RELIGION IN IRELAND DURING THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

*RELIGION IN IRELAND DURING THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY*
http://catholicity.elcore.net/MacCaffrey/HCCRFR2_Chapter07.html

Note: Here is an excellent article on the state of the Irish Church in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Points made are the following:

* Following from the Statutes of Kilkenny, no Irish clergy were to
be admitted into positions within church communities in areas
controlled by the English.
* In retribution, native Irish religious institutions would not
accept English clergy into into positions within church
communities outside areas where English authority ruled.
* The pope condemned the policies of exclusion by both sides, but
had to bow to the reality that exclusion would continue.
* Both English and Irish religious institutions acknowledged the
supremacy of the pope.
* Lollardy and other nonconformist entities did not achieve
footholds in Ireland.
* The pope continued to name officials to major religious posts,
although he usually solicited candidate names from the king or
local aristocracy. Often the persons selected for office were not
competent to hold such offices.
* Local lords' powers of patronage often enabled them to trump the
bishops' right to approve priests and minor church officials at
the parish level.
* Since church offices were filled according to political whim
rather than according to personal merit, disciplinary laxity crept
into to religious practice in a number of places.
* Since local patrons were sometimes not inclined to maintain
religious buildings, a number of church buildings sank into poor
states of repair, and were used for other than religious purposes.
* Later in the fifteenth century, there began a movement toward
tightening discipline in some areas.
* Although quality of learning diminished in some places, such
slippage in learning standards was not universal. In many areas,
standards remained quite high.

From the beginning of the fourteenth century English power in Ireland
was on the decline. The Irish princes, driven to desperation by the
exactions and cruelties of the officials, adopted generally a more
hostile attitude, while the great Norman nobles, who had obtained grants
of land in various parts of Ireland, began to intermarry with the Irish,
adopted their language, their laws, their dress, and their customs, and
for all practical purposes renounced their allegiance to the sovereign
of England.

Owing to the civil war that raged in England during the latter portion
of the fifteenth century the English colonists were left entirely
without support, and being divided among themselves, the Geraldines
favouring the House of York, and the Ormonds, the House of Lancaster,
they were almost powerless to resist the encroachments of the native
princes. Nor did the accession of Henry VII. lead to a combined effort
for the restoration of English authority. The welcome given by so many
of the Anglo-Irish, both laymen and clerics, to the two pretenders,
Simnel and Warbeck, and the efforts the king was obliged to make to
defend his throne against these claimants, made it impossible for him to
undertake the conquest of the country. As a result, the sphere of
English influence in Ireland, or the Pale, as it was called, became
gradually more restricted. The frantic efforts made by the Parliament
held at Drogheda (1494, Poynings' Parliament) to protect the English
territory from invasion by the erection "of a double ditch six feet
high" is the best evidence that the conquest of the country still
awaited completion. In the early years of the reign of Henry VIII. the
Pale embraced only portions of the present counties of Dublin, Louth,
Meath and Kildare, or to be more accurate, it was bounded by a line
drawn from Dundalk through Ardee, Kells, Kilcock, Clane, Naas,
Kilcullen, Ballymore-Eustace, Rathcoole, Tallaght, and Dalkey. Within
this limited area the inhabitants were not safe from invasion and
spoliation unless they agreed to purchase their security by the payment
of an annual tribute to the neighbouring Irish princes; and outside it,
even in the cities held by Norman settlers and in the territories owned
by Norman barons, the king's writ did not run.

Recourse was had to legislative measures to preserve the English
colonists from being merged completely into the native population.
According to the Statutes of Kilkenny (1367) the colonists were
forbidden to intermarry with the Irish, to adopt their language, dress,
or customs, or to hold any business relations with them, and what was
worse, the line of division was to be recognised even within the
sanctuary. No Irishman was to be admitted into cathedral or collegiate
chapters or into any benefice situated in English territory, and
religious houses were warned against admitting any Irish novices,
although they were quite free to accept English subjects born in Ireland
(1367). This statute did not represent a change of policy in regard to
Irish ecclesiastics. From the very beginning of the Norman attempt at
colonisation the relations between the two bodies of ecclesiastics had
been very strained. Thus, in the year 1217 Henry III wrote to his
Justiciary in Ireland calling his attention to the fact that the
election of Irishmen to episcopal Sees had caused already considerable
trouble, and that consequently, care should be taken in future that none
but Englishmen should be elected or promoted to cathedral chapters. The
Irish clerics objected strongly to such a policy of exclusion, and
carried their remonstrances to Honorius III. who declared on two
occasions (1220, 1224) that this iniquitous decree was null and void. As
the papal condemnations did not produce the desired effect, the
archbishops, bishops, and chapters seem to have taken steps to protect
themselves against aggression by ordaining that no Englishman should be
admitted into the cathedral chapters, but Innocent IV., following the
example of Honorius III., condemned this measure.

Notwithstanding its solemn condemnation by the Holy See this policy of
exclusion was carried out by both parties, and the line of division
became more marked according as the English power began to decline. The
petition addressed to John XXII. (1317) by the Irish chieftains who
supported the invasion of Bruce bears witness to the fact that the
Statutes of Kilkenny did not constitute an innovation, and more than
once during the fifteenth century the legislation against Irish
ecclesiastics was renewed. The permission given to the Archbishop of
Dublin to confer benefices situated in the Irish districts of his
diocese on Irish clerics (1485, 1493) serves only to emphasise the
general trend of policy. Similarly the action of the Dominican
authorities in allowing two superiors in Ireland, one of the houses in
the English Pale, the other for the houses in the territories of the
Irish princes (1484), the refusal of the Irish Cistercians to
acknowledge the jurisdiction of their English superiors, the boast of
Walter Wellesley, Bishop of Kildare and prior of the monastery of Old
Connal (1539) that no Irishman had been admitted into this institution
since the day of its foundation, prove clearly enough that the
relations between the Irish and English ecclesiastics during the
fifteenth century were far from being harmonious.

In the beginning, as has been shown, the Holy See interfered to express
its disapproval of the policy of exclusion whether adopted by the
Normans or the Irish, but later on, when it was found that a
reconciliation was impossible, the Pope deemed it the lesser of two
evils to allow both parties to live apart. Hence the Norman community of
Galway was permitted to separate itself from the Irish population
immediately adjoining, and to be governed in spirituals by its own
warden (1484); and Leo X. approved of the demand made by the chapter of
St. Patrick's, Dublin, that no Irishman should be appointed a canon of
that church (1515). But though the Holy See, following the advice of
those who were in a position to know what was best for the interests of
religion, consented to tolerate a policy of exclusion, it is clear that
it had no sympathy with such a course of procedure. In Dublin, for
example, where English influence might be supposed to make itself felt
most distinctly, out of forty-four appointments to benefices made in
Rome (1421-1520) more than half were given to Irishmen; in the diocese
of Kildare forty-six out of fifty-eight appointments fell to Irishmen
(1413-1521), and for the period 1431-1535, fifty-three benefices out of
eighty-one were awarded in Meath to clerics bearing unmistakably Irish
names. Again in 1290 Nicholas IV. insisted that none but an Irishman
should be appointed by the Archbishop of Dublin to the archdeaconry of
Glendalough, and in 1482 Sixtus IV. upheld the cause of Nicholas
O'Henisa whom the Anglo-Irish of Waterford refused to receive as their
bishop on the ground that he could not speak English.

But though attempts were made by legislation to keep the Irish and
English apart, and though as a rule feeling between both parties ran
high, there was one point on which both were in agreement, and that was
loyalty and submission to the Pope. That the Irish Church as such, like
the rest of the Christian world, accepted fully the supremacy of the
Pope at the period of the Norman invasion is evident from the presence
and activity of the papal legates, Gillebert of Limerick, St. Malachy of
Armagh, Christian, Bishop of Lismore, and St. Laurence O'Toole, from the
frequent pilgrimages of Irish laymen and ecclesiastics to Rome, from the
close relations with the Roman Court maintained by St. Malachy during
his campaign for reform, and from the action of the Pope in sending
Cardinal Paparo to the national synod at Kells (1152) to bestow the
palliums on the Archbishops of Armagh, Dublin, Cashel, and Tuam. Had
there been any room for doubt about the principles and action of the
Irish Church the question must necessarily have been discussed at the
Synod of Cashel convoked by Henry II. to put an end to the supposed
abuses existing in the Irish Church (1172), and yet, though it was laid
down that in its liturgy and practices the Irish Church should conform
to English customs, not a word was said that could by any possibility
imply that the Irish people were less submissive to the Pope than any
other nation at this period.

After the Normans had succeeded in securing a foothold in the country,
both Irish and Normans were at one in accepting the Roman supremacy. The
Pope appointed to all bishoprics whether situated within or without the
Pale; he deposed bishops, accepted their resignations, transferred them
from one See to another, cited them before his tribunals, censured them
at times, and granted them special faculties for dispensing in
matrimonial and other causes. He appointed to many of the abbeys and
priories in all parts of the country, named ecclesiastics to rectories
and vicarages in Raphoe, Derry, Tuam, Kilmacduagh, and Kerry, with
exactly the same freedom as he did in case of Dublin, Kildare or Meath,
and tried cases involving the rights of laymen and ecclesiastics in Rome
or appointed judges to take cognisance of such cases in Ireland. He sent
special legates into Ireland, levied taxes on all benefices, appointed
collectors to enforce the payment of these taxes, and issued
dispensations in irregularities and impediments.

The fiction of two churches in Ireland, one the Anglo-Irish
acknowledging the authority of the Pope, the other the Irish fighting
sullenly against papal aggression, has been laid to rest by the
publication of Theiner's Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum, the
Calendars of Papal Letters, the Calendars of Documents (Ireland) and the
Annats. If any writer, regardless of such striking evidence, should be
inclined to revive such a theory he should find himself faced with the
further disagreeable fact that, when the English nation and a
considerable body of the Anglo-Irish nobles fell away from their
obedience to Rome, the Irish people, who were supposed to be hostile to
the Pope, preferred to risk everything rather than allow themselves to
be separated from the centre of unity. Such a complete and instantaneous
change of front, if historical, would be as inexplicable as it would be
unparalleled.

Nor is there any evidence to show that Lollardy or any other heresy
found any support in Ireland during the fourteenth or fifteenth
centuries. During the episcopate of Bishop Ledrede in Ossory (1317-60),
it would appear both from the constitutions enacted in a diocesan synod
held in 1317 as well as from the measures he felt it necessary to take,
that in the city of Kilkenny a few individuals called in question the
Incarnation, and the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, but it is clear
that such opinions were confined to a very limited circle and did not
affect the body of the people. About the same time, too, the dispute
that was being waged between John XXII. and a section of the Franciscans
found an echo in the province of Cashel, though there is no proof that
the movement ever assumed any considerable dimensions. Similarly at a
later period, when the Christian world was disturbed by the presence of
several claimants to the Papacy and by the theories to which the Great
Western Schism gave rise, news was forwarded to Rome that some of the
Irish prelates, amongst them being the Archbishop of Dublin and the
Bishop of Ferns, were inclined to set at nought the instructions of
Martin V. (1424), but the latter pontiff took energetic measures to put
an end to a phenomenon that was quite intelligible considering the
general disorder of the period. The appeal of Philip Norris, Dean of
Dublin, during his dispute with the Mendicants, to a General Council
against the decision of the Pope only serves to emphasise the fact that
throughout the controversy between the Pope and the Council of Basle
Ireland remained unshaken in its attachment to the Holy See. Although
the first measure passed by the Parliament at Kilkenny (1367) and by
nearly every such assembly held in Ireland in the fifteenth century was
one for safeguarding the rights and liberties of the Church, yet the
root of the evils that afflicted the Church at this period can be traced
to the interference of kings and princes in ecclesiastical affairs. The
struggle waged by Gregory VII. in defence of free canonical election to
bishoprics, abbacies, and priories seemed to have been completely
successful, but in reality it led only to a change of front on the part
of the secular authorities. Instead of claiming directly the right of
nomination they had recourse to other measures for securing the
appointment of their own favourites. In theory the election of bishops
in Ireland rested with the canons of the cathedral chapters, but they
were not supposed to proceed with the election until they had received
the congé d'élite from the king or his deputy, who usually forwarded an
instruction as to the most suitable candidate. As a further safeguard it
was maintained that, even after the appointment of the bishop-elect had
been confirmed by the Pope, he must still seek the approval of the king
before being allowed to take possession of the temporalities of his See.
As a result even in the thirteenth century, when capitular election was
still the rule, the English sovereigns sought to exercise a controlling
influence on episcopal elections in Ireland, but they met at times with
a vigorous resistance from the chapters, the bishops, the Irish princes,
and from Rome.

Towards the end of the fourteenth century, however, and in the fifteenth
century, though the right of election was still enjoyed nominally by the
chapters, in the majority of cases either their opinions were not
sought, or else the capitular vote was taken as being only an expression
of opinion about the merits of the different candidates. Indirectly by
means of the chancery rules regarding reservations, or by the direct
reservation of the appointment of a particular bishopric on the occasion
of a particular vacancy, the Pope kept in his own hands the
appointments. Owing to the encroachments of the civil power and the
pressure that was brought to bear upon the chapters such a policy was
defensible enough, and had it been possible for the Roman advisers to
have had a close acquaintance with the merits of the clergy, and to have
had a free hand in their recommendations, direct appointment might have
been attended with good results. But the officials at Rome were
oftentimes dependent on untrustworthy sources for their information, and
they were still further handicapped by the fact that if they acted
contrary to the king's wishes the latter might create serious trouble by
refusing to restore the temporalities of the See. Instances, however,
are not wanting even in England itself to show that the Popes did not
always allow themselves to be dictated to by the civil authorities, nor
did they recognise in theory the claim of the king to dispose of the
temporalities.

It is difficult to determine how far the English kings succeeded in
influencing appointments to Irish bishoprics. About Dublin, Meath, and
Kildare there can be no doubt that their efforts were attended with
success. In Armagh, too, they secured the appointment of Englishmen as a
general rule, and in Cashel, Waterford, Limerick, and Cork their
recommendations, or rather the recommendations of the Anglo-Irish
nobles, were followed in many instances. Outside the sphere of English
influence it does not seem that their suggestions were adopted at Rome.
At any rate it is certain that if they sought for the exclusion of
Irishmen their petitions produced little effect. During the early years
of the reign of Henry VIII. more active measures seem to have been taken
by the king to assert his claims to a voice in episcopal appointments.
In the appointments at this period to Armagh, Dublin, Meath, Leighlin,
Kilmore, Clogher, and Ross it is stated expressly in the papal Bulls
that they were made ad supplicationem regis.

Unfortunately several of the ecclesiastics on whom bishoprics were
conferred in Ireland during the fifteenth century had but slender
qualifications for such a high office. On the one hand it was impossible
for Rome in many cases to have a close acquaintance with the various
candidates, and on the other the influence of the English kings, of the
Irish princes, and of the Anglo-Irish nobles was used to promote their
own dependents without reference to the effects of such appointments on
the progress of religion. The Archbishops of Dublin and Armagh, and the
Bishops of Kildare and Meath were more interested as a rule in political
and religious affairs than in their duties as spiritual rulers. They
held on many occasions the highest offices in the state, and had little
time to devote their attention to the government of their dioceses.
Absenteeism was as remarkable a characteristic of the Church in the
fifteenth century as it was of the Established Church in the eighteenth,
and in this direction the bishops were the worst offenders. Very often,
too, Sees were left vacant for years during which time the king's
officials or the Irish princes, as the case might be, wasted the
property of the diocese either with the connivance or against the wishes
of the diocesan chapters. Of the archbishops of Ireland about the time
of the Reformation, George Cromer, a royal chaplain, was appointed
because he was likely to favour English designs in Ireland, and for that
purpose was named Chancellor of Ireland; John Alen, another Englishman,
was recommended by Cardinal Wolsey to Dublin mainly for the purpose of
overthrowing the domination of the Earl of Kildare; Edmund Butler, the
illegitimate son of Sir Piers Butler, owed his elevation to the See of
Cashel to the influence of powerful patrons, and Thomas O'Mullaly of
Tuam, a Franciscan friar, passed to his reward a few days before the
meeting of the Parliament that was to acknowledge Royal Supremacy, to be
succeeded by Christopher Bodkin, who allowed himself to be introduced
into the See by the authority of Henry VIII. against the wishes of the Pope.

But, even though the bishops as a body had been as zealous as
individuals amongst them undoubtedly were, they had no power to put down
abuses. The patronage of Church livings, including rectories, vicarages,
and chaplaincies enjoyed by laymen, as well as by chapters, monasteries,
convents, hospitals, etc., made it impossible for a bishop to exercise
control over the clergy of his diocese. Both Norman and Irish nobles
were generous in their gifts to the Church, but whenever they granted
endowments to a parish they insisted on getting in return the full
rights of patronage. Thus, for example, the Earl of Kildare was
recognised as the legal patron of close on forty rectories and vicarages
situated in the dioceses of Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Limerick, and Cork,
and he held, besides, the tithes of a vast number of parishes scattered
over a great part of Leinster. The Earl of Ormond enjoyed similar rights
in Kilkenny and Tipperary, as did the Desmond family in the South, and
the De Burgos in Connaught. The O'Neills, O'Donnells, O'Connors,
McCarthys, O'Byrnes, and a host of minor chieftains, exercised
ecclesiastical patronage in their respective territories. Very often
these noblemen in their desire to benefit some religious or charitable
institution transferred to it the rights of patronage enjoyed by
themselves. Thus the monastery of Old or Great Connal in Kildare
controlled twenty-one rectories in Kildare, nineteen in Carlow, one in
Meath and one in Tipperary, while the celebrated convent of Grace-Dieu
had many ecclesiastical livings in its gift.

Owing to these encroachments the bishop was obliged frequently to
approve of the appointment of pastors who were in no way qualified for
their position. The lay patrons nominated their own dependents and
favourites, while both ecclesiastical and lay patrons were more anxious
about securing the revenues than about the zeal and activity of the
pastors and vicars. Once the system of papal reservation of minor
benefices was established fully in the fifteenth century, the authority
of the bishop in making appointments in his diocese became still more
restricted. Ecclesiastics who sought preferment turned their eyes
towards Rome. If they could not go there themselves, they employed a
procurator to sue on their behalf, and armed with a papal document, they
presented themselves before a bishop merely to demand canonical
institution. Though, in theory, therefore, the bishop was supposed to be
the chief pastor of a diocese, in practice he had very little voice in
the nomination of his subordinates, and very little effective control
over their qualifications or their conduct.

Very often benefices were conferred on boys who had not reached the
canonical age for the reception of orders, sometimes to provide them
with the means of pursuing their studies, but sometimes also to enrich
their relatives from the revenues of the Church. In such cases the
entire work was committed to the charge of an underpaid vicar who
adopted various devices to supplement his miserable income. Frequently
men living in England were appointed to parishes or canonries within the
Pale, and, as they could not take personal charge themselves, they
secured the services of a substitute. In defiance of the various canons
levelled against plurality of benefices, dispensations were given freely
at Rome, permitting individuals to hold two, three, four, or more
benefices, to nearly all of which the care of souls was attached. In
proof of this one might refer to the case of Thomas Russel, a special
favourite of the Roman Court, who held a canonry in the diocese of
Lincoln, the prebends of Clonmethan and Swords in Dublin, the
archdeaconry of Kells, the church of Nobber, the perpetual vicarship of
St. Peter's, Drogheda, and the church of St. Patrick in Trim.

This extravagant application of patronage and reservations to
ecclesiastical appointments produced results in Ireland similar to those
it produced in other countries. It tended to kill learning and zeal
amongst the clergy, to make them careless about their personal conduct,
the proper observance of the canons, and the due discharge of their
duties as pastors and teachers. Some of them were openly immoral, and
many of them had not sufficient learning to enable them to preach or to
instruct their flocks. It ought to be remembered also that in these days
there were no special seminaries for the education of the clergy.
Candidates for the priesthood received whatever training they got from
some member of the cathedral chapter, or in the schools of the Mendicant
Friars, or possibly from some of those learned ecclesiastics, whose
deaths are recorded specially in our Annals. Before ordination they were
subjected to an examination, but the severity of the test depended on
many extrinsic considerations. Some of the more distinguished youths
were helped by generous patrons, or from the revenues of ecclesiastical
benefices to pursue a higher course of studies in theology and canon
law. As the various attempts made to found a university in Ireland
during the fourteen and fifteenth centuries proved a failure, students
who wished to obtain a degree were obliged to go to Oxford, from which
various attempts were made to exclude "the mere Irish" by legislation,
to Cambridge, Paris, or some of the other great schools on the
Continent. If one may judge from the large number of clerics who are
mentioned in the papal documents as having obtained a degree, a fair
proportion of clerics during the fifteenth century both from within and
without the Pale must have received their education abroad. Still, the
want of a proper training during which unworthy candidates might be
weeded out, coupled with the unfortunate system of patronage then
prevalent in Ireland, helped to lower the whole tone of clerical life,
and to produce the sad conditions of which sufficient evidence is at
hand in the dispensations from irregularities mentioned in the Papal
Letters.

As might be expected in such circumstances, the cathedrals and churches
in some districts showed signs of great neglect both on the part of the
ecclesiastics and of the lay patrons. Reports to Rome on the condition
of the cathedrals of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise indicate a sad condition of
affairs, but they were probably overdrawn in the hope of securing a
reduction in the fees paid usually on episcopal appointments, just as
the account given by the Jesuit Father Wolf about the cathedral of Tuam
was certainly overdrawn by Archbishop Bodkin with the object of
obtaining papal recognition for his appointment to that diocese. The
Earl of Kildare represented the churches of Tipperary and Kilkenny as in
ruins owing to the exactions of his rival, the Earl of Ormond, while the
latter, having determined for political reasons to accept royal
supremacy, endeavoured to throw the whole blame on the Pope. Both
statements may be regarded as exaggerated. But the occupation of the
diocesan property during the vacancy of the Sees by the king or the
nobles, the frequent wars during which the churches were used as
store-houses and as places of refuge and defence, the neglect of the lay
patrons to contribute their share to the upkeep of the ecclesiastical
buildings, and the carelessness of the men appointed to major and minor
benefices, so many of whom were removed during the fifteenth century for
alienation and dilapidation of ecclesiastical property, must have been
productive of disastrous effects on the cathedrals and parish churches
in many districts. Yet it would be a mistake to suppose that such
neglect was general throughout the country. The latter half of the
fourteenth century and particularly the fifteenth century witnessed a
great architectural revival in Ireland, during which the pure Gothic of
an earlier period was transformed into the vernacular or national
composite style. Many beautiful churches, especially monastic churches,
were built, others were completely remodelled, and "on the whole it
would not be too much to say that it is the exception to find a
monastery or a parish church in Ireland which does not show some work
executed at this period."

The disappearance of canonical election, the interference of lay
patrons, the too frequent use of papal reservations, and the appointment
of commendatory abbots and priors, led to a general downfall of
discipline in the older religious orders, though there is no evidence to
prove that the abuses were as general or as serious as they have been
painted. Even at the time when the agents of Henry VIII. were at work
preparing the ground for the suppression of the monasteries, and when
any individual who would bring forward charges against them could count
upon the king's favour, it was only against a few members in less than
half a dozen houses that grave accusations were alleged. Even if these
accusations were justified, and the circumstances in which they were
made are sufficient to arouse suspicions about their historical value,
it would not be fair to hold the entire body of religious in Ireland
responsible for abuses that are alleged only against the superiors or
members of a small number of houses situated in Waterford or Tipperary.
Long before the question of separation from his lawful wife had induced
Henry VIII. to begin a campaign in Ireland against Rome, the Mendicant
Friars had undertaken a definite programme of reform. In 1460 the Bishop
of Killala in conjunction with the Franciscan Friar, Nehemias O'Donohoe,
determined to introduce the Strict Observance into the Franciscan
Houses, and from that time forward in spite of obstacles from many
quarters the Observants succeeded in getting possession of many of the
old Conventual Houses, and in establishing several new monasteries in
all parts of Ireland, but particularly in the purely Irish districts.
The Dominicans, too, took steps to see that the original rules and
constitutions of the order should be observed. In 1484 Ireland was
recognised as a separate province, though the houses within the Pale
were allowed to continue under the authority of a vicar of the English
provincial, while at the same time a great reform of the order was
initiated. Several houses submitted immediately both within and without
the Pale, amongst the earliest of them being Coleraine, Drogheda, Cork,
and Youghal. The various religious orders of men did excellent work in
preaching, instructing the people, in establishing schools both for the
education of clerics and laymen, and in tending to the wants of the poor
and the infirm. In the report on the state of Ireland presented to Henry
VIII. it is admitted that, though the bishops and rectors and vicars
neglected their duty, the "poor friars beggers" preached the word of
God. That the people and nobles, both Irish and Anglo-Irish, appreciated
fully the labours and services of the Friars is evident from the number
of new houses which they established for their reception during the
fifteenth century. The convents of Longford, Portumna, Tulsk, Burishool,
Thomastown, and Gola were established for the Dominicans; Kilconnell,
Askeaton, Enniscorthy, Moyne, Adare, Monaghan, Donegal, and Dungannon
for the Franciscans; Dunmore, Naas, Murrisk and Callan for the
Augustinians, and Rathmullen, Frankfort, Castle-Lyons and Galway for the
Carmelites.

The abuses that existed in the Irish Church at this period arose mainly
from the enslavement of the Church, and they could have been remedied
from within even had there been no unconstitutional revolution. As a
matter of fact those who styled themselves Reformers succeeded only in
transferring to their own sect the main sources of all previous abuses,
namely, royal interference in ecclesiastical affairs and lay patronage,
and by doing so they made it possible for the Catholic Church in Ireland
to pursue its mission unhampered by outside control. It ought to be
borne in mind that the faults of certain individuals or institutions do
not prove that the whole organisation was corrupt, and that if there
were careless and unworthy bishops, there were also worthy men like the
Blessed Thaddeus MacCarthy of Cloyne, who though driven from his diocese
by the aggression of the nobles, was venerated as a saint both in
Ireland and abroad. The great number of provincial and diocesan synods
held in Ireland during the period between 1450 and 1530 makes it clear
that the bishops were more attentive to their duties than is generally
supposed, while the collections of sermons in manuscript, the use of
commentaries on the Sacred Scriptures and of concordances, the attention
paid to the Scriptures in the great Irish collections that have come
down to us, and the homilies in Irish on the main truths of religion, on
the primary duties of Christians, and on the Lives of the Irish Saints,
afford some evidence that the clergy were not entirely negligent of the
obligations of their office. Had the clergy been so ignorant and
immoral, as a few of those foisted into Irish benefices undoubtedly
were, the people would have risen up against them. And yet, though here
and there some ill-feeling was aroused regarding the temporalities,
probates, fees, rents, rights of fishing, wills, etc., there is no
evidence of any widespread hostility against the clergy, secular or
regular, or against Rome. The generous grants made to religious
establishments, the endowment of hospitals for the poor and the infirm,
the frequent pilgrimages to celebrated shrines in Ireland and on the
Continent, the charitable and religious character of the city guilds,
and above all the adherence of the great body of the people to the
religion of their fathers in spite of the serious attempts that were
made to seduce them, prove conclusively enough that the alleged
demoralisation of the Irish Church is devoid of historical foundation.

Nor could it be said that the Irish people at this period were entirely
rude and uncultured. Though most of their great schools had gone down,
and though the attempts at founding a university had failed, learning
had certainly not disappeared from the country. Clerics and laymen could
still obtain facilities for education at the religious houses, the
cathedral and collegiate churches, at the schools of Irish law and
poetry, and from some of the learned teachers whose names are recorded
in our Annals during this period. Many of the clerics, at least,
frequented the English universities or the universities on the
Continent. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries one can point to
several distinguished Irish scholars such as O'Fihely, the Archbishop of
Tuam, who was recognised as one of the leading theological writers of
his day, Cathal Maguire the author of the Annals of Ulster, Bishop Colby
of Waterford, the author of several commentaries on Sacred Scripture,
the well-known Carmelite preacher and writer Thomas Scrope, Patrick
Cullen Bishop of Clogher, and his arch-deacon Roderick O'Cassidy, and
Philip Norris, the determined opponent of the Mendicants, and the
Dominicans John Barley, Joannes Hibernicus, and Richard Winchelsey. The
catalogue of the books contained in the library of the Franciscan
convent at Youghal about the end of the fifteenth century affords some
indication of the attitude of the monastic bodies generally towards
education and learning. In addition to the missals, psalteries,
antiphonies, and martyrologies, the convent at Youghal had several
copies of the Bible together with some of the principal commentaries
thereon, collections of sermons by well-known authors, several of the
works of the early Fathers and of the principal theologians of the
Middle Ages, the Decrees of Gratian, the Decretals and various works on
Canon Law, spiritual reading-books, including the life of Christ, and
works on ascetic theology, the works of Boetius and various treatises on
philosophy, grammar, and music, and some histories of the Irish province
of the Franciscans.

Similarly the library of the Earl of Kildare about 1534 contained over
twenty books in Irish, thirty-four works in Latin, twenty-two in English
and thirty-six in French, while the fact that Manus O'Donnell, Prince of
Tyrconnell, could find time to compose a Life of St. Columba in 1532,
and that at a still later period Shane O'Neill could carry on his
correspondence with foreigners in elegant Latin bears testimony to the
fact that at this period learning was not confined to the Pale. Again it
should be remembered that it was between the thirteenth and sixteenth
centuries that the great Irish collections such as the Book of Lecan,
the Book of Ballymote, the Leabhar Breac, the Book of Lismore, etc.,
were compiled, and that it was about the same time many of the more
important Irish Annals were compiled or completed, as were also
translations of well-known Latin, French, and English works.