Wentworth and Dublin's Catholic Clergy: A Document from the Stafford Papers

Wentworth and Dublin's Catholic Clergy: A Document from the Stafford PapersAuthor(s): Tim O'ConnorSource: Archivium Hibernicum, Vol. 59 (2005), pp. 37-50Published by: Catholic Historical Society of IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40285201 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 10:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Catholic Historical Society of Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchivium Hibernicum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.20 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:55:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=chsi

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40285201?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Tim O'Connor

Wentworth and Dublin's Catholic clergy: A document from the Stafford Papers

Introduction

Among the papers of Thomas Wentworth, first earl of Strafford and lord deputy of Ireland from 1632 to 1640, is a document entitled 'The State of the Difference between the Seculars & the Regulars'.1 It is dated 19 September 1633 and concerns a dispute involving the Catholic secular clergy of the diocese of Dublin, and their regular counterparts. It consists of detailed lists of the secular and regular clergy in the diocese, submitted by both sides, and a statement of grievances by the seculars, reported in the third person. Also contained is a set of propositions by an unnamed source suggesting ways in which the government might manipulate the situation. The document is all in one hand but is not endorsed. While these propositions suggest that it is most likely a government document, the statement of the seculars' grievances and the comments recorded at the end of the lists of clergy suggest that it is based on information freely given by the parties involved, and is not the work of spies.

The document is of interest, not only for the information which it gives as to the clerical personnel of the Dublin diocese at that time, but also for the light it sheds on the politics, ecclesiastical and secular, of the early 1630s. The appointment of Wentworth as lord deputy caused anxiety among Irish Catholics.2 Many expected him to take a hard line on recusancy, but a look at his record as president of the Council of the North at York might have suggested otherwise. In that office, which he held from 1628 right through his deputyship, Wentworth concentrated on strengthening the system whereby, in exchange for paying a composition rent, recusants were spared interference in their estates and protected from the ecclesiastical courts.3 In Ireland, his initial, apparent willingness to listen to Old English representations raised Irish Catholic hopes.4 The present document suggests that elements of Dublin's Catholic clergy were only too willing to take the lord deputy's presumed indulgence towards Catholics at face value and profit from it.

The numbers of Catholic clergy enumerated in the documents supports the view that there was substantial growth in the clerical population in the 1620s and

1 The original document forms part of the Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments and is held at the Archives, Sheffield City Libraries, 52 Shoreham Street, Sheffield, Si 4SP. Citation: WWM Str P 20/175. 2 Patrick Francis Moran, History of the Catholic archbishops of Dublin since the reformation, (Dublin, 1864), p. 381. 3 See. J. T. ClifFe, The Yorkshire gentry from the reformation to the civil war, (London, 1969), pp 200-203. 4 See Aidan Clarke, The Old English in Ireland, 1625-42 (London, 1966), chapter iv.

37



ARCHIVIUM HIBERNICUM

1630s, coincident with the establishment of a more complex pastoral structure in the city and around the country.5 If, as the seculars claim, there were ninety-one priests active in and around the capital in 1633, then it would appear that the Catholic population was willing to support a healthy number of clergy, despite the hostility of State authorities. However, it is clear that this was not a united church. The dispute referred to in the document, concerning allegations made against Thomas Fleming OFM (c.15 9 0-1651), archbishop of Dublin, the religious orders and a secular priest by members of the secular clergy, was but one aspect of the complex dissensions which afflicted the Dublin diocese, and many others, since the early part of the century. According to the document, Fleming, the son of William, sixteenth Baron of Slane and archbishop since 1623, enjoyed the support of the regulars and 'some of the meaner sorte of the parish priestes who have been preferred by him and syde with him'. Opposing them, according to the document, were 'the better sorte of the Secular Clergy'. These controversies, especially those involving the famous 'Cahil Propositions', have been treated elsewhere but a summary is necessary here to provide the context of the document.6

Disputes among the clergy were a common feature of church life, from well before the Reformation. Regulars and seculars were frequently at loggerheads and these tensions survived the changes of the sixteenth century.7 Competition for scarce resources was fierce. The claims of the older orders to control of the livings and pastoral rights traditionally associated with confiscated monastic possessions brought them into conflict with the secular clergy attempting to build a new parochial system.8 When Bishop David Rothe of Ossory (i568?-i65o) suggested that the regulars were not strictly part of the hierarchical clergy, he was exploiting a venerable uncertainty as to their status in the Western church. There was conflict too between and within religious orders. At local level the disputes were often more complex. In Dublin in the 1620s the bitterness between the regular and secular branches of the clergy resulted in a sustained paper war between Paul Harris, an English-born, Spanish-educated, secular priest long

