Awful Disclosures of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery of Montreal Part 23

_From Father McMahon's Letter to the editor of the N. Y. Catholic Diary of March, 1836._

"The silence by which you indulge the latent springs of a mal-propense, so far from being an argument for culpability, is based upon the charitableness of a conscious innocence, and is, therefore, highly commendable. I say it is highly commendable, inasmuch as these worthy and respectable characters do not deign to answer falsehood, or turn their attention from their sacred avocations by effectually repelling allegations which all men, women, and children, able to articulate a syllable, in the city of Montreal, have repeatedly p.r.o.nounced to be utterly false, detestably false, and abominably scandalous.

"May I now call upon you, honest Americans, who, though you may differ from me in doctrinal points of religion, have, I trust, the due regard for truth and charity towards all mankind; and into whose hand that instrument of Satan's emissaries may fall, before you believe one syllable [illegible] attentively to peruse the following _facts_, which are [illegible] men of learning, of every persuasion, and in every country, and which you will find, by mature investigation, to serve as a sufficient key to discover the wicked falsehoods, circulated by the enemies of truth, in the work called, 'The Disclosures of Maria Monk,' but which, in consequence of the total absence of truth from the things therein contained, I have termed (and I think justly on that account), the devil's prayer-book. I beseech you to give my statements a fair, but impartial trial, weigh correctly the arguments opposed to them, according to your judgment--do not allow yourselves to be gulled by the empty or unmeaning phraseology of some of your bloated, though temperate, preachers. All I ask for the test of the following statement, is simply and solely the exercise of your common sense, without equivocation. 1st. I distinctly and unequivocally state, that the impugners of the Catholic religion and its doctrines, never dared to meet us in the fair field of argument. Never yet have they entered the lists in an eristical encounter, but to their cost. Why so?

because we have reason, religion, and the impenetrable s.h.i.+eld of true syllogistic argumentation in our favour. Witness, in support of the a.s.sertion, the stupid and besotted crew (pardon me for this expression, and find a proper term yourselves, for the politico-Theological Charlatans of England), who, not daring to encounter the Catholic Hierarchy of Ireland, in an honorable religious disputation, are forced to drag to their a.s.sistance those very apostates from Catholicity who were considered by their superiors unworthy of the situation they attempted to hold in that Church; for the purpose of propping up the staggering and debauched harlot, whose grave they are now preparing.

Only remark how they are obliged to have recourse to the exploded scholastic opinion of Peter Dens, by way of showing the intolerance of the Catholics, who repudiate the doctrine of religious intolerance.

Maryland, Bavaria, and the Cantons of Switzerland, prove the contrary by their universal religious toleration. Now I could mention, if I thought I had s.p.a.ce enough on this sheet, numbers of Protestant divines, who, in their writings, have strongly inculcated the absurd doctrines of ruling our consciences by the authority of the Civil Magistrates. See then, how strange it is that they seek to condemn us for doctrines which we abhor, and which they practice, even to this day. Mark that for an argument against our doctrines.

"2dly. I a.s.sert, that notwithstanding all the persecutions, all the falsehood and defamation daily exercised against the Catholics and their religion, they are at this moment the only people on the face of the earth, who maintain amongst them the unity of the true faith, and the regular succession in the Ministry, from Christ and his Apostles.

"3dly. I a.s.sert, that the late scandalous production against the Catholic Clergy of Montreal and the Catholic inst.i.tutions there, is a tissue of false, foul, designing, and scandalous misrepresentation. 1st. Because upon strict examination into all its bearings, it has been so proved upon the solemn oaths of a magistrate and others concerned. 2dly.

Because it is no way consonant to reason or common sense to say that those living at a considerable distance, and avowedly hostile to the Catholics and their religion, should feel so interested in the matter?

as the Catholics themselves, who are vitally concerned, and who had every facility of discovering any impropriety; who are zealous of the purity of their religion and its Ministers. 3dly. Because the loud cry of all the inhabitants of every denomination, from the well-known integrity, the extraordinary piety, the singular charity and devotedness of the Catholic Clergy, came in peals of just wrath and well-merited indignation on the heads of the degenerate monsters who basely, but ineffectually, attempted to murder the unsullied fame of those whom they deservedly held, and will hold, in the highest estimation.

