done you are paid 100%. Prods ask you to do the job, you agree the price, and start the work, when you finish the hassle starts. I am not being biased in my post, it is something I learned through life.

robp

dubhthach wrote: »

I was responding to Deidre's point (policing mores to prevent mixing with protestant colonists etc.).

Sure.

dubhthach wrote: »

In case of Ireland the church had fairly minimum impact on general Gaelic society really until the war's of the 16th and 17th century (5 major ones) brought a counter-reformation zeal into it. This ties in with the first generation of Clerics trained on the continent in the new Irish colleges, and thus exposed to more "mainstream catholic rites/teachings" (The Geraldines could be blamed for setting the counter-reformation tone).

I completely disagree. Christianity and associated European influences transformed Ireland. It didn't happen over night but it occurred very steadily from the 5th century and was complete by the 9th cen. Compare 3rd and 9th cen Ireland. All aspects of life were effected and more connected to European norms. Its actually a very living legacy too as church Latin survives in early medieval loanwords still alive in modern Irish.

Manach

Like Robp, I'd query Dubhthach's assertion on the mores. I'd admit that this lies outside my own historical expertise but;
the English had a fairly negative attitude to Ireland since the Norman times and offhand I'd read numerous examples of them characterising other people's by less than flattering terms;
that having done recent a side project on the growth of civil law in medieval Europe from Roman times, I've not come across any reference to Ireland's customs being so divergent from the European norm;
from the most recent book I read on the European medieval period, Duby's "Three Orders", again no mention of Ireland's divergence from those norms.
Whilst naturally there were differences in behaviour among the various groups in Ireland in that period, they seem (at least in the main with the usual double standards applying) to have been part of and paid lip-service the mainstream Catholic European culture of the period.

catbear

robp wrote: »

Well if that letter reassures you good for you but I can promise you what you did was not leaving the CC. There is no way to leave in Canon law as as would be waste of time and resources. Now here is a quote from the response Archbishop Martin was sending out to people requesting a defection.

I have his written response. I think the mistake people make is not using direct channels.
The previous pope said he'd prefer a smaller church of true believers than a la carte catholics. What you believe your church is may be different from the reality, best to ask directly to be sure.

gozunda

robp wrote: »

Well if that letter reassures you good for you but I can promise you what you did was not leaving the CC. There is no way to leave in Canon law as as would be waste of time and resources.

An extraordinary statement. Of interest where does it say that? I can only presume that it would be the same waste of time and resources as that which was invested in the various church scandals such as child abuse that has rocked the Roman Catholic Church to the core and caused much of the desire to leave that organisation.

It is perhaps ironic that such behaviour in itself that ultimately will lead to Ireland becoming not Protestant but certainly no longer definable by one single Roman Catholic Church.

robp

catbear wrote: »

I have his written response. I think the mistake people make is not using direct channels.
The previous pope said he'd prefer a smaller church of true believers than a la carte catholics. What you believe your church is may be different from the reality, best to ask directly to be sure.

Look if want to leave the CC all you need to do is stop believing in Christ and stop ticking the census box. That is all. Its outlandish to expect that the institution would have some sort of formal process to recognise this. Sure, some bishops keep lists of people who request an exist but such lists are completely unofficial and only de facto and not used for anything.

So to rehash for the millionth time the old defection process (and indeed excommunication) did not make people ex-Catholic.

catbear

robp wrote: »

Look if want to leave the CC all you need to do is stop believing in Christ and stop ticking the census box. That is all.

Earlier you said that anyone who left or was expelled from the church would still be considered catholic, what made you change your mind?

I'll trust the bishops word on this as he within the church whereas you may only be of the flock and therefore have no authority to speak on its behalf despite how much you may think of your own opinion.

dubhthach

robp wrote: »

Sure.

