The Synod of Cashel (1172)

[WJL]

A popular claim among certain Protestant groups, particularly Scottish and Ulster Scots Presbyterians, is that the Irish Church prior to arrival of the Normans in 1171-1172 wasn’t Catholic but, a separate, non-Catholic church which didn’t acknowledge the papacy.

I’m aware that the Celtic Church was, indeed, Catholic as St. Columbanus, who had conversed with the disciples of St. Patrick, dying of old age in 615, and who had acquired learning and piety in great monastery of Bangor in Ireland, declared that “the Irish are the scholars and disciples of Rome;” and addressing Pope Boniface IV, he wrote, “The Catholic faith is held unshaken by us as it was delievered to us by you, the successors of the holy Apostles”.

One site which promotes this protestant idea about the Celtic Church states the following:

“How The Popes Gave Ireland To England”

When King Henry II of England landed with an army of 4,000 at Waterford in October 1171, he came at the Pope’s behest and carrying as his authority the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, by which the Roman Pontiff claimed the right to bestow Ireland as a gift to the English King on condition that he suppressed the ancient Celtic or Culdee Church, and brought the island and its people into submission to Rome. Pope Adrian’s successor Alexander III wrote to the Bishops of Ireland calling on them to submit to King Henry:

“Understanding that our dear son in Christ, Henry, illustrious King of England stirred by divine inspiration and with his united forces has subjected to his dominion, that people a barbarous one, uncivilized and ignorant of the Divine Law - we command and enjoin upon you that you will diligently and manfully assist the above said King to maintain and preserve that land and to extirpate the filthiness of such great abominations. And if any of the Kings, Princes or persons of the land shall rashly attempt to go against his due oath and fealty pledged to the said King you shall lay ecclesiastical censure on such a one.”

In a similar vein Pope Alexander addressed these words to the Princes of Ireland:

“Whereas you have received our dear son in Christ, Henry, illustrious King of England as your king and Lord and have sworn fealty to him … we ward and admonish your noble order to strive to preserve the fealty which by solemn oath you have made.”

The same Roman Pontiff in a letter congratulating Henry on his conquest of Ireland wrote:

“We have been assured how you have wonderfully triumphed over the people of Ireland and over a Kingdom which the Roman Emperors, the conquerors of the world left untouched, and you have extended the power of your majesty over the same people, a race uncivilized and undisciplined. We understand that you, collecting your splendid naval and land forces have set your mind upon subjugating that people … so we exhort and beseech your majesty and enjoin upon you that you will even more intently and strenuously continue … and earnestly enjoin upon your majesty that you will carefully seek to preserve the rights of the See of St. Peter.”

This was indeed what King Henry did and one of his first acts was to call the Council of Cashel in 1172 at which the ancient Celtic Church of Ireland was brought into submission to Rome. As for the Papal insults that the Irish were a rude, ignorant, uncivilized people, had not the missionaries of Patrick’s Celtic Church brought the Gospel not only to the rest of the British Isles but to Europe? Was it a savage people who produced such beautifully illuminated Christian manuscripts as the Book of Kells, and who preserved the primitive Christian faith in their communities even under Viking attack, whilst Papal Rome was sunk in the depths of vice?

The Roman Catholic writer, John O’Driscoll, Esq., admits:

“The Christian Church of Ireland was founded by St. Patrick, existed for many centuries free and unshackled … and differed on many points from Rome. From the days of Patrick to the Council of Cashel was a bright and glorious career for Ireland. From the sitting of that Council to our own times the lot of Ireland has been unmixed evil and all her history a tale of woe.” Views of Ireland: Moral, Political, and Religious, Vol. 2, Page 84.

It was only when the rest of the British Isles and the British Monarchy embraced Protestantism at the Reformation, that the Papacy changed its policy and began to pose as the champion of Irish freedom.

Apparently there were, indeed, some differences in discipline such as priests being allowed to marry, the Irish tonsure differed from the Roman one, as well as the methods of computing Easter, etc. and the Celtic Church also allowed divorce and polygyny / concubinage as divorce and polygyny / concubinage were allowed under the native Irish Brehon Laws which St. Patrick is said to have revised. For example, many Irish chieftains well into the Christian era had multiple wives and concubines and were able to divorce them legally (This is apparently why Rome sought reform in the Irish Church). One individual commented "According to the Brehon Laws, St. Patrick supported Divorce, Concubines, and Clerical marriage." Those who make these claims regarding the alleged lack of “Catholicity” also use this as “proof” that the Celtic Church supposedly wasn’t Catholic because they allowed these practices.

I understand these are only differences in discipline, not doctrine but, my apologetics question relates to the Synod (or Council) of Cashel in 1172 in which the Irish Church was “brought into conformity” with the English Church (which at that time was Catholic, belonging to the Roman or Latin Rite).

These protestants who believe that the Celtic Church was some kind of non-Catholic sect use this to this claim that the Synod of Cashel supposedly “brought the ancient Celtic Church of Ireland into submission to Rome.”

My question is; how can this assertion (and others mentioned) be addressed and properly answered / refuted from a Catholic historical perspective?

I hope somebody maybe familiar with this area of history and could help me out with answering this allegation because I’m not sure where to start. I’d appreciate any help with this.

Thanks.

 

[andremiguel]

A popular claim among certain Protestant groups, particularly Scottish and Ulster Scots Presbyterians, is that the Irish Church prior to arrival of the Normans in 1171-1172 wasn’t Catholic but, a separate, non-Catholic church which didn’t acknowledge the papacy.

I’m aware that the Celtic Church was, indeed, Catholic as St. Columbanus, who had conversed with the disciples of St. Patrick, dying of old age in 615, and who had acquired learning and piety in great monastery of Bangor in Ireland, declared that “the Irish are the scholars and disciples of Rome;” and addressing Pope Boniface IV, he wrote, “The Catholic faith is held unshaken by us as it was delievered to us by you, the successors of the holy Apostles”.

One site which promotes this protestant idea about the Celtic Church states the following:

Apparently there were, indeed, some differences in discipline such as priests being allowed to marry, the Irish tonsure differed from the Roman one, as well as the methods of computing Easter, etc. and the Celtic Church also allowed divorce and polygyny / concubinage as divorce and polygyny / concubinage were allowed under the native Irish Brehon Laws which St. Patrick is said to have revised. For example, many Irish chieftains well into the Christian era had multiple wives and concubines and were able to divorce them legally (This is apparently why Rome sought reform in the Irish Church). One individual commented "According to the Brehon Laws, St. Patrick supported Divorce, Concubines, and Clerical marriage." Those who make these claims regarding the alleged lack of “Catholicity” also use this as “proof” that the Celtic Church supposedly wasn’t Catholic because they allowed these practices.

I understand these are only differences in discipline, not doctrine but, my apologetics question relates to the Synod (or Council) of Cashel in 1172 in which the Irish Church was “brought into conformity” with the English Church (which at that time was Catholic, belonging to the Roman or Latin Rite).

These protestants who believe that the Celtic Church was some kind of non-Catholic sect use this to this claim that the Synod of Cashel supposedly “brought the ancient Celtic Church of Ireland into submission to Rome.”

My question is; how can this assertion (and others mentioned) be addressed and properly answered / refuted from a Catholic historical perspective?

I hope somebody maybe familiar with this area of history and could help me out with answering this allegation because I’m not sure where to start. I’d appreciate any help with this.

Thanks.

Well, I do not know the answer but today Ireland is Catholic. So, what the fuss about the past, about what happened then ? What was Ireland 1 million of years ago?

 

[WJL]

Well, I do not know the answer but today Ireland is Catholic. So, what the fuss about the past, about what happened then ? What was Ireland 1 million of years ago?

Yes, today Ireland is Catholic. Why do you feel it is unnecessary to learn about the past, about history? History is an important part of learning about the Catholic Church and our Catholic Faith. I’m looking for a good historically accurate, apologetical response to the claim that that the Synod of Cashel in 1172 supposedly “brought the ancient Celtic Church of Ireland into submission to Rome.” I can’t find too much relevant information about the Synod of Cashel online. I’m genuinely interested in finding out the truth regarding this particular subject and related issues which is why I posted it in the “Apologetics” section.

I figured there must be some people on a Catholic Apologetics site who know a good about history or even this particular subject, as I’ve seen many other threads on here where someone asks a question about a particular historical event related to Church history (e.g. Galileo, etc.), most of the time users will provide apologetics material or information which answer different objections and claims and provides a basic defense of the Catholic Faith, which is what “apologetics” means – a defense of Catholicism (in this case, on historical grounds). That’s why I’m asking. If you don’t know anything about this, that’s ok but, why bother evening responding if you don’t? Especially with such apathetic and negative comments such as “what’s the fuss about the past”?

 

[WJL]

Can anyone explain what exactly occurred at the Synod of Cashel in 1172? What reforms took place, etc.? How did this Synod affect the Irish Church? Was there any attempt to reform the Irish Church prior to the Anglo-Norman invasion (1169-1172)?

How did the Irish / Celtic Church’s allowance of divorce, remarriage, and polygyny / concubinage via the Brehon Laws affect the Catholicity of the Celtic Church?

The Brehon Laws were the native Irish laws which St. Patrick is said to have revised to fit with Christianity. Because divorce, remarriage, and polygyny / concubinage were allowed to continue, those who assert the Celtic Church was some kind of separate, supposedly non-Catholic church use this to claim that St. Patrick supposedly “appproved” of these practices and thus, was non-Catholic.

If anyone is familiar with or knows anything about these historical issues, what’s the truth regarding them?

 

[patrick457]

Ireland in the mid-12th century was a very troublesome area. It was ruled by a number of local kings, although their authority was more limited than their counterparts in the rest of western Europe. In fact, mainstream Europeans regarded the Irish as relatively barbarous and backward.

In 1166, the only ally of King Diarmait Mac Murchada (Dermot MacMurrough) of Leinster, the High King Muirchertach Ua Lochlainn, had fallen, and a large coalition led by King Tigernán Ua Ruairc (Tiernán O’Rourke) of Bréifne succeeded in taking over Leinster. Mac Murchada and his wife fled to Wales and from there to England and France, in order to have King Henry II of England’s consent to be allowed to recruit mercenary soldiers to bring back to Ireland and reclaim his kingship.

Henry, King of England, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and earl of Anjou, to all his liegemen, English, Norman, Welsh and Scotch, and to all the nations under his dominion, greeting. When these letters shall come into your hands, know ye, that we have received Dermod, Prince of Leinster, into the bosom of our grace and benevolence. Wherefore, whosoever, in the ample extent of all our territories, shall be willing to assist in restoring that prince, as our vassal and liegeman, let such person know, that we do hereby grant to him our licence and favour for the said undertaking.

By 1167 Diarmait had obtained the services of Lord Maurice Fitz Gerald of Lanstephan and later persuaded Rhys ap Gruffydd Prince of Deheubarth to release Fitz Gerald’s half-brother Robert Fitz-Stephen from captivity to take part in the expedition. Fitz-Stephen helped him organize a mercenary army of Norman and Welsh soldiers, including ) de ClareArc-Fort, 2nd Earl of Pembroke.

In the meantime Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair (aka Rory O’Connor, son of Mac Murchada’s former enemy, the High King Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair, aka Turlough O’Connor) had become the new High King. Mac Murchada planned not only to retake Leinster, but to oust the Uí Conchobairs and become the High King of Ireland himself. In 1167 he quickly retook Dublin, the Kingdom of Osraige and Waterford. Within a short time, all Leinster was again in his control. He then marched on the political capital of Tara to oust Ruaidrí. Mac Murchada gambled that Ruaidrí would not hurt the Leinster hostages which he had (including Mac Murchada’s eldest son, Conchobar Mac Murchada). However Ua Ruairc forced his hand and they were all killed.

Losing the battle, Diarmait sent word to Wales and pleaded with Strongbow to come to Ireland as soon as possible. Strongbow’s small force landed in Wexford with Welsh and Norman cavalry - thereby precipitating the Norman invasion of Ireland. The Cambro-Norman barons and knights quickly took over both Waterford and Wexford. The capture of Dublin followed soon after. Strongbow then married Diarmait’s daughter, Aoife, effectively claiming Leinster for himself as per Norman custom (but not under Brehon law), but the situation in Ireland was tense and the Anglo-Normans heavily outnumbered.

 

[patrick457]

It was at this time that Henry began to fear that the Anglo-Normans in Ireland might set up a rival state. In order to ‘show them who’s boss’, he resolved to visit Leinster to establish his authority. Henry landed with a large fleet at Waterford in 1171, becoming the first King of England to set foot on Irish soil. Both Waterford and Dublin were proclaimed Royal Cities. In November Henry accepted the submission of the Irish kings in Dublin.

We must note that by this time, the Papacy was very keen to assert its authority by attempting to unify the kingdoms of western Europe under the wing of the Church in political and religious matters - especially with the outbreak of the Great Schism of 1054 and the embarassment caused by the saeculum obscurum of the 10th century, when Roman church life became very stagnant, and Benedict IX’s selling of the papacy. Interestingly, the 12th century was also the same time period when various popes began to promote, at times somewhat aggressively, the use of the Roman Rite as a symbol of unity among western Christendom - which led to the marginalization of people who practiced different liturgical customs (aside from the Irish, you also have the Milanese, the Beneventans and the Spanish). The Gregorian Reforms were initiated by Pope Gregory VII in response to the problems caused by the chaos of the 10th-12th centuries.

In 1155, the English Pope Adrian IV is said to have issued the papal bull Laudabiliter, giving the Henry II the right to intervene in Ireland to ‘assist’ in the reform of the governance of the Irish Church and the Irish system of governance according to the Roman ecclesiastical system. It was really a part of the whole idea to further reassert and cement papal authority over the political and religious spheres. Drawing upon the mainstream European stereotype of the Irish as ‘backward’ barbarians separated from real civilization, Adrian’s object was presented as being merely “to check the torrent of wickedness to reform evil manners, to sow the seeds of virtue,” and “to proclaim the truths of the Christian religion to a rude and ignorant people”; on condition that a penny should be yearly paid from each house to the See of Rome. Apparently Henry was busy at the time Adrian wrote to him, but the present situation finally gave him time to put this objective into practice. (There have been debates which centered about the issue of the authenticity of the bull, BTW.)

In any event, Henry ordered that a synod be convened at Cashel, which would regulate some affairs of the Church in Ireland and to condemn some abuses, bringing the Church more into alignment with the Roman Rite. As such it can be seen as a continuation and part of the Irish church reform of the 12th Century, and the first synod of Cashel, the Synod of Ráth Breasail (1111) and the Synod of Kells (1152), slowly embracing the Gregorian Reforms.

Upon arriving in Ireland, Henry went to Lismore, the see of the papal legate Gilla Críst Ua Connairche (Christianus). Henry also visited Cashel and Dublin, and thus had the opportunity to meet the archbishops Donnchad Ua hUallacháin of Cashel and Lorcán Ua Tuathail of Dublin (St. Laurence O’Toole). Gerald of Wales’ account of the synod in his [Expugnatio Hibernicae](http://www.yorku.ca/(name removed by moderator)ar/conquest_ireland.pdf) (The Conquest of Ireland) lists these three bishops, as well as Archbishop Cadla Ua Dubthaig (Catholicus) of Tuam among the clergy of Ireland attending the synod, “with their suffragans and fellow-bishops, together with the abbots, archdeacons, priors, and deans, and many other Irish prelates”. Gilla Meic Liac mac Diarmata (Gelasius), Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland did not attend.

