USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > History of the diocese of Hartford > Part 19
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60
" The bishop is burdened with the solicitude of his diocese; he must pro- vide pastors for the faithful, and ever be prepared to ineet every contingency that may possibly diminish the number of his priests. He conceives it to be his duty, not only to provide the larger congregations with pastors, but to have seasonably afforded the consolations of religion to the smaller sections, and even, where it is possible, to isolated families. All his anxieties are about his priests and people ; for God and for them he lives and labors, and is prepared to exhaust himself in promoting their spiritual interests and hap- piness."
With these thoughts upperinost in his mind, Bishop O'Reilly visited
1 Pilot, March 1, 1851.
139
DIOCESE OF HARTFORD.
Europe in 1852, sailing on October 16th on the steamer Atlantic. secure priests lie visited that nursery of Irish missionaries, All Hallows Col- lege, Dublin, on November 7th, where he received several priests and in which he had students preparing for the sacred ministry. Among the students whom Bishop O'Reilly met during his visit to All Hallows was a young man, Thomas Hendricken by name, who was his guide about the col- lege. The young student declared his intention of joining the Society of Jesus, and after liis ordination of entering the Japan missions. The bishop, however, prevailed upon the future bishop to enter the American field. Thomas Hendricken with others destined for his diocese was ordained by Bishop O'Reilly at All Hallows on April 26, 1853, after his return from a tour of the continent.
The energy of Bishop O'Reilly was restless. It was bent not only upon multiplying the priesthood of his diocese; he sought auxiliaries who would provide the children of his flock with a religious education ; who would ten- derly care for the precious orphans; who would visit and nurse the sick and console the poor. To this end he introduced into the diocese the Sisters of Mercy in May, 1851. The mother-house was at Providence, and the first Su- perioress was Mother Xavier. At this period, bigotry was rampant through- out New England ; in Rhode Island it was particularly virulent-bigotry in its reckless, anti-Christian and hateful form. Governor Anthony was the leader of this un-American crowd. Lies the most cruel, slanders the inost foul, were directed against the churchi, the priests-but, characteristic of Know-Nothing warfare, especially against the devoted sisters. Calumny was the chief weapon employed by these moral assassins, and to such an ex- tent did the leaders inflame the passions of their ignorant dupes that a fren- zied mob in 1855-the year of the Know-Nothing triumphs-surrounded the Convent of Mercy and threatened destruction to the building and death to the sisters. All eyes turned to the bishop to protect liis charges. He rose equal to the occasion. Undismayed by the ferocity of the inob the intrepid prelate stood before the convent and fearlessly addressed the angry crowd: "The sisters are in their home; they shall not leave it for an hour. ] shall protect them while I have life, and if needs be, register their safety with iny blood." The mob was cowed by the presence and words of the bishop, who, single-handed, stood before a brutal inob bent upon murder and plunder.
Bishop O'Reilly attended the First Plenary Council of Baltimore, which convened on May 8, 1852. He had as theological adviser the Rev. John McElroy, S. J. After the adjournment of the Council he visited Washing- ton and liad an interview with President Fillmore.
Bishop O'Reilly's attitude on the religious education of children was consonant with the teachings of the church in all ages. He believed in the necessity of a thoroughily Catholic education, if the children were to be saved to the church and to society. He lield, as liis colleagues in the American episcopate have ever lield, that the better Catholic a man is the better citizen he will be. In a pastoral letter addressed to his diocese on January 4, 1851,
140
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NEW ENGLAND.