5 See Patrick J. Corish, The Catholic community in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Dublin, 1981), pp 25-26; idem, 'The re-organisation of the Irish church, 1603-41' in Ir. Cath. Hist. Proc, Hi (1957); J. Brady, "The Irish colleges in the Low Countries' in Arch. Hib. xiv (1949), pp 66-91; Hugh Kearney, Strafford in Ireland: a study in absolutism (Manchester, 1961), pp 108-10; Tadhg Ó hAnnrachâin, Catholic Reformation in Ireland: the mission of Rinuccini, 1645-49 (Oxford, 2002), pp 39-81. 6 See Moran, Archbishops, pp 372-80; Thomas S. Flynn, O.P. The Irish Dominicans, 1536-1641 (Dublin, 1993), pp 245-48; William O'Connell, 'The Cahil propositions, 1629' in Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 5th series, 62 (1943), pp 118- 23; Brendan Jennings, (ed.), Wadding Papers, 1614-38 (I.M.C., Dublin, 1953), passim. 7 See H. F. Kearney, 'Irish ecclesiastical politics and the counter-reformation, 1618-48' in Jn. Ecc. Hist., 11 (i960), p. 206; R. Gillespie, 'Sources for clerical income in the seventeenth century' in Arch. Hib., xlvii (1993), pp 3-4; Flynn, The Irish Dominicans, pp 231-62. 8 It was disputed whether the dispensations regarding lay possession of confiscated monastic property were valid in Ireland. See T.C.D. Ms 1184, 33r~37v; 'Dispensario cum Hibernia' (1557), ibid., 38r-4iv. In this latter document, Pole appears to extend formal recognition of the dissolutions and alienations in Ireland. On some of the practical implications of the confiscations, see Colm Lennon, 'Mass in the manor house: the Counter-reformation in Dublin, 1560-1630' in J. Kelly and D. Keogh (eds) History of the Catholic diocese of Dublin (Dublin 2000), pp 112-26.

38



WENTWORTH AND DUBLIN^ CATHOLIC CLERGY, 1633

resident in Ireland and Thomas Strange OFM, the Waterford-born guardian of the Dublin Franciscans. It was suggested at the time that Harris, in an effort to introduce into Ireland controversies then current among the English seculars and regulars, supplied Patrick Cahil, a Meath-born fellow secular ministering in Dublin, with a set of heretical theological propositions allegedly uttered by Irish regulars, for presentation to the Paris faculty of theology for condemnation in early 1631. This was seen as an attempt to discredit the regulars.9 Cahil, who held the parish of St Michael's, one of the best provided in the city, had clashed several times with Thomas Fleming and was hostile towards the regulars.

Cahil himself was unpopular with some of the native Dublin secular clergy because he was an outsider. Writing to Luke Wadding on 26 August 1629, Fleming stated that 'he [Fleming] has gotten the ill-will of the secular clergy' for moving Cahil, whom he describes as 'a turbulent spirit of another diocese', from St Michael's. In a further letter, dated 1 February 1631, Fleming explained that 'the regulars, with many of the best of the town, did most earnestly solicit with me' for Cahil' s removal, on the grounds that he was 'a stranger to the town' and that there were other deserving natives who had no charge.10 In other words, many felt that the Meath-born Cahil should not have been appointed to this lucrative parish ahead of native Dubliners. Fleming replaced Cahil with a native-born secular Patrick Brangan, who was a brother of the Dominican, Thomas Brangan. In the present document, Patrick Brangan is described as 'a zealot for the regulars', and as one of 'the meaner sorte of parish priestes' preferred by Fleming. It was alleged at the time that in an attempt to regain St Michael's Cahil, through his contacts in the administration, engineered the arrest and imprisonment of Brangan, which occurred shortly afterwards.11

During his time as archbishop, Fleming was repeatedly accused of displaying excessive favour towards the Franciscans and of neglecting other orders and the seculars. Though numerous declarations in support of Fleming emanating from various clerical sources exist,12 it remains true that the condemnation by the Sorbonne of the propositions presented by Cahil against the regulars cast a long shadow on his episcopacy. More generally, the judgement provoked a flood of protests and denials by Irish regulars and an angrily intemperate response by Francis Matthews (O'Mahony) OFM, guardian of St Anthony's, Louvain.13 Matthews's attack on the Irish seculars and the episcopate caused a cascade of objections, particularly from the southern bishops, notably William Tirrey of Cork (1573-1646), David Rothe of Ossory (i568?-i65o), and John Roche of Ferns (1574?- 1636), all of whom had refused to sign earlier declarations in favour of the regulars. Relations between Rothe and Fleming were not good. In a letter to Luke