 

[andremiguel]

Can anyone explain what exactly occurred at the Synod of Cashel in 1172? What reforms took place, etc.? How did this Synod affect the Irish Church? Was there any attempt to reform the Irish Church prior to the Anglo-Norman invasion (1169-1172)?

How did the Irish / Celtic Church’s allowance of divorce, remarriage, and polygyny / concubinage via the Brehon Laws affect the Catholicity of the Celtic Church?

The Brehon Laws were the native Irish laws which St. Patrick is said to have revised to fit with Christianity. Because divorce, remarriage, and polygyny / concubinage were allowed to continue, those who assert the Celtic Church was some kind of separate, supposedly non-Catholic church use this to claim that St. Patrick supposedly “appproved” of these practices and thus, was non-Catholic.

If anyone is familiar with or knows anything about these historical issues, what’s the truth regarding them?

As you insist.
The Synod was intended to harmonize Ireland and Rome. There is not much about the Synod so you must guess for external sources.

It was convoked by Henry II of England in 1171. It was a very important Synod in the History of Ireland and pretended to implement the reforms of Pope Gregory VII (1050-80), also called Gregorian Reforms. This was one of the greatest Popes of History. He fought the question of Investitures with Henry IV: it was a question that went all the way through the Middle Ages, the question of primacy of the Pope or the Emperor, or in a lower level, of the aristocrats and kings and the bishops. The Pope imposed the right to nominate Bishops individually and without interference of the Secular Hand. The memory of this Pope is clouded with legends of being a ruthless Ruler, torturing his foes and committing sacrileges. This Pope is a favorite target of John Foxe, a protestant apologist.

As taken from Wikipedia, these as the Acts of the Synod:
**Acts of the Synod

Giraldus lists seven acts or “constitutions” of the Synod, here given in the translation of William Gouan Todd:[note 3][6]

I That the faithful throughout Ireland do contract and observe lawful marriages rejecting those with their relations either by consanguinity or affinity.

II That infants be catechised before the door of the church and baptised in the holy font in the baptismal churches.

III That all the faithful do pay the tithe of animals corn and other produce to the church of which they are parishioners.

IV That all ecclesiastical lands and property connected with them be quite exempt from the exactions of all laymen. And especially that neither the petty kings nor counts nor any powerful men in Ireland nor their sons with their families do exact, as was usual, victuals and hospitality or entertainments in the ecclesiastical districts or presume to extort them by force and that the detestable food or contributions, which used to be required four times in the year from the farms belonging to churches by the neighbouring counts, shall not be claimed any more.

V That in case of a murder committed by laymen and of their compounding for it with their enemies clergymen their relatives are not to pay part of the fine (or erick) but that as they were not concerned in the perpetration of the murder so they are to be exempted from the payment of money.

VI That all the faithful lying in sickness do in the presence of their confessor and neighbours make their will with due solemnity dividing in case they have wives and children excepting their debts and servants wages their moveable goods into three parts and bequeathing one for the children and another for the lawful wife and the third for the funeral obsequies. And if haply they have no lawful progeny, let the goods be divided into two parts between himself and his wife. And if his lawful wife be dead, let them be divided between himself and his children.