I completely disagree. Christianity and associated European influences transformed Ireland. It didn't happen over night but it occurred very steadily from the 5th century and was complete by the 9th cen. Compare 3rd and 9th cen Ireland. All aspects of life were effected and more connected to European norms. Its actually a very living legacy too as church Latin survives in early medieval loanwords still alive in modern Irish.

We aren't talking about either the 3rd of 9th century, we are talking about period 1400-1600, or more specifically 1500-1600 (reformation/counter-reformation). There's no doubting Christianity had a major impact on Irish culture. As you mention there are a large number of loan words form Latin into Irish, alot of them via "British" (aka. Welsh) which can be seen due to sound changes present in how the early "British" missionary church spoke Latin. However the practise of christianity Ireland was over period 400-1600 was often quite Heterodox compare to the perceived "norms" of Western Christianity in this period. (particularly in areas related to "Family Law -- to use a modern term)

In earliest stages of course we had differences such as:

• Tonsure
• Married Clergy
• Paschal controversy (dating of Easter)
• Céli Dé movement in the 9th/10th century
• Monastic tradition
• Clerical positions of Airchinneach and Comharba (both hereditary)
• Lack of Bishops/standard Western Christian Hierarchy

A "reform" movement was of course started during the 12th century which brought the Irish church in line with the Roman standards. So for example at the Synod of Ráth Breasail we see transition from Monastic church to one based on Dioceses and Parishes. This was further refined at the Synod of Kells (Mellifont) in 1152 when the modern Dioceses that we know basically came into existence which were based on the political boundaries of the time, which are fossilised to this day in these diocesan boundaries.

Obviously these Synods resulted in the implementation of the Gregorian reforms so the church became more "normalised" in context of Western Christianity, thence the foundation of houses by the Cistercians (Mellifont and Boyle) and couple other major "houses" before the arrival of the Normans.

However a number of differences remained when it came to general practise and population. Marriage for example remained nearly an exclusively Civil event among the landed elites of Gaelic Ireland. Divorce was also widespread, you can read accounts of men on their 4th marriage marrying women on their 3rd (these weren't annulments in church sense). Other differences

• Position of Airchinneach and Comhraba survived and were "secularised" this marked secularisation of Church termon lands. The holders of these offices took the tonsure but not holy orders -- paying relevant bishop the rent for the lands.
• The church was dominated by Clerical families -- like Bardic, Jurist and learned classes in society
• There was no concept of illegimatcy under Irish law. All sons borne of a man no matter by what woman were regarded as equal under the law and thus potentially members of the Deirbhfine -- when it came to succession.
• Clergy often took part in warfare, either where they held combined office of secular and clerical -- as well as in war over the sucession to a specific clerical office
• Higher levels of consanguineous marriage
• Affiliation -- where a woman could swear that a son of her's was the son of another man -- this son would thus be legally recognised as such
• Fosterage -- include by the Clergy of children of secular Lords

In many ways medieval Gaelic society was as liberal as modern society when it came to sexual mores, one could argue it took the Tudors and the Stewarts to make us into the Catholics that we were in the period 1850-1970.

dubhthach

Manach wrote: »

Like Robp, I'd query Dubhthach's assertion on the mores. I'd admit that this lies outside my own historical expertise but;
the English had a fairly negative attitude to Ireland since the Norman times and offhand I'd read numerous examples of them characterising other people's by less than flattering terms;
that having done recent a side project on the growth of civil law in medieval Europe from Roman times, I've not come across any reference to Ireland's customs being so divergent from the European norm;
from the most recent book I read on the European medieval period, Duby's "Three Orders", again no mention of Ireland's divergence from those norms.
Whilst naturally there were differences in behaviour among the various groups in Ireland in that period, they seem (at least in the main with the usual double standards applying) to have been part of and paid lip-service the mainstream Catholic European culture of the period.

Manach a good introduction to read would be:
Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages, by K.W. Nicholls
First published in 1972 republiushed in 2003.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gaelic-Gaelicised-Ireland-Kenneth-Nicholls-ebook/dp/B007ZQY61G/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1397902174&sr=8-6&keywords=kenneth+nicholls

dubhthach

As for period 300-900AD. I just bough T.M Charles-Edwards "Early Christian Ireland" (published by Cambridge university press). Should be an interesting read. Segments of it can be read here:

http://books.google.ie/books?id=g6yq2sKLlFkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=early+christian+ireland&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xkxSU9_SEOaq7Qa5k4HQDA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=early%20christian%20ireland&f=false

Got the paperback for €53 in Hodges Figgis, also picked up:
Age of Atrocity: Violence and Political Conflict in Early Modern Ireland (basically 16th and 17th centuries -- got it for under a tenner)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Age-Atrocity-Violence-Political-Conflict/dp/184682267X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397902636&sr=8-1&keywords=Age+of+Atrocity%3A+Violence+and+Political+Conflict+in+Early+Modern+Ireland

robp

dubhthach wrote: »

We aren't talking about either the 3rd of 9th century, we are talking about period 1400-1600, or more specifically 1500-1600 (reformation/counter-reformation). There's no doubting Christianity had a major impact on Irish culture. As you mention there are a large number of loan words form Latin into Irish, alot of them via "British" (aka. Welsh) which can be seen due to sound changes present in how the early "British" missionary church spoke Latin. However the practise of christianity Ireland was over period 400-1600 was often quite Heterodox compare to the perceived "norms" of Western Christianity in this period. (particularly in areas related to "Family Law -- to use a modern term)

In earliest stages of course we had differences such as:

• Tonsure
• Married Clergy
• Paschal controversy (dating of Easter)
• Céli Dé movement in the 9th/10th century
• Monastic tradition
• Clerical positions of Airchinneach and Comharba (both hereditary)
• Lack of Bishops/standard Western Christian Hierarchy

There certainly were significant differences but I am making the point that differences are often overstated. For example the most obvious reliable examples the tonsure and the timing of Easter is pretty minor. Certainly the variation is no greater then what exists today in the Catholic church via different Catholic rites. Other differences like married clergy to some extent existed elsewhere. They just survived here later and in a different way. Recent work is gradually discrediting the idea that the early church was purely organised around monasteries. Certainly monasteries were tremendous important but dioceses existed.


The greatest differences were probably in civil Brehon law but even this civil law was greatly influences by European traditions. often teh different was that Irish laws were just a bit more archaic then elsewhere. According to Donnchadh Ó Corráin

Against the background of Late Antiquity and the conflicting rules of Roman and barbaric law extending to a much later period, and given the uncertainties of the councils of the fourth and fifth centuries, the Irish rules concerning divorce are not at all unusual. Late Roman law regarded marriage as being capable of dissolution by consent (ex consensu) or unilaterally (repudium). In the latter case, sickness, insanity, sterility, impotence, and adultery of the wife were all adequate grounds. Captivity and enslavement allowed the free partner to remarry: in Irish law, removal (inscuchad) ended cohabitation and broke the bond. It is interesting to note that the letter of divorce (libellus repudii) became the most common divorce form under Theodosius II and Valerian III in the first half of the fifth century; the Irish canon lawyers cite the Mosaic law in this respect in some detail (Dt 24:1-4), and may well be doing so to justify an institution they were familiar with from late Roman law and custom
....

When the twelfth-century reformers encountered Irish marital customs they found them outlandish, barbaric and utterly corrupt. In fact, they were neither the relics of pagan barbarism nor proof of Irish degeneracy: they were very old-fashioned, and were to appear even more so –as the Irish clung to them until the end of the middle ages.http://www.ucc.ie/celt/marriage_ei.html

I have no doubt that sexual mores were different but terms like liberal or indeed conservative are inappropriate. Where does one classify polygamous marriage conservative or more liberal then today? While people claim Gaelic society was liberal such differences are not suggested to have existed with in the church. The penitentials indicate the contrary.