9 Calendar S. P. Ire., 1647-60 addenda, pp 301-2; Jennings (ed.) Wadding Papers, introduction. 10 Moran, Archbishops, p. 375. 11 Flynn, The Irish Dominicans, p. 245. 12 Moran, Archbishops, pp 295-309. 13 Examen juridicum, censurae facultatis theologicae Parisiensis et eiusdem civitatis archiepicopi latae circa quasdam propositiones regularibus regi Hiberniae falso impositas in quo per exceptiones iuris et facti mala accusatoris et testium fides propositionum impostura, et praepropera censurae divulgatio ostenditur auctore Edmondo Ursulano Hiberno (Frankfurt, 1631).

39




Wadding, in Rome, Fleming described Rothe as 'the primum mobile, who underhand troubles all'.14

In reports to Rome, Fleming sometimes attempted to gloss over the differences. Writing in October 1632, he reported how well the regulars and seculars were getting on, apart from the dissensions caused by Harris and Doyle.15 Other bishops adopted the same approach when dealing with the matter.16 However, it is clear from the present document, and from Fleming's comments regarding Rothe, that a serious rift existed between the two branches of the clergy in September 1633. In Dublin itself, Paul Harris had continued to publish his attacks against Fleming and the regulars. He even took a case against Doyle, for illegal possession of his property, in the civil courts.

It seems likely that the information in the present document had as its source the aggrieved seculars of Dublin. In addition to providing a comprehensive list of regular clergy, it includes sensitive information concerning two disputed legacies enjoyed by the regulars for the training of priests abroad.17 Such extreme acts reflect the frustration felt among the secular clergy in Dublin generally. According to the list of priests, drawn up by the seculars, in the present document, there were only ten seculars active in the city in 1633, as opposed to eighty-one regulars, excluding lay brothers and novices. Of these regulars, according to this source, twenty were Franciscans, with twenty-one Jesuits. Of the ten seculars named, Cahil, Harris and Peter Caddell were clearly opposed to Fleming and to the religious orders in general. Of the remaining seven, Brangan and Doyle were dismissed as 'creatures' of the regulars. The seculars also claimed that many of the best secular clergy had been exiled from the diocese. The seculars' numerical weakness, coupled with the presence of a strong regular archbishop ill-disposed towards them, made their position more difficult than that of their counterparts in dioceses such as Meath, Ossory and Ferns, where a tighter rein was kept on the regulars. The reference in the present document to 'the meaner sorte of parish priests' who sided with the regulars suggests that the seculars who provided Wentworth with this information, saw themselves as representing a better class of clergy. In this context it is important to note that while the friars traditionally enjoyed support among the lower orders in Dublin they were also well viewed by many families further up the socio-economic ladders. This was especially true of new orders like the Jesuits and the Capuchins, who drew their recruits from some of the leading city and Pale families.18 In these circumstances, it is perhaps understandable that some secular priests, feeling that their archbishop was

14 Jennings (ed.), Wadding papers, p. 557; Kearney, 'Ecclesiastical polities', p. 207. 15 Edmund Doyle was parish priest of St Audoen's, 1631-37. See Raymond Gillespie, 'Catholic religious cultures in the diocese of Dublin, 1614-97' in Kelly and Keogh (eds), History of the Catholic diocese of Dublin, p. 137. 16 Moran, Archbishops, p. 324; Patrick Francis Moran (ed.), Spicilegium Ossoriense (3 vols, Dublin, 1874-84), i, pp 204-5; Roche to Propaganda, 20 October 1635, ibid., p. 205. 17 See Strafford Papers, Str P 20/174, which consists of a report on the Plunkett legacy referred to in the present document. 18 See Colm Lennon, The lords of Dublin in the age of reformation (Dublin, 1989), pp 213-14.

40



WENTWORTH AND DUBLIN S CATHOLIC CLERGY, IO33

prejudiced against them, should have looked outside the diocese for support and even to the protestant administration.

