Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Women's Status (was: SEC: Unclassified.)

Expand Messages
  • Sharon L. Krossa
    ... I think the people who are so sensitive about university degrees and training need to take those chips off their shoulders. What matters in historical
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      At 3:56 PM +1000 6/1/2001, Gurteen, MR Pedr wrote:
      >Good my Lord, and others, who have seen fit to chastise my use of the, some
      >what prejudicial, word "subjugation" in my last missive.
      >With regard to the treatment of women by the Roman Church, as a comparison
      >with the Celtic Church, I can find no other word that fits as accurately.
      >Unlike most here I do not posses a fine degree from a famous university.

      I think the people who are so sensitive about university degrees and
      training need to take those chips off their shoulders. What matters
      in historical discourse is evidence and sound reasoning, not degrees.
      If some big gun university professor can't back up his theories with
      evidence and sound reasoning, you should rightly dismiss those
      theories; by the same token, if some kindergarten dropout has the
      evidence and sound reasoning to support her theories, her lack of
      formal education doesn't matter. (And this, in fact, is what good
      university lecturers are trying to teach the students in their
      classes -- how to judge and evaluate other people's theories as well
      as evidence. That's the only reason why a degree can be a good rough
      guide, though not a guarantee; it means the person has had training,
      but it doesn't mean they'll use that training well.)

      >However in some fifty (50) years of eclectic reading, and travel through out
      >the British Isles, I have seen something of the effect of the Roman Church
      >on the Celtic peoples.

      While eclectic reading was undoubtedly informative, travelling
      through the modern British Isles really only tells you about the
      modern British Isles. Medieval society was quite different; a lot
      happened in the half a millennium since the Middle Ages, and a lot
      happened over the millennium and more of the Middle Ages themselves.

      >The Synod of Whitby in 664CE, was the start of the replacement of the Celtic
      >Church by the Roman Church. A replacement that was continued by the influx
      >of Saxon nobles as exiles into Scotland who were all members of the Roman
      >church, and later a rash of marriages by both Kings and Nobles to both
      >Saxons and Normans, who were all members of the Roman church. This lead
      >almost inevitable to the establishment of a feudal system in Lowland
      >Scotland,

      I won't go fully into it here, but I'd be cautious when talking about
      the "feudal system". It is a modern term for a modernly constructed
      concept that, quite frankly, in my opinion doesn't actually help with
      understanding the Middle Ages. (It was originally a concept invented
      by lawyers formulating Early Modern land law and it then took on
      lives of its own, mutating out of all recognition. Even those
      historians who still use "feudalism" are best advised to define it
      whenever they use it because there are so many contradictory
      definitions in use that without indicating what is meant by it, it is
      an essentially meaningless term.) In a Scottish context, a very
      useful exercise is to sit down and list out exactly what changed with
      the supposed introduction of "feudalism". (So, in this context, what
      exactly changed for women?)

      >and the promotion and supremacy of the Roman Church. Ireland
      >suffered a similar fate under the Norman invaders. The effect of this change
      >on the lives and rights of women was massive.

      I think it is premature to make this claim -- I don't believe
      sufficient scholarly attention has been paid to the subject for us to
      come to such a sweeping conclusion of "massive" change in the lives
      and rights of women, especially not due solely to the switch from
      Celtic to Roman church. I have no doubt things changed over this
      time, but we need to look at exactly what changed and do so in
      context.

      >The Celtic Church appears to have accepted women as priests the Roman Church
      >did not.

      Evidence for women priests in the Celtic church?

      >The Celtic Church allowed married priests the Roman Church frowned on the
      >practice.

      Accepting this at the moment at face value, how would this be
      evidence that women were "subjugated" by the Roman Church?

      >The Celtic Church had mixed, male and female, abbeys the Roman Church did
      >not.

      Accepting this at the moment at face value, how would this be
      evidence that women were "subjugated" by the Roman Church?

      >The Celtic Church had mixed abbeys under (female) abbesses the Roman Church
      >did not.

      Accepting this at the moment at face value, how would this be
      evidence that women were "subjugated" by the Roman Church?

      >The Celtic Church left the running of the Church in the hands of it's abbots
      >and bishops, both male and female, the Roman Church demanded centralisation
      >under the (male) Pope.

      Accepting this at the moment at face value, how would this be
      evidence that women were "subjugated" by the Roman Church?

      >The Celtic Church worked within the Brehon law, in which women were accepted
      >as equals under, and even as administrators of, this law.

      Evidence that women were considered equal to men under Brehon law?

      Looking at what Ellis claims Brehon law said (in _Celtic Women_ --
      but for the problems of this book, see the earlier posts by me and
      Eogan), it seems quite clear to me that women were _not_ accepted as
      equals to men under Brehon law.

      For example, Ellis says (pp. 115-6)"The <Ca/in Iarraith> gives
      fourteen as the age for a girl to complete her education, seventeen
      for a boy. An addition, however, in the <Bretha Cro/lige> allows a
      girl to continue until the age of seventeen 'if required'." Different
      amounts of education depending on gender isn't equality.

      Ellis also says (p. 117) "if she [female property owner] does not
      have sons then her daughter can inherit the property". Women
      inheriting only if they have no brothers isn't equality (and, indeed,
      is exactly the same practice found in medieval Scotland and England).

      Ellis says (p. 122) "The <Bretha Cro/lige> distinguishes three ranks
      of wife for the purposes of sick-maintenance: a chief wife, entitled
      to half her husband's honour price; a second wife, entitled to
      one-third; and any other wife, entitled to one-quarter." Wives having
      lower honour prices and honour prices based on that of their husbands
      isn't equality.

      Now, as said, I'm not entirely happy having to use Ellis as my
      source. It would be much better if we had access to a more reliable
      source, preferably one that actually has footnotes and direct and
      full quotes. But since Ellis seems to have a bias towards trying to
      prove that Celtic society was superior with regard to women, that
      even he notes the above inequalities probably means there is
      something to it.

      >The Roman Church
      >followed the Roman practice of demanding that a women be represented by a
      >man.

      Again, evidence, both for the claim that Celtic women did not have to
      be represented by a man and that in Roman church areas they did have
      to be represented by a man?

      Actually, here I should give a hint. Late medieval Scottish law (we
      don't really have much to work on for earlier times) stipulated that
      wives "may" be represented in law by their husbands. They didn't
      _have_ to be represented by their husbands, but their husbands may
      speak for them. In practice, Scottish wives often represented
      themselves, and indeed, sometimes women represented their husbands.
      Further, this had to do with husbands and wives specifically -- there
      was no specific provision in Scottish law for anyone to represent
      unmarried women [See Ewan "Scottish Portias"]

      >And this is not "subjugation"?

      Erm, no, doesn't look like you've proven any subjugation. Most of the
      things you've listed wouldn't be subjugation even if things were as
      you represent them, and for others there is some question as to
      whether things are as you present them.

      >Even to this day no law is passed in Eire that does not meet the approval of
      >the Roman Church, its hold is complete.

      Again, modern practice and modern society don't tell us about
      medieval or pre-medieval society.

      >These are my thoughts and opinions, should others disagree I respect your
      >right to be misguided.

      I'd rather get down to the evidence and get to grips with what
      differences there really were (and I have no doubt there were
      differences) than bother with modern notions such as "subjugation of
      women" and opinions.

      And, again, I am _not_ saying there were no changes in the role and
      status of women in these early centuries. I have no doubt that there
      were. But talking about "subjugation" doesn't help us learn about
      those changes, and most likely misrepresents both the pre-Roman
      church and Roman church situations.

      Sharon
      Sharon Krossa, krossa@...
      Medieval Scotland (including resources for names, clothing & history):
      http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
      The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names:
      The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
      Consultations about re-creating historically accurate pre-1600 names:
      Academy of Saint Gabriel - http://www.s-gabriel.org/
    • eoganog@aol.com
      ... Actually, I think very few of us here, if any, have a fine degree from a famous university. I hold a BA in English Lit from the Honors College of the
      Message 2 of 19 , Jun 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment

        >With regard to the treatment of women by the Roman Church, as a comparison
        >with the Celtic Church, I can find no other word that fits as accurately.
        >Unlike most here I do not posses a fine degree from a famous university.


        Actually, I think very few of us here, if any, have a fine degree from a
        famous university.  I hold a BA in English Lit from the Honors College of the
        oh-so-famous Western Carolina University.  Ever hear of Cullowhee? ;-)  (AKA
        Cullo-where?)


        >However in some fifty (50) years of eclectic reading, and travel through out
        >the British Isles, I have seen something of the effect of the Roman Church
        >on the Celtic peoples.

        While eclectic reading was undoubtedly informative, travelling
        through the modern British Isles really only tells you about the
        modern British Isles.


        Yup.  Unfortunately, if one takes a trip through teh British Isles today,
        outside of Ireland, you'll see very little effects of the Roman *Catholic*
        Church.  Mostly what you will encounter is the Church of England or the
        Church of Scotland, and people, even non-church goers, who are effected by
        the mindsets of these Churches.

        >The Synod of Whitby in 664CE, was the start of the replacement of the Celtic
        >Church by the Roman Church.


        I really wouldn't call it a replacement.  The Celtic Church and the Roman
        Church, in 664 AD, were both part of the Catholic Church.  It was a young
        church, still fleshing herself out.  But for the most part, the Church in
        Ireland and the Church in Rome were in agreement.  Most of the differences
        were just differences of rites and practices.  It was only when these
        differences caused conflicts (i.e. celebration of Easter at different times)
        that things needed to be settled.  When the Synod was called, it was
        demonstrated that the Roman rite continued the practice of St. Peter, whose
        faith was infallable, and it was decided to floow this practice in the Celtic
        areas.  Note, it was a long time yet before the more remote Celtic areas
        changed their practices.  It was not an overnight thing.  But, through it
        all, each side recognized they were part of one church.


        A replacement that was continued by the influx

        >of Saxon nobles as exiles into Scotland who were all members of the Roman
        >church, and later a rash of marriages by both Kings and Nobles to both
        >Saxons and Normans, who were all members of the Roman church. This lead
        >almost inevitable to the establishment of a feudal system in Lowland
        >Scotland,


        I think by the time you have Norman nobles coming into Scotland, all of
        Scotland was part of the Roman Catholic Church, so I don't think the influx
        of more Catholic nobles would have changed too much on the religious front.

        >and the promotion and supremacy of the Roman Church. Ireland
        >suffered a similar fate under the Norman invaders. The effect of this
        change
        >on the lives and rights of women was massive.


        Again, by the time Normans came ito Ireland, it was a Catholic Ireland, and
        the Roman church had always been seen as supreme among Catholics, so I don't
        think the Norman influx had any effect on this particulr issue.


        >The Celtic Church appears to have accepted women as priests the Roman Church
        >did not.


        According to who you read, there were women priests in the Celic Church,
        women bishops, and even a woman pope once!  Of course, I don't know how
        strong any of these claims are.  Again, let us look to Ellis, our favourite
        author. ;-)  He says there is evidence that they could perform the mass, and
        did.  His evidence for this is a letter from three Roman bishops at Tours
        written to two Breton priests between 515-20 AD.  The letter says, as he
        quotes it, "You celebrate the divine sacrafice of the Mass with the
        assistance of women to whome you give the name conhospitae.  While you
        distribute the Eucharist, they take the chalice and asminister the blood of
        Christ to the people. . . Renounce these abuses....!"

        A few notes.  This letter mentions women *assisting* the priest, not
        performing preisty functions themselves.  According to the description, their
        role may be best described as a deacon, or even as the modern role of
        Extra-ordinary Eucharistic Minister (which women can do, by the way).  Also
        note, this letter was written demanding them to end these abuses.  It in no
        way suggests it was allowed.  

        A modern example.  I went to a "Catholic" mass at a very unusual church about
        a year ago when I was visiting friends out of state.  Among a number of other
        abuses, a lay woman co-consecrated the eucharist along with the priest.  
        This, plus a number of other abuses made this mass invalid.  If the bishop
        there was notified of this, I imagine he woudl have written a very stern
        letter or visited with the priest himself.  Taken on its own as evidence,
        this does not mean that lay women can celebrate mass in the Catholic church
        today.   Yet this is the same conclusion that Ellis is coming to based on
        this 6th century letter.



        >The Celtic Church allowed married priests the Roman Church frowned on the
        >practice.


        Actually, all throughout the Catholic Church, in her early centuries, preists
        and bishops could marry, though celebacy was encouraged.  It was only much
        later (I can't remember the exact date, but after the period we are
        discussing here) that priests in the Roman Rite were required to be celebate.


        >The Celtic Church had mixed, male and female, abbeys the Roman Church did
        >not.


        Are you sure?  Nowhere else?  For some reason I think I read about mixed sex
        abbeys in other parts of Europe, but I can't be sure.  



        >The Celtic Church left the running of the Church in the hands of it's
        abbots
        >and bishops, both male and female, the Roman Church demanded centralisation
        >under the (male) Pope.


        Well, the Church in Ireland was a very monastic church.  It fit the more
        rural landscape.  It was just a difference in the way the church was
        organized.  As far as ecclesiastical authority, the bishops were always
        recognized as superior, even though an abbot may have more political clout.  
        BTW, everywhere in the Catholic world, today and in the 6th century, preists
        folow the bishops and the bishops follow the Pope, who is the bishop's
        bishop.  The Pope's relation to the average priest, the average lay person,
        and even the bishops was the same in Ireland as in the rest of Europe.  I
        don't understand your point here.


        >The Celtic Church worked within the Brehon law, in which women were accepted
        >as equals under, and even as administrators of, this law.


        The Church worked within the laws of whatever nation they happened to find
        themselves in.

        >Even to this day no law is passed in Eire that does not meet the approval of
        >the Roman Church, its hold is complete.


        Really?  I didn't know that.  What a concept, having a religous moral body
        examie your laws to see that they are moral and just. ;-)

        >These are my thoughts and opinions, should others disagree I respect your
        >right to be misguided.


        Well call me misguided.  I hope you don't see this as a personal attack.  
        People on this list are allowed to have different opinions of things.  Your
        view of church history in Scotland and Ireland just doesn't look very much
        like the history as I have found it to be.

        Aye,
        Eogan

        Tighearn Eoghan Og mac Labhrainn, OPE, CP
        Sacred Stone Pursuivant Extraordinary
        Web Master et A&S Minister, Hawkwood
        bard na hAlba agus Atlantia
        -------------------------------------------------------------
        WWW.ALBANACH.ORG
        -------------------------------------------------------------
      • Jason Gasper
        Oh, good. I m not the only one who wanted to challenge this. And from a woman, to! LOL! Jason/Robert ... ===== Is it so small a thing To have enjoyed the
        Message 3 of 19 , Jun 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Oh, good. I'm not the only one who wanted to challenge this. And from
          a woman, to! LOL!

          Jason/Robert

          --- "Sharon L. Krossa" <krossa@...> wrote:
          > At 3:56 PM +1000 6/1/2001, Gurteen, MR Pedr wrote:
          > >Good my Lord, and others, who have seen fit to chastise my use of
          > the, some
          > >what prejudicial, word "subjugation" in my last missive.
          > >With regard to the treatment of women by the Roman Church, as a
          > comparison
          > >with the Celtic Church, I can find no other word that fits as
          > accurately.
          > >Unlike most here I do not posses a fine degree from a famous
          > university.
          >
          > I think the people who are so sensitive about university degrees and
          > training need to take those chips off their shoulders. What matters
          > in historical discourse is evidence and sound reasoning, not degrees.
          >
          > If some big gun university professor can't back up his theories with
          > evidence and sound reasoning, you should rightly dismiss those
          > theories; by the same token, if some kindergarten dropout has the
          > evidence and sound reasoning to support her theories, her lack of
          > formal education doesn't matter. (And this, in fact, is what good
          > university lecturers are trying to teach the students in their
          > classes -- how to judge and evaluate other people's theories as well
          > as evidence. That's the only reason why a degree can be a good rough
          > guide, though not a guarantee; it means the person has had training,
          > but it doesn't mean they'll use that training well.)
          >
          > >However in some fifty (50) years of eclectic reading, and travel
          > through out
          > >the British Isles, I have seen something of the effect of the Roman
          > Church
          > >on the Celtic peoples.
          >
          > While eclectic reading was undoubtedly informative, travelling
          > through the modern British Isles really only tells you about the
          > modern British Isles. Medieval society was quite different; a lot
          > happened in the half a millennium since the Middle Ages, and a lot
          > happened over the millennium and more of the Middle Ages themselves.
          >
          > >The Synod of Whitby in 664CE, was the start of the replacement of
          > the Celtic
          > >Church by the Roman Church. A replacement that was continued by the
          > influx
          > >of Saxon nobles as exiles into Scotland who were all members of the
          > Roman
          > >church, and later a rash of marriages by both Kings and Nobles to
          > both
          > >Saxons and Normans, who were all members of the Roman church. This
          > lead
          > >almost inevitable to the establishment of a feudal system in Lowland
          > >Scotland,
          >
          > I won't go fully into it here, but I'd be cautious when talking about
          >
          > the "feudal system". It is a modern term for a modernly constructed
          > concept that, quite frankly, in my opinion doesn't actually help with
          >
          > understanding the Middle Ages. (It was originally a concept invented
          > by lawyers formulating Early Modern land law and it then took on
          > lives of its own, mutating out of all recognition. Even those
          > historians who still use "feudalism" are best advised to define it
          > whenever they use it because there are so many contradictory
          > definitions in use that without indicating what is meant by it, it is
          >
          > an essentially meaningless term.) In a Scottish context, a very
          > useful exercise is to sit down and list out exactly what changed with
          >
          > the supposed introduction of "feudalism". (So, in this context, what
          > exactly changed for women?)
          >
          > >and the promotion and supremacy of the Roman Church. Ireland
          > >suffered a similar fate under the Norman invaders. The effect of
          > this change
          > >on the lives and rights of women was massive.
          >
          > I think it is premature to make this claim -- I don't believe
          > sufficient scholarly attention has been paid to the subject for us to
          >
          > come to such a sweeping conclusion of "massive" change in the lives
          > and rights of women, especially not due solely to the switch from
          > Celtic to Roman church. I have no doubt things changed over this
          > time, but we need to look at exactly what changed and do so in
          > context.
          >
          > >The Celtic Church appears to have accepted women as priests the
          > Roman Church
          > >did not.
          >
          > Evidence for women priests in the Celtic church?
          >
          > >The Celtic Church allowed married priests the Roman Church frowned
          > on the
          > >practice.
          >
          > Accepting this at the moment at face value, how would this be
          > evidence that women were "subjugated" by the Roman Church?
          >
          > >The Celtic Church had mixed, male and female, abbeys the Roman
          > Church did
          > >not.
          >
          > Accepting this at the moment at face value, how would this be
          > evidence that women were "subjugated" by the Roman Church?
          >
          > >The Celtic Church had mixed abbeys under (female) abbesses the Roman
          > Church
          > >did not.
          >
          > Accepting this at the moment at face value, how would this be
          > evidence that women were "subjugated" by the Roman Church?
          >
          > >The Celtic Church left the running of the Church in the hands of
          > it's abbots
          > >and bishops, both male and female, the Roman Church demanded
          > centralisation
          > >under the (male) Pope.
          >
          > Accepting this at the moment at face value, how would this be
          > evidence that women were "subjugated" by the Roman Church?
          >
          > >The Celtic Church worked within the Brehon law, in which women were
          > accepted
          > >as equals under, and even as administrators of, this law.
          >
          > Evidence that women were considered equal to men under Brehon law?
          >
          > Looking at what Ellis claims Brehon law said (in _Celtic Women_ --
          > but for the problems of this book, see the earlier posts by me and
          > Eogan), it seems quite clear to me that women were _not_ accepted as
          > equals to men under Brehon law.
          >
          > For example, Ellis says (pp. 115-6)"The <Ca/in Iarraith> gives
          > fourteen as the age for a girl to complete her education, seventeen
          > for a boy. An addition, however, in the <Bretha Cro/lige> allows a
          > girl to continue until the age of seventeen 'if required'." Different
          >
          > amounts of education depending on gender isn't equality.
          >
          > Ellis also says (p. 117) "if she [female property owner] does not
          > have sons then her daughter can inherit the property". Women
          > inheriting only if they have no brothers isn't equality (and, indeed,
          >
          > is exactly the same practice found in medieval Scotland and England).
          >
          > Ellis says (p. 122) "The <Bretha Cro/lige> distinguishes three ranks
          > of wife for the purposes of sick-maintenance: a chief wife, entitled
          > to half her husband's honour price; a second wife, entitled to
          > one-third; and any other wife, entitled to one-quarter." Wives having
          >
          > lower honour prices and honour prices based on that of their husbands
          >
          > isn't equality.
          >
          > Now, as said, I'm not entirely happy having to use Ellis as my
          > source. It would be much better if we had access to a more reliable
          > source, preferably one that actually has footnotes and direct and
          > full quotes. But since Ellis seems to have a bias towards trying to
          > prove that Celtic society was superior with regard to women, that
          > even he notes the above inequalities probably means there is
          > something to it.
          >
          > >The Roman Church
          > >followed the Roman practice of demanding that a women be represented
          > by a
          > >man.
          >
          > Again, evidence, both for the claim that Celtic women did not have to
          >
          > be represented by a man and that in Roman church areas they did have
          > to be represented by a man?
          >
          > Actually, here I should give a hint. Late medieval Scottish law (we
          > don't really have much to work on for earlier times) stipulated that
          > wives "may" be represented in law by their husbands. They didn't
          > _have_ to be represented by their husbands, but their husbands may
          > speak for them. In practice, Scottish wives often represented
          > themselves, and indeed, sometimes women represented their husbands.
          > Further, this had to do with husbands and wives specifically -- there
          >
          > was no specific provision in Scottish law for anyone to represent
          > unmarried women [See Ewan "Scottish Portias"]
          >
          > >And this is not "subjugation"?
          >
          > Erm, no, doesn't look like you've proven any subjugation. Most of the
          >
          > things you've listed wouldn't be subjugation even if things were as
          > you represent them, and for others there is some question as to
          > whether things are as you present them.
          >
          > >Even to this day no law is passed in Eire that does not meet the
          > approval of
          > >the Roman Church, its hold is complete.
          >
          > Again, modern practice and modern society don't tell us about
          > medieval or pre-medieval society.
          >
          > >These are my thoughts and opinions, should others disagree I respect
          > your
          > >right to be misguided.
          >
          > I'd rather get down to the evidence and get to grips with what
          > differences there really were (and I have no doubt there were
          > differences) than bother with modern notions such as "subjugation of
          > women" and opinions.
          >
          > And, again, I am _not_ saying there were no changes in the role and
          > status of women in these early centuries. I have no doubt that there
          > were. But talking about "subjugation" doesn't help us learn about
          > those changes, and most likely misrepresents both the pre-Roman
          > church and Roman church situations.
          >
          > Sharon
          > Sharon Krossa, krossa@...
          > Medieval Scotland (including resources for names, clothing &
          > history):
          > http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
          > The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600
          > names:
          > The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
          > Consultations about re-creating historically accurate pre-1600 names:
          > Academy of Saint Gabriel - http://www.s-gabriel.org/
          >


          =====
          "Is it so small a thing
          To have enjoyed the sun,
          To have lived light in the spring,
          To have loved, to have thougth, to have done?"
          - Matthew Arnold

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
          a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
        • Jason Gasper
          ... I think we need to clarify definitions a little bit. I think that might help our discussion. When I think of the phrase subjugation of women I think of
          Message 4 of 19 , Jun 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- "Gurteen, MR Pedr" <pedr.gurteen@...> wrote:
            > Good my Lord, and others, who have seen fit to chastise my use of
            > the, some
            > what prejudicial, word "subjugation" in my last missive.

            I think we need to clarify definitions a little bit. I think that
            might help our discussion. When I think of the phrase "subjugation of
            women" I think of places like Iran, Yemmen, or other hardcore Islamic
            countries. These are places where women have no rights outside their
            husband or eldest direct male relative. Without one of these present a
            woman in these countries has practically no rights or protection under
            the law.

            If this is what you mean by "subjugation" then I would challenge that
            NEVER has Ireland or Scotland had women subjugated.

            > With regard to the treatment of women by the Roman Church, as a
            > comparison
            > with the Celtic Church, I can find no other word that fits as
            > accurately.
            > Unlike most here I do not posses a fine degree from a famous
            > university.
            > However in some fifty (50) years of eclectic reading, and travel
            > through out
            > the British Isles, I have seen something of the effect of the Roman
            > Church
            > on the Celtic peoples.

            First off, I have made clear repeatedly that I am an "armchair"
            historian at best. My (BA) degree is in business, not history. Yet I
            can still find no evidence to support your hypothesis. Please
            elucidate the effects of the Roman church that you are reffering to.
            The prior point about inheritance involves secular law, not church
            cannon at all. What has the Roman Church done to the Celtic people or
            elsewhere that could even vaguely be seen as subjugation?


            <Bit snip>
            > And this is not "subjugation"?

            Um... No. None of those points, even if true (which my research would
            challenge the veracity of), do not display subjugation by modern or
            historic context. For example so what if women had to have seperate
            monastaries? Were those abbeys any worse? Just because they couldnt
            be together doesnt mean that one is lesser. Please show subjugation.

            > Even to this day no law is passed in Eire that does not meet the
            > approval of
            > the Roman Church, its hold is complete.

            Um... No. The Roman Catholic Church may advise or give an opinion if
            asked but that is not binding to the Irish government in any fashion.
            If the government chooses to abide by those reccomendations that is
            choice not subjugation. I believe Irish law is publically available.

            > These are my thoughts and opinions, should others disagree I respect
            > your
            > right to be misguided.

            A little insulting, aren't we? Isn't it possible you could be the one
            misguided? Prehaps even focuing too much of modern opinion onto
            history without the evidence to back it up? Its fairly obvious you
            have issues with the Catholic Church but that is not sufficent to
            support your claims. Might it be conceivable that if so many disagree
            that you might be (gasp!) wrong?

            I know I've been shown incorrect on more than on occasion. A little
            research showed that my opponents/discussion partners were correct. I
            admitted it and changed my views to meet the facts, instead of trying
            to change the facts to meet my views. Something to consider...

            Jason Gasper
            SCAka Robert McKinnin,
            Astin Tor, Forgotten Seas, Calontir


            =====
            "Is it so small a thing
            To have enjoyed the sun,
            To have lived light in the spring,
            To have loved, to have thougth, to have done?"
            - Matthew Arnold

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
            a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.