MARIA MONK. THE FIRST SHAM NUN.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8, 22 February 1900, Page 3

MARIA MONK. THE FIRST SHAM NUN.

THi: SHOCKING CAREER OF MRS. SLATTERY'S HEROINE. Ix the course of a recent pamphlet on Mr*. Slattery we have given a brief history of the malodorous trade of sham nun. We showed that it was inaugurated by two creatures of immoral life who had never been members of the Church whuae alleged enormities they professed to disclose. The male partner in this conspiracy of organised slander was a low / out . The inevitable female partner in in the venture — one Maria Monk — was a thief, impostor, gaol-bird, and prostitute, who later on closed her evil career behind the iron doors of a Canadian prison. Like Maria Monk, the whole tribe of her unsavoury imitators were, with two exceptions, non-Catholics and impostors. To this class Mrs. Slattery belongs. Our readers are quite safe in challenging her for independent proof that she was ever at any period of her life a Catholic. For our part, we hereby offer a substantial donation to any public charity in New Zealand if any of this itinerant impostor's friends can substantiate the statement that she ever was a Catholic. Dostrinal differences and theological controversy will ever continue until the happy day when ' there shall be one Fold and one Shepherd.' But the use of the stench-pot is going out in contro- [ very as it has long ago passed in physical warfare. The falsity of the monstrous story attributed to Maria Monk has been long ago 80 triumphantly demonstrated by Protestants and Catholics alike that no clean and sane controversialist would dream of having recourse to it nowadays. The noisome romance endures to this day for this chief or sole reason : that it appeals to the corrupt imagination of the lewd and prurient. No decent printer would set it up ; no respectable publisher or bookseller would handle it ; no decent family would allow it into their home. Nowadays it is supplied only in quarters in which more or less indecent publications are exposed for sale, and by chance roving impostors who appeal to the pruriency even more than to the bigotry of their hearers. It ia being hawked about by the Slatterys and sold to swell the profits of their tour. All this is, of course, quite in keeping with their discreditable antecedents and with the loathsome character of their trade. Slattery — as we have shown by his own thrice-repeated confession — was imprisoned in Pittsburg for the sale of indecent literature. Mr Labouchere, M.P., editor of Truth, says of Slattery's lectures : ' It must be perfectly obvious to anyone with the slighest knowledge of the world that these lectures are delivered simply for the purpose of putting money into the lecturer's pocket, and that to gain his end the lecturer is appealing to pruriency and indecency under the guise of religion.' Of the ravings of the female impostor who accompanies Slattery. Mr Labouchere says : ' Decent women really ought to know better than to attend lectures to " ladies only ' by " escaped nuns," whose appeals to the bigotry of their hearers are as notorious for their nastiness as for their mendacity.' But, then, decent women do know better : they don't attend such lectures. There are few things that more forcibly illustrate the vile character of the S attery crusade and the moral evils likely to result from it than the use they ate making of the filthy publication entitled The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk. A fellowfeeling makes us wondrous kind. And Mrs. Slattery belauds to the skies the sham-nun and fallen woman of Montreal, terms her ' the famous nun,' and dares to set her before the womanhood of New Zealand as a creature deserving of an altogether special measure of admiration. In the pamphlet already alluded to we have given (pp. 1-l'), in brief and summary terms, the story of the unfortunate fallen woman who inaugurated the fraudulent profession of which Slattery's female companion and Margaret Shepherd are such bright particular adornments. What we have already written upon the subject was intended to furnish our readers with a brief and provisional reply to those who from levity or malice might fling Maria Monk at them in shop or factory or elsewhere. But the story deserves a more extended treatment at our hands, and for three principal reasons : (1) because it furnishes an amazing instance of the faith which roving impostors of this class repose in the gullibility of a low class of hearers to whose pruriency and bigotry a joint appeal is made : (2) because of the triumphant refutation of the story, on its iirst appearance, by prominent Protestants ; (3) because during the Slattery tour in New Zealand the name of Maria Monk is likely to be flung at Catholic young men and women in shops, factories, etc., and the details of the refutation of the gross tale are by no means so well known to the man on the street as the story itself ; (4) because a further examination of the facts of this notorious conspiracy of slander will serve to exhibit in a fuller light the degradation of those who would make use of it in a campaign 1 which is nominally run in the Sacred Name of the God of Holiness and Truth, but the real object of which is to fob as much money, money, money as may be raked in at the monstrosity show rates of ' front seats one shilling, back seats sixpence.' It is no wonder that the Western Mail (South Wales) described Slattery a ' simply a mischief-maker of the most contemptible kind.' MARIA'S TALE. We shall now let Maria Monk (or, rather, the male conspirators whose tool she was) tell her tale. The contradictoriness and absurdity of vital portions of it will at once appear to the instructed Catholic reader. Non-Catholics who have patience to follow us will at the proper time come across large facts which will break up the savage tale of Maria Monk as if it had been struck by an earthquake. In the restricted space of a newspaper article it is impossible to give either the original story or its refutation with much detail. Briefly, the story attributed to Maria Monk runs as follows :—: —

Her parents were from Scotland. They lived at Montreal, and i were both Protestants, She describes her father as an officer under ] the British Government. After an early training at a non-Catholic i school, she was sent to the schools of the bisters of Charity, at 10 t years old, to learn French. Adjoining these schools was the Hotel ' Dieu Nunnery, called ' the Black Nunnery ' on account of the colour ] of the dress worn by the inmates. Labour, chanty, and the ore of ( the sick were their duties 'and the religious observances which i occupy a large portion of their time. They are regarded (she adds) < with much respect by the people at large.' [At that time, is.il i both these religious houses had been in existence for over half a i century.] In the Black Nunnery there was a hospital tor sick ] people. Once, when she was ill. s^e was sent there. 'A physician < attended it daily ; and there is a number of the veiled nuns ot that convent wko spend most of their time there. These would also sometimes read lectures and repeat prayers to us.' After two years spent at the school of the Sisters of Charity, Miss Maria left and ' attended several schools for a short time.' But she ' soon became dissatisfied,' and ' as my Catholic acquaintances," .she said. ' had often spoken to me in favour of their faith, I was inclined to believe it true, although, as I have before said, / Im/r little oj an;/ n Haunt While out of the nunnt nj 1 xair not h my oj religion ' At this time Maria (as she tells us) suddenly took it into her head to become ' a black nun.' She was introduced by an old priest, and after some preliminary delay she called to the convent one Saturday morning 'and was admitted into the Black Nunnery as a nowce, much to [her] satisfaction.' And this at the ridiculously early age of 12 or 13 years, without the preliminary trouble of becoming a postulant. and before she had received the Sacrament of Confirmation ' She correctly states (p. 28) that the usual period of the novitiate is about two years and a half, but that it is sometimes abridged: but five pages further on (p. 33) she informs us that after she had been a novice for four or jice years — twice the usual period — she expressed resentment at some trifling act of a nun which had displeased her. Maria was thereupon requested to beg the nun's pardon. ' Not being satisfied with this,' says she. ' although I complied with the command, nor with the coolness with which the superior treated me, I determined to quit the convent aL once, which I did without asking leave. There would have been no obstacle to my departure. 1 presume, novice as I then was, if I had asked permission ; but I waß too much displeased to wait for that, and went home without speaking to anyone on the subject.' During all these ' four or five years ' she had noticed nothing wrong in convent life. After this she next appears as assistant teacher in a school at St. Denis. Here, according to her account (pp .V>-:stij. she married a man of bad character after a very brief acquaintance, and despite fair and full warnings as to the reputation he bore. A separation became necessary. Having nothing elsy to do, she again resohes to become a nun. In order to shield herself from inquiry on the subject of hermarriage she (by her own account) deliberately fabricates a false statement — in which she induces another teuherto join her — 'to say to the Lady Superior I had been under her (the teai her-) protection during my absence, which would satisfy and stop fuither inquiry , as I was sensible, should they know I hai been mairied, I should not gain admittance " (We may here sUte that a mama-re, without a proper separation sanctioned by the Church, is utterly inconsistent with the vows whi?h a nun must make.) With this lie upon her lips she obtains permission to again reside in the convent as a novice. She then proceeds to give us a piece of information which, by her own showing, would be enough to disqualify her in any court of justice in the world. The money usually required for the admission of novices' hid not been required or even 'expected ' from her. She neverthe'ess made up her mind to pay it. 