However benign the new administration may have made itself appear, the present document and subsequent events make it clear that Wentworth's main motive in involving himself in the matter was to exploit it to his own advantage. The extent to which the new deputy's subsequent policies followed the 'Considerations to be proposed' contained in the present document is worth noting. It suggests that they were written up by someone who knew Wentworth's mind very well. The author may have been his private secretary, Sir George Raddiffe, who had preceded him into Ireland and would have had occasion to acquaint himself with these controversies.19

The 'Considerations' make interesting reading. With regard to the Catholics, it was proposed that the current controversy be fomented by aiding the weaker side, the seculars, and advised that the case between Harris and Doyle be heard publicly before the protestant archbishop of Dublin. It is also proposed that the 'novell usurped power' of exiling exercised by the catholic archbishop be curbed, and that he be made to limit the activities and number of the regulars, in particular through the exclusion of new orders. The proposal regarding Frs Harris and Doyle would have been pleasing to Irish protestants, as it would have served to expose and embarrass the catholic church. Protestant commentators at the time gleefully noted the public nature of the dissensions.20 While the latter proposals regarding religious orders were not acted on, they too would have been welcomed by protestants as measures to reduce the visibility and activity of the catholic church. In general, while the lord deputy had no immediate plans to carry through the conversion of Irish catholics, the propagation of divisions in the catholic church did suit his stated long term objective of bringing the whole island under one form of divine service, at what he judged to be a 'fit season'.21 In the short term, however, his support for the seculars helped to keep the clerical dissensions going and his continuing protection of Paul Harris frustrated Fleming's efforts to curb his clergy.

From an early stage, John Roche of Ferns had been concerned with the risks of bringing internal church matters before Wentworth. He feared an 'exercise of authority' by the deputy rather than a manipulation of the dispute.22 In 1634, Bishop Thomas Dease of Meath (c. 1568-1652) had to admit that it would be impossible for him to enforce a commission ordering Harris to leave Dublin as he was 'safely reposing in the very highest courts in the land'. He claimed he would have incurred government sanction if he cited Harris before an ecclesiastical court, as the Brussels inter-nuncio had requested him to do.23 In a

19 Cal S. P. Ire., 1633-47, p. 14. On Raddiffe, see T. D. Whitaker (ed.) The life and original correspondence of Sir G. Raddiffe (London, 1810). 20 Ibid., pp 14, 16-17. 21 W. Knowler (ed.), Letters and despatches of the earl

ofStrafforde (2 vols, London, 1739), ii, p. 39; Kearney, Strafford in Ireland, p. 119. 22 Roche to Propaganda, Kilkenny, 15 November 1634, in Moran (ed.), Spicil. Oss. I, p. 198. 23 Moran, Archbishops, p. 379. Efforts to subdue Harris were orchestrated from Rome, largely through Luke Wadding. See Arch. Hib., xiv (1949), pp 16-17.

41




letter written in October 1635, Roche advised the Propaganda that, rather than execute the commission to have Harris removed from the diocese of Dublin, it would be better to leave him alone, as he had been forbidden by Wentworth to leave the city and, in any case, had ceased administering the sacraments.24 Nonetheless, the lord deputy and the king's commissioners continued to involve themselves in the dispute, as is attested by the indictment in 1636 of the Franciscan John Preston, for allegedly distributing Francis Matthews' s book on the Cahil Propositions.25

Wentworth did act on the 'Consideration' concerning the legacies and moved to have them seized and converted to redeem impropriated livings for state clergy. However, he experienced great difficulties in his efforts to seize the bequest of /1000 made by the late merchant and alderman, Thomas Plunkett, and eventually desisted.26

Wentworth' s key motive for involvement in these clerical matters, however, was undoubtedly immediate political expediency. By appearing to deal fairly with these internal catholic dissensions, as the present document advised him, he would have helped increase catholic confidence in him, at a time in which his negotiations with the Old English seemed to suggest a better deal for catholics under the new administration. The lord deputy clearly felt that gaining the confidence of the Old English would mean having their support in the forthcoming parliament, where he intended to take on the influence of the New English.27 The 'puritannicall faction' referred to in the present document was presumably the group of MPs which represented the interests of the New English settlers in Ireland, most of whom were members of an established church which was considerably more calvinistic than its parent church in England.28 Throughout his period in office, Wentworth sought to suppress these 'calvinistic' elements in the church of Ireland in order to bring it closer to the high church model favoured by his friend and advisor, William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury.29