he thus admonishes the laity : "Watch, with sleepless vigilance, over the education of your children, those precious deposits which God has confided to you, and which He will require at your hands. The enemy, aware that the matured in faith and practical in religion are, generally, beyond the reach of his seduction, endeavors, amidst us, to sap the gerin of faith in the rising generation, through the instrumentality of an uncatholic education. As effect succeeds to cause, so will it be, in too many instances, with those precious deposits trained in uncatholic schools; they will lose tlie faitlı, the . faith of God, for which their fathers perilled everything. Ordinary care, under influences more favorable, might, and doubtless would, save them to religion; but where all influences bear adversely on their faith, it is clear that great care and constant attention to their proper educational and religious training will alone save thein to the faith. 'A young man, according to his way, when he is old, he will not depart from it.' Thus the Divine Spirit calls your attention to the early and proper training of your children. Be guided in a matter of such infinite importance by His counsel, that you may not have to answer before God for the loss of your children. I wish you to remember, that, as vitiated food would endanger their physical life, so uncatholic education perils what is more important, their moral and eternal life. Watch then over them, with the solicitude of Christian parents, fully impressed with the greatness of your responsibility in their regard, that they may grow up edifying members of the church of God, and transmit to others, as your fatliers did, the blessed inheritance of faith. Your faith, so firm and abiding, your zeal in the cause of God, induce to the belief that you will be generous and active in accomplishing this great purpose. You will not qualify, as a sacrifice too onerous, when considered in connection with your other obligations, the procuring your offspring an education pro- motive of their best interests, but rather consider it a pleasing and indispen- sable duty. You are willing to subject yourselves to much privation, and refuse no toil that may provide thein with food and raiment; and you will not be less zealous, I trust, in providing them, under the guidance of your pastors, an education free froin error in faith and inorals, and promotive of their future well-being. Were they, by the mysterious providence of God, deprived of your parental protection, and thrown, parentless, on this world, they would still be amply provided, by legal provision, with all things essential to physi- cal subsistence and comfort, whilst no effort would be spared to deprive thein of the faith inherited from you, evidence at once of the surpassing importance of their Christian education, and your obligation to provide for them. Edu- cate them fully in a knowledge of their divine religion, train them early in the practice of all it enjoins, that they may comprehend its majesty and strength, and taste the consolation and sweetness consequent on this practical profession."
The love of Bishop O'Reilly's heart went out in its fullness to the orphans, those helpless yet precious charges of holy church. Deprived of their natural protectors they become the wards of religion ; and as the chief pastor of the diocese he accepted the responsibility. Furthermore, as the
141
DIOCESE OF HARTFORD.
contributions for the orphans conclusively proved, his faithful diocesans absorbed his ideas and generously seconded his efforts. We quote from the pastoral letter above mentioned :
' Venerable brethren and dearly beloved children, I most earnestly invoke your protection for the orphans that may be found in your midst. There is no work more worthy of a people devoted to the service of God than the care-taking of the poor and the orphan. If any of those parentless little ones should be lost through our parsimony or neglect, we cannot consider ourselves guiltless before God ; he will hold us to a rigid accountability for the loss of the soul that might have been saved to Him by our charit- able interposition. Our divine Saviour has imposed this as a duty on his people. He will exact its fulfillment and severely, punish its omission. It is not a less great work to save to God those who are of us than to convert to Hinni those who are not ; it is rather a prior duty, enforced by well-ordered charity. Let, then, the united action of pastors and people save to religion the helpless orphan. God will not fail to aid in the perform- ance of the duty He imposes ; He invariably crowns with success the labors of the willing instruments of His mercy."
While Bishop O'Reilly was providing priests and sisters for his diocese, erecting schools and asylums for his children and visiting his scattered parishes, he was not oblivious of the attacks inade by United States armny officers on the rights of conscience. He fought successfully for the rights of Catholic soldiers who had been imprisoned by officers for non- attendance at Protestant services. On Sunday, May 28, 1851, twenty-one Catholic soldiers were imprisoned at Fort Columbus, N. Y., by Lieutenant Winder for refusal to attend Protestant worship. One of the "offenders," Private James Duggan, of Co. A, 4th Artillery, was placed on trial. The charge was: disobedience of orders ; his plea was : not guilty. The finding and sentence of the court were: "The Court finds the prisoner guilty as charged, and does sentence him, James Duggan, to forfeit to the United States $5 of his pay per month for six months; two months in solitary con- finement on bread and water; the other four at hard labor, with ball and chain at his leg." This sentence, in part, was confirmed by Major-General Wool. The case was appealed to the War Department with the result that the then Secretary of War, the Hon. C. M. Conrad, rebuked the bigotry dis- played at Fort Columbus, and declared the soldier's right to full liberty of conscience. In the following correspondence Bishop O'Reilly wrote over the pseudonym of "Roger Williams," a name to conjure with, believing, no doubt, that the time was not ripe for a " Popish " bishop to "interfere " officially in a grave inatter in which officers of the United States Army were involved :
TO THE EDITOR OF THE Boston Pilot :
SIR : As there are just now complaints from many quarters, of Catholic soldiers being punished for non-attendance at Protestant worship, I wish to say that there is no law known to the military department by which soldiers can be punished for 11011-co111- pliance with an order to attend a worship at variance with their conscientious convictions.
There being no law in this matter, a commanding officer has no right to issue such an order; and there being no right on the part of the commandant to issue such an order, there is neither a moral or legal fault in the non-compliance with it on the part of the soldier. I am satisfied that imprisonment or punishment in any form for non-compli-
142
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NEW ENGLAND.
ance with such an unmilitary and illegal order would be found a misdemeanor, punish- able by the civil law. Were a court-martial convened, and I think the authorities at Washington should order one in this case, for the trial of the twenty-one soldiers imprisoned at Fort Columbus, N. Y., on Sunday, 28th ult., by Lieutenant Winder, for refusal to attend Protestant worship, I am satisfied that the court would decide that the soldiers were guilty of no fault.
During the war in Florida, the commandant issued a general order for all to attend Protestant service : this order was disobeyed by some Catholic soldiers, who were inime- diately placed under arrest ; they were tried by court-martial, and the court decided that the soldiers had committed no fault. This decision settled that matter during the entire period of that campaign, and saved the Catholic soldiers from painful annoyance on the part of some narrow-minded and bigoted officers.
Captain O'Brien, lately deceased at San Antonio, Tex., was put under arrest whilst Lieutenant at Old Point Comfort, by orders of General Kalbach, because he refused to attend Protestant worship, and the court-martial decided that he was guilty of no fault.
It is now time that this vexed and annoying question should be settled by an order from the department, recognizing the soldier's right, as that of other citizens, to worship God in accordance with the dictates of conscience.
This order froin the proper department is, in this case, necessary, as the precedents of courts martial acknowledging the soldier's right to liberty of conscience, are set at naught by the petty despots of the service, who would be more in their place as tract peddlers than officers of our army.
In all these cases where our rights are invaded, we have but to apply for redress, in proper form, to the proper authority, and I am confident that these rights will be respected and guaranteed.
As soldiers cannot well move in their own defence in this matter, without exposing themselves to many other annoyances, I would ask some citizen in the vicinity of Fort Columbus, N. Y., where the facts in this case are at hand, to call the attention of the Executive to the tyranny exercised over the consciences of the Catholic soldiers in the service, and take time to agitate the matter, until all officers are directed to recognize the fact that soldiers have a conscience, and that in matters religious, they are free as the civilian to worship God as conscience directs.
I would say to the soldier, pending the continuance of this tyranny and oppression of conscience in military service, be faithful to your God and religion, resist by non- compliance all orders invading the rights and liberty of conscience, and, if punished for non-observance of these arbitrary, illegal and unmilitary orders, spread the fact before the world, and appeal for justice, in matters religious, to your fellow-citizens.
ROGER WILLIAMS, Providence, R. I.
June 14, 1851.
To THE EDITOR OF THE Boston Pilot :
SIR :- The late action of the military authorities at Fort Columbus, New York har- bor, invites to every legitimate effort to put an end to the cruel, heartless oppression of conscience practised at this fort.
Our military service, so honorable and efficient up to the present, is on the eve of being seriously injured and dishonored, if such monstrous wrong as that I now protest against be sanctioned, or permitted to escape with impunity.
That I may not be suspected of exaggeration, or "setting aught down in malice," I will give the finding of the court in the case now complained of, with the confirmation, in part, of the sentence of the court, by Major-General Wool : "Before the general court martial, which assembled at Fort Columbus, New York harbor, on 22d ult., agreeable to 3d department order, No. 8, current series, and at which Brevet Colonel J. L. Gardiner, Major 4th Artillery, is president, was tried Private James Duggan, of Company A, 4th Artillery. Charge: disobedience of orders. Plea : not guilty." Finding of the court and sentence : "The court finds the prisoner guilty as charged, and does sentence him,
143
DIOCESE OF HARTFORD.
Private James Duggan, to forfeit to the United States $5 of his pay per month for six months ; two months in solitary confinement on bread and water ; the other four at hard labor, with ball and chain at his leg."
This, you will admit, is a dishonoring and severe sentence, as also that the alleged " disobedience " must have been prominent and injurious to the service, to warrant it.
The disobedience charged against Duggan, deserving, in the opinion of Colonel Gardiner and the court over which he presided, the severe sentence pronounced against him, is simply his refusal to attend Protestant service. This, sir, is the front of his offending. This is the offence, if any man dare before the country to call it an offence, which we find transformed into "positive, wilful disobedience of orders." Colonel Gar- diner has no right-the articles of war give him no right-to compel attendance at Protestant or any other worship ; refusal to comply with it cannot be tortured into "posi- tive, wilful disobedience of orders."
Where the articles of war speak of religious service, they simply "recommend " or counsel both officers and men to attend religious worship; "it is recommended " are the words used in that military code, when treating on the subject of religion, "that both officers and men attend religious worship."
The veriest bigots only could torture a right to recommend, or counsel, to the right to coerce and punish, as in this instance.
The sentence of the court, sir, is illegal ; being without any authority in military law, and with a view to coerce Catholic soldiers into apostacy, by leaving them no alternative but Protestant worship or the luxury of bread and water, with a ball and chain at the leg.
Colonel Gardiