Although similar vetos, as a survival from the Medieval Investiture Controversy, existed elsewhere in countries such as France and there was some acceptance among the clerical hierarchy, there was a strong backlash to the proposal from the growing Irish Catholic middle-class laity, who did not want anything resembling Caesaropapism, such as a State veto on Irish bishops (and thus preferred them to be directly approved from Rome). The matter was eventually resolved by the passage of Catholic Emancipation in 1829 without such a condition.
Background
Although the penal laws enacted against the Catholics of Ireland and of Britain were still on the statute book towards the close of the eighteenth century, they were less strictly administered than before. Several causes helped to bring this about. The Catholics formed the vast majority of the population of Ireland. Their sympathies were thought to be with the French whom Britain had at that time cause to fear.
The authority of the bishops and the priests, the influence of both on the people, was great; and the government thought if it could direct or control the influence of the bishops it would secure the allegiance of the people. When the College of Maynooth was about to be founded, the Irish bishops were asked if they would agree that the president or professors of the proposed college be appointed by government; if they would consent that the bishops be appointed by the king; and how they would advise the pope if such a proposal about the appointment of bishops were laid before him.
The bishops on 17 February 1795, rejected the first and second proposals. To the third they answered that they would advise the people "not to agree to his Majesty's nomination if it could be avoided; if unavoidable, the king to nominate one of three to be recommended by the Provincial bishops".
In connection with the Union, William Pitt intended to bring in a Catholic Relief Bill. He commissioned Lord Castlereagh to make such arrangements as would satisfy the king George III of Great Britain that no priest whose loyalty the king should have reason to suspect would be appointed to an Irish bishopric. Ten bishops, trustees of Maynooth College, met on 17 January 1799, to transact college business. Castlereagh submitted his views to them, reminding them of the suspicion of disloyalty under which the Catholics of Ireland lay since the insurrection of the year before. The ten bishops embodied their reply in certain resolutions, of which this was one:
That in the appointment of the Prelates of the Roman Catholic Religion to vacant sees within the kingdom, such interference of government as may enable it to be satisfied of the loyalty of the person appointed, is just, and ought to be agreed to.
And as a way towards that security, they expressed the opinion that the name of the priest chosen to be submitted to the pope might be transmitted to the government, but that the government should declare within a month whether there was any cause to suspect his loyalty. They did not leave to the government to decide the reasonableness of such suspicion, for they said "if government have any proper objection against such candidate". Moreover, they laid it down that no security given must in the working out "infringe the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, or diminish the religious influence which the Prelates of the Church ought justly to possess over their respective flocks", and that any agreement made "can have no effect without the sanction of the Holy See".
Intervention from Rome
Those were not resolutions of the Irish episcopate, but simply the opinion of ten bishops who had met to transact business of another kind; they were driven against their wish to give an opinion. On 15 June 1799, Cardinal Stefano Borgia, prefect of Propaganda, having heard a report that John Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, was leader of a party which was disposed to compromise the jurisdiction of the Holy See by assenting to some plan about church discipline, wrote to him asking him for the facts. On 17 August 1799, Troy replied to the cardinal declaring it was quite false that any plan had been arranged, and having given an account of the meeting and resolutions of the Maynooth trustees he added: "As to the proposal itself, the Prelates were anxious to set aside or elude it; but being unable to do so, they determined to have the rights of the Church secured."
In the spring of 1800, Troy, writing on the same topic to his agent at Rome, R. Luke Concanen, says:
We all wish to remain as we are; and we would so, were it not that too many of the clergy were active in the wicked rebellion, or did not oppose it. If the Prelates had refused to consider the proposal, they would be accused of a design to exercise an influence over the people, independent of government, for seditious purposes. Nothing but the well grounded apprehension of such a charge, though groundless in itself, would have induced the Prelates to consider the proposal in any manner. . .If we had rejected the proposal in toto we would be considered as rebels. This is a fact. If we agreed to it without reference to Rome we would be branded as schismatics. We were between Scylla and Charybdis.
The opinion thus expressed by those ten bishops in January 1799, was never published by them. It was not meant for publication; the bishops never took official cognisance of it except to discard it. Every pronouncement of the Irish bishops from that time forward rejected absolutely any proposal which would allow the British government to meddle in appointments to Irish bishoprics.
1805 Bill onwards
In 1805 Charles James Fox and Lord Grenville presented to Parliament a petition to relieve the Irish Catholics from their civil disabilities. In the debate which followed, Sir John Hippisley spoke in a general way of securities for Catholic loyalty. That was the first time any such proposal was made in public; but nothing definite was proposed. On 25 May 1808, Henry Grattan, in moving for a parliamentary committee to consider the claims of the Catholics, said he was authorised by them to propose
that no Catholic bishop be appointed without the entire approbation of His Majesty.
On 27 May May, Lord Grenville presented a petition for the Catholics in the Lords, and, in moving for a committee, proposed an effective veto for the king on the appointment of bishops.
What was known as the "veto" thus assumed a definite form as a public question in Ireland and in England.
Reaction
How did the Irish bishops meet it? John Milner wrote in his "Supplementary Memoirs of the English Catholics" that
both in conversation and in correspondence they universally disavowed
what had been said by the promoters of the bill on the subject of the veto; and on 14 September they met and officially protested against the veto.
In 1810 Grattan gave notice that he would again bring the Catholic claims before Parliament. On 1 February the English Catholic Board held a meeting in London at which a series of resolutions were carried, including one which involved the veto. It is known as the 5th resolution. Charles Butler, the leader of the English Catholic vetoists, says of that resolution that it
was with the single exception of the Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District, agent of the Irish bishops, unanimously adopted.
He was Dr. Milner, whom the Irish bishops had commissioned in 1807 to represent them. The Irish bishops at once condemned the 5th resolution. In May, Grattan's motion for a committee to consider the Catholic petition was defeated. Early in June Lord Donoughmore made a like motion in the House of Lords, which was also defeated. But here was the parting of the ways between the great body of the Irish Catholics led by the bishops, and the English Catholics, with whom were the vicars Apostolic except Milner.
1813 Bill
In 1813 Grattan, George Canning, and Castlereagh brought in what purported to be a Catholic Relief Bill, with a condition which would practically place the appointment of bishops in the hands of a board of commissioners to be named by the king; it also provided that anyone exercising special functions or receiving documents from the Holy See without the knowledge and approbation of that Board, was to be considered guilty of a misdemeanour. Those conditions notwithstanding, an amendment to the Bill was proposed and carried, which would still disable Catholics "to sit and vote in Parliament".
The Bill was lost; the Irish bishops had declared that they could not accept the Bill "without incurring the guilt of schism". A few days after, at a meeting of the Irish Catholic Board in Dublin, Daniel O'Connell proposed that their thanks be sent to the bishops. Some of the laity, who were in agreement with the English Catholics, opposed the vote; but it was carried by a very large majority.
Quarantotti Rescript
The vetoists were disappointed at the defeat of the bill of 1813. It then occurred to them that if they could get the Holy See in any way to countenance it, the mark of schism attached to it by the Irish bishops would no longer stain it. They therefore represented to Propaganda the great benefit which the Catholic religion would derive from Emancipation, and the harmlessness of the veto conditions on which the Government had offered it. Milner was represented to the secretary of Propaganda, Giovanni Battista Quarantotti[it], as having an uncompromising attitude.
In the light of these representations, Quarantotti, in his rescript of February 1814, whilst rejecting certain conditions of the Relief Bill as not lawful, declared that securities for the loyalty of bishops which the Government claimed might be allowed. It did not contain an order, but rather a permission, its words being Haec cum ita sint, indulgemus etc, thus leaving the Catholics free to accept or refuse Emancipation on the condition offered.
It raised a storm, however, in Ireland. The Irish bishops deputed Murray and Milner to represent to the pope, who had been a prisoner when it was issued, that there was danger in the rescript such as it was. Pope Pius VII declared that Quarantotti "ought not to have written that letter without authority from the Holy See".[1] He appointed a commission to examine the question.
Counter-proposal
In the meantime, Murat marched on Rome, and the pope fled to Genoa. On 26 April 1815, Cardinal Litta, prefect of Propaganda, in a letter set forth conditions under which the Catholics could safely accept Emancipation. It rejected all arrangements hitherto proposed. The claim of the Government to examine communications between the Catholics and the Holy See "cannot even be taken into consideration". As to the appointment of bishops, it said that quite enough provision had been made for their loyalty in the Catholic oath; but for their greater satisfaction it permits "those to whom it appertains" to present to the king's ministers a list of the candidates they select for bishoprics; it insisted, however, that if those names were presented, the Government must, if it should think any of them "obnoxious or suspected" name him "at once"; moreover, that a sufficient number, from amongst whom the pope would appoint the bishop, must always remain even after the government objection.
The Catholics of Ireland sent deputies to Rome to make known their feelings to the pope. Two replies were sent, one to the bishops and the other to the laity. The pope insisted on the terms of Cardinal Litta's letter, pointing out its reasonableness under the circumstances. According to the terms of the letter it would, in fact, be the fault of the ecclesiastics who had the selection of candidates if any undesirable person were left for papal appointment. Cardinal Litta's letter was the last papal document issued on the veto question. The controversy between vetoists and anti-vetoists was, however, kept alive by the passions which it had raised.
Resolution
The Catholic cause grew so hopeless that in December, 1821, O'Connell submitted to Dr. Blake, the Vicar-General of Dublin, a sort of veto plan, to get his opinion on it. Soon after the prospect grew brighter; O'Connell founded the Catholic Association in 1823, through which he successfully campaigned for Catholic Emancipation. The Bill was passed during the premiership of The Duke of Wellington six years later for the Catholics of Ireland and Britain — without a veto.
Henry Grattan was an Irish politician and lawyer who campaigned for legislative freedom for the Irish Parliament in the late 18th century from Britain. He was a Member of the Irish Parliament (MP) from 1775 to 1801 and a Member of Parliament (MP) in Westminster from 1805 to 1820. He has been described as a superb orator and a romantic. With generous enthusiasm he demanded that Ireland should be granted its rightful status, that of an independent nation, though he always insisted that Ireland would remain linked to Great Britain by a common crown and by sharing a common political tradition.
The Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples was a congregation of the Roman Curia of the Catholic Church in Rome, responsible for missionary work and related activities. It is also known by its former title, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, or simply the Propaganda Fide. On 5 June 2022, it was merged with the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization into the Dicastery for Evangelization.
The Parliament of Ireland was the legislature of the Lordship of Ireland, and later the Kingdom of Ireland, from 1297 until the end of 1800. It was modelled on the Parliament of England and from 1537 comprised two chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Lords were members of the Irish peerage and bishops. The Commons was directly elected, albeit on a very restricted franchise. Parliaments met at various places in Leinster and Munster, but latterly always in Dublin: in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin Castle, Chichester House (1661–1727), the Blue Coat School (1729–31), and finally a purpose-built Parliament House on College Green.
John MacHale was the Irish Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, and Irish nationalist.
The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, also known as the Catholic Emancipation Act 1829, removed the sacramental tests that barred Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom from Parliament and from higher offices of the judiciary and state. It was the culmination of a fifty-year process of Catholic emancipation which had offered Catholics successive measures of "relief" from the civil and political disabilities imposed by Penal Laws in both Great Britain and in Ireland in the seventeenth, and early eighteenth, centuries.
John England was an Irish-born American prelate of the Catholic Church. He served as the first Bishop of Charleston, leading a diocese that then covered three Southern states.
In Ireland, the penal laws were a series of legal disabilities imposed in the seventeenth, and early eighteenth, centuries on the kingdom's Roman Catholic majority and, to a lesser degree, on Protestant "Dissenters". Enacted by the Irish Parliament, they secured the Protestant Ascendancy by further concentrating property and public office in the hands of those who, as communicants of the established Church of Ireland, subscribed to the Oath of Supremacy. The Oath acknowledged the British monarch as the "supreme governor" of matters both spiritual and temporal, and abjured "all foreign jurisdictions [and] powers"—by implication both the Pope in Rome and the Stuart "Pretender" in the court of the King of France.
Patrick Francis Moran was a prelate of the Catholic Church and the third Archbishop of Sydney and the first cardinal appointed from Australia.
The appointment of bishops in the Catholic Church is a complicated process. Outgoing bishops, neighbouring bishops, the faithful, the apostolic nuncio, various members of the Roman Curia, and the pope all have a role in the selection. The exact process varies based upon a number of factors, including whether the bishop is from the Latin Church or one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the geographic location of the diocese, what office the candidate is being chosen to fill, and whether the candidate has previously been ordained to the episcopate.
William Poynter was an English Catholic priest, bishop as vicar apostolic in London.
The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1791 is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain passed in 1791 relieving Roman Catholics of certain political, educational, and economic disabilities. It admitted Catholics to the practice of law, permitted the exercise of their religion, and the existence of their schools. On the other hand, chapels, schools, officiating priests and teachers were to be registered, assemblies with locked doors, as well as steeples and bells to chapels, were forbidden; priests were not to wear vestments or celebrate liturgies in the open air; children of Protestants were not to be admitted to the schools; monastic orders and endowments of schools and colleges were prohibited.
Francis Moylan (1735–1815) was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cork, having first served as Bishop of Bishop of Ardfert and Aghadoe in Kerry.
The English Protestant Reformation was imposed by the English Crown, and submission to its essential points was exacted by the State with post-Reformation oaths. With some solemnity, by oath, test, or formal declaration, English churchmen and others were required to assent to the religious changes, starting in the sixteenth century and continuing for more than 250 years.
John Milner was an English Roman Catholic bishop and controversialist who served as the Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District from 1803 to 1826.
The Roman Catholic Relief Bills were a series of measures introduced over time in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries before the Parliaments of Great Britain and the United Kingdom to remove the restrictions and prohibitions imposed on British and Irish Catholics during the English Reformation. These restrictions had been introduced to enforce the separation of the English church from the Catholic Church which began in 1529 under Henry VIII.
Robert Fowler was an Anglo-Irish clergyman. He served as the Archbishop of Dublin in the Church of Ireland from 1779 until his death in 1801.
This article details the history of Christianity in Ireland. Ireland is an island to the north-west of continental Europe. Politically, Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland, which covers just under five-sixths of the island, and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, which covers the remainder and is located in the north-east of the island. All main churches are organised on an all-island basis. Roman Catholicism is the largest religious denomination, representing over 73% for the island and about 78.3% of the Republic of Ireland.
There are no official bilateral relations between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Holy See. The Holy See instead recognizes the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the representative of China ever since the establishment of relations with the ROC government in 1942.
Thomas Dromgoole, M.D. (1750?–1826?), was an Irish physician.
Paškal Buconjić was Herzegovinian Croat Franciscan and a prelate of the Catholic Church who served as the first bishop of Mostar-Duvno from 1881 to 1910, as the apostolic administrator of Trebinje-Mrkan from 1890 to 1910, as the apostolic vicar of Herzegovina from 1880 to 1881, and as custos of the Franciscan Custody of Herzegovina between 1874 and 1879.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "The Royal Veto". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. The entry cites:
Archives of Propaganda;
Orthodox Journal, files from 1813 to 1817;
Butler, Hist. Memoirs of the English, Irish, and Scottish Catholics (London, 1822);
Milner, Supplementary Memoirs of English Catholics (London, 1820), written to correct Butler's work;
Wyse, Hist. of the Catholic Association in Ireland (London, 1829);
Fleming, The Catholic Veto (Dublin, 1911);
Dublin Evening Post, files especially from 1808 to 1817.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