The lord deputy's apparent indulgence towards the king's Irish catholic subjects waned dramatically during the second session of the parliament of 1634. It might be argued, however, that his meddling in catholic church affairs was preparatory to this, in that he hoped to lessen the influence of the clergy on catholic MPs. After the second session Wentworth complained, perhaps

24 Moran (ed.), Spicil. Oss., p. 205. 25 See Brendan Jennings (ed.), 'The indictment of Fr John Preston, Franciscan', in Archivium Hibernicum, xxvi (1963), pp 50-55. This reproduces Marsh's Library Ms Z.4.2.1, No 4 (b). Mss Z.4.2.1 No 4 (a) and No 5 also relate to the indictment. In the latter, reference is made to Fleming's banishment of Cahil and Harris from his diocese. 26 Strafford papers, Str P 6/21, 68, 75, and 92. His efforts elsewhere met with more success. See John Canon Begley, The diocese of Limerick in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Dublin, 1927), pp 397-8. 27 See Clarke, Old English, chapter IV; Kearney, Strafford in Ireland, p. 61. 28 Ibid., pp 104-07; Alan Ford, The protestant reformation in Ireland (Frankfurt, 1985), chapter 8. 29 See Kearney, Strafford in Ireland, pp 112-19; Aidan Clarke, 'The government of Wentworth' in F.X. Martin and T.W. Moody (eds), A new history of Ireland. Vol III: Early modern Ireland, 1534-1691 (Oxford, 1976), pp 257-8.

42




disingenuously, of the influence of priests on some members.30 While clerical influence is hard to gauge, it might be noted that there were repeated reports of it during the 1640-41 parliament.31 Wentworth's involvement in catholic disputes may thus have been an attempt both to mollify and weaken catholic interests in the parliament.

The catholic clergy, like its laity, learned quickly from its mistake of trusting Wentworth. The correspondence on the matter from 1634 onwards suggests a church trying to pull together and to put the divisions behind it. Thus the challenge presented by the state in supporting Harris was not taken up. However, if Wentworth failed to propagate the dissensions for long, his involvement in the matter did bring him success in other ways. His decision to manipulate church affairs, rather than remain aloof from or hostile to them, was a novel approach that served him well in the short term. It helped him win catholic support initially in the parliament of 1634, and it allowed him to keep the dissensions going throughout that year and beyond, thus weakening the church and limiting its influence on the catholic MPs.

As a consequence of these incidents, the catholic church in Dublin kept a low profile for most of the remainder of Wentworth's term of office. Gone, for the most part, were the public disputes and public displays of power characteristic of Fleming's early years as archbishop. Wentworth's success was, however, illusory. His support of Harris did not cause a split among the catholic laity as they continued to support the regular clergy and shunned Harris's masses, as ordered by Fleming.32 Indeed, the enduring dominance and popularity of the regulars probably accounts for the relatively limited effect of the dissensions on Dublin's catholic community. It may also help to explain how Fleming managed to retain his authority despite attempted interference of bishops like Rothe in the business of the diocese.

The whole affair is suggestive of the complexity of structures and divisions within the catholic church in the 1630s. It also indicates that ecclesiastical authority was highly localised in nature, a fact that acted as a bar on any one prelate gaining a predominant influence nationally. Such a picture challenges the received view of the catholic church as suffering divisions mainly along simple ethnic lines.

30 Strafford Mss, vol. 9, £35, cited in Kearney, Strafford in Ireland, pp 66-7. 31 See Lord Justice Parsons to Secretary Vane, 3 August 1641 {Cal. S. P. Ire., i6fi~4J). 32 Moran (ed.), Spicil. Oss., p. 205.

43




Note on the text The document may be found among the Strafford Papers, part of the Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments, housed at the Archives at Sheffield City Libraries. The Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments have been accepted in lieu of Inheritance Tax by HM Government and allocated to Sheffield City Council. The document is reproduced here with the kind permission of the City Librarian.

Original spelling has been retained, although standard contractions have been silently expanded. Interlineai superscriptions are marked with deltas, thus: < >. Crossed out words have been placed in square brackets and underlined. Doubtful renderings have also been placed in square brackets. Some of the marginal notes on the lists of clergy have been moved to the footnotes in an effort to increase clarity. This is indicated where it occurs.

I wish to thank Mr Kenneth Nicholls, formerly of University College Cork, for his invaluable assistance in preparing this document and Dr David Edwards, University College, Cork.

44



WENTWORTH AND DUBLIN S CATHOLIC CLERGY, IÒ33

TEXT

The state of the difference betweene the Seculars & Regulars

The state of the The present controversy is betweene the Titular ArchBishop difference and the Regulars generally and some of the meaner sorte of the

parish priestes who have bene preferred by him and syde with him on the one parte and the better sorte of the Secular Clergy on the other syde 1 They charge him that he hath endevoured by all meanes to subtract [their] livelyhood from the Clergye that he may bringe the whole moulter to the Regulars 2 That he hath exiled out of his diocese sundry of the best of the Secular Clergy as Doctor Cadell Doctor Cahill father Harris, without alledging any crime against them, without legall proceedings, without [invocatinge] the assistante of the Secular arme, and hath excommunicated or suspended them for disobeying his sentence, and inhibited all the inhabitants in his diocese to heare their masses under paine of excommunication All which is repugnant both to the Canons of this Church and customes of this Kingdome 3 That he doth not only legally determine civili causes wherein Ecclesiastick persons are interested after a legall manner, but also hath declared Paul Harris priest to be excommunicated a juro for bringing another priest before the civili magestrate for detaining his bookes. Contrary to the established customes of the kingdomes of England & Ireland, which in many cases by their lawes do prejudice] the canon which proceedings of his would not have bene tollerated under a Roman Catholick prince before the Reformation

All which upon full examination of the cause is found to be apparently true.

Considerations to 1 Whether it be not fitt that this contention should be fomented be proposed and the Secular priestes being the weaker part be supported and

countenanced 2 That in respect [that] <the other> syd may be usefull either for settling the state or for passing acts beneficiali for the Church against the puritanicall faction in parlament, it be not fitt to forbeare all rigide proceedings against them untili the tymes be more convenient & the [army] putt in better order 3 That in the meane tyme >[upon this juste advantage - herd by themselves]< the Said Titular ArchBishop be commanded to

45




restraine the exorbitant begging of his fryars, and their numerous increase which is now growne grievous to their owne syde, and to put in practise that power which is given to every ordinary by the Bull of the present Pope dated Sept 12: 1628. as allso to exclude those orders altogether which are crept into this Kingdome now of late and had no former admittance which by the canons he may doe. 4 That the said ArchBishop do renounce his novell usurped power of exiling any of his maiestyes Subjects of what profession soever 5 that he forbeare not only to censure any for impleading an Ecclesiastick person before the civil magestrate but allso to determine any such civili differences, after a legall manner& not by voluntary reference & arbitrement 6 That he declare his former censures to be voyd or otherwise revoke them 7 Wheras Harris and Doyle a Secular and a Regular have scattered most scandalous libells the one against the other, for which Harris doth prosecute Doyle in the Consistory at St Patrickes whether it be not fitt that it be commended to the care of the Lord ArchBishop of Dubline to see that the said cause be not ended without a publicke hearinge and censure.

[Page Break] And wheras there is lately made a discovery of a [1000] thousand poundes given by one Plonkett a merchant deceased about 4 yeares since, to be letten forth after the rule of ten poundes in the hundred and the increase to be employed for the maintenance of students beyond seas, and fitting them for the sacerdotali function in Ireland which is now allso wholy converted to the benefitt of the fryars And another summe of an hundred and seven poundes given by a priest to be letten [after the] at the same rate and the increase to be employed to the same use, both which summes are in good handes Whether it be not fitt to call the said parties before the Councell table and convert the sayd summes to the bringinge in of one or more impropriations and restoring them to the Church And the like for any such legacy >or [burse] < that shall hereafter be discovered. The state of the difference betweene the Seculars and the Regulars

[Page Break]

46




The state of the Romish Ecdesiastickes about Dubline and their p'sent controversyes Sept: 19: 1633

This account given By the Regulars

Secular priestes. 12 Franciscans 9 1 Mr. Plonkett 1 John Barnwall33 2 Brangan34 2 John Preston35 3 Houghton 3 Bernard Archbold Sacerdotes 4 Doyle 4 John Dardiss 5 Cahell 5 Francis Higgins 6 Donagh3 6 Nich: Mortimer 7 Cardon 7 Rich: Whichell 8 Browne37 8 Edw: Farback Laici 9 Longe 9 Symon Wafer38 10 Dowde 11 o Berne Carmelites 8 12 Sweetman 1 James Brislane 13 Doctor Cadell 2 Stephen Browne 14 Harris39 3 John Dowdall 15 A Scotch priest 4 Nich: Reader Sacerdotes 16 An Irish priest that lived in Fraunce 5 Gephrye Cooke

