THE TRIALS OF SOME IRISH

MISSIONARIES

BY REV. JAMES P. RUSHE, O.D.C.

VI—THE VICISSITUDES OF THREE REIGNS, A.D. 1671-1699

THE documents-preserved in the General Archives of the Discalced Carmelites-which record the progress of the Irish Teresian Mission, subsequent to the period of the Valesian Formulary, bring the present series to a close.1 It enhances their interest and importance that they include the personal narratives of two of the Friars-Fathers Felix of the Holy Ghost and Joseph of the Nativity-who had experienced the keen disappointment of the Faithful of Ireland over the callous ingratitude of Charles II; who were sad witnesses of the frustration of sanguine hopes entertained on the accession of his brother James; and who still survived the hardships falling to the lot of the Irish clergy, generally, during the Williamite régime. Meanwhile, we learn from a letter of Father Bede of St. Simon Stock-one of the English Teresians intimately associated with his Irish brethren, as we have seen-that, notwithstanding the grave losses sustained by the death of sorely needed missionaries during the conflict with Ormond's unscrupulous agents, not a few Discalced Carmelites remained in Ireland, in 1670, to uphold the cause of Catholic orthodoxy as earnestly as their zealous predecessors. They had no official representative at the General Chapter of the Order the following year; but, otherwise, there is abundant evidence to show the trend of their activities at this particular epoch; and, certainly, these are very extraordinary, considering the

1 I. E. RECORD, February, 1920.

2 These two narratives, largely drawn upon by Father Blasius of the Purification, are preserved among the Irish Papers (Plut. 190).

3 Father Bede's letters are to be found among the English Papers in the General Archives, (Plut 187).

circumstances of the times. Far from having been deterred in their efforts by the avowed hostility of Peter Walsh and his powerful patron, their ambition now extended to the establishment of their own novitiate in Ireland: a project upon which, they were convinced, the future welfare of the Mission would depend; and already their exiled brethren had received permission to return from the Continent with this special purpose in view.1

In confirmation of Father Bede's statement, other sources reveal that, about the year 1670, the Teresian community at Dublin comprised Fathers John of the Mother of God-apparently the successor of Father Agapitus of the Holy Ghost as Vicar Provincial-Paul of St. Ubald, Gregory of St. Elias, Angelus-Joseph of the Conception, Thomas of Jesus, James of St. Dymphna, John of the Cross, Cyril of St. Albert and a Father Malachy, to whom no further allusion is made. There were three lay-brothers: Joseph of St. John Baptist, Nicholas and Stephen. And although it is known that four of these religious died between the years 1669 and 1672, other Teresians were then exercising the sacred ministry both at Athboy and Loughrea. There were, moreover, those returning exiles: Fathers Patrick of St. Brigid, Bernard of the Assumption, Edward of the Kings, and Christianus; together with Father Felix of the Holy Ghost, who was so eager to second the project submitted at the General Chapter of 1665 that he would gladly have resigned his office as Sub-prior at Asti to risk the perils of the Mission in his native land.3 However, the state of suspense due to the Valesian difficulty proved a serious check to such devotedness; and it was not until the year 1672 that he and Father Patrick of St. Brigid could enter on the self-same undertaking with every assurance as to its ultimate success. They were soon followed to Loughrea by Fathers Bernard and Edward, equally eager to participate in the practical measures being taken there for the immediate re-opening of the Irish novitiate. For, although the recent recall of the Duke of Ormonde argued well for religious toleration in Ireland, it was deemed a wise precaution to make the ruined friary at Loughrea serve the purpose in hand, since the new community there might

1 From the narrative of Father Felix of the Holy Ghost. (f. 3b.)

2 The tenth chapter of the MS. History of Father Blasius deals with this subject.

8 Ibid.

count on the patronage of several influential Catholic families.' Father Cyril of St. Albert is mentioned in the document quoted as a member of the Dublin community; but he appears to have been in charge at Loughrea on the arrival of Father Patrick of St. Brigid and the other exiles, who at once set about rendering the dilapidated buildings habitable, in order that they might follow therein the Regular Observance, as prescribed for Teresian Colleges, pending the conventual elections after which the exercises proper to the Novitiate would duly be introduced."

No sooner had some fanatical Protestants of the neighbourhood become aware of what was being done in the ancient Carmelite monastery than they informed the Governor of the Province: drawing his particular attention to the enormity of the ringing of a small bell to summon the friars to the various acts of community. This official instantly forbade the practice; and when Father Patrick of St. Brigid remonstrated, protesting that they were perfectly justified in their conduct which violated no law, the Governor threatened to denounce the religious to the Privy Council. They were not alarmed as to the issue, seemingly; and proceeded with their elections in due course, Father Bernard of the Assumption being chosen Prior, and Father Patrick of St. Brigid Sub-prior and Master of Novices. The first four postulants received the Habit on the 8th of September, 1672: Brothers Joseph of the Nativity, Henry of St. Patrick, Peter of St. Laurence-natives of Loughrea; and a Brother Elias of St. John Baptist, who came from Munster. Brother Antony of All Saints entered on the 1st of November the same year; and another aspirant was admitted in the course of 1673. Together with these junior religious, the Loughrea community consisted of five Conventual Fathers and a laybrother named John Baptist of St. Joseph, sent from Dublin, a survivor of the Cromwellian persecution. All were most earnest in their vocation, the priests being, likewise, very zealous in discharge of their missionary duties; in which latter respect Father Patrick of St. Brigid achieved much success, even among the heretics of the neighbourhoodhis converts including certain persons in the employment of Lord Clanricarde.

1 MS. History, 1.c.

2 Ibid., which includes some details not given by Father Felix of the Holy Ghost. 4 Ibid.

3 lbid.

So encouraging were their prospects at this juncture, the Fathers thought they might venture to rebuild their monastery which, in pre-Teresian times, had suffered greatly at the hands of Elizabethan vandals, and, subsequently, from the method of 'thoroughness' adopted by Cromwell's agents. The charitable people of Loughrea hailed the project with enthusiasm, and Clanricarde himself promised to supply all the timber needed. But the work was interrupted by 'royal command'; for Lord Clanricarde had been denounced to the Council as being solely responsible in the matter his design, according to the apostate Catholic who accused him, including the establishment of two convents to serve as fortresses against the State Church in the West of Ireland.1 This express allusion to a second religious foundation at Loughrea is, unquestionably, positive confirmation of the local tradition, ascribing the introduction of the Teresian nuns there to this very period and associating with the same event the name of Father James (Breslane) of St. Dymphna. However, when Father Blasius of the Purification-the historian of the Discalced Carmelite Missions, to whose forethought we owe the two personal narratives already mentioned-infers that the ensuing violent revival of the persecution against Irish Catholics was the outcome of the Loughrea incident; the contemporary evidence at our disposal does not admit of our accepting an otherwise plausible conjecture. The Edict of Banishment then promulgated is to be attributed to quite a different cause: revealing, rather, a reaction produced by Lord Berkeley's policy of tolerance in dealing with the situation in Ireland, which Ormonde interpreted as a reflection on his own method of administration implying the enforcement of the Loyal Remonstrance on the Faithful. It is not likely that this important phase of the question would have been known to those upon whose information Father Blasius relied; but we cannot afford to lose sight of it in the present connexion, seeing that the Duke of Ormonde's more recent apologists are responsible for grievously erroneous assumptions in suggesting that his attitude towards Irish Catholics, from the beginning, can be explained away on grounds of mere political expediency.*

1 MS. History, 1.c.

2 This illustrates the importance attaching to well-established local tradition, and I have come across other documents in further support of the contention. 8 MS. History, l.c.

4 Cf. Life of James, First Duke of Ormonde, vol. ii. p. 177.

Nowhere is the evidence against Ormonde more conclusive, in this respect, than in his treatment of Peter Talbot, the heroic Archbishop of Dublin, now numbered among the Servants of God, whose cause, in defence of religion, is before the Sacred Congregation. And it may be mentioned, without any prejudice to the same, that this Illustrious Prelate happens to be one of the victims of the infamous calumnies promulgated in the pamphlet entitled Foxes and Firebrands; but his formal defence must be reserved, of course, for another place. The second son of that Sir William Talbot-legal oracle of the Catholic party in the Irish House of Commons' during the reign of King James the First-he was a distinguished member of the Society of Jesus, and became intimately acquainted with Charles II at Cologne; his appointment to the see of Dublin almost synchronizing with Ormonde's dismissal from the Lordlieutenancy of Ireland.1 On return to his native land, Dr. Talbot had openly pronounced himself absolutely opposed to the insidious policy advocated by Peter Walsh; whereas his relations with the new Viceroy were entirely cordial. So much so as to suggest to the fallen favourite a base means of avenging himself for the Archbishop's resolute action in regard to the Valesian Formulary. It seems Ormonde had still sufficient influence at Court to awaken uneasiness by commenting adversely on the alleged growing intimacy between Talbot and Berkeley; so misrepresenting the circumstances as to produce the impression of its being a direct menace to the Throne, indicating imminent restoration of the Papal Supremacy in Ireland. The result of these insinuations was eminently satisfactory from the Duke's point of view: whether as calculated to bring about, eventually, >his own rehabilitation in the royal esteem despite the intrigues of his private enemies; or in revenge for what he himself described as the 'oppression' of the renegade Friar Walsh and other supporters of the Remonstrance. In the address of the English Parliament to the King, it was urgently submitted that nothing but most rigorous application of the Penal Laws against Catholics would meet the emergency; the Archbishop of Dublin being singled out for virulent denunciation as a dangerous enemy to the State. Thus,

1 Cf. D'Alton's History of the Archbishops of Dublin. p. 430 sqq. Also, D.N.B., Vol. 55, p. 327.

2 Cf. Notice in D.N.B., Vol. 8, p. 52 (Butler). And Life of Ormonde, vol. ii. p. 179 sqq.

3 Ibid.