Religious Aspect of Irish Insurgency

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XLIX, Issue 42, 26 October 1922, Page 23

Religious Aspect of Irish Insurgency

(By John A. Ryan, D.D., in America.)

Suppose the Bishop of Cloyne should come over to these barracks this afternoon, and order the Irregulars to disband and go home, what would happen?” “They .would not pay a bit of attention to his order.” This was a part of the conversation which I had, July 9, with the man in Cobh (Queenstown) to whom I referred in a former article in America. While I had expected some such answer, I was surprised at its promptness and positiveness. A few days later, I quoted it to Archbishop Byrne, of Dublin, and received the reply, “Unfortunately that is true.” And yet, the spiritual authorities of the Irish people had condemned the . insurgent movement in unmistakable terms before it had developed into active and bloody operations. In their “Joint Pastoral,” issued April 26, the bishops and archbishops said: “It is painful and sorrowful for us to have to use the language of condemnation, but principles are now being openly advocated and acted upon which are in fundamental conflict with the law of God, and which, as bishops and pastors appointed to safeguard Christian morals, we cannot allow to pass without solemn censure and reprobation. “Foremost among these principles is the claim that the army or a part of it, can, without any authority from the nation as a whole, declare itself independent of all civil authority in the country. The array as a whole, and still less a part of the army, has no such moral right. Such a claim is a claim to military despotism and is subversive of all civil liberty. It is an immoral usurpation and confiscation of the people’s rights. More than any other order in society the army, from the very nature of its institution, is the servant and not the master of the nation’s Government, and revolt against the supreme authority set up by the people is nothing less than a sacrilege against national freedom. “As to the organ of supreme authority in this country at present, whatever speculative views may be entertained upon the subject, there can be in practise no doubt so long as the Bail and the Provisional Government act in unison, as they have hitherto done.” American Catholics, particularly those of Irish blood, have been puzzled, shocked, and scandalised at the insurgents’ disregard and contempt of both ecclesiastical authority and the elementary principles of morality. The former offence is typically illustrated by the quotations from, the man in Cobh and the Archbishop of Dublin the latter is notorious, universal and of the utmost gravity. What is the explanation? 1 ; I cannot answer the question adequately. And I doubt that any competent Irishman would undertake to give an adequate and final answer. The forces which have produced the psychological and moral pathology afflicting the insurgents, are too complex to admit of ready analysis, or to form the basis of confident conclusions. The best that I can do is to submit some tentative contributions stoward an explanation. In this article I confine myself to the religious side of the situation, deferring the moral aspect to a later paper. , A distinction , must be drawn between two radically different kinds of insurgents. One is the sincere and fanatical idealist; the other comprises those whom, for want of a more accurate term, I shall call the /‘disreputables.” The latter are variously composed, -principally of petty adventurers, “corner-boys,” loafers and semi-criminals, A third element, to which I referred in a former article, r consisting of boys who have been physically or morally • coerced into the insurgent bands, does not call for discussion here. Of the disreputables the vast majority seem : to be under 25 years of age; probably most of them are not yet 22. That they should disregard the teaching and ■commands of, their bishops and priests is not surprising, '%in view of their antecedents’ habits and characters. Thay ■ are merely “running true to form.” ■

;!*:/: The facts which demand explanation in their regard are their previous degeneration and their numbers. Accordingly, our first question is, how came Irish boys to acquire habits and become involved in courses of action edhtrary

to their training in the virtues of industry, honesty, and obedience? Thus restricted, the question is not insoluble. At every period of Irish history there have been some boys and some men who set at nought the moral teaching received from their parents and their priests. There have always been some loafers, some thieves, some murderers in Catholic Ireland. This has happened in spite of- the ■ exceptionally strong authority and control exercised by parents and clergy. It is the second question, that of numbers, which presents all the difficulty. Why is the . disreputable element so much larger in Ireland to-day than at any previous time? . The situation is complicated by our lack of definite knowledge. Obviously we have no scientific census of the irregulars from this viewpoint. We do not know with anything like accuracy what proportion of them is composed of disreputable people. Some Irishmen declare that it amounts to seven-eights. Others put the proportion much lower. My own impression is that the disreputables . probably constitute two-thirds of the insurgents. But this is only an impression, and I confess that one of the principal reasons why I hold it is the almost universal cowardice betrayed by the insurgent bands when confronted by the National troops. Most decidedly, they have not, except in' a very few instances, exemplified the bravery characteristic of their race. A short time ago, Michael Collins was asked whether the Free State Government would. prosecute the captured Irregulars for sedition. “Oh, no; that is too respectable a charge,” he replied; “I think we shall make them stand trial for cowardice.” How shall we explain this sudden and rather large increase in the number of young Irish who have turned their backs upon their youthful training and defied their bishops and priests? The first Irishman whom I met after landing in the country, a barrister well past sixty years of age, declared that in the last ten years the boys and young, men.had been “allowed to, 'get out of hand.” Although I made some attempts, both by inquiry and by observation, to ascertain the correctness of this view, I have been unable to find it confirmed. It may'contain a grain of truth, but it certainly does not of itself provide an adequate explanation. Nowhere did I find conclusive evidence to sustain the charge that bishops, priests, or parents have been less assiduous or less vigilant in their work of training and supervising the young during recent years than at any previous time. A more plausible but less simple explanation was suggested by some remarks of an English priest whose forbears were Irish. The control of the Irish clergy over their people has always been based to a relatively large degree iipon custom, authority, ascendancy, and to a relatively small degree upon argument and grounds of -reason. In the moral training of the Irish youth, the latter method, has not received as much attention, because 'it did not seem to be necessary as in, say, Germany or the United States. The fact that the priest taught such and such to be right and such and such to be wrong, was sufficient for the great majority. During the last six or eight years of widespread and various demoralisation, the break-down of moral standards, the confusion of moral values, this authoritarian basis of training proved too weak to support the superstructure. I give this explanation for. what it is worth, without attempting a critical evaluation. It has at least the very considerable merit of establishing a connection between the religious and the moral aspect of the subject, the religious and the moral causes of the evil situation. The religious and the moral elements are inextricably intertwined, as we shall see when we come to consider the latter in a subsequent article., ' „ Let us turn now to the case of the sincere idealists and , all the other men of good character in the insurgent forces, whether they be leaders or followers. Why have they disregarded the declaration of the bishops, quoted early in this .article? Here we seem to be on surer ground. A partial answer seems to be implicit in the attitude • taken by the majority of the bishops towards the tactics of the Republican army during the “terror.” They were not friendly toward'these operations. Yet these operations were instrumental in extorting from the British Government a larger measure of political autonomy than any constitutional movement had ever sought, much less achieved. , If the bishops ivere wrong, as seemed ,to be

proved by the test of results, in frowning upon armed resistance to the “Black-and-Tans,” might they not also be wrong on the question of armed resistance to the Free State? To bo sure, this reasoning. is vitally defective, inasmuch as it-assumes that, the campaign and methods of the Republican army were morally justified by the happy political outcome. That is quite a -different question, and it contains some issues upon which a competent and cautious moralist would be very slow to pronounce confident judgment. - v . . Some of the- sincere insurgent leaders seem to have fallen back upon a simpler, if an equally inadequate, theory. It is that the question, cf accepting the Free State Govern- - ment is merely political, and therefore beyond the competence of the bishops. In this connection the hackneyed. declaration of O’Connell is quoted, that he took his religion from Rome but not his politics. Of course it is misapplied. All political- actions are moral actions, either morally right or morally wrong; hence subject to authoritative approval or condemnation by the Church. Under the Holy See, the Irish bishops are the voice of the Church for Ireland. hen a political issue involves such a clear, fundamental, and urgent principle ,of morality as does that, of the legitimate Government in Ireland to-day, the bishops have a clear right and duty to make an authoritative pronouncement. To be sure, they are not infallible, and there is always the opportunity of appeal to. Rome. ( Nevertheless, the situation contains a. practical difficulty which is not confined to Ireland nor to ‘the domain of politics. The syllogism which is implicit in the declaration of the Irish bishops is applicable, with an appropriate change of terms, to the field of economcs. It runs thus; “The citizens are morally bound to accept and obey the legitimate Government; in Ireland the y legitimate Government is that of the Free State; therefore, etc.” Let us. ■ apply the same method to a couple of industrial situations. “A strike is morally unlawful when it aims at unjust demands the present strike in X is aimed at unjust demands; therefore, etc.” Here is the other illustration: “Employers act unjustly when they pay wages insufficient for decent living; the employers in Y. industry are paying such insufficient wages; therefore, etc.” It is not a- violent assumption to suppose that in some places, even in the United States, Catholic workers would reject the episcopal pronouncement in the first instance, and Catholic employers would disregard it in the second instance. Yet both these declarations would be as authoritative and as normal, and might' be as necessary and urgent as the • pronouncement of the Irish bishops on the present political situation. All three constitute applications of general moral principles to particular courses of action. The.foregoing paragraphs are not submitted as a- com-: plete or satisfactory answer to the puzzle created by the insurgents’ disregard of ecclesiastical authaority. While in Ireland, I heard several explanations from both priests and laymen, but they were all too simple. The tentative considerations that I have advanced will be worth while if they afford, a. partial explanation, and especially if they emphasise the truth that easy and quick solutions of the puzzle are very liable to be wrong solutions. One month ago yesterday I sent an article from Dublin to America, in which I predicted that by August 15 the insurgent bands would have been dislodged from their strongholds in all the towns and cities. That forecast has been substantially and almost literally fulfilled; As I write the concluding lines of this paper, word comes that Michael Collins has been assassinated. I have no language adequate to this appalling and unspeakable crime. My mind goes back quickly to a house in Merrion Square, Dublin, where General Collins came in late in the evening to spend a brief half-hour with the hosts and their other guests. I can see him now, in his new uniform as Com-mander-in-Chief, with his stalwart figure, his handsome face, his wonderfully winning smile, his very boyish. man- , ner, and his rich Cork brogue. (No, not “accent”; it was no such pale fraud ; it was an honest and wholesome brogue.) I recall particularly the moderation and sense of due proportion which he displayed in discussing some exceptionally diabolical performances of certain insurgent gangs. As I listened and observed, the thought came to me that, despite his meagre 32 years, this man is and will ‘be atower of strength to the Free State, Arthur’ Griffith was

there,' and George Gavan Duffy, and Richard Mulcahy, and several lesser lights of the Government. Now both Griffith' and Collins are gone. Who will take their places? I do not know. This,, however, I do know: there is an abundance of brains in Ireland. What is more necessary in this crisis than brains is moral courage. It would be invaluable particularly in the local communities and their responsible guides. If the murder of Collins shall be the occasion of transforming the moral courage of the local communities from potency into action, so that they will no longer merely look on,.sad and supine,- while gangs : of ruffians loot and kill, the death of Michael Collins will not have been in vain. . It may be "expedient that, one man should die for the people." I now. predict that, his supreme sacrifice, will, have precisely this effect. . . '.-'-■ v '.

Inspecting the new motor car presented’ to him by the women of Milan,' his former diocese. He is the first Pope to use a motor car:- , ,'f [A motor car, the gift to Pope Pius XI. from a. committee Of Milanese women, arrived at the Vatican recently, and the Pope went to Belvedere Court to inspect the gift. He made several trial trips around the court in the car. The motor was offered to the present Pontiff while ho was still Archbishop of Milan, and after his election to the Papacy the offer was maintained.' The car is blackand bears the Papal coat of arms.]