"T. B. McMahon, _Missionary_."

Now this letter alludes to testimony legally given, as substantiating the charges against me. What testimony is intended? Any new testimony?

If so, where, and what is it? I never heard of any, of any description, except what I have inserted on the preceding pages, unless I except the violent, unsupported, and inconsistent a.s.sertion in newspapers, before alluded to. Has any testimony, legally given, been produced, which neither the Catholic Diary, nor any other Catholic paper, has either inserted or alluded to? No. The Missionary, McMahon, must refer to the Montreal affidavits; and since he has expressed his opinion in relation to their credibility and weight, I request my readers to form their own opinions, as I have put the means in their power.

It may, perhaps, appear to some, an act displaying uncommon "_concern_" in my affairs, or those of the Convent, for Father McMahon to take the pains to write on the subject from Canada. I know more of him and his concerns than the public do; and I am glad that my book has reached him. Happy would it have been for him, if he could prove that he did not leave Sherbrooke from the day when I took the Black veil, until the day when I cast it off. There are many able to bear witness against him in that inst.i.tution (if they have not been removed), and one out of it, who could easily silence him, by disclosures that he has too much reason to apprehend.

But to return--I a.s.sure my readers, then, that this book contains all the testimony that has been brought against me, so far as I can ascertain.

The extensive publication of the Montreal affidavits (for they appeared in the Roman Catholic papers, and were circulated, it is believed, very generally through New York), for a time, almost entirely closed the newspapers against me. My publishers addressed the following letter to the, editor of the N. Y. Catholic Diary, and waited on him with a third person, to request its publication in his next paper, but he declined.

He expressed doubts of my being in the city, and intimated a wish to see me; but when they acceded, he refused to meet me anywhere but _at his own residence!_

The same letter was then offered to other editors in New York, and even sent to Philadelphia for publication, but refused. It appeared on the 29th of February, in the Brooklyn Star, thus introduced:--

_Extracts from the Long Island Star of Feb. 29th._

"Since the publication of our last paper, we have received a communication from Messrs. Howe and Bates, of New York, the publishers of Miss Monk's 'Awful Disclosures.' It appears that some influences have been at work in that city, adverse to the free examination of the case between her and the priests of Canada; for thus far the news papers have been almost entirely closed against every thing in her defence, while most of them have published false charges against the book, some of a preposterous nature, the contradiction of which is plain and palpable.

"Returning to New York, she then first resolved to publish her story, which she has recently done, after several intelligent and disinterested persons had satisfied themselves by much examination that it was _true_.

"When it became known in Canada that this was her intention, six affidavits were published in some of the newspapers, intended to destroy confidence in her character; but these were found very contradictory in several important points, and others to afford undersigned confirmation of statements before made by her.

"On the publication of her book, the New York Catholic Diary, the Truth Teller, the Green Banner, and other papers, made virulent attacks upon it, and one of them proposed that the publishers should be 'Lynched.' An anonymous handbill was also circulated in New York, declaring the work a malignant libel, got up by Protestant clergymen, and promising an ample refutation of it in a few days. This was re-published in the Catholic Diary, &c. with the old Montreal affidavits which latter were also distributed through New York and Brooklyn; and on the authority of these, several Protestant newspapers denounced the work as false and malicious.

"Another charge, quite inconsistent with the rest, was also made, not only by the leading Roman Catholic papers, but by several others at second hand--viz. that it was a mere copy of an old European work. This has been promptly denied by the publishers, with the offer of $100 reward for any book at all resembling it.

"Yet, such is the resolution of some and the unbelief of others, that it is impossible for the publishers to obtain insertion for their replies in the New York papers generally, and they have been unsuccessful in an attempt in Philadelphia.

"This is the ground on which the following article has been offered to us for publication in the Star. It was offered to Mr. Schneller, a Roman priest, and editor of the Catholic Diary, for insertion in his paper of Sat.u.r.day before last, but refused, although written expressly as an answer to the affidavits and charges his previous number had contained.

This article has also been refused insertion in a Philadelphia daily paper, after it had been satisfactorily ascertained that there was no hope of gaining admission for it into any of the New York papers.

"It should be stated, in addition, that the auth.o.r.ess of the book, Maria Monk, is in New York, and stands ready to answer any questions, and submit to any inquiries, put in a proper manner, and desires nothing so strongly as an opportunity to prove before a court the truth of her story. She has already found several persons of respectability who have confirmed some of the facts, important and likely to be attested by concurrent evidence; and much testimony in her favour may be soon expected by the public.

"With these facts before them, intelligent readers will judge for themselves. She asks for investigation, while her opponents deny her every opportunity to meet the charges made against her. Mr. Schneller, after expressing a wish to see her, to the publishers, refused to meet her anywhere, _unless in his own house;_ while Mr. Quarter, another Roman Catholic priest, called to see her, at ten o'clock, one night, accompanied by another man, without giving their names, and under the false pretence of being bearers of a letter from her brother in Montreal."

_Reply to the Montreal Affidavits, refused publication by the Catholic Diary &c._

"To the Editor of the Catholic Diary.

"SIR--In your paper of last Sat.u.r.day, you published six affidavits from Montreal, which are calculated, so far as they are believed, to discredit the truth of the 'Awful Disclosures' of Maria Monk, a book of which we are the publishers. We address the following remarks to you, with a request that you will publish them in the Catholic Diary, that your readers may have the means of judging for themselves. If the case be so plain a one as you seem to suppose, they will doubtless perceive more plainly the bearing and force of the evidence you present, when they see it brought into collision with that which it is designed to overthrow.

"First, We have to remark, that the affidavits which you publish might have been furnished you in this city, without the trouble or delay of sending to Montreal. They have been here two or three months, and were carefully examined about that period by persons who are acquainted with Maria Monk's story, and were desirous of ascertaining the truth. After obtaining further evidence from Canada these affidavits were decided to contain strong confirmation of various points in her story, then already written down, only part of which has yet been published.

"Second. It is remarkable that of these six affidavits, the first is that of Dr. Robinson, and all the rest are signed by him as Justice of the Peace; and a Justice, too, who had previously refused to take the affidavit of Maria Monk. Yet, unknown to himself, this same Dr. R., by incidents of his own stating, corroborates some very important parts of Miss Monk's statements. He says, indeed, that he has ascertained where she was part of the time when she professed to have been in the Nunnery.

But his _evidence_ on this point is merely hearsay, and he does not even favour us with that.

"Third, One of the affidavits is that of Miss Monk's mother, who claims to be a Protestant, and yet declares, that she proposed to send her infant grandchild to a Nunnery! She says her daughter has long been subject to fits of insanity, (of which, however, we can say no traces are discoverable in New York,) and has never been in a Nunnery since she was at school in one, while quite a child. She however does not mention where her daughter has spent any part of the most important years of her life. A large part of her affidavit, as well as several others, is taken up with matter relating to one of the persons who accompanied Miss M. to Montreal last summer, and has no claim to be regarded as direct evidence for or against the authenticity of her book.

"Fourth, The affidavit of Nancy McGan is signed with a cross, as by one ignorant of writing; and she states that she visited a house of ill fame, (to all appearance alone,) although, as she a.s.serts, to bring away Miss M. Her testimony, therefore, does not present the strongest claims to our confidence. Besides, it is known that she has shown great hostility, to Miss Monk, in the streets of Montreal: and she would not, it is believed, have had much influence on an intelligent court or jury, against Miss M., in that city, if the latter had been fortunate enough to obtain the legal investigation into her charges, which as Dr. R.

mentions, she declared to be the express object of her visit to that city, in the last summer, and in which she failed, after nearly a month's exertion.

"Fifth, The affidavit of Mr. Goodenough is contradicted in one point by the letter of Mr. Richey, a Wesleyan minister, which you insert, and contains little else of any importance to this or any other case. * * * *

"Sixth, You copied in a conspicuous manner, from a Catholic paper in Boston, a charge against the book, the groundlessness of which has been exposed in some of the New York papers, viz. that large parts of it were, 'word for word and letter for letter.' (names only altered,) copied from a book published some years ago in Europe, under the t.i.tle of 'The Gates of h.e.l.l opened.' We have not seen in your paper any correction of this aspersion, although the a.s.sertion of it has placed you in a dilemma; for, if such were the fact, as you a.s.serted, the Montreal affidavits would have little application to the case. Besides, that book, having proceeded from Catholics, and relating, as was intimated, to scenes in European Convents, divulged by witnesses not chargeable with prejudices against them, is to be taken for true with other names; and therefore the charge of extravagance or improbability, which is so much urged against our book, is entirely nullified, without appealing to other sources of information which cannot be objected to.

"But before closing, allow us to remark, that you, who claim so strongly the confidence of your readers in the testimony of witnesses in Montreal, who speak only of things collateral to the main subject in question, must be prepared to lay extraordinary weight on evidence of a higher nature, and must realize something of the anxiety with which we, and the American public generally, we believe, stand ready to receive the evidence to be displayed to the eye and to the touch, either for or against the solemn declaration of Miss Monk, whenever the great test shall be applied to which she appeals, viz. the opening of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery at Montreal. Then, sir, and not till then, will the great question be settled,--Is our book true or false? Affidavits may possibly be multiplied, although you say, 'Here, then, is the whole!' Dr.

Robertson may be called again to testify, or receive testimony as Justice of the Peace,--but the question is _not_, what do people believe or think _outside_ of the _Convent?_ but, _'what has been done in it?'_

"By the issue of this investigation, Miss Monk declares she is ready to stand or fall.

"You speak, sir, of the 'backwardness' of persons to appear in defence of Miss Monk's book. We promise to appear as often on the subject as you are willing to publish our communications. In one of the paragraphs you publish, our book is spoken of as one of the evils arising from a '_free_ press.' We think, sir, that 'a free press' is exposed to less condemnation through the 'Awful Disclosures,' than the 'close Nunneries' which it is designed to expose.

"Respectfully, &c

"New York, Feb. 22d, 1836."

The above was afterward copied in other papers. The following certificate appeared in the Protestant Vindicator, and other papers, in March, 1836, introducing the two first witnesses.

"_The truth of Maria Monk's 'Awful Disclosures' amply certified._

"We the subscribers, having an acquaintance with Miss Maria Monk, and having considered the evidence of different kinds which has been collected in relation to her case, have no hesitation in declaring our belief in the truth of the statements she makes in her book recently published in New York, ent.i.tled 'Awful Disclosures,' &c. We at that same time declare that the a.s.sertion, originally made in the Roman Catholic newspapers of Boston, that the book was copied from a work ent.i.tled 'The Gates of h.e.l.l opened,' is wholly dest.i.tute of foundation; it being entirely new, and not copied from any thing whatsoever.

"And we further declare, that _no evidence has yet been produced which discredits the statements of Miss Monk; while, on the contrary, her story has received, and continues to receive, confirmation from various sources._

"During the last week, two important witnesses spontaneously appeared, and offered to give public testimony in her favour. From them the following declarations have been received. The first is an affidavit given by Mr. William Miller, now a resident of this city. The second is a statement received from a young married woman, who, with her husband, also resides here. In the clear and repeated statements made by these two witnesses, we place entire reliance; who are ready to furnish satisfaction to any persons making reasonable inquiries on the subject.

"W. C. BROWNLEE.