Awful Disclosures by Maria Monk (the rosie project txt) 📖

believed her statements and assented to them—and displayed all the natural excitement which was necessarily comprised in the working of their own belief and convictions of the iniquity of the Priests, and the dread resulting from their own superstitious vassalage, and the certainty of a heavy penance.

But in connexion with the preceding collateral evidence is another remarkable circumstance, which is this: the extensive knowledge which Maria Monk has obtained of the Canadian Jesuits. Those with whom she has been acquainted, she affirms that she could instantly identify. For that object, she has given a catalogue of those Priests whose names and persons are in some degree familiarly known to her. As the Priests are often changing their abodes, and many of them residents in Montreal until a vacancy occurs for them in the country parishes, in those particulars there may be a trifling mistake; but Maria Monk solemnly avers, that the Priests, whether dead or living, who are enumerated in the subsequent catalogue, either have dwelt or do yet reside in the places specified. When unexpectedly and closely examined in reference to the Priests of the same name, she particularly distinguished them, and pointed out the difference between them in their persons, gait, &c.; thus precluding all objection from the fact of there being more than one Priest with a similar appellative. This circumstance particularly is illustrated by the Priests named Marcoux, of whom she says there are three brothers or first cousins—two called Dufresne, &c.: each of whom she graphically depicts. It is also certain, because she has done it in a great variety of instances, and in the presence of many different persons, all of whom are well acquainted with them, that she describes Lartigue; Dufresne; Richard; Phelan; Bonin; Comte; Bourget; McMahon; Kelly; Demers; Roux; Roque; Sauvage; Tabeau; Marcoux; Morin; Durocher; and all the Roman Priests around Montreal, with the utmost minuteness of accuracy; while the Chaplain of the Ursuline Nunnery at Quebec, Father Daul�, is as exactly depicted by her, as if her whole life had been passed under his surveillance. Some of the appellatives in the ensuing catalogue may not be correctly spelt. Scarcely any thing is more difficult than to acquire proper names in a foreign language; and especially where the pronunciation itself is provincial, as is the case with Canadian French; and when also those titles have to be transcribed from the mouth of a person who knows no more of orthoepy and orthography than a Canadian Nun. However, Maria Monk attests, that the Priests to whom she refers did reside at those places which she has designated, and that she has seen them all in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery—some of them very often, and others on a variety of occasions.

Nothing is more improbable, if not impossible, than that any Papist girl should have such an extensive acquaintance among Roman Priests. In Canada especially, where the large majority of females have little more correct knowledge of that which occurs out of their own district than of Herschel’s astronomical discoveries, young women cannot be personally familiar with any Priests, in ordinary cases, except those who may have been “Cur�s” of the parish in which they reside, or of the immediate vicinity, or an occasional visitor during the absence, or sickness, or death of the resident Curate or Missionary. Notwithstanding, Maria Monk delineates to the life, the prominent features, the exact figure, and the obvious characteristic exterior habits and personal appearance of more than one hundred and fifty of those Priests, scattered about in all parts of Canada; Among others she particularly specifies the following men: but some of whom she notes as dead. Others she has named, but as her recollections of them are less distinct, they are not enumerated.

Jean Jacques Lartigue, Bishop of Telmese, Montreal. The Irish Priest McMahon, who has resided both in Montreal and Quebec. M. Dufrense, St.

Nicholas. L. Cadieux, Vicar General, Three Rivers. F. F. Marcoux, Maskinonge. S. N. Dumoulin, Yamachiche. A. Leclerc, Yomaska. V.

Fournier, Baie du Febre. J. Demers, St. Gregoire. C. B. Courtain, Gentilly. T. Pepin, St. Jean. Ignace Bourget, Montreal. The Priest Moor, Missionary. J. C. Prince, Montreal. J. M. Sauvage, Montreal. J. Comte, Montreal. J. H. A. Roux, Vicar General, Montreal. J. Roque, Montreal. A.

Malard, Montreal. A. L. Hubart, Montreal. A. Satin, Montreal. J. B.

Roupe, Montreal. Nic. Dufresne, Montreal. J. Richard, Montreal. C. Fay, Montreal. J. B. St. Pierre, Montreal. F. Bonin, P. Phelan, Montreal. T.

B. M’Mahon, Perce. J. Marcoux, Caghuawaga. C. De Bellefeuille, Lake of two Mountains. Claude Leonard, Montreal. F. Durocher, Lake of two Mountains. G. Belmont, St. Francis. F. Demers, Vicar General, St. Denis.

J. O. Giroux, St. Benoit. J. B. St. Germain, St. Laurent. J. D. Delisle, St. Cesaire. J. M. Lefebvre, St. Genevieve. F. Pigeon, St. Philippe. A.

Duransau, Lachine. O. Chevrefils, St. Constant. Joseph Quiblier, Montreal. Francis Humbert, Montreal. J. Arraud, Montreal. O.

Archambault, Montreal. J. Larkin, Montreal. F. Sery, Montreal. R. Larre, Montreal. A. Macdonald, Montreal. F. Larkin, Montreal. J. Beauregard, Montreal. R. Robert, Montreal. J. Fitz Patrick, Montreal. J. Toupin, Montreal. W. Baun, Montreal. T. Filiatreault. Montreal. J. Brady, Montreal. P. Trudel, St. Hyacinth. John Grant, St. Hyacinth. J. Delaire, Chambly. J. Desautels, Chambly. P. D. Ricard, St. Joachim. Jan.

Leclaire, Isle Jesus. F. M. Turcot, St. Rose. C. Larocque, Berthier, T.

Brassard, St. Elizabeth. J. B. Keller, St. Elizabeth. J. Ravienne, Lanorate. J. T. Gagno, Valtrie. Gasford Guingner, St. Melanie. L.

Nicholas Jacques, St. Sulpice. J. Renucalde, St. Jaques. T. Can, St.

Esprit. C. J. Ducharme, St. Therese. J. Valli�e, St. Scholastique. J. J.

Vinet, Arganteuil. M. Power, Beauharnois. J. B. Labelle, Chateauguay. E.

Bietz, St. Constant. P. Bedard, St. Remi. C. Aubry, St. Athanase. L.

Vinet, Noyon. J. Roque, Noyon. J. Zeph, Carren. F. Berauld, St.

Valentia. A. Maresseau, Longueuil. P. Brunet, –-. J. Odelin, Rounilli. J. B. Dupuis, –-. L. Nau, Rouville. A. O. Giroux, St. Marc.

G. Marchesseau, –-. J. B. Belanger, St. Ours. H. Marcotte, Isle du Pads. E. Crevier, Yamaska. G. Arsonault, –-. Eusebe Durocher, –-.

D. Denis, St. Rosalie. F. X. Brunet, St. Damase. J.A. Boisond, St. Pie.

M. Quintal, St. Damase. L. Aubry, Points Calire. P. Tetro, Beauharnois.

B. Ricard, St. Constant. M. Morin, Maskonche. J. Crevier, Blairfindie.

P. Grenier, Charteaguay. A. Darocher, Pointe aux Trembles. P. Murcure, La Presentation. R. Gaulin, Dorchester. H. L. Girouard, St. Hyacinthe.

J. Paquin, Blairfinde. E. Brassard, St. Polycarpe. J. Boissonnault, Riviere des Prairies. F. N. Blanchet, Soulanges. E. Lavoie, Blairfindie.

J. B. Kelly, Sorel. E. Morriset, St. Cyprian. H. Hudon, Argenteuil. M.

Brudet, St. Martin. P. P. Archambault, Vaudreuil. J. B. Boucher, La Prairie. J. Quevillion, St. Ours. A. Chaboillez, Longueuil. P. J.

Delamothe, St. Scholastique. T. Lagard, St. Vincent. J. Durocher, St.

Benoit. Antoine Tabeau, Vicar General, Montreal. J. F. Hebard, St. Ours.

F. A. Trudeau, Montreal. M. J. Felix, St. Benoit. L. Lamothe, Bethier.

J. Moirier, St. Anne. F. J. Deguise, Vicar General, Varennes. J. B.

Bedard, St. Denis. R. O. Brunsau, Vercheres. F. Portier, Terrebonne. P.

D. Ricard, Berthier. L. Gague, Lachenaie. Joseph Belanger, Chambly. M.

Blanchet, St. Charles. P. M. Mignault, Chambly. F. Labelle, L’Assumption. F. Marcoux, St. Barthelemi. N. L. Amiot, Repentigny. J. B.

Boucher, Chambly. P. Lafranc, St. Jean Baptiste. P. Robitaille, Monnie.

F. De Bellefeullie, St. Vincent. M. Brassard, St. Elizabeth. P.

Cousigny, St. Mathias. J. D. Daule, Quebec.

It is readily admitted, that any person could take one of the Ecclesiastical Registers of Lower Canada, and at his option mark any number of the Roman Priests in the catalogue, and impute to them any crime which he pleased. But if the accuser were closely examined, and among such a multitude of Priests, who in all their clothing are dressed alike, were called upon minutely to delineate them, it is morally impossible, that he could depict more than a hundred Priests dispersed from the borders of Upper Canada to Quebec, in as many different parishes, with the most perfect accuracy, unless he was personally and well acquainted with them.

Maria Monk, however, does most accurately describe all the Priests in the preceding catalogue, and repeats them at the expiration of weeks and months; and the question is this: how is it possible that she could have become acquainted with so many of that body, and by what means can she so precisely depict their external appearance?—The startling, but the only plausible answer which can be given to that question is this:—

that she has seen them in the Nunnery, whither, as she maintains, most of them constantly resorted for licentious intercourse with the Nuns.

One other connected fact may here be introduced. Maria Monk well knows the Lady Superior of the Charlestown Nunnery. That acquaintance could not have been made in the United States, because Saint Mary St. George as she called herself, or Sarah Burroughs, daughter of the notorious Stephen Burroughs, as is her real name, removed to Canada at the latter end of May, 1835; nor could it have been prior to the establishment of the Charlestown Nunnery, for at that period Maria Monk was a child, and was not in any Convent except merely as a scholar; and Mary St. George was at Quebec. How then did she become so familiar with that far-famed lady as to be able to describe her so exactly? The only answer is, that she derived her knowledge of the Charlestown Convent and of its Superior, from the intimations given, and from intercourse with that Nun in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery.

Young females often have been sent to the Nunneries in Canada under the fallacious hope of obtaining for them, a superior education; and very frequently, they are suddenly removed after being there but a short period; because the persons to whose partial guardianship they are committed perceive that they are in danger of being ensnared by the Chaplain and his female Syrens.

But there are two other particulars in American Nunneries, the toleration of which almost surpasses credibility.

In reference to girls, they are permitted to visit their friends, even when they reside in the vicinity of the Convent, only for an hour or two monthly—if their relatives are at a distance, they see them only during the annual vacation, and often remain in the Nunnery during that term.

No correspondence is permitted between the mother, the guardian, the sister, or the friends of the young female in the Nunnery School, on either side, without the inspection of the argus-eyed agent of the Institution. Parental advice, filial complaints, and confidential communications are equally arrested; and only furnish to the Superiors of the establishment, artifices to thwart the Seniors, to entangle the Juniors, and effectually to cajole both parties. Consequently, it generally happens, that from one term to another, little or no intercourse exists between the youth and her relatives; and it is indubitable, that where any letters do nominally pass between them, they are forgeries; the real letters being surreptitiously detained. Those felonious regulations furnish ample scope for the initiation of girls just entering upon womanhood, into all the wickedness of the Nunnery; while the girls themselves are unconscious of the design, and the Nuns, those nefarious artificers of the iniquity, in subserviency to the Priests, in case of necessity, can exculpate themselves apparently from all participation in the treachery and crimes.

In the nunneries and conventual schools in the United States there is a sort of fairy land, talked about by the nuns to the elder girls. It is called the “Nuns’ Island.” That country is always described as an earthly paradise; and to girls who are manifestly fascinated by the witcheries of the nuns, and in whom moral sensibility has become blunted by the unmeaning superstitions which they witness, and which they mechanically perform, a visit to the “Nuns’ Island,” is always proposed as the greatest privilege, and the most costly reward, which can be given for constant obsequiousness to the nuns, and unreserved compliance with their