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

work up the young female mind to receive it; unless by the subtlety of the devil, and the vile artifices of the Nuns. I shudder at the idea of young ladies going into a Convent; and also at parents who send their children to be educated in a Nunnery; where their daughters are entrapped by the Nuns into the snare of the Priests, with whom they are accomplices, and for whom the most subtle of them are decoys, whose feigned sanctity is only a cover for the satanic arts of which they are complete mistresses, and by which, through the delusions of the mother of harlots, being buried alive within the walls of a Convent, they ‘drink of the wine of her fornication,’ until their souls pass into the pit of destruction.”—The above extract is from the seventh letter of “Correspondence between Miss M. and Mr. H.” in Huntington’s Works; and exposes the Nunneries in France.

George D. Emeline, who had been a Popish Priest, in his “Eight Letters,”

giving an account of his “Journey into Italy,” thus details the nature of the intimacy which then existed between the Priests and Nuns on the European Continent. “A young Monk at Milan, Preacher to the Benedictine Nuns, when he addressed them, added to almost every sentence in his discourse, ‘my most dear and lovely sisters, whom I love from the deepest bottom of my heart.’ When a monk becomes Preacher or Chaplain to a Nunnery, his days are passed in constant voluptuousness; for the Nuns will gratify their Confessor in every thing, that he may be equally indulgent to them.” Emeline’s Letters, p. 313.

“A regular Abbot of a Monastery in Italy, talking with me said—‘Melius est habere nullam quam aliquem—It is better to have none than any woman.’ I asked him what he meant; he replied, ‘Because, when a person is not tied to one, he may make use of many;’ and his practice was conformable to his doctrine; for he slept in the same bed with three young women every night. He was a most insatiable Exactor and Oppressor of the people who rented the lands of the Abbey, in consequence of which the Farmers complained of him to the Archbishop of the District. The Archbishop sent the Provost, the Farmers, and sixty of the serjeants at night, to seize him and his female companions. They took the Abbot in bed, and having put on him a morning-gown; and having tied his three concubines and himself back to back, placed them in a cart, and conducted them to the Archbishop’s residence, in Bonnonia: who then refused to judge him; but sent him and his females to the Monastery of Saint Michael; into which, with some difficulty, he was admitted after midnight, in consequence of the Provost assuring the Friars, that if they would not receive the Abbot, they would procure his prelatical dress, and escort him and the young women in procession through the city, and back to his own Monastery the same day at noon. The females were ordered away, and the Abbot was appointed to remain in his monastery for fifteen days for penance, until the story had ceased to circulate. I was an eyewitness of that myself, when I was in the Monastery of St. Michael in the wood.”—Emeline’s Letters, pp. 387, 388, 389.

That the Nunneries in Portugal, as well as among those people in India who are subject to the Romish priesthood, are of the same character precisely, as Maria Monk describes the Priests and Nuns in Canada, is proved by Victorin de Faria, who had been a Brahman in India; and who afterward resided as a regular Roman Priest in the Paulist Monastery at Lisbon.

“The regular Priests in India,” says Faria, “have become what the bonzes where in Japan. The Nuns were the disciples of Diana, and the nunneries seraglios for the monks; as I have proved to be the case in Lisbon, by facts concerning those nuns who were more often in the family way than common women. The Jesuits in the Indies made themselves Brahmans in order to enjoy the privileges of that caste, whose idolatrous rites and superstitious practices they also externally adopted.”—Among other privileges which they possessed, Faria enumerates the following, as detailed from his own prior experience as a Brahman. “Never to be put to death for any crime whatever; and to enjoy the favours of every woman who pleased them, for a Priest sanctifies the woman upon whom he bestows his attentions.” That is the true Papist doctrine, as shown by Maria Monk’s “Awful Disclosures;” confirmed by the Canadian carpenter in Mr.

Johnson’s house at Montreal; and ratified by Pope Gregory XIII. in the Decretals and Canons, in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Secrets of Nunneries disclosed by Scipio de Ricci. p. 217.

The Nunneries in Italy during the present generation are of the same description. Maria Catharine Barni, Maria Magdalen Sicini, and Victoire Benedetti, of the Nunnery called Santa Croce: all acknowledged, that they had been seduced at confession, and that they had habitually maintained criminal intercourse with a Priest called Pacchiani, who absolved his guilty companions after the commission of their crimes.

Secrets of Nunneries disclosed by Scipio de Ricci. pp. 60, 61.

Six Nuns of the Convent of Catharine at Pistoia declared that the Priests who visited the Convent committed a “thousand indecorous acts.

They utter the worst expressions, saying that we should look upon it as a great happiness, that we have the power of satisfying our appetites without the annoyance of children; and that we should not hesitate to take our pleasures. Men, who have contrived to get the keys, come into the Convent during the night, which they have spent in the most dissipated manner.” That is the precise delineation of the Canadian Nunneries; into which other men besides Priests are admitted, if the parties are willing to pay the entrance bribe to the Chaplain.—Secrets of Nunneries, by Scipio de Ricci. pp. 80, 81.

Flavia Perraccini, Prioress of the Nunnery of Catharine of Pistoia, revealed what she knew of that and other Nunneries. All the Priests “are of the same character. They all have the same maxims and the same conduct. They are on more intimate terms with the nuns than if they were married to them. It is the same at Lucia, at Pisa, at Prato, and at Perugia. The Superiors do not know even the smallest part of the enormous wickedness that goes on between the Monks and the Nuns.”—

Secrets of Nunneries, by Scipio de Ricci. p. 93. That statement is so exactly conformed to Maria Monk’s “Awful Disclosures,” that were it not a fact that she had never seen Scipio de Ricci’s work it might almost be supposed that some part of her narrative had been transcribed from it.

Foggini of Rome, also wrote to Scipio de Ricci and informed him—“I know a monastery in which a Jesuit used to make the Nuns lift up their clothes, assuring them that they thereby performed an act of virtue, because they overcame a natural repugnance.”—Secrets of Nunneries, p.

101. That is a very extraordinary illustration of the turpitude of the Roman Priesthood; because that doctrine is a principle which they constantly inculcate; and such is the invariable practice in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery, that the Nuns were obliged to fulfil, for the beastly gratification of the Roman Priests who visited that house, which is “the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.” Proverbs 7:27.

It is superfluous to multiply similar extracts. Scipio de Ricci was a Popish prelate, regularly commissioned by the Grand Duke of Tuscany to explore the Nunneries; and in consequence of his authentic developments, the Jesuits and Dominicans, and the dignified Papal ecclesiastics, with the two Popes, Pius VI. and Pius VII. all opposed, reviled, condemned and worried him almost to death.

One quotation more shall close this survey. Pope Paul III. maintained at Rome, forty-five thousand courtesans. Pope Sixtus IV. ordered a number of edifices to be erected expressly for the accommodation of the semi-Nuns of Rome, from whose impurity he derived a large annual revenue, under the form of a license; besides which, the prices of absolution for the different violations of the seventh commandment are as regularly fixed as the value of beads, soul-masses, blessed water, and every other article of Popish manufacture. Paolo, Hist. Council de Trent. Book I.

Anno 1637.

The preceding observations, it is believed, will remove the doubts from the mind of every impartial inquirer, respecting the credibility of Maria Monk’s narrative: nevertheless, a few additional remarks may not be irrelevant: especially as there is a marvellous skepticism in reference to the admission of valid testimony concerning the Roman priesthood, their system and practice. We are deafened with clamour for proof to substantiate Maria Monk’s history: but that demand is tantamount to the declaration—“I will not believe.”

In anticipation of speedy death, and an immediate appearance at the dread tribunal of Jehovah, Maria Monk communicated to Mr. Tappan, the Chaplain at Bellevue, one of the benevolent institutions belonging to the city of New York, the principal facts in her “Awful Disclosures.”

After her unexpected recovery, she personally appeared at Montreal, expressly and openly, to promulge her allegations of atrocious crimes against the chief Roman Ecclesiastics in that city, who were armed with power, and having nearly all the population her infuriated enemies.

There she remained almost four weeks, constantly daring the Roman Priests and Nuns in vain. It is true, Dr. Robertson in his affidavit says, that he was willing “to take the necessary steps for a full investigation, if a direct charge were made against any particular individual of a criminal nature.” Now if Maria Monk’s charges are not direct, OF A CRIMINAL NATURE, and against PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS—what charges can be so characterized? The fact is this:—Dr. Robertson would no more dare to issue a warrant for the apprehension of Lartigue, or any of the inferior Roman Priests in Montreal, than he would dare publicly to strike the Commander of the Garrison, or the Governor of Canada upon military parade. If any Papist had stated to him the same facts concerning a Protestant, or Protestant Minister, and offered to confirm them by his worthless oath, he would have issued his process at once; but Dr. Robertson knows, that in the present state of Canadian society, Roman Priests can do what they please; and no man dares to reprove, much less to “take any necessary steps for a full investigation” for their crimes. If the Jesuits and Nuns at Montreal are anxious for a full and impartial scrutiny of the Hotel Dieu Convent, Maria Monk is ready to oblige them with some facilities for that object; provided she may carry them out to all their extent and application. Mr. Ogden has one affidavit, and knows the whole matter; as can incontestably be proved by Mr. A. P. Hart, an Attorney of Montreal; and we recommend Dr. Robertson to issue his warrant for the apprehension of Lartigue, Bonin, Dufresne, and Richards, they are enough to begin with; and if Mr. Ogden will carry the facts with which he is acquainted to the Grand Jury, one witness in New York is ready to appear; and Dr. Robertson will find his hands full of employment, if he will only “take the necessary steps” to procure two or three persons who shall be pointed out to him in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery. Therefore, until Dr. Robertson commences some incipient measures as a Magistrate towards “the necessary steps for a full investigation,” as he says, we shall be forced to believe, that the printer made a mistake in his affidavit, and put willing for unwilling.

The cavilling call, however, for additional evidence to be adduced by Maria Monk, is manifestly futile. That testimony is within the jurisdiction of the Priests alone who are criminated. Maria Monk reiterates her charge