VII That to those who die with a good confession due respect be paid by means of masses and wakes and a decent burial. Likewise that all divine matters be henceforth conducted agreeably to the practices of the holy Church according as observed by the Anglican Church.**

And the 7th Act, that maybe you wish for apologetic reasons, taken also from Wikipedia:

**The seventh act

Giraldus lists these seven acts numbered as primo, secundus, etc. until septimus, as related in Todd’s translation above. The last part of the seventh act concerns the relationship between the Anglican and the Irish Church. According to Marie Therese Flanagan,[7]

some historians have interpreted this as an actual decree of the synod, and have seen in it the origins of a policy of anglicisation of the Irish church pursued by the Angevin kings in Ireland. Thus, the synod of Cashel is often the starting point of any account of episcopal appointments in Ireland after the coming of the Normans and the extension of the electoral procedure of the English church to the Irish church is presumed to derive in principle from this decree.

Flanagan, however, points out that, as it stands in Giraldus’ account, this sentence refers only to the liturgical practices of the English church. She also questions whether this part is a part of the decrees of the synod, stating that "it appears to be rather Gerald’s own comment on what whould be attempted by Irish churchmen.[7] Martin Holland does not include this part in his overview of the enacted decrees, but adds[2]

It was also decided that in Ireland, all matters relating to religion were to follow the observances of the English church. Some have interpreted this as referring to liturgical practices only; others see it as encompassing more, and therefore being much more fundamental, especially since it is claimed that the Irish bishops swore fealty to Henry at around this time.**

Other sources:
Synod
The Diocesis of Ireland
Rock of Cashel
Synod
The Celtic rite

Best wishes

 

[patrick457]

Chapter XXXIV: The constitutions of the synod of Cashel.

In the year of our Lord 1172, being the first year in which the most illustrious Henry, king of England and conqueror of Ireland, obtained the dominion of that island; Christian [Gilla Críst Ua Connairche], bishop of Lismore and legate of the apostolical see [of Rome], Donatus [Donnchad Ua hUallacháin], archbishop of Cashel, Laurence [Lorcán Ua Tuathail], archbishop of Dublin, and Catholicus [Gilla Críst Ua Connairche], archbishop of Tuam, with their suffragans and fellow-bishops, together with the abbots, archdeacons, priors, and deans, and many other Irish prelates, assembled by the conqueror’s command at the city of Cashel, and there held a synod concerning the well-being of the Church and the reformation thereof.
At this synod were present, on the king’s behalf, the venerable Ralph, abbot of Buildewas, Ralph, archdeacon of Llandaff, Nicholas the chaplain, and other clerks, having the commission of our lord the king. The decrees of the synod were subscribed by the prelates, and confirmed by the royal authority; as follows:

First. It is decreed that all the faithful throughout Ireland shall eschew concubinage with their cousins and kinsfolk, and contract and adhere to lawful marriages.
Second. That children be catechised outside the church dorrs, and infants baptised at the consecrated fonts in the baptisteries of the churches.
Third. That all good Christians do pay the tithes of beastsm corn and other produce, to the church of the parish in which they live…
Fourth. That all lands and possessions of the church be entirely free from all exactions of secular men; and especially, that neither the petty kings (reguli), nor earls, or other great men in Ireland, nor their sons, nor any of their household, shall exact provisions and lodgings on any ecclesiastical territories, as the custom is, nor under any pretence presume to extort them by violent means; and that the detestable practice of extorting a loaf four times in the year from the vills belonging to the churches, by neighbouring lords, shall henceforth be utterly abolished.
Fifth. That in case of a homicide committed by laics, when it is compounded for by the adverse parties, none of the clergy, though of kindred to the perpetrators of the crime, shall contribute anything; that, as they were free from the guilt of the homicide, so they shall be also exonerated from any payment in satisfaction for it.
Sixth. That every good Christian, being sick and weak, shall solemnly make his last will and testament in the presence of his confessor and neighbours, and that, if he have, any wife and children, all his moveable goods (his debts and servants’ wages being first paid) shall be divided into three parts, one of which he shall bequeath to his children, another to his lawful wife, and the third to such uses as he shall declare. And if it shall happen that there be no lawful child or children, then his goods shall be equally divided between his wife and legatees. And if his wife die before him, then his goods shall be divided into two parts, of which the children shall take one, and his residuary legatees the other.
Seventh. That those who depart this life after a good confession shall be buried with masses and vigils and all due ceremonies.
Finally. That divine offices shall be henceforth celebrated in every part of Ireland according to the forms and usages of the Church of England. For it is right and just that, as by divine Providence, Ireland has received her lord and King from England, she should also submit to a reformation from the same source. Indeed both the realm and Church of Ireland are indebted to this mighty King for whatever they enjoy of the blessings of peace and the growth of religion; as before his coming to Ireland all sorts of wickedness had prevailed among this people for a long series of years, which now, by his authority and care of the administration, are abolished.

The primate of Armagh was not present at this synod by reason of his infirmities and advanced age, but he afterwards came to Dublin and gave his assent to the royal will in all these matters. This holy man, as he was commonly esteemed, had a white cow, and took no other nourishment than this cow’s milk, and therefore wherever he went she was taken with him.

• Giraldus Cambrensis, The Conquest of Ireland (translated by Thomas Forester)

 

[WJL]

Thank you both very much for your helpful responses.

One question I still have though is, how did the Irish / Celtic Church’s allowance of divorce, remarriage, and polygyny / concubinage via the Brehon Laws, prior to the Second Synod of Cashel, affect the Catholicity of the pre-Synod of Cashel Celtic Church?

For example, many Irish chieftains well into the Christian era had multiple wives and concubines and were able to divorce them legally (This is apparently why Rome sought reform in the Irish Church). According the Annals of Connacht, Rory O’Connor lost his position as High King of Ireland (and King of Connacht) for the following reason:

“Aed mac Ruaidrí had been five years King of Connacht, as the poet said: ‘Aed mac Ruaidrí of the swift onslaught, five years his rule over the province, till he fell—a loss on every frontier—by the hand of Fedlimid.’ Here ends the rule of the children of Ruaidrí Ua Conchobhair, King of Ireland. For the Pope offered him the title to [the kingship of] Ireland for himself and his seed for ever, and likewise six wives, if he would renounce the sin of adultery henceforth; and since he would not accept these terms God took the rule and sovranty from his seed for ever, in punishment for his sin.”

One individual commented “According to the Brehon Laws, St. Patrick supported Divorce, Concubines, and Clerical marriage.” Those who make these claims regarding the alleged lack of “Catholicity” also use this as “proof” that the Celtic Church supposedly wasn’t Catholic because they allowed these practices.

The Brehon Laws were the native Irish laws which St. Patrick is said to have revised to fit with Christianity. Because divorce, remarriage, and polygyny / concubinage were allowed to continue, those who assert the Celtic Church was some kind of separate, supposedly non-Catholic church use this to claim that St. Patrick supposedly “approved” of these practices and thus, was non-Catholic.

How would this assertion be answered?

Thanks again.

 

[WJL]

Also; Patrick, could you recommend any good books regarding the history of Celtic Christianity, the Celtic Church, etc. or anything related to this area of history?

 

[Mintaka]

Brehon law is a huge subject.

Basically, it was a harmonization of Ireland’s Bronze Age laws and customs (some of which went back to Indo-European days) with Roman (and British, and Gaulish) civil law. And of course, Imperial Roman civil law in Patrick’s day was itself a harmonization of pagan Roman law, Greek and Persian pagan law, general Mediterranean trade customs, and a bit of fairly recent Christian legal theory.

It was complicated by the fact that while Roman law generally contemplated people who were slaves, free. Roman citizens, and various grades of nobles, Irish law had status that not only went by birth, free status, and money, but by profession and professional rank and a bunch of other things. Roman law contemplated tribe membership for certain purposes, but Irish tribes were something like a business corporation. The tribe alloted you your piece or pieces of land every year, and your cattle was your wealth. Unfree and poorer people were something like sharecroppers with other people’s stock, and rich people had both their own big herds and shares of other people’s. There was an intricate system of rights and responsibilities for every person, and mostly the law was enforced by a lawsuit system instead of a law enforcement one. (Which was why murder was punished by a fine paid to the victim’s family, and why secret murder was a worse crime than an open killing.)

When things were going well, the system worked fine. When things didn’t go well, it was pretty easy for someone to run around breaking the law – at least for a while.

Anyway, the relevant bit here is that, when brehon law was codified, Roman law still provided for various different kinds of marriage and concubinage, and the Irish Church hadn’t converted even close to every Irish person. The Church didn’t approve of concubinage, etc., but the secular legal code in both cases still had to follow it.

Now, one of the consistent features of brehon law which was heavily influenced by the Church, is that they were interested in making sure that everybody did get their rights, and would have enough to live by. For example, the law of distraint allowed people to seize your assets, but not the assets that related to survival or your trade. Similarly, pretty much any sexual relationship was covered by brehon law, so that even women that men had casual sex with, would have certain rights covering what was owed in case certain things occurred.

This seemed pretty logical in the 6th century and was forward-thinking and modern and Roman. In Europe in the 12th century, it all looked weird and pagan and barbarian, especially if you were English and wanted to see it that way. (Welsh law was a pretty similar harmonization from about the same time as the Irish one, which is why Giraldus the Welshman is so determined to prove that the Irish are barbarians, whereas the Welsh are awesome.)

 

[Mintaka]

In general, the Irish were very big on celibacy. They were also very big on monasteries. For most of the island’s history, abbots were pretty much bishops, whereas bishops and priests were usually guys from the local abbey. When parish priests became the fashion instead of local hermits who were also priests, a lot of them seem to have figured that they were supposed to be married priests like over in Byzantium. There were also some local ladies who probably courted parish priests on purpose, because men of the Church had a fairly high legal status, parish priests had their own house and a good-sized grant of land and cows and such, and an unfree woman who had children with men of their grade would have her children be free. (If I recall correctly.)

The same kind of thing happened in many other countries, frequently with serf women trying to better their living conditions and their children’s lot. Ireland became the poster child for concubinage reform because St. Bernard of Clairvaux had an Irish bishop friend complain about the state of things in Ireland, while he was dying. Since no Polish or French or English bishops died on him like that, he didn’t publicize their problems. Similarly, there were plenty of marriage dispensations for various kinds of consanguinity and affinity in Bernard’s own country, but he made Ireland into the poster child for that, too.

Now, if Ireland hadn’t had Norsemen invading, and the English invading, they would have had more consistent rule by the tribal kings and regional kings and high kings. They would also have had more consistent regulation by the abbot-bishops and primates. Laws would have been changed gradually. But nooooo. So the Irish dug in their heels, kept their laws and only modernized them by additions (which was pretty much the same thing the Byzantine Empire did), and did things their own way. But it wasn’t that they had a different brand of Christianity; they were just stubborn, and far enough away that change came slow.

So yeah, some of the Synod of Cashel stuff was a reform, some of it was just pushing English law on Ireland. Pretty much none of it was making Ireland “more Catholic” or “more Roman,” because Ireland was solidly (though eccentrically) tied to Roman civil law and canon law already. England’s civil and criminal law, though somewhat French, was mostly Norse and Saxon common law, It wasn’t Roman then, and it still isn’t.

Oh, and the other problem was that there was and is a lot of confusion of Irish marriage law with Irish betrothal law. A woman had certain legal rights accruing to her from being betrothed for certain lengths of time (a year and a day was usual), and this got covered in the same section as marriage. Some older books about brehon law get very confused about this.

 

[SPH1]

This is the Celtic Church canard.

Well, one thing is perfectly clear: even if this Celtic Church existed independ of Catholic/mainstream Christianity, it wasn’t Presbyterian…or Protestant.

But it’s the mind-set that all these guys have to show is that it wasn’t Catholic and that somehow proves them correct which always gets me.