In 1836, Maria Monk exposed an alleged account of sexual abuse of Catholic nuns and the killing on infants by the clergy in Montreal, Canada.
Maria Monk - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Monk
Maria Monk (June 27, 1816 – summer of 1849) was a Canadian woman whose book Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, or, The Hidden Secrets of a Nun’s Life in a Convent Exposed (1836) claimed to expose systematic sexual abuse of nuns and infanticide of the resulting children
Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk (1836)
In the prevailing anti-Catholic atmosphere of early-nineteenth-century America, and fresh after the Ursuline Convent riots of August 1834 in Massachusetts (in which a convent of the Roman Catholic Ursuline nuns burned down by the hands of a Protestant mob), the publication of Maria Monk's revelations of her time at the Hôtel-Dieu convent in Montreal became a sensation. With nuns forced to engage in sexual acts with priests and being locked in the cellar as a punishment for disobeying, the story had similarities to the popular Gothic novels of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Maria also tells of how any babies that were born as a result of these liaisons were immediately baptized, strangled, and buried under the convent. It was from this fate that she wanted to save her unborn child which led her to escape and consequently publish her exposé.
Although the preface claims the events and persons described to be real, after the initial sensation died down some began to question the veracity of Maria's tale. American journalist William L. Stone traveled to Montreal and visited the convent, later writing that the descriptions found in Maria's book bore no resemblance to the actual building. Tales of Maria's past seem to suggest that she had been confined by her mother in a house for fallen women from which she was expelled in 1835 due to her pregnancy. In October of the same year, a New York newspaper announced Maria's forthcoming book which was then published in January 1836. It is believed that the book was not written by Maria herself but either written down or indeed fabricated by one or more of the various clergymen that surrounded her during this time of publicity, such as Reverend William K. Hoyt and Reverend John Jay Slocum, in an attempt to make money through the sensational narrative. When or how she had come to meet these men and how much influence they had over her is unknown, as is the truth of the narrative found in her book or indeed anywhere else regarding Maria's life or character.
For a great list of various editions of the book and related material - including Maria's "sequel" and an affidavit from Maria's mother) - see this great page from the University of Penn Library.
TRICK OR TREAT? THE AWFUL DISCLOSURES OF MARIA MONK (1836)
by Tasha Jones | Oct 16, 2018 | Articles, Books, Montreal
“Mr Bloom turned over idly pages of The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, then of Aristotle’s Masterpiece. Crooked botched print. Plates: infants cuddled in a ball in bloodred wombs like livers of slaughtered cows. Lots of them like that at this moment all over the world. All butting with their skulls to get out of it. Child born every minute somewhere. Mrs Purefoy.” (Ulysses)
When it was first published in 1836, The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk caused a literary and religious storm in Montreal, and abroad. Why? Because the book was purported to be a real account of a young woman’s trials as an ‘inmate’ of Montreal’s Hôtel Dieu nunnery.
In the book, Maria claims that she and the other nuns (‘black nuns’ as she calls them) were systematically raped by the Catholic priests who lived next door to the nunnery. Any child born of these rapes was immediately baptized, strangled, and then buried in the cellar of the nunnery and covered with lime.
Maria also confesses to participating in the murder of a young nun who refused to kill a newborn baby. As a punishment for her disobedience, the nun was forced to lie down, and a mattress was placed on top of her. Priests and the ‘black nuns’ jumped on the mattress until the young nun was crushed to death, and her body was buried in the cellar.
But is the story real, or a publishing hoax?
And who was Maria Monk?
According to her Wikipedia entry, Maria Monk was a Canadian woman born on June 27, 1816. It’s possible that Maria suffered a head injury as a child, and she may have spent some time living in an asylum. A fellow patient in the asylum, with whom Maria may have been friends with, was supposedly a nun. Did Maria receive her ‘source material’ from her?
It’s also claimed in the entry that Maria spent seven years living in a Magdalene asylum. Did she use that experience as a reference for her text? Or was she used by her publisher who hired a ghost writer to pen the book?
Maybe Maria is the book’s author and she was an ‘inmate’ of the nunnery?
As it turns out, Maria’s story was debunked and the book is now considered a hoax. Perhaps this is one of the earlier examples of fake news?
