By John Francis Maguire, 1868
« Previous page | Start of chapter | Book contents | Next page »
CHAPTER XIX.
Bishop Connolly's Note-book--'Laity's Directory' for 1822--Dr. Kirwan previous to his Apostacy--The Church in 1822--Progress in 1834--How the Faith was Lost
AN extract or two, taken from a note-book, unhappily only a fragment, kept by Dr. Connolly, Bishop of New York, and quoted by Bishop Bayley in his 'Brief Sketch,' will tell us something of the Irish of his day, as also of the condition of his diocese, which comprised the whole of the State of New York and part of New Jersey.
March 10th, 1816.--Wrote to Dr. Troy an account of my voyage to America; illness here for nearly two months. Catholics dispersed through the country parts of the State of Pennsylvania, New York, Jersey, and New England, where they seldom see a priest: they are not able to maintain one in any particular district--ambulatory zealous priests, necessary for them to prevent their children from conforming to the persuasions of neighbouring sectaries, who all of them have their respective ministers. Only four priests in this diocese, though the Catholics of New York and its district are about seventeen thousand.
Feb. 25th, 1818. .... At present there are here about sixteen thousand Catholics, mostly Irish; at least ten thousand Irish Catholics arrived at New York only within these last three years. They spread through all the other States of this Confederacy, and make their religion known everywhere. Bishops ought to be granted to whatever State here is willing to build a cathedral, as Norfolk has done. The present Dioceses are quite too extensive. Our cathedral owes 53,000 dollars, borrowed to build it, for which it pays interest at the rate of 7 per cent. yearly. This burthen hinders us from supporting a sufficient number of priests, or from thinking to erect a seminary. The American youth have an almost invincible repugnance to the ecclesiastical state.
The names of the priests ordained by Dr. Connolly--O'Gorman, Bulger, Kelly, Brennan, Shanahan, and Conroy --are sufficient evidence of the country from which the infant Church of the United States obtained the greater number of its pastors. Dr. Bayley mentions one of the many amusing incidents in the missionary life of Father Bulger, whose ardent zeal and buoyant spirits enabled him to bear up against many hardships, and not a few insults; for the horror of 'Priests and Popery,' as Bishop Carroll said of Boston, was 'incredible.' Trudging along one day on foot, carrying a bundle, containing his vestments and breviary, under his arm, Father Bulger was overtaken by a farmer and his wife in a waggon. The farmer invited Mr. Bulger to ride; but it having come out in the course of conversation that he was a priest, the wife declared that she would not remain with him in the waggon, and he was obliged to get out and resume his journey on foot. But the strange part of the story is, that the farmer afterwards applied to Father Bulger for instructions, and became a Catholic.
The most authentic and accurate information as to the condition of the American Church towards the latter part of the first quarter of the present century is afforded by the 'Laity's Directory' for 1822,* This little compilation deserves notice, not only because of the contrast it offers to the great volume of the present day, but that it enables us to behold how feeble and comparatively insignificant was the Catholic body of the first quarter of this century as compared with its present magnitude and power. At the time it was published, not many pages were required for the ordinary purposes of a directory and calendar; and on analysing the 138 pages of which the little volume is composed, I find there are not more than 50 devoted to such purpose; and of these 50 pages 10 are occupied with obituaries of deceased prelates and priests, and 11 more are devoted to a single institution, and an account of the Society of Jesus in the United States. In fact, less than a dozen pages of Sadlier's voluminous directory of the present year would amply suffice for an epitome of the ecclesiastical intelligence of 1822. But, according to the advertisement, it was intended 'to accompany the Missal, with a view to facilitate the use of the same.' Revised and corrected by an eminent Irish priest--the Rev. John Power of New York--it testifies in every line of its historical and descriptive matter to his piety and eloquence.
Among other offerings to the laity, it contains 'A New Year's Gift for the Year 1822;' and though a somewhat strange New Year's gift, it must have been welcome and valuable at the time. It is a 'Discourse on Religious Innovations,' delivered by the Rev. Walter Blake Kirwan, at the Neapolitan Ambassador's Chapel, in London, on the 20th March, 1786. Having, a short time after the delivery of this remarkable discourse, abandoned the church which in that discourse he so vigorously and, one might say, fiercely defended, his apostacy was a source of great scandal to the faithful, and of corresponding triumph to their opponents. From the published sermons of Mr. Kirwan this discourse was omitted, 'doubtless,' says the Editor of the Directory, 'because his family had no reason to be solicitous to promote its publicity; his fall must to them have been a subject of grief and humiliation: and they felt poignantly that it could not exalt his memory, since the talents and impressive truths it displays are not more conspicuous than that deplorable frailty which so soon afterwards induced himself to become a striking example of what he had therein so wisely and eloquently deprecated.'
The publication of this remarkable discourse was no doubt intended to answer the revilers of that day, and perhaps strengthen faith which was then exposed to many perils. Reading it, one can scarcely avoid arriving at one or other of two conclusions,--either that he was a hypocrite of the most daring description, or that he was seized with some sudden religious vertigo, in which he saw everything through a distorted medium. Thus, for instance, he says, 'Yet in what terms of sufficient indignation shall I speak of that profaneness which has branded her (the Church's) ceremonies and discipline with the foul and opprobrious epithets of pageantry and abuse? I believe, nay, I am confident, when I assert that such ill-founded and scandalous reflections are received, even by those who dissent from us--by the thinking and informed part of the Church of England--with the utmost contempt for the person that utters them, with a perfect detestation of his perfidy.'
Referring to a point of general discipline in the Catholic Church which was then, and has been often since, the subject of comment and attack, that of 'performing the public service in Latin,' he shows how it establishes uniformity, and prevents confusion; 'because natural languages are subject to decay and corruption, and in the space of a century may have undergone a total change as to the meaning and acceptation of words and phrases; the consequence must be that error and obscurity might insensibly steal into the Liturgy. Because,' he adds, 'in the same kingdom, for instance in this island, which is but a speck upon the expanse of Europe, public service would be read in three different tongues, English, Welsh, and Erse. Hence what confusion would arise, even in the Liturgy of this nation, insomuch that were one of you to be present at the Mass in Wales, or in some part of Scotland, not to speak of Ireland, you might as well hear it in the language of Hindostan.' He thus sums up this part of his discourse:
'In whatever point of view I consider this matter, I am persuaded that to alter the present practice would be an unwise and dangerous reform. That such a measure might have been demanded in too insolent a manner may perhaps be true; but that it had not been acceded to, because we are irritated by petulant reflections, or not disposed to pray in the language of a Luther, a Calvin, or an Elizabeth, is not the case; but because the Church judges it expedient to preserve uniformity in her service, and secure it from change, corruption, and confusion.'
With these passages--defending the use of ceremonies--we may turn from the New Year's Gift offered in the 'Laity's Directory' of 1822:--
If there is any faith to be given to the attestations of the primitive writers of Christianity, and usages of the Church, from the earliest ages, most of the ceremonies practised in our public service and administiation of sacraments are immediately derived from the Apostles. The Church has judged it expedient to institute additional ones; her power is from Christ.
The use of ceremony is to maintain order, decency, and uniformity in the exterior acts of religion; to raise and elevate the mind to a proper contemplation of our mysteries, and to inspire respect and awe far the supreme majesty of God. How much they conduce to this great object, every one's experience bears ample testimony. The strongest impressions are produced on the mind through the medium of the senses. The animal part of man fetters and clogs the powers of the soul, checks its activity, and blunts the edge of its conception. The sacred pomp of religion was designed, therefore, as an auxiliary to assist the efforts of the mind, and give a spring to its operations.
In 1822 the number of churches throughout the whole of the United States did not much exceed one hundred; and in some of the States not only was there no church, but a priest was never seen by their scattered population: so that if they kept the faith, they did so by a miracle of grace.
The diocese of Baltimore had then more than one-third of all the churches--meaning thereby all the missions--in the States. Baltimore boasted at that time of thirty-nine churches, and several institutions, educational and charitable.
Catholicity had a hard struggle to make any way in the New England States, the historic stronghold of the Puritans. It was nevertheless making progress, but slowly; nor was it until wave after wave of emigration from Ireland was directed to its shores, that these States began to feel the influence of the Catholic element. The diocese of Boston comprehended at that time--1822--the entire of the New England States, including Maine; and in all these States there were but six churches, two of which were in the city of Boston. There was one at Salem, one at New Bedford, and two in the State of Maine, thus leaving districts of enormous extent without church or priest. To two noble French clergymen--Bishop Cheverus and his Vicar-General, Dr. Matignon--was due the exalted merit of having rendered Catholicity respected in Boston. They were learned, pious, zealous, indefatigable, and of the most amiable disposition and conciliatory manners. They failed not, we are told by the Editor of the 'Laity's Directory,' in a short time to win the hearts and gain the affections of their dissenting brethren. 'Prejudices soon began to disappear, inquiries after truth to be made, numbers successively to join their little society; and at this present time the church of Boston forms a very prominent feature in the Catholic body of the United States. O, truly fortunate revolution in France! every true Catholic in this country may exclaim, which has brought so many edifying and enlightened instructors!'
« Previous page | Start of chapter | Book contents | Next page »
NOTE:-
* To the kindness of Mr. John Gilmary Shea I am indebted for the use of copies of a Laity's Directory for 1822 and 1833--the former published at New York, the latter at Baltimore.