6 Barth: Pyan 7 Francis Taffe

8 Barth Russell Laici

Capuchins 7 Dominicans 2 1 Bar: Barnwall40 1 Thomas Brangan Sacerdotes 2 Luke Bath41 2 Hugh Duigin Sacerdotes

3 Nicholas Archbold Augustines 2 4 Christoph: Kerine 1 Gephrye Pursell Sacerdotes 5 Peter Nugent 2 lames Kenedye Laici 6 Gregory Conerye Bernardines 1 7 Simon Lalys 1 Florence Myeles Sacerdos

Jesuitts 5 In all 34 1 William Malone42 of which they say 8 are often in 2 Henry Cusack43 the country and 7 lay brothers.

33 Arch. Hib., xiv (1949), p. 79. 34 Arch. Hib., viii (1941), p. 58; Arch. Hib., xiv, (1949), p. 78. 35 T.C.D. Ms 567, 35V. See also footnote 25 above. 36 Arch. Hib., viii (1941), p. 60; Robert J. Hunter, 'Catholicism in Meath c. 1622' in Collect. Hib, xiv (1971), p. 10. 37 Arch. Hib., viii (1941), p. 58. 38 Arch. Hib., xiv (1949), p. 80. 39 Arch. Hib., viii (1941), p. yy. 40 Cal. Carew Mss., 1603-24, p. 286; Arch. Hib., xiv (1949), p. 81. 41 Cal Carew Mss., 1603-24, p. 286. 42 E. Hogan (ed.), Description of Ireland in 1598 (Dublin, 1878), p. 290. 43 Ibid; Arch. Hib., xiv (1949), p. 82; Cal. Carew Mss., 1603-24, p. 285.

47




Sacerdotes 3 John Pursell 4 Thomas Quin 5 Henry [Caroli]

To this the Seculars answere 1 that some of these priests are but itinerants 2ndly some [_] of best rank exiled by the Bishopp 3rdly Some others as Brangan and Doyle the only zelots for the Regulars whose creatures they are 4 the number of their Regulars is much greater than is pretended as by the ensueing catalogue will appeare

Secular priests 10

This account 1 Doctor Patrick Cahill doctus44 7 Doctor Caddell given by the 2 Patrick Brangan indoctisimus45 8 Paul Harris Seculars 3 Edmond Doyle eiusdem farinae46 9 Thomas Dowde doctus

4 William Donough semidoctus47 10 Rich: oberne non indoctus 5 William Browne non indoctus4 6 Adrian Cardan semidoctus These have cure of soules franciscani

[Page Break]

Catalogus Sanctorum

Franciscans 20 Carmelites _ 1549 1 Thomas Fleming50 alias Barnwell Archi- 1 John Plonkett simplex51

episcopus 2 John Barnwall nobilis52 2 James Brislan 3 John Preston incendiarius53 3 Steven Browne 4 Thomas Babe54 haereticus 4 John Dowdall 5 Chr: Plonkett55 nequam et indoctus 5 Nidi: Rider 6 Simon Wafer malitiosus in summo gradu56 6 Gepphry Cooke 7 Clement Welsh popularis detractor57 7 Barth Frian 8 Aspall astutus semidoctus58 8 Francis Taffe 9 John Dardess indoctus 9 Barth. Russell 10 Richard [Wheatfer] indoctus 10 Edmond Hore 11 James Brislan nebulo59 11 Mathew Welsh 12 Nich: Mortimer nebulo 12 Nich: Welsh

44 Doctus: 'learned'. 45 Indoctissimus: 'veryunlearned'. 46 Eiusdem farinae: Of the same grain, sort. 47 Semidoctus: half-learned. 48 Non indoctus: 'not unlearned'. 49 A marginal note describes the Carmelites as 'omnes famelii formalissimi et malitiosi'. 50 Cal. Carew Mss., 1603-24, p. 286; Arch. Hib., xiv (1949), p. 79. 51 Simplex: 'humble' or 'honest'. 52 Nobilis: 'nobleman'. 53 Incendiarius: 'firebrand'. 54 Arch. Hib., xiv (1949), p. 79. Haereticus: 'heretic'. 55 Arch. Hib., xiv (1949) p. 79; Cal. Carew Mss. 1603- 24, p. 286. 56 Malitiosus in summo gradu: 'malicious in the highest degree'. 57 Popularis: 'of humble background'. 58 Astutus nonindoctus: 'clever and not unlearned'. 59 Nebulo: 'a nobody', 'worthless'.

48




13 Francis Higgins indoctus 13 Collumb 14 John Nalog scurra6° 14 Danieli 15 Peter Tankard Ignoramus61 15 Patrick Donovan

Haereticorum antesigna 2

16 Bernard Archbold Ignoramus 17 Edward Farbeck Ignoramus 18 Thorn: Strong63 nebulorum Coripheus Augustines 4 19 Nich: Stronge ignotus64 1 Geffry Pursall nequam 20 James Comberford zelosus absque scientia 5 2 James Kenedy popularis 3 Hilcock simplex

Dominicans 5 4 Moore scurra

1 Thomas Brangan malitiosissimus Jesuits [_] 2166 2 Hugh Duigin 1 Robt Nugent67

provincial 3 Thady Murphy astutus 2 Wil: Malone alias Morgan 4 John Scurlegg68ignoramus 3 Henry Cusack/alias brown

5 Tegge ignoramus 4 Thomas Quin/Superior 5 Henry [Cavali]

Bernardines 6 6 Henry fitzSimons 1 Paul Raggett grossum caput69 7 James Lattin7° 2 Patrick Plunkett nobilis 8 Christoph: Segree 3 Francis Plonkett indoctus 9 Nich: Talbott

4 Richard Myles homo mundanus71 10 John Pursell72

5 Wulverston indoctus 11 John [Ralley] 6 Bryan ignoramus 12 Nich: Nugent73 13 George fitz Garrert

14 John Carolan

Capuchins 1074 15 Robt Bath75 1 Barnaby Barnwell 16 Robt Nethervill76 2 Luke Bath 17 John Plonkett77

3 Nich Arch Ball 18 Henry Plonkett78

60 Scurra: 'dandy', 'man-about-town'. 61 Ignoramus: 'unlearned', or possibly, in the legal sense, 'we have no information'. 62 Haereticorum antesigna: 'leader of the heretics'. 63 Arch. Hib., xiv (1949), p. 80. Nebulorum Coripheus: 'leader of the nobodies'. 64 Ignotus: 'unknown'. 65 Zelosus absque scientia: 'zealous but without knowledge'. 66 In a marginal note the Jesuits are described as prudentes Sicut Serpentes ('wise as serpents'). 67 Arch. Hib., xiv (1949), p. 80; Cal. Carew Mss 1603-24, p. 285; Hogan (ed.), Description, p. 291. 68 Hugh Fenning, 'A list of Dominicans in Ireland, 1657' in Collect. Hib., xxv (1983), p. 27. 69 Grossum caput: 'big head'. 70 Arch. Hib., iv (1915), p. 76. 71 Homo mundanus: 'a worldly man'. 72 Arch. Hib. xiv (1949), p. 82. 73 Ibid; Hogan (ed.), Description, p. 290; Cal. Carew Mss. 1603-24, p. 285; Hunter, 'Catholicicism in Meath', p. 8. 74 In a marginal note the Capuchins are described as 'omnes quoad as.tutiam mere Jesuitae' ('in regard to cleverness they are true Jesuits'). 75 Arch. Hib., xiv (1949), p. 81; Hogan (ed.), Description, p. 290; Cal. Carew Mss. 1603-24, p. 285; T.C.D. Ms. 567, f. 35V. 76 Arch. Hib., xiv

(1949), p. 81; Hogan (ed.), Description, p. 290; Cal. Carew Mss. 1603-24, p. 285; Hunter, p. 9. 77 Cal. Carew Mss. 1603-24, p. 286; Hunter, 'Catholicism in Meath', p. 8; Arch. Hib., xiv (1949), pp 76, 77, 82. 78 Ibid., p. 82; Hunter, 'Catholicism in Meath', p. 8.

49




4 Christoph: [Karny] 19 Thadey 5 Peter Nugent 20 Laghlin Younge 6 Gregory o Conyre 21 Barth: [Farline] 7 Simon Lalis 8 Collm: o Machtine 9 Comin 10 Aspall

In all 81 Besydes their novices which are thought not to be few and divers lay brothers unknowne

<To this the regulars answere that some of these are mistaken some are preferred to other places, and many live dispersed beyond sea and in other partes of this Kingdome>79

20 (264)

79 This note is written along the left margin of the 'Catalogus Sanctorum' section of the document.

50



Wentworth and Dublin's Catholic Clergy: A Document from the Stafford Papers

Documents

Transcript of Wentworth and Dublin's Catholic Clergy: A Document from the Stafford Papers