Of course, I read the book because of its appearance in Ulysses. Leopold Bloom gets it for his wife Molly, but she wasn’t too impressed with it, unable to even remember the title:
“should we tell them even if its the truth they dont believe you then tucked up in bed like those babies in the Aristocrats Masterpiece he bought me another time as if we hadnt enough of that in real life without some old Aristocrat or whatever his name is disgusting you more with those rotten pictures children with two heads and no legs thats the kind of villainy theyre always dreaming about” (Ulysses)
The Awful Disclosures is not a page-turner by modern standards, but it has its charms. Although it’s hardly salacious, and lacks any detail about the sex crimes, it was still interesting to read about the tediousness of life in a nunnery. Go figure. The most shocking thing to me was that anyone would willingly sign up for a life of unremitting drudgery, constant supervision, and endless prayer and fastidiousness to religious patriarchy.
Upon taking the veil, Maria dies a symbolic death by lying down in a coffin, and from that moment on she has vowed complete obedience to the nunnery, and the male-dominated Catholic church.
Her reward? To be gang raped later that night by three priests. This, with the approval of the Mother Superior.
If you’re interested in browsing through the book yourself, it is available for free at Project Gutenberg, and despite its faults, the content is still relevant and spooky, especially during this time of year.
MARIA MONK.
Boston Pilot (1836-1837), Volume 2, Number 33, 13 August 1836 IIIF Collection Link
We would direct the attention of our readers to the following extracts from those liberal, talented, and spirited papers, the New York Transcript and New Hampshire Patriot, in reference to the gross and groundless falsehoods parroted forth, from the instructions of her clerical keepers , by that modern Messalina, Maria Monk. The testimony of several respectable Protestant Clergymen, who have lately visited the Convent at Montreal, and who are about publishing the results of their observations and enquiries, will certainly fasten disgrace and dishonour on the clerical fanatics who enjoyed the criminal and libidenous favours of that infamous creature. p. Maria Monk’s Awful Disclosures. We perceive by the Montreal papers, that the inspection of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery in that city, proves that the Disclosures are a tissue of falsehoods, as far as regards the localities of that religious house, and that it is quite certain that this woman could never have been an inmate of it. It is disclosed, moreover, that she had resided at one time in a sort of Magdalen Asylum in Montreal, for penitent prostitutes, and that the names of the pretended nuns introduced by her into her work, were actually those of certain of the frail sisterhood who were in the asylum at the very period she inhabited it. The “ Refutation” will appear forthwith, and when it sees the light, we will give an analysis of it to our readers. Since writing the above we have been favoured with an inspection of the manuscript copy of the “Refutation,” and the pieces justifcatives appended thereto in the form of a mass of affidavits, the most important of which are those of the gentlemen who visited the interior of the Hotel Dieu nunnery, to compare it with the description given by Maria Monk. Among those were the Rev. Mr. Curry, Corresponding Secretary of the Home Missionary Society ; the Rev. G. W. Perkins, Pastor of the American Presbyterian Church; the Rev. Henry Esson, Pastor of the Scotch Presbyterian Church; Benjamin Holmes, Esq., Cashier of the Montreal Bank, Justice of the Peace ; John Ostell, Esq., Architect and Surveyor; and John Jones, Esq., Editor of the Ami du Peuple Newspaper. — All these gentlemen declare that there is not the slightest resemblance between Maria Monk’s description, and the buildings and vaults; and that had any alteration been made since the publication of the book, it would have been necessary to alter it from summit to foundation. Nothing can be more complete than the sworn evidence of these gentlemen, who are among the most respectable in the British Provinces. There are also affidavits of James Ray, so frequently mentioned in the “Disclosures;” Maria
Howard, Miss Reed, and Jane McCoy, who were repentant prostitutes in the Magdalen Asylum at the time Maria Monk was there; andjalso of various persons with whom Maria Monk" lived during the period she states that she was an inmate of the nunnery. The work will be ready in a fortnight, and will be issued by, one of our respectable publishers. We, therefore, consider this most impudent humbug as being most satisfactorily exposed. A little time was necessary for this conclusion ; anti that time has been so employed as toj bring’ conviction to the minds 'of the most bigoted and credulous. [N. Y. Transcript. Maria Monk’s “Awful Disclosurf.s.’’ A further examination of the affidavits about this woman’s impostures, discovers the fact, that the account she gives of the interior of the nunnery act.oids with the localities of the female penitentiary in Montreal, superintended by Mrs. McDonnell ; ‘that the conventual discipline she relates, is in some degree copied from that which prevails in that institution ; and that Louis Malo a constable of the Court of King’s Bench, is the real father of her child. Is it not an extraordinary instance of the credulity of the public mind, that upwards of 25,000 copies of such ridiculous trash as Mr. Theodore Dwight’s rifacimento of a strumpet’s lies, should have been sold, and that a feeling of indignation and abhorrence should have been so excited against a religious society so excellent, exemplary, and universally respected as the Sceurs de Charite of the Hotel Diet] hospital foi the sick and infirm ? [N. Y. Transcript. From the New Hampshire Patriot. Maria Monk:—again. As the editors of the different religious papers in this State (we regret to say without a solitary exception to our knowledge,) have avowed their belief in the monstrous and abominable legend published to the world as the narrative of this abandoned woman, but, in reality invented by an artful and designing cabal at New York, and written by Mr. Theodore Dwight, the public cannot fail to be interested in whatever is calculated to establish or impeach the veracity of the “Awful Disclosures,” since it will equally serve to strengthen or diminish their confidence in the candour, Christian charity, sound judgment, and unerring discretion of the religious'press. They will accordingly be pleased to learn that measures have been instituted by the ecclesiastical authorities of the Roman church, such as are calculated to satisfy all of the truth or falsity of the pretended revelations of horrors and abominations. The Bishop of Montreal has named a committee to examine and report upon the alleged disorders of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery, the pretended scene of Maria’s imprisonment and suffering; with whom a Protestant clergyman is joined in order to remove the slightest opportunity for questioning the fairness and impartiality of the investigation. In announcing this arrangement, the N. Y. Transcript enumerates the following reasons why its editor—by the way, one of the most talented, best informed, and most unprejudiced in that city—entertains no doubt of the issue: “ In the first place, to every unprejudiced and reasoning mind, the book itself was its completest refutation, and the character of the authoress, as given by herself, was sufficient to destroy her reputation for truth. VVe happen to be well acquainted with the localities, and with most of the gentlemen whose names were introduced ; and from what we know of them, from the position of some, and the peculiar circumstances of others, we were morally sure, that the affair was a fabrication. In the next place, we had many conversations with respectable Protestants from Montreal, who expressed their utter disbelief of the entire story, and who informed us of sundry events in the life of the authoress, quite sufficient to shake the belief of the most enthusiastic in the horrors of her tale ; the ignorance of the female whose recital was embodied by another, was also a suspicious circumstance, as the art of book making is now pretty well understood, and this publication was immediately followed by another of a more revolting character still, from the pious press of Leavitt, Lord & Cos.; and lastly, from the fact that she was disavowed by her mother and brother, who declared the whole story a fiction, and the relator a disgrace and a misfortune to them. When she came out with her charges against the Catholic clergy of Canada, she must have made up her mind, that her own character would be scrutinized, and ‘ her pedigree looked into for on the good character of a witness depends his or her credibility. This test has not redounded at all to the advantage of the good fame of the person on whose credibility depends the stability of the ingenious legend named ‘Awful Disclosures,’ which title might more appropriately be affixed to the developments recently made in Montreal respecting her. It appears to have been ascertained that a constable of the Court of King’s Bench there, (whose name we have) has discovered that she was at one time an inmate of a licentious house in the suburbs, and that on one occasion she figured at the criminal bar for pilfering. The Catholics. The last Monitor contains an excellent article on the course which certain religious bigots are pursuing towards the Catholics in this country. The spirit and sentiments it contains are such as will commend it to every liberal, enlightened Christian and patriot, and should put to the blush the bigotry and knavery which stoops to the grossest falsehoods, knowingly and wilfully, in order to prostrate a sect who manifest in their lives as many of the Christian virtues, and as much perfection, as any other in the land. We shall transcribe the article to our columns. [New Hampshire Patriot. Patriotism. The Presbyterians and their associates from some of the other churches, sent no invitation—or, in other words, would not permit the children of Unitarians and others, to walk in the Sunday School procession, at Louisville, on the fourth of July. We have not heard, for some time, of a meaner exhibition of sectarian animosity. On the national anniversary of our liberty, when every heart should be grateful—when the sight of our country’s flag, associated as it is with such proud recollections, should have gladdened the bosom of every patriot in the land to see a line of distinction drawn upon that day, between the children of our citizens, was indeed a pitiful proceeding. What a bright example was this for the rising offspring of our country, what an effectual method to fill their hearts with love for one another, from which, when grown into manhood, they would not depart! Had Catholics been guilty of such conduct, what a cry would be raised throughout the land—what appeals to patriotism, what love of country would be professed, what a horror for the Pope, Prince Metternich, and the emperor of Austria! Whenever Catholics have been proved guilty of such conduct as this, then, indeed, let( them be denounced ns traitors. [Catholic Telegraph.]
ITDR. JOHN S. BARTLETT, No. II Atkinson Street.
“Awful Disclosures”
— But No Longer Unbelievable
Maria Monk Reconsidered
In the light of modern revelations and nunsploitation movies, 19th Century tales of immorality and crimes in Roman Catholic convents appear far less fantastic.
IN 1836, a controversial book exploded upon the scene like an artillery shell, written by a woman who had supposedly fled the revered Hotel Dieu nunnery in Montreal, Canada. It bore the title, Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, or, The Hidden Secrets of a Nun’s Life in a Convent Exposed! The book immediately touched off an acrimonious firestorm of wild polemics with its sensational allegations. And no wonder — for the author, “Maria Monk”, claimed that in the many years that she had been enclosed there in the cloister of the “Black Nuns,” as the sable-clad Sisters of Charity were called, she had witnessed or been subjected to a number of horrific crimes and abuses.
The nun’s tale
Priests, Monk claimed, under the pretext that such godly men could not sin, regularly used nuns for sex in a private room reserved for “holy retreats.” On the very day she took her solemn vows, she said that she herself had been forced to have intercourse with three priests, and once again with the first for good measure. More on that later.
Monk said she had personally witnessed an offspring from such a union being immediately baptized after birth, nonchalantly suffocated, and tossed into a pit of lime in the basement (where there were presumably others), with acid later added to dissolve the tiny corpse. A ledger she found in the Superior’s office listed many more.
At the mere whim of a superior, disobedient or recalcitrant nuns were severely disciplined with punishments that ranged from petty annoyances up to Inquisition-like torture. In dark cells in the cellar near the pit, several sisters were imprisoned for unknown sins apparently for life. Nuns would disappear in the night for no known reason never to be spoken of again; Monk firmly believed some had been murdered. Suicides were also not unrumored.All of this took place in a forbidding atmosphere of medieval despotism, where the only thing expected of a nun was silent, unquestioning obedience. Superstition ruled supreme — hair and nail clippings of an elderly nun thought to be holy were prized as relics, for instance. Bizarre penances, such as drinking the Superior’s foot-bath, were often imposed and strange rituals were frequent. Nuns, for example, would be placed in their coffins upon taking their vows to show they had died to the world, and then propped sitting up in church after they died to show they now lived in Heaven.
Meanwhile in this hell on Earth, the sisters were expected to constantly spy on each other and inform the Mother Superior of any defects, disobedience, or independence in themselves or others. Yet lying to outsiders was encouraged insofar as it would further the faith — especially if it brought in wealthy new recruits.
The aftermath
According to her own account, having become pregnant, she escaped, and told her story to a Protestant minister at a hospital for the poor in New York. He persuaded her to tell her story to the world.
At any time, such outrageous charges would have sparked an outcry; in the jostling pandemonium of pre-Civil War America, they touched off an immediate conflagration of bombastic claims and counter-claims. For this was the era of the “Know Nothings,” stridently anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic nativists. Even before the Potato Famine brought starving hordes of Irish over, these men feared the influx of Roman Catholics as a sneaky invasion of papists determined to subvert the liberties of free, white Protestants and take over the country. Catholic apologists instantly saw that Monk was a tool being used by Protestant nativist agitators and fought back vigorously in kind.
It was quickly realized that proof of Monk’s story hinged on the existance of certain secret entrances and passages built into the nunnery. She had described these in detail, showing how a priest could gain entrance to the cloister unobserved at any time, day or night, with secret signals so he did not have to mention his name or even speak a word. Like the much later controversy surrounding the McMartin Preschool, a Col. William Leete Stone found no signs of such secret passages in the Hotel Dieu during a brief inspection and after interviewing her, was convinced she had never even been there. This finding, along with the story that she was a actually a prostitute, had been in an asylum, and died in prison as a pickpocket, was loudly trumpeted throughout the press, and Catholic propagandists triumphantly labelled her an imposter and hoaxer to this day.
But was she? She was not the only former nun to break silence at that time; shortly before Monk, a woman named Rebecca Reed came out with similarly horrid tales that led a mob to burn her former convent in South Carolina. Famous ex-priest Charles Chiniquy, himself a French Canadian, spoke out about many clerical abuses in Montreal several decades later. Maria Monk herself countered the claims of Stone in the back of her book with statements of nearby residents attesting to unexplained building supplies for interior alterations at the Hotel Dieu that happened shortly after she first spoke out in the newspapers.
In the Preface she implored,
Permit me to go through the Hotel Dieu Nunnery at Montreal, with some impartial ladies and gentlemen, that they may compare my account with the interior parts of the building, into which no persons but the Roman Bishop and Priests are ever admitted: and if they do not find my description true, then discard me as an imposter. Bring me before a court of justice — there I am willing to meet [her detractors] and their wicked companions, with the Superior, and any of the nuns, and a thousand men.
This, needless to say, never happened and Maria Monk is nowadays remembered only with derision. Despite the fame, or rather notoriety, her life ended tragically. She lost credibility by running off again, falsely claiming she had been abducted by a gang of priests. She may have been married briefly, but in any case had another child, was arrested for pickpocketing, and died in poverty in an almshouse in 1839 (although some sources say 1849).
Her testimony
But for someone out to boldly defame the Catholic Church, she went about it in an odd manner. The tone of the book is anything but lurid or sensationalistic; she knew the gravity of what she was claiming, and related her story quite calmly and rationally throughout. It is certainly not titillating. While using florid Victorian language about her feelings concerning the “debased characters” of the priests who had access to the convent and its inhabitants, Monk showed great circumspection in discussing the actual abuse.
This, for instance, is all she had to say about what happened after she took her vows:
I am assured that the conduct of priests in our Convent had never been exposed, and it is not imagined by the people of the United States. This induces me to say what I do, notwithstanding the strong reasons I have to let it remain unknown. Still I cannot force myself to speak on such subjects except in the most brief manner.
And indeed, she was true to her word. Far more space in her book was devoted to the daily life of the nuns. More space is even allotted to the antics of “mad Jane Ray M’Coy”, who helped her survive, than all the discussion of the wicked doings of the priests and her superiors.
In an age so famously reticent to speak of sex this was natural perhaps; surely quite different from the explicitly detailed confessions gloried in today. For many survivors of such cult-like abuse, however, often the only way it can be talked about is in such an unemotional, matter-of-fact manner as Monk. It is too painful otherwise.
The wrath of God’s wives
It is indeed strange that many people who are willing to ascribe any degree of wickedness to male clergy have a strong denial about female religious. Among victims and survivors that I have talked to those who had been molested by nuns seemed to bear a special burden, perhaps because of this. Yet, as every veteran of parochial schools has at least one story about mean or crazy sisters, a certain recognition of it exists in popular culture.
Undeniably, the best reason to reconsider Maria Monk’s claims is based on modern revelations of victims and survivors of clergy sexual abuse. Reports in recent years have detailed extensive and global abuse of nuns by priests, which the Vatican has vigorously denied. Nuns, especially in Africa, have been even more vulnerable than before as they are deemed to be safe from AIDS.
It may be significant that Canada has unfortuntely been one of the major epicenters of these scandals. Since the late 1980s, there has been one grim exposure after another of abuse and neglect of children in Church-run institutions on a massive, institutional scale, beginning with the Mount Cashel Orphanage run by the Christian Brothers in St. John’s, Newfoundland, and extending through one institution after another across the entire country.
Thousands of children over decades at Mt. Cashel and in similar facilities were subjected to foul food, severely beaten with belts and fists on a regular basis, and occasionally sodomized. A film, The Boys of St. Vincent’s, effectively dramatized the situation, but was banned in Canada after its first showing.
Then there are the so-called “Duplessis orphans”, some 3,000 children who were condemned to be treated as retarded simply for the higher rates the government would pay for their care. Indian children were treated even worse, if that’s possible, in Church-run residential schools. Two nuns, for instance, members of the Sisters of Charity, have been charged with assault at a residential school in Ontario. However, this abuse occured not just in Catholic schools, but also those run by Anglicans, Presbyterians, and the United Church of Canada as well. The recompense due to the Native population from this legacy of abuse may soon lead to the bankruptcy of the entire Anglican Church of Canada.
All of these innocents were victimized by an unholy bargain between the Church and the Canadian state, where the Church took charge of orphans and the underprivileged with the blessing of government grants and virtually no oversight — a situation already begun in Maria Monk’s day. (To which I say, thank God for the Masonic Founders of the US and the separation of church and state!)
The Sisters of Charity also figure in scandals in Ireland and in Australia. In Ireland, a Sr. Dominic of the Sisters of Mercy not only molested a 10-year-old girl, but also held her down to allow “a smelly vagabond” rape the child. Such cases are not common, but they do exist.
In Australia, war orphans sent from England were subjected to such abuses by the nuns as being burnt with a red-hot poker during an exorcism, locked in underground cells, scalded in boiling water, and so on in some of the worst atrocities ever said to be described there. “Madness, ruthless and sadistic madness, on the part of at least some of the nuns, and a depthless depravity on the part of some of the men who inhabited the place, are the defining characteristics of some of those who ran the orphanage,” Professor Bruce Grundy, the author of a report for the government, exclaimed. “There was no limit to the sexual deviance that could be engaged in with those unlucky enough to find themselves singled out as ‘the chosen ones’.”
He began his investigation, by the way, after police failed to find evidence that stillborn babies and children who died from disease were buried in unmarked graves. One can only wonder how these stories get started.
But, knowing the depravity that human nature is capable of, can anyone today claim in good conscience that Maria Monk‘s story could not be true? I doubt it.
The first victim
Top: "A Nun Stabbing a Priest," Middle: "Death-Pit — Trap Door — Cell," Bottom: "The Smothering of the Nun."
It is time, I believe, for her name to be rehabilitated and her courage recognized and honored. Whether crazy or an imposter, Maria Monk was the first voice to speak out for North American victims of clergy sexual abuse, and paid the price for it. She was roundly reviled for her efforts. Even if she became a madwoman, pickpocket and a prostitute with several illegitimate children, it does not indicate her story is not true but more likely the opposite, for many victims of abuse come to unfortunate ends, especially if scorned and disbelieved. Certainly her verbal maltreatment by the mouthpieces of the Church after she spoke out is similar if even more severe than what many later survivors have faced.
With such factual horrors having been proven by government commissions and courts of law, the claims of rampant abuse and crime by Maria Monk do not sound so wildly extravagant anymore. Even the charges of infanticide which moderns find most revolting might look entirely different to those women who lived in medieval gloom before the invention of contraception.
After all, the Roman Catholic Church opposes such measures as abortion partially because it believes the soul of the infant, if unbaptized, will not be allowed into Heaven due to Original Sin. At least, the nuns might say in their deluded self-justification, their babies, being brought to term and baptized, were guaranteed an eternity of happiness, unlike today’s aborted fetuses forever doomed to Limbo, whatever that means. Their sins, they would claim, were thereby the lesser.
In any case, Maria Monk never claimed all nunneries were corrupt, but only spoke of her own experiences. But hers was not the only one so debased, and conditions have not necessarily changed for the better. A decade ago I listened in pity and horror along with several hundred other people at a conference as an elderly woman softly told her story. She had, at her quite advanced years, recently quit Regina Laudis, a wealthy convent, related somehow to the Benedictines and Sisters of Mercy, based on an island off the East Coast. Among other things, she claimed that the order stole land, duped recruits and supporters, and led by several shady confessors, advocated Eucharistic meditations for the sisters that were overtly autoerotic fantasies. Her complaints to the ecclesiastical authorities brought no relief but only harsh discipline for herself, and so she was forced to leave in protest.
Whether either her tale or that of Maria Monk is true or not, how can any of us on the outside ever know for sure? The lives of those women behind the cloister’s forbidding walls remain as insulated from the world today as if they were in a Dark Age harem.
Empty convents
Ironically, Maria Monk’s ultimate revenge lays not so much in reform but in extinction. It is not generally realized that many more nuns than priests have quit since the Second Vatican Council. Roman Catholic orders of female religious are withering away as their members grow old and are no longer replaced. Figures show that in the US there are only half as many in 1994 as there were in 1965, and the average age of a nun is now over 65.
The reason for this mass exodus may not be that the modern outside world is so glamorous. Perhaps it’s because the cloister is not that mysterious but cozy refuge portrayed in those old Bing Crosby and Ingrid Bergman movies any more than the priesthood is.
In reality, a convent is more like a prison, the uncomplaining inmates of which the Church has ruthlessly and thanklessly exploited throughout two millennia. Only those women who have actually been there can say if any of these disturbing tales are true, if a nun’s life is indeed worth such sacrifice. It should be noted that once Vatican II threw open the doors, many of these inmates have spoken, silently but eloquently, with their feet.
And so the cloisters’ silence deepens. The halls do not echo much anymore with the nuns’ whispered secrets or their footsteps hurrying on unknowable errands, but the mystery remains.
Links
The Nuns' Stories: Vatican Condemned for Abuse of Nuns by Priests
Awful Disclosures — the entire text in .gif and .pdf format
Imposters — from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia
