Sir,
Fr. Seamus Murphy SJ, in his recent ‘Rite and Reason’ op-ed (‘Government betrays the Republic in desire to placate the ghosts of 1916’, Jan. 12), claims that the 1916 Rising, which the state is currently celebrating as a decisive event in the achievement of national independence, did not meet the criteria of ‘just war’ and therefore should be roundly condemned by current leaders of the Republic.
But Fr. Murphy’s notions of ‘just war’ are very strange indeed. In 2003 he claimed to be applying the same theology of liberation when he publicly endorsed the US-UK invasion of Iraq, which, apparently unlike the 1916 Rising, fully met the criteria of ‘just war’:
“The people of Iraq want peace and an end of oppression. They want neither Saddam nor war. But given Saddam’s addiction to war … he is likely, if left in power, to provoke more wars. That, coupled with the oppression and terror, far outweighs the burden of the US/UK invasion. At worst, the US/UK invasion is the lesser evil, at best a liberation.” (‘Liberation Theology and the Iraq War’, The Irish Catholic, Sept. 25, 2003).
Following the achievement of independence, the people of the Irish state enjoyed 93 continuous years of peace. Following the US-UK invasion of Iraq that country has experienced over a decade of the most horrendous warfare and destruction.
We should be grateful to Fr. Murphy for revealing to us the faulty criteria not so much of Liberation Theology but of latter day Jesuitical casuistry.
Philip O’Connor
55 St. Peter’s Tce.
Howth, Dublin
D13 X220
Fr.Murphy.is.a.bit.strange.Jude.
Father.Murphy.is.a. redacteder
Not a great deal has changed in 100 years. The vast bulk of the clergy opposed the Easter rising, opposed separation from the U.K. Of course many of the nauseating hypocrites encouraged Irishmen to go & join the British in their imperial war against Germany & Turkey.
Seamus Murphy seems keen on the theory of ‘just’ wars, presumably to do with justice.
Has he ever commented, justice-wise, about the abuse of children throughout the world by his clerical colleagues?
No one claiming to be a priest has the right to judge the morals of anyone since those revelations, especially in view of the fact that so few priests ever got the justice and jail that they deserved, but were sheltered every step of the way by the Catholic hierarchy.
Maybe the SJ after his name is for Sick Joker!
Fr. Murphy does a dreadful dis-service to his predecessor, the great Father Murphy, from old Kilcormack, a man with the vision and ability to lead, from the front, in the search for united independence.
The modern day one appears not to enjoy the same capacity. If this is is not the case, perhaps the Saggart maith, might come over and put his rhetoric to those who matter, the Irish people, in either part of our nation during this years democratic process’, permitting the people, who Connolly, Plunkett and Clarke, et al. fought for to determine his bona fides and deliver our own answers!
Neither the letter writer nor any commenters here have attempted to address the question in the headline, namely did the rising meet the criteria for a just war.
Instead we have the usual predictable attacks on anyone who is off message.
We are a dreadful bunch aren’t we my old friend. What do you think? Was the Rising a just war?
Yes dreadful.
Not sure why I should be the one to stick my neck out but ok.
At the risk of sounding like Mavis from corrie my answer is “I don’t really know”.
Arguably the rising did meet some criteria for a just war,but not others.
Primarily, I can’t see how it could claim ‘right authority’ and the immediate reaction from the population of Dublin coupled with the relative lack of support elsewhere suggests they could not claim the support of the people.
Secondly, there was no ‘probability of success’ which follows from the first point.Without mass support countrywide rebellion was not going to happen.Only the mishandling of the aftermath by the British turned defeat into a kind of victory.
The principles of ‘just cause’ and ‘proportionality’ could arguably be met.
The criteria of ‘last resort’ is doubtful to my mind..With Home Rule still a possibility amid the uncertainties of a World War the case for a violent rising at that time does not seem solid to me.That is hard to say from this distance of course.
As I say I am not certain I would say it did not meet the criteria, unlike the more recent conflict which clearly did not fulfil the just war criteria.
I have some hope that the many debates and scholarly arguments we are now seeing around the centenary will clarify my thinking on that question.
So what is your own opinion Antonio?
Hi.
See my comment below for my opinion
I didn’t meet any of the criteria, but even if it did that is not enough, as all the criteria must be met.
The economic problems are not ‘on their own’ as justification for war as you suggest, I’ve clearly outlined other issues such as the need to prevent the Irish nation going down a dangerous pro imperialist direction as desired by the constitutional nationalist s of the era.
Home Rule was to be implement end for only part of Ireland. The Conservative/unionist alliance successfully won partition for Ireland by threatening civil war through their paramilitary grouping the UVF. So already the meagre demand for home rule was being watered down due to the threat of force by an unrepresentative minority.
If Unionists were morally outraged by the actions of the Republican minority then they should not have introduced violent threats into the equation from 1912 onward.
Your comment that my personal opinion is irrelevant is very strange. By the logic your personal opinion is also irrelevant as well as every body talking about 1916. I was merely pointing out that I empathese with the republican separatist anti imperialist position of the era, and the Irish people were badly let down by the weakness of the IPP at the time in encouraging Irish men to fight in imperialist wars.
The republican s were correct that it was disgusting that 1000s of Irish men had to risk their lives in an unjust war to prove their suitability for a bit of devolution within the U.K. If the unelected house of lords had not blocked Home rule in the preceding decades against the wishes of the (limited) Irish electorate then perhaps a rising by 1916 would not have happened.
I wouldn’t support a violent uprising by the black population in USA today. Although I think the African american population would have been justified in a violent revolution in the early 20th century. The only factor that would be problematic would have been the unrealistic possibility of a successful outcome for them. Although as the Easter rising showed, later success can follow initial military failure. Eg the Sinn vein victory of 1918 (which unfortunate ly was rejected by imperialist Britain and war was made in contravention of the wishes of the majority)
You then go on to tell me again that my opinion is irrelevant because I wasn’t alive in 1916. Presumably the same applies to you.
Furthermore you need to remember that it was roughly half the population who had a vote at the time, which means the IPP could only ever claim a mandate from a minority of the population during its entire existence.
“The economic problems are not ‘on their own’ as justification for war as you suggest,”
Obviously. But which criterion do “poverty” or “economic problems” meet?
“I’ve clearly outlined other issues such as the need to prevent the Irish nation going down a dangerous pro imperialist direction as desired by the constitutional nationalist s of the era.”
There was no such “need”. The political direction of nationalists was a matter for the people to determine through election. If the people opposed constitutional nationalism they could vote against it. Disagreeing with the political direction of elected representatives is not a criterion for just war.
“Home Rule was to be implement end for only part of Ireland.”
That’s not what the Home Rule Act said and, even if it did, it would have been an entirely reasonable provision the inclusion of which didn’t justify killing and maiming people.
“Your comment that my personal opinion is irrelevant is very strange. By the logic your personal opinion is also irrelevant as well as every body talking about 1916.”
You miss the point. The point is that it was a matter for the people living in ireland at the time: not for you or me. The people at the time didn’t want or support a republic or a violent insurrection.
“I wouldn’t support a violent uprising by the black population in USA today.”
Why not? 70 years ago they were treated like second class citizens and you’ve already said that 70-year-old grievances are grounds for violent rebellion.
“Furthermore you need to remember that it was roughly half the population who had a vote at the time, which means the IPP could only ever claim a mandate from a minority of the population during its entire existence.”
That was the democratic facility at the time and one that was very progressive by contemporary standards. There is no evidence that republicans had any significant popular support among those without a vote. Republicans had the freedom to put their case to the people in elections but declined so to do.
Of course it wasn’t just. And neither was the Iraq war.
Yes it was just, Ireland had just over suffered 800 years of rapine, war, pillage, siege, slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide by famine, transportation at the hands of British overlords. Because most of the Irish were cowed into doffing the cap didn’t mean all were. Those weren’t those men and women who saw a different vision for Ireland seized their chance when Britain was in difficulty.
All that went before made the Irish Struggle a ‘Just War’
I’m afraid bad things having happened in previous centuries isn’t a criterion for a just war.
Try telling that to the Orange Order, MT….
Well there were many bad things happening in the early 20th century also.
Extreme levels of poverty across Irish society. Dublin reportedly had the worst slums in Europe at the time according to some historians. Home rule, which would leave Ireland with no means of setting its on tax system would have left an Irish Parliament impotent to address The major socioeconomic issues facing the nation.
Anyhow, the meagre desire of Home rule was not even a certainty as the combined forces of English Conservatism & ulster unionism thwarted its implementation for decades by 1916. For many on early 20thcentury Ireland it must have seemed impossible to meet the needs of the populace within the British state.
Personally I think the pathetic leadership of the IPP at the time combined with The intransigence of the Conservative/unionist party made a Rising justified & necessary.
As regards to injustice s in past centuries not being a justification for a rising, I don’t agree. For example, the famine was only 70 years old by the time of the Rising. In the preceding decades there was no apology from the British state, never mind necessary reparations & economic investments to counter balance the economic devastation wrought upon Ireland.
Redmond sought to make Ireland the junior partner in Britain’s empire. Imperialism was morally repugnant in my opinion & by staging the Rising the IRB & ICA sought to prevent Ireland going down a dangerous route of pro-imperialism. In this respect the Rising was a success
“Extreme levels of poverty across Irish society.”
On its own not enough to justify killing and maiming people.
“Home rule, which would leave Ireland with no means of setting its on tax system would have left an Irish Parliament impotent to address The major socioeconomic issues facing the nation.”
The type of powers for an Irish parliament was a matter for the Irish people to decide, not a tiny unrepresentative group of fanatics.
“Anyhow, the meagre desire of Home rule was not even a certainty as the combined forces of English Conservatism & ulster unionism thwarted its implementation for decades by 1916. For many on early 20thcentury Ireland it must have seemed impossible to meet the needs of the populace within the British state.”
The Home Rule Act was passed in 1914 and was to be implemented after the war.
“Personally I think the pathetic leadership of the IPP at the time combined with The intransigence of the Conservative/unionist party made a Rising justified & necessary.”
Your personal opinion is irrelevant. You weren’t even alive in 1916. It was a master for the Irish people living at the time to decide whether to have a rebellion.
“As regards to injustice s in past centuries not being a justification for a rising, I don’t agree. For example, the famine was only 70 years old by the time of the Rising. In the preceding decades there was no apology from the British state, never mind necessary reparations & economic investments to counter balance the economic devastation wrought upon Ireland.”
By that argument would you support a violent uprising in the US today by the Black population?
“Redmond sought to make Ireland the junior partner in Britain’s empire. Imperialism was morally repugnant in my opinion & by staging the Rising the IRB & ICA sought to prevent Ireland going down a dangerous route of pro-imperialism. In this respect the Rising was a success’m afraid bad things having happened in previous centuries isn’t a criterion for a just war.”
Again, your opinion 100 years after the event is irrelevant. Redmond and his party was elected and supported by the Irish people.
I agree totally with Johnny Red, only the Irish were not just cowed by the British but by people like Fr. Seamus and his clerical predecessors who liked to keep the peasants compliant so that they would continue to do their bidding and continue to keep the whole rotten ship afloat.
Anybody like Fr Seamus who thinks the Iraq war was a just one, is completely out of touch with the beliefs of his host community and has no credibility. The man needs to go and “have a word with himself”!
MT,
‘Your personal opinion is irrelevant” and ” again your personal opinion 100 years after the event is irrelevant”. This is a blog it is all about contributors opinions!
There is a little online test you can undertake to determine whether there is a likelihood that you are affected by Asperger’s syndrome it can come as quite a surprise to many that they are on the spectrum as it is grossly under diagnosed! It is very important that you are honest when answering the questions.
If one nation is being denied the right to decide its own destiny by the domination of another nation which built an empire through violence and rapine then I would humbly suggest that resistance to that nation’s domination is justifiable.
Y’all know what, I don’t give a flying fkuc whether or not our ‘revisionists’ seek somehow to re-describe the fight for the second Republic as just, or otherwise.
Too late, it happened, it was unsuccessful, as was the War of Independence but, I am proud of the fact Irish women and men took on the bullies who had done all they could to subdue us, I am proud as hell of the role my own close family played, in Rising and subsequently War of Independence, indeed earlier I buried an Uncle whose father fought in both, leter shot by the ex Tan’s in the Ulster Special Constabulary, as he walked home, unarmed.
Those who do not wish to celebrate a seminal event in our unfinished history, go boil yer heeds, for the rest of us, enjoy our celebrations.