'I therefore," she says (or is made to say), 'resolved to obtain money on fal*e pretences.' Shu 1 procure! it from 'the Brigade-Major' and from several of her mother s fiiends. She further tells us that on the day of her Continuation -,]v> dehberate'y committed three shocking acts of sacrilege, .she persevered in the same course of sin, and a year later to <k the veil, ha\ing still concealed the vital fact of her marriage, although she knew it was a bar to her admission as a nun, and conseqiently (by her own showing) thus committed a freih sacrilege of an aggravated form. She was then initiated into the crimes which, she tells u>. the nuns were in the habit of committing — immorality, infanticide, and murder. It is unnecessary to pursue the filthy course of the vile narrative further, beyond ad ling that Mani Monk confesses that even after she had takea the veil she t'vi-e quiitei the convent, and that at last the need of preparing for her aremtehemt nt obliged her to run away altogether. She found refuge, as she informs us. m an alms-house in New York, where she is subject to terrific dreams and visions. And there, for the present, we leave her. a <;enkral (ommknt. Such is, briefly, the story of this abandoned woman, or rather the story attributed to her by the little knot of adventurers and conspirators whose tool she permitted herself for a time to be. Nobody who has the slightest acquaintance v\ ith convent life in the Catholic Church will need to be reminded that the story, on the face of it, deserves not the slightest credit. We might leave the work to its fate out of evidence furnished against the alleged author out of her own pages : her visions and hallucinations ; the hopeless improbability of her story of bv'ing received as a novice at twelve or thirteen years old, and previous to receiving Confirmation; the 'four or five years" ot her novitiate; her marriage with a man whose evil moral reputation was well-known to her ; her wilful lying and conspiracy of lying , her obtaining money under false pretence* ; her lite of uncallel-tor and shocking hypocrisy, double-dealing, and sacrilege in the convent . her departure from it and her admission of immorality ; her con fession of being a party to a foul murder which she never denounced to the King's Attorney-General or to any competent authority that would avenge it. And so on. The clum«y c >nspirators furnished in the text of their foul story abundant evidence of f ,he thorough-paced

unreliability of its writers. We shall in due course see the strong points of resemblance between the tale attributed to Maria Monk and the equally mendacious production which bears on its title-page the rauu' of that other gross impostor, Mrs. Slattery. Mrs. Slattery's story is, in fact, built upon the plans and specifications of that of .Maria Monk. There arc, however, two important modifications (1) Maiia Monks reputed story has it that the period of the novitiate was marked by strict propriety of conduct, and even by a decree of piety In -Mis. Slattery's tale, the novitiate is brim-full of horrors. The blood Hows ami the full ilower of high tragedy is abloom from the first act. (2) Maria Monk has it that she was perieeily free to walk oul u£ Lhe cuiiveiil aL any moment without consulting or nsking permission of anybody. This is too tame and hte-hke lor .Mis. .Mallei}. Besides, had she not the stories of the escaped nun ' iind of ' the rescued nun ' before her .' fehe combines the two, makes a non-existent ' Lady Morton ' ' rescue ' her from captivity, and on the Mattery handbills appropriates the title 'escaped nun," of which Edith 0 (ionnaa was the sole inventor and patentee. In a notice of a recent anti-convent romance the London Sj)ictaforh.&n this sirca«tic remark 'When nuns want to leave a nineteenth century convent, a far more convenient method of escape is to walk out of the front door and not (as represented on the cover of this book) to take an open window and a ladder.' AUTHORITIES. Happily for the cause of truth and decency the publication of that remarkable imposture. Tin Airtitl Disclosures of Maria Monk. was fast followed by overwhelming evidence, official and nonoffiuial. whicli triumphantly proved it to be from beginning to end a tissue of abominable falsehoods The chief authorities that deal with the story of Mnna M«nh are • (1) The universal testimony of the Protestant Press at Montreal . (2) the thorough investigation of the whole affair carried out by Colonel W. L. Stone, editor of the \civ York ( ommi mul Aili 111 1 f i\i i and some leading Protestant gentlemen of Montreal, and published in the lh futation, of tin Fabulous Hist oi ;/ ot thi [r< It-/ mpo\to> Mann Monk (Art and Book Company, Leamington, :id) ; (3) the affidavits of many persons of good character and reputation residing at the time in Montreal. Among them is that of Maria Monk's own mother, who appears to have been always a respectable woman, and who was housekeeper at Government House Montreal. A number of these affidavits are contained in Tin Tnn J/istm ;/ of Mann Monl,, reprinted from the Dublin I'/: aii of May. ls.in, by the Catholic Truth Society (London. 28 pages. Id). Eighteen valuable additional affidavits are to be found in An Ait tut L.rposiive of tin \t ior ions Plot funned tltrom/h the Int< i n nt m/i nf Mar/a Monl, , published by Jones and Co., of Montreal, in ls:it>. (1) To these we may add the iniormation contained in the Boston Pilot ot the period, and in sundry other publication^, to some of which brief reference will be made in due course. We give the salient facts of the vile conspiracy of defamation hereunder in brief and summary form, and refer our readers for fuller information 1i the pamphlets published by the Arc and Hook Co. and the Catholic Truth Society. These can be obtained through any Catholic bookseller. 'i m: TKiJE hxom . 1. 1 lnil i -a ilt i il Liai. — Maria Monk was the daughter of Scottish pirent- born Protest tnts. They had settUd at Montreal, where her tath-r, before his death, held a minor position as a prison official. She was brought up a Protestant, and. so far as she pro-tes-ed any creed, she remained a Protestant to the end. Her mother. a-> already stued. bee une housekeeper at the local Uoverninent House. According to the mothers affidavit, sworn before Dr. Robertson. J.P..of Montreal, on Oaober 21, iß:ri, Maria Monk, when about seven years old. 'broke a slate pencil in her heui." and. whether from this or other cause • was frequently derange! in her head', that • since that tune her mental faculties were deranged, and by times much more than at other times, but that she \>\is t»r from being an idiot . that she could make the mo-t ridiculous but most plausible stories. Siirnl ir evidence of the mingled insanity and mendacity ot Maria Monk is gi\en in the affi lavit of the above-mentioned Dr. Robertson (a Protestant physician), sworn at Montreal before Benjamin Holmes, ,1 I\, on November 11, IV{*> He depjsed that, on November it, l.s:U, she was prevented by three uirn from committing suicide by drowning herself, and that she — although quite unknown to Dr. Robertson — had represented herself as his daughter. His subsequent inquiries into her evil career led him to declare in his affidavit that he 'considered her assertions upon oath were not entitled to more credit than her bare assertion, and that he ] did not believe either.' Subsequent investigations . amply justified his total unbelief of her unsupported word. 2. .\i'/ n A i/«i. — Like Mrs. Slattery, Maria Monk never was a nun. In her affidavit referred to above, her mother says that 'As to the history that she had been in a nunnery, it was a fabrication, for ' she was never in a nunnery . that at one lime I wished to obtain a place in a nunnery for her, that I had employed the influence of Mrs . de Montenach, of i)r. Nelson, and of our pastor, the Rev. Mr. Esson, ! but without success.' The fable of her life in the convent is further ! contradicted by the affidavit of l)r Robertson , of Mrs. Duncan s Camero'i McDonnell, manager ot the Magdalen Asylum, Montreal : [ by Col. Stone and the nuns of the Hotel Dieu ; by the Montreal ; Press ; by the contradictory statements of Maria Monk herself, to i which further reference will be made later on; and by the ; affidavits of eighteen of her employers published in the pamphlet • referred to above. .1/; Awful JJrpo\un of tin Atroetoux Plot, etc. i .! What Maria Monk nallij wns, — Maria Monk was. and ' remained to the end of her days, a prostitute. This melancholy fact : is testified to in the lengthy affidavit of her own mother, which is* : given in full in the Dublin Hern ir of May, 1 830. Mrs. Tarbert, 4 F friend of Mrs. Monk, deposed on oath that when sent by the latter 3 to tetch Maria home, she found the unfortunate creature 'in a house I of bad fame.' Dr. Robertson gives similar testimony as to the imi moral life of Mrs. Slattery's heroine. He deposes that on one 1 occasion he, 'as a J ustice of the Peace, sent her to gaol as a vagrant.'

Fuller information as to her character is given in the affidavit of Mrs. McDonnell, (manager of the Magdalen Asylum. Montreal), sworn before a public notary of the city. This lady deposed that Maria Monk ' had for many years led the life of a stroller and prostitute', that she ' entered the nsylum foi fallen women j and became an inmate thereof' in November. IMI . that deponent ' received her into the asylum with the hope of effecting her reformation ; that in the progress of her acquaintance with the character of the said Maria, she found htr to be very uncertain and grossly deceitful ; but that she nevertheless did persevere in her efforts to reclaim her to the paths of virtue and morality.' Ikr efforts were, however, in vain. Maria violated one o. the mo-t radical rules of the institution, by holding a secret cuinimui Nation v. ith one of her paramours, showed every 'disposition to l elapse into her former vicious courses,' ' was not touched by the leuiuiislwiu^es addressed to her, but became more indecorous in her conduct e\ery day,' and 'deponent was obliged to dismiss her from the Asylum.' Maria Monk persevered in her evil ways to the last. She was several times convicted of various crimes and sent to prison. At length she was convicted on a charge of robbing a paramour at a den near Five Points and sent to prison, where her career of crime and miseiy was cut short by death on October!*, 18-1!'. As she lived, so she died. And now the unfortunate creature that could not he tolerated even in a home for fallen women, and that passed her Last days betweeu a house of ill-fame and a prison-cell, is being presented by Mrs. Slatcery as the model for the decent womanhood of New Zealand ! The unfortunate creature's career of ciime led her to the slums of New York. There she fell in with the reprobate preacher Hoyte, became his paramour, and he with two other evil spirits like unto himself concocted, or rather republished, the vile charges which to this day pass current under the title of Tht An fid Disclosv n * oj Maria Monl. In another article we shall tell the story of this foul conspiracy of slander and of its swift and triumphant exposure by prominent Protestants who did not believe that the cause of the God of Truth and Holiness can be advanced by gro-s calumny and the publication and indiscriminate circulation of prurient and indecent literature. {Conclusion m 'n rt /ssu> ).