TOPICS OF THE DAY.
WHAT TO DO WITH THE IRISH PRIESTHOOD.
THE anomaly by which we in England regard the dominant Church in Ireland as a master grievance, while the aggrieved parties them- selves almost disavow it as such, is not difficult of explanation; and with it may be explained the discrepancy between those who re- commend as a remedy State provision for the Roman Catholic clergy, and the Roman Catholics who profess to repudiate the boon. The very fact that it has long been withheld is a reason why the Catholics should stifle the show of any wish that they might feel : the disappointed placehunter is ever the bitterest satirizer of place- holding ; the rejected lover always thinks it manly to feign indif- ference for his mistress ; and Reynard hides his mortification in the declaration that the inaccessible grapes are sour. But, just at present, when the object of the Repealers and their priestly allies is to represent their church as singularly humble in its aspirations, seeking neither for gain nor the dreaded "ascendancy," it is natu- ral that they should keep in the background a claim which they believe it hopeless to urge before Repeal, and impolitic because likely to hinder Repeal. Besides, there are, no doubt, some among the Catholic body who would not regret to retain the poverty of their church, in the belief that poverty is a wholesome stimulus to piety, virtue, and efficiency. Such are the men who out of their own persuasion will be called zealots or honest bigots. They dis- sent from the proposition of a State provision, precisely on the same ground which recommends it to the mere politician—that it would temper and modify the influence of the priesthood.
But, apart from the instant testimony of the Irish Catholics, which is so mut h warped by the peculiar circumstances of the times, com- mon sense points to this as the grievance of grievances. It does not create the physical misery of the Irish, which is due to economical causes; but to a people already miserable, peculiarly excitable and sensitive—sentimental, not to say superstitious—the galling injury of an invidious religious distinction must of necessity exasperate their passions, and therefore aggravate that morbid and unsettled state of the popular mind whence arises so much even of their phy- sical wretchedness. Indeed, their religious opinion is practically taxed : and this consideration applies not only, nor indeed chiefly to the peasant, but to the Roman Catholic of every class ; for in re- fusing to recognize the priest for whose support conscience obliges him to pay, the State treats him as one who has paid his -tax to an unauthorized receiver, and makes him pay it over again. But the moral injury of that imposition is the worst : the State, which has recognized the free choice of the majority in England and Scotland, treats the faith of the Irish majority as an idle whim of no account. Imagine the English Protestants pooh-poohed in asserting "liberty of conscience," and told that the only clergy to be paid was a Roman Catholic priesthood ; imagine the still more parallel case of compelling the Presbyterian Scots to maintain the "bloody Episcopacy. Every religious sect exclaims, with the new Scotch Seceder; "We are the true church ! " but in Ireland the Establishment backs the assertion with an insulting appeal to its own exaction of the dues. Can any thing be more irritating ?
The natural remedy would seem to be, to abate that oppressive intrusion of an alien church, and to allow the Irish majority the same State privileges and provision which are accorded to the English and Scotch majorities : and, in one form or another, such are the principles of most of the specific plans which have been suggested, but mostly in such shape that they are calculated to arouse an opposition which must make any remedial measure im- practicable. To abolish the State property of the Established Church in Ireland, is an act of confiscation, which provokes not merely the indignation of Irish Protestants, but of those who belong to the sister Church in England : to pay the Roman Catholic clergy with State money, calls forth the angry refusal not merely of the Protestant Establishments, Scotch and English, but the whole force of English Dissenterism. "Civil and religious equa- lity" is the great cry of English and Scotch Dissenters; but tbe idea of putting Popish Ireland on an equality with Anglican Eng- land and Presbyterian Scotland, is all too much for their tole- rance; and thus, to provide for the Catholic clergy is even more impracticable than the perilous measure of confiscating the pos- sessions of the Irish Establishment. Yet to relieve the Irish from the burden of a Protestant Church, and to free the priesthood from a servile dependence on the people, are objects in which all amelio- rating measures more or less concur. Let us pass in review a few of the suggestions which have been made on the subject. Their gradations of boldness are curious. Some, including Lord JOHN RUSSELL, modestly propose to "re- cognize" the Catholic clergy,—meaning, apparently, a kind of purely honorary acknowledgment of their titles. With rather a needless ostentation of disrespect, a Major in the Army has recently been sending notes addressed to a "Mr. M'Barne, ' instead of "the Iteverend Mr. M'Brune" : the effect of Lord JOHN Russzeis re- form would be 'to stop such acts of rudeness. Politeness is a virtue, but surely a measure of politeness would scarcely be adequate to the emergency. Others, and among them the High Church and Conservative Standard newspaper, going a step further, would recognize the priest's claim to his dues as a legal right. The measure is ex- pected to emancipate the priest from a servile dependence on the people ; but in what way, does not readily appear. In Scotland, the claim of the Dissenting minister to his stipend is recognized, we believe, by the law ; but still the civil right is imperfect. The appointment of the minister is held to be permanent ; he can sue for his stipulated payment ; but when he comes to recover the damages, the property to be attached is no more than the chapel itself: the congregation may one and all be defaulters. Un- doubtedly, the priest's claim might be recognized as one to pay- ment for work done ; and in that way a tariff of burial-dues, mar- riage-fees, and the like, might be enforced. Such a measure would put the clergyman on a par with the undertaker, who at present has the advantage. But it could only apply to specific work done for individuals; omitting work done for a congregation at large-- as preaching, or work that cannot be specified—as religious ad- monition and consolation at uncertain times, and on occasions that defy specification in an act of Parliament. And the priest would as much as ever depend on his exertions to attract " customers."
A different set, Lord PsemEasroe duce, would not only recog- nize titles, but endow or enable landowners and others to endow glebe-houses. This appears to be a practicable plan, and useful.
It would remove the dependence of the individual clergy on the people. Its most obvious peril lies in the probability that it would scatter over the country a class of men of all sorts of character, independent not only of the people, but to a great extent even of ecclesiastical superiors, and entirely independent of the State au- thorities—men of no great social standing, yet of great local in- fluence: and the question occurs, would that be wholesome or dis- creet, in an excitable and unmanageable country like Ireland ? Note, that Mr. O'Coesma. hints a favourable disposition to such a project !
Another suggestion is, that Catholics should be relieved from payments for Protestant purposes, and that their clergy should be empowered to incorporate themselves and to be endowed, with the power to confer titles recognized by the State and conveying civil rights, somewhat after the manner of the English Universities. In this way, the clergy of a Catholic diocese, perhaps managed by those of superior rank, might be a corporation, holding property, granting the titles, and appointing to all offices below a Bishop. This mea- sure would involve a provision for the Protestant clergy, as part of the Established Church of the United Kingdom : at present they are provided for by the Irish people, and in order to prevent "con- fiscation" the State would have to make good the amount thus waived ; but then, the money would be strictly asked as " compen- sation," and it would be devoted to Protestant purposes. No direct State "provision" would be made for the Catholic clergy, but yet in many respects the purposes of such a provision would be at- tained. With the power of holding property, the Church would be released from immediate dependence on the pence of the people, and would even become capable of accumulation. Opportunity would be afforded to the wealthier Catholics, and even to the liberal Pro- testants, gradually to make permanent provision for the Church. It might be so arranged, that the stipend of each priest should be paid, in part or wholly, out of a general fund; the offerings of the people being paid not to the individual but to the corporation. It is suggested that the State should retain a right of " visit" over the corporation : and undoubtedly, the temporal authority of the State might be maintained in full vigour compatibly with the ecclesias- tical authority of the Catholic church, and very considerable power and independence on the part of the particular corporation. The advantages promised in such an arrangement are—avoidance of the difficulties inherent in an ordinary State provision for the Roman Catholic clergy, emancipation of the priests from servile depend- ence, erection of the Catholic hierarchy into a respectable power in alliance with the State and interested in the maintenance of order and of government authority. The prime difficulty seems to lie in the poverty of the Irish : could they give practical effect to such a scheme ? One answer is, that they do already support the current expenses of their Church ; another, that if the wealthier classes of Irish had the opportunity, it is almost incredible that they should not do much to put the Church question on a footing of final settlement.
A bolder suggestion, to endow the Catholic clergy from State funds—in fact, to make a Catholic establishment in Ireland—has virtually been considered above, in discussing the general diffi- culties of the subject. The obstacles to a payment of Cathohc priests out of funds raised by Protestants seem as insuperable as the payment of Protestants out of funds levied on Catholics is unjust : it is literally "tit for tat," but it would not be suffered.
The most sweeping proposal is, to assume for the State the.pro- perty of the Protestant Church in Ireland, and either to divide it equally among the different Churches, or to devote the " sur- plus "—that is, all that remains after paying the Protestant clergy actually needed — to secular, namely to educational purposes. There is justice in favour of either plan. Why the Anglican Church should quarter an outpost on a Catholic people, no reason has been shown. Either that outpost is actually required by the people—in which case there must be Protestants enough to sup- port it without a forced aid from the Catholics ; or it is properly a missionary church, not demanded by the people, but offering itself to the people—and in that case it is the only instance in which England makes its missionaries be paid for by the races to be con- verted. Note also, that it is the most odious and least successful of missionary churches. But then, there are the difficulties of despoiling this "established nuisance." You arouse all the hosti- lity of the Established Church in Ireland, with its potent ally the sister Church in England, all-powerful in Parliament. You induce embarrassing consequences in " establishing " a new church; for
if you establish one set who are politically considered Dissenters, how can lou refuse to establish all other Dissenting bodies like it, including the new Scottish Secession, which is so anxious to be reestablished on anti-reciprocity principles ? Such are a few of the many methods which have been proposed for settling the great difficulty in Ireland. The urgency of their common object and the discrepancy between their several advo- cates show how desirable it is that every method proposed should be carefully considered, in regard to its practicability, its justice, its probable consequences and efficiency. As the questidn cannot be settled only in Ireland, it should be considered here as well as there ; the main object being to discover that measure which shall combine the most that is likely to be obtained with the greatest possible amount of satisfaction for the Irish, and the greatest promise of beneficial political working.
Previous page
