Laudabiliter

Laudabiliter was a papal bull purported to have been issued by Pope Adrian IV the only Englishman who ever sat in the chair of St. Peter, to give the Angevin King Henry II of England lordship over Ireland. Whether this donation is genuine or not, Edmund Curtis says, is one of "the great questions of history."

Papal bull

A Papal bull of Pope Urban VIII, 1637, sealed with a leaden bulla.

A bull is a Papal letter takes its name from the bubble-shaped, leaden seal which it bears. The letters written in the twelfth century relating to Ireland were probably never sealed with any seal according to Laurence Ginnell, and are, therefore, not correctly called bulls. However, that the name bull has become so well known in connection with them, even if genuine, that the use of it cannot be misunderstood. In the twelfth century, he says, they were called privilegia or privileges.

The original bulla was a lump of clay molded around a cord and stamped with a seal. When dry, the container cannot be violated without visible damage to the bulla, thereby ensuring the contents remain tamper-proof until they reach their destination. Stephen J. McCormick, in his preface to The Pope and Ireland, notes that it is was well known that the forgery of both Papal and other documents was fairly common in the twelfth century. Citing Professor Jungmann, who in the appendix to his Dissertationes Historiœ Ecclesiasticœ, in the fifth volume says, "it is well known from history that everywhere towards the close of the twelfth century there were forged or corrupted Papal Letters or Diplomas. That such was the case frequently in England is inferred from the Letters of John Sarisbiensis and of others."

The Bull Laudabiliter

Pope Adrian IV(c. 1100–1 September, 1159)

In 1155, only three years after the Synod of Kells, according to Edmund Curtis it is said, Pope Adrian IV granted the so-called bull Laudabiliter, which commissioned King Henry II of England to invade Ireland to reform its Church and people. Laurence Ginnell cites the Very Rev. Dr Malone as saying of the Laudabiliter: "There does not appear to be in the domain of history a better authenticated fact than the privilege of Adrian IV to Henry II."

It was at a royal council at Winchester, Curtis says, that talk of carrying out the invasion had taken place but that Henry's mother, the Empress Matilda, had protested against it. In Ireland, however, nothing seems to have been known of it and no provision had been made against the possibility of Norman aggression. J. Duncan Mackie, in his Pope Adrian IV. The Lothian Essay 1907 gives the date of this meenting for conquering Ireland and giving it to Henry's brother William as September 29, 1155.

Evidence for the bull

The following summary of the arguments cited by McCormick in favour of the authenticity of Pope Adrian s letter, appeared he says in the Irishman newspaper and was compiled by J. C. O Callaghan, who was editor of the Macariae Excidium, and author of a number of works on Irish history. Firstly the testimony of John of Salisbury, Secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who relates his having been the envoy from Henry to Adrian, in 1155, to ask for a grant of Ireland. Secondly, the grant or Bull of Adrian, in extenso, in the works of Giraldus Cambrensis, and his contemporary Radulfus de Diceto, Dean of London, and those of Roger de Wendover and Mathew Paris.

Thirdly, the Bulls of Adrian s successor, Pope Alexander III. Fourthly, the recorded public reading of the Bulls of Adrian and Alexander, at a meeting of Bishops in Waterford in 1175. Fifthly, after the liberation of Scotland from England at Bannockburn, the Bull of Adrian was pre fixed to the remonstrance, which the Irish presented to Pope John XXII. against the English. The same Bull moreover, and a copy of that Bull, accordingly sent back by the Pope to Edward II. of England. Sixthly, from Cardinal Buronius, in his work, the Annales Ecclesiastici, under Adrian IV., his grant of Ireland to his countrymen in full, or, excodice Vaticano, diploma datum ad Henricum, Anglorum, Regem. And seventhly, the Bull in the Bidlarium Romanum, as printed in Rome in 1739.

The Very Rev. Thomas N. Burke O.P., in his English Misrule in Ireland: A Course of Lectures in Reply to J. A Froude, puts forward a number of arguments against both the Bull of Adrian and the letters of his successor, Pope Alexander III. The Rev Burke suggests on the authority he says of Dr. Lynch, the author of Cambrensis Eversus, as well as the Abbé McGeoghegan, one of the great Irish scholars, and Dr. Moran, the Bishop of Ossory that Alexander's letter was a forgery, as well as that of Adrian IV. The Rev Burke questions the date on the 'Laudabiliter', in addition to the terms contained in it and how it was obtained questioning also date in which it was first produced by Henry and why.

Authenticity debate

Henry II of England(5 March 1133 – 6 July 1189)

As with many Church documents, the original document is no longer in existence. That an actual bull was sent according to Ernest F. Henderson is doubted by many, and its authenticity has been questioned without success according to P. S. O'Hegarty who suggests that the question now is purely an academic one. According to Curtis for the text of the 'Laudabiliter' we only have Giraldus Cambrensis' Conquest of Ireland written around 1188, though in it his dating is not accurate, he says he must of had some such "genuine document before him." However he says great controversy has raged, with some writers saying its a pure forgery, others that it as a touched-up version of a genuine document, while others believing in its authenticity. He suggests that better evidence for the grant of Ireland can be found in John of Salisbury's, Metalogicus, written about 1159.

However the date that Metalogicus was written is fixed according to the author himself according to Stephen J. McCormick pointing to the fact that John of Salisbury immediately before he tells us that the news of Pope Adrian's death had reached him his own patron, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury though still living, was "weighed down by many infirmities." Pope Adrian died in 1159 he says and the death of Archbishop, Theobald occurred in 1161. However Gile and other editors of John of Salisbury's works, without a dissentient voice, according to McCormick refer the Metalogicus to the year 1159. Curtis also gives the date of publication of 1159 and suggests that whether 'Laudabiliter' is genuine or not, he says, it is one of "the great questions of history."

Ginnell has written that those who accept that the letters are authentic can be equally divided on their significance. Some he says use them with the special object of exposing the Papacy’s venality, corruption, and “ingratitude towards mankind in general, and towards faithful Ireland in particular” while others use them as proof that no Pope ever erred in political matters, and suggest that Ireland has always been the object of the “Pope's special paternal care.”

On the Pope's infallibility, another argument, again assuming the authenticity of these letters, is that it would be tantamount to the Pope having made a shockingly bad choice of an instrument in Henry II for reducing Ireland to law and order. He suggests this objection is at best feeble, seeing what the character of Henry II was, and that the English "in the seven hundred years that, have elapsed since that time have failed to accomplish the task assigned them." Ginnell suggests that it would not have constituted a greater Papal mistake than when conferring the title of Defender of the Faith on Henry VIII. This he say is a valid case of the Pope choosing a especially unworthy instrument for a purpose as was the subject-matter of these letters. That the subsequent use of this title by English Sovereigns illustrates he says, how willing they are "to cling to any honour or advantage derived from the Catholic Church," even when they have ceased to belong to it.

It was from the chair of St. Peter then that the sovereigns of England from Henry II. to Henry VIII. derived first the title Lord of Ireland the only title they used with reference to Ireland and later Henry VIII. who was the first English king that styled himself King of Ireland.

In the seventeenth century the authenticity of the letters were recognised in Ireland by James Ussher, Protestant Archbishop of Armagh, Peter Lombard, Catholic Archbishop of Armagh and David Rothe, Bishop of Ossory. In the nineteenth century the authenticity of the letters were recognised by the ecclesiastical historian, Dr. Lanigan, the Editor of the Macarice Excidium, the Editor of Cambrensis Eversus, and the Very Rev. Sylvester Malone, D.D., Vicar-General of Killaloe, writing in the Dublin Review for April, 1884, and in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record for October, 1891. However the latter author who according to Ginnell was the most strenuous upholder of all the letters was obliged to abandon most of his earlier arguments without securing any new ones.

Against their authenticity, Ginnell writes that we must notice the entire absence of written Gaelic recognition. Against their authenticity in the seventeenth century he lists Stephen White, S.J., and by the author of Cambrensis Eversus; their repudiation in the nineteenth century by Cardinal Moran in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record for November, 1872, and by Rev. W.B. Morris in his book, Ireland and St. Patrick.

Historical debate

File:GeraldofWales.jpg

Giraldus Cambrensis

When news of Pope Adrian's election had arrived in England, the Very Rev. Thomas N. Burke O.P. says, John of Salisbury was sent by Henry to congratulate him, and get this letter in a "hugger-mugger way," from the Pope. The letter, according to the Rev. Burke, has been examined by a better authority than his own he says and by one "who has brought to bear upon it all the acumen of his great knowledge." The date according to Reimer, he says "the most acceptable authority amongst English historians," according to the Rev. Burke authenticated this the date of 1154. However Pope Adrian was elected on the 3d of December, 1154. The Rev. Burke suggests that it must having taken at least a month in those days before news of the election would have arrived in England, and at least another before John of Salisbury arrived in Rome making his arrival there around March 1155. The date being found inconvenient Reimer under who’s authority is uncertain, changed the date to 1155.

It was, according to the Rev. Burke, in the year 1174 that King Henry produced this letter which he said he got from Pope Adrian IV. permitting him to go to Ireland. The Rev. Burke asks, if he had the letter, when he came to Ireland, why did he not produce it, as this was his only warrant for coming to Ireland? For twenty years, according to McCormick that is from 1155 to 1175, there was no mention of the gift of Adrian. Henry did not refer to it when authorizing his vassals to join Diarmaid in 1167, or when he himself set out for Ireland to receive the homage of the Irish princes and not even after he assumed his new title and accomplished the purpose of his expedition. Curtis however while accepting that it is true that the letter was not published by Henry when in Ireland, that can be explained by his being alienated from Rome over the murder of Thomas Becket, in addition to the Empress Matilda, having protested against this invasion of Ireland. The date Rev. Burke writes, that was on the letter was 1154, therefore it was consequently twenty years old. During this twenty year period nobody ever heard of this letter except Henry, it was said that Henry kept this letter a secret, because his mother, the Empress Matilda, did not want Henry to act on it.

In addition to the 'Bull' of Adrian, there is also the letters by Pope Alexander III which were published on the conclusion of the Synod of Cashel according to Edmund Curtis. Henry was at this time in May 1172 reconciled with the Papacy according to Curtis and had sent envoys to Alexander, asking for a papal privilege for Ireland. Whatever we may think of the so-called 'Bull' of Adrian, says Curtis, there can be no doubt that the letters and privilege of a later Pope conferred the lordship of Ireland upon Henry II. The Council of Cashel in 1172 McCormick notes was the first Episcopal assembly after Henry’s arrival in Ireland. The Papal Legate was present and had Adrian’s Bull exist it should necessarily have engaged the attention of the assembled Fathers. However "not a whisper" as to Adrian's grant he says was to be heard at that Council. Even the learned editor of Cambrensis Eversus while asserting the genuineness of Adrian s Bull, admits "there is not any, even the slightest authority, for asserting that its existence was known in Ireland before the year 1172, or for three years later."

McCormick says that it is extremely difficult, in any hypothesis, to explain in a satisfactory way this silence, nor is it easy to understand how a fact so important, to the interests of Ireland could remain so many years concealed including from those in the Irish Church. Throughout this period he says, Ireland numbered among its Bishops one who held the important office of Legate of the Holy See, and that the Church had had constant intercourse with England and the continent through St. St Laurence O'Toole and a hundred other distinguished Prelates, who enjoyed in the fullest manner the confidence of Rome.

On the question of date when the letter was first made known, most of those who deny the authenticity of the letters believe that they were first made known about 1180 according to Ginnell. Citing Dr. Kelly he suggests that the only authority for holding that it was made known in Ireland as early as 1175 is that of Giraldus Cambrensis.

James Anthony Froude

According to Herbert Paul, author of The Life of Froude, the Rev. Burke "boldly denied that it [the letter] had ever existed at all" however in English Misrule in Ireland: A Course of Lectures in Reply to J. A Froude, the Rev. Burke outlines the anomalies of the letter and states that it had been examined by Reimer an acceptable authority amongst English historians. The Rev Burke dose say though that "there is a lie on the face of it."

Paul says that James Anthony Froude maintained that the existence of the letter and its nature were proved by later bulls of succeeding Popes in a challenge to the Rev. Burke, but, as the Rev. Burke states, there were many learned men who support the genuineness of both Adrian's and Pope Alexander III rescripts but there was also an equally large number who deny it. The Rev. Burke said that like the latter he preferred to believe with them that it was a forgery. He based this view he said on the authority of Dr. Lynch, author of "Cambrensis Eversus," in addition to both the Abbé McGeoghegan, who he says was "one of the greatest Irish scholars, and one of the best archaeologists" and Dr. Moran, the learned bishop of Ossory "that Alexander's letter was a forgery, as well as that of Adrian IV."

Laurence Ginnell (1854–1923)

Froude suggestion that Alexander III., Adrian's successor, had mentioned that rescript or document in a letter. Froude also said there was a copy of this letter in the archives at Rome and how would the Rev. Burke "get over that"? The Rev Burke in response pointed out that the copy had no date at all on it and that Caesar Baronius, the historian, along with the learned Dr. Mansuerius declare that a rescript or document "that has no date, the day it was executed, the seal and the year, is invalid" and was therefore "just so much paper". The result of this being "that even if Adrian gave it, it was worth nothing." The Rev Burke continued that the "learned authorities tell us that the existence of a document in the archives does not prove the authenticity of that document" and that it "may be kept there as a mere record." However Curtis in his A History of Ireland from Earliest Times to 1922 states that there is no original or copy of 'Laudabiliter' in the papal archieves.

The Rev. Burke pointed out that Alexander's letter carried the date 1172 and asked was is it likely that a Pope would have given a letter to Henry, who he knew well, asking Henry to take care of the Church and put everything in order? The Rev. Burke notes that Adrian did not know Henry, but Alexander knew him well. Henry, he say in 1159, supported the anti-Pope, Octavianus, against Alexander and again in 1166, this time supporting the anti-Pope, Guido, against him. Citing Mathew of Westminster, he says that "Henry obliged every man in England, from the boy of twelve years up to the old man, to renounce their allegiance to the true Pope, and go over to an anti-Pope" and asks was it likely then, that the Pope would give him a letter to settle ecclesiastical matters in Ireland? Citing then Alexander himself who wrote to Henry, saying to him, instead of referring to a document giving him permission to settle Church matters in Ireland ;

Instead of remedying the disorders caused by your predecessors, you have oppressed the Church, and you have endeavored to destroy the canons of apostolic men.

The Rev. Burke then asks "is this the man that Alexander would send to Ireland to settle affairs, and make the Irish good children of the Pope?" Responding again to Mr. Froude, who then said that "the Irish never loved the Pope till the Normans taught them" The Rev. Burke notes that until "the accursed Normans came to Ireland," the Papal Legate could always come and go as he pleased and that no Irish king obstructed him and that no Irishman's hand was ever raised against a Bishop, "much less against the Papal Legate." However the very first Legate that came to Ireland, after the Norman Invasion, the Rev. Burke writes that in passing through England, Henry "took him by the throat, and imposed upon him an oath that, when he went to Ireland, he would not do anything that would be against the interest of the King". It was unheard of that a Bishop, Archbishop, or Cardinal should be persecuted, the Rev. Burke says until the Anglo-Normans brought with them "their accursed feudal system, and concentration of power in the hands of the king..."

Terms

Henry VIII was the first English king who styled himself King of Ireland.

The bull purported to grant Henry, who requested it from English Pope Adrian, the right to invade Ireland in order to "reform" Church practices in Ireland, which up until that point had not been fully aligned with Rome in some matters, for example with regard to liturgy and clergy.

The incipit of the bull, Laudabiliter, means literally "laudably', "in a praiseworthy manner"; it is the opening word of the Latin text, referring to Henry's "laudable" intention "to extend the borders of the Church, to teach the truths of the Christian faith to a rude and unlettered people, and to root out the weeds of vice from the field of the Lord; ..."

The actual wording which was asserted as giving authority to Henry to take possession of Ireland is as follows:

You have signified to us, our well-beloved son in Christ, that you propose to enter the island of Ireland in order to subdue the people and make them obedient to laws, and to root out from among them the weeds of sin; and that you are willing to yield and pay yearly from every house the pension of one penny to St Peter, and to keep and preserve the rights of the churches in that land whole and inviolate.

We, therefore, regarding your pious and laudable design with due favour, and graciously assenting to your petition, do hereby declare our will and pleasure, that, for the purpose of enlarging the borders of the Church, setting bounds to the progress of wickedness, reforming evil manners, planting virtue, and increasing the Christian religion, you do enter and take possession of that island, and execute therein whatsoever shall be for God's honour and the welfare of the same.

And, further, we do also strictly charge and require that the people of that land shall accept you with all honour, and dutifully obey you, as their liege lord, saving only the rights of the churches, which we will have inviolably preserved; ...

Papal letter of 1311 and the Bruce kingship 1315-1318

Pope John XXII

However within a century-and-a-half, Norman misrule in Ireland became so apparent that Laudabiliter was to be invoked again, this time in aid of the rights of the Gaelic Irish clans. In 1315-18, in alliance with the Scottish (and the Welsh), who were also fighting the Normans, they proclaimed Edward Bruce as King of Ireland. Pope John XXII writing to Edward II of England in 1311 had reminded him of the responsibility that Laudabiliter put upon England to execute government in Ireland for the welfare of the Irish. He warned Edward II that:

... the kings of England ... have in direct violation of [Laudabiliter], for a long period past kept down that people [of Ireland] in a state of intolerable bondage, accompanied with unheard-of hardships and grievances. Nor was there found during all that time, any person to redress the grievances they endured or be moved with a pitiful compassion for their distress; although recourse was had to you ... and the loud cry of the oppressed fell, at times at least, upon your own ear. In consequence whereof, unable to support such a state of things any longer, they have been compelled to withdraw themselves from your jurisdiction and to invite another to come and be ruler over them ...

In 1317, during the Bruce invasion, some of the remaining Gaelic kings, following decades of English rule, tried to have the bull recast or replaced, as a basis for a new kingship for Ireland, with Edward Bruce as their preferred candidate. They issued a remonstrance to Pope John XXII requesting that Laudabiliter should be revoked, but this was refused. This action may suggest that the kings saw Laudabiliter as the legal basis for their continuing problems at that time..

The Crown of Ireland Act 1542

The Bruce invasion failed, and Ireland remained in English control, in part using the authority claimed to derive from Laudabiliter, until 1542, when Henry VIII's split from the Catholic Church (1529–1535) had, incidentally, put England's authority in Ireland, insofar as it was based on Laudabiliter, in legal jeopardy. To rectify this King Henry's English Parliament, using authority delegated to it in 1494 by the Irish Parliament (Poyning's Law), passed the Crown of Ireland Act, which declared that the proper title of Lord of Ireland should really be that of King of Ireland, owing to the authority it commanded in Ireland being as great as that of a king:

Forasmuch as the ... Kings of England, have bin Lords of this land of Ireland, having all manner kingly jurisdiction, power, pre-eminences, and authoritie royall, belonging or appertayning to the royall estate and majestie of a King, by the name of Lords of Ireland, where the King's majestie and his most noble progenitors justly and rightfully were, and of right ought to be, Kings of Ireland according to their said true and just title, stile, and name therein, ...

Thus the Henrician Parliament had established the principle that the Crown of Ireland was in personal union with the Crown of England. Though this declaration was not recognised by the Papacy nor by the Catholic countries of Europe, it transpired that Henry's Catholic daughter, Mary, would become Queen of England in 1553, thus becoming Queen of Ireland in both English and Irish law. In response to this development, at Mary's request, Pope Paul IV issued a papal bull in 1555 declaring Mary and her consort, Philip, Prince of the Asturias (who was shortly to become King Philip II of Spain), to be the joint monarchs of Ireland.

Philip made no claim to the Crown of Ireland on Mary's death in November 1558. Between 1559 and 1561 the New Parliament of the new Protestant Queen of England, Elizabeth I, repealed all English and Irish legislation that had restored the ecclesiastical union with Rome and re-established the Churches of England and of Ireland with Queen Elizabeth as their "Supreme Governor". The English Parliament ignored then and has ever since continued to ignore as irrelevant all Papal acts, bulls or other decrees since the English Reformation had begun.

In 1570 relations between England, Ireland and the Catholic Church were in turmoil following the publication on 25 February of Pope Pius V’s Bull ‘Regnans in Excelsis’. This Bull had declared Queen Elizabeth to be illegitimate and a usurper and thus incapable of having legitimately inherited her English crown. It also proclaimed her to be a heretic, declared her deposed and strictly forbade all Catholics anywhere to obey her or her laws or to acknowledge, respect or obey any persons in authority appointed by her. It made no mention at all of her “pretending” to the Throne of Ireland, which significant omission appeared to infer that the Bull of 1555 had, in accordance with Laudabiliter, granted the Crown of Ireland only to Queen Mary and her legitimate heirs and it thus appeared to endorse the English view that Philip of Spain’s mention in the Bull of 1555 had been merely as a mention of his then status as Queen Mary’s Consort and not as an intentional conferral of the status of King of Ireland in his own right.

The Irish Archbishop of Cashel acted as envoy for some Irish nobles who proposed to rectify this omission by offering the Kingship of Ireland to King Philip directly. The project was communicated to Pope Pius V through Cardinal Francesco Alciati (who enjoyed the curious status of "Protector of Spain and Ireland before the Holy See"), who wrote to the Archbishop of Cashel (9 June, 1570):

“His Holiness was astonished that anything of the kind should be attempted without his authority since it was easy to remember that the Kingdom of Ireland belonged to the dominion of the Church, was held as a fief under it, and could not therefore, unless by the Pope, be subjected to any new ruler. And the Pope, that the right of the Church may be preserved as it should be, says he will not give the letters you ask for the King of Spain. But if the King of Spain himself were to ask for the fief of that Kingdom in my opinion the Pope would not refuse.” — Spicil. Ossor., ed. Card. Moran, I, 69

No further official reference to the Bull of 1555 nor to Laudabiliter was ever made again — neither by the Papacy nor by the Governments of England, Ireland nor Spain. It must be presumed that the low-level Papal diplomatic recognition of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1914 and the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Irish Free State in 1922 both entailed the implicit final consignment of Laudabiliter to the archives.

References

• The Doubtful Grant of Ireland By Pope Adrian IV to King Henry Investigated, Laurence Ginnell, Fallon & Co, Dublin (1899).
• The Pope and Ireland, Stephen J. McCormick, A. Waldteufel, San Francisco (1889).
• A History of Ireland from Earliest Times to 1922, Edmund Curtis, Routledge New York (2002), ISBN 0 415 27949 6.
• The Indestructible Nation, P. S. O’Hegarty, Maunsel & Company, Ltd Dublin & London (1918).
• English Misrule in Ireland: A Course of Lectures in Reply to J. A Froude, Very Rev. Thomas N. Burke, O.P., Lynch, Cole & Meehan New York (1873).
• The Life of Froude, Herbert Paul, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons E.C London (1905).
• Pope Adrian IV. The Lothian Essay 1907, J. Duncan Mackie, B. H. Blackwell Oxford (1907)
• Ireland and the Pope: A Brief History of Papel Intrigues Against Irish Liberty from Adrian IV. to Leo XIII, James G. Maguire, James H. Barry (San Francisco (1890), Third Edition.
• The Historical Works of Giraldus Cambrensis, Edited by Thomas Wright, George Bell & Sons (London 1905).
• Selected Documents in Irish History, edited by Josef Lewis Altholz, M.E. Sharpe, Inc. 2000

External links

• "Pope Adrians's bull Laudabiliter and note upon it" from Eleanor Hull, 1931, A History of Ireland, Volume One, Appendix I
• Lyttleton, Life of Henry II., vol. v p. 371: text of Laudabiliter asa reprinted in Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages (London : George Bell and Sons) 1896 with Henderson's note: "That a papal bull was dispatched to England about this time and concerning this matter is certain. That this was the actual bull sent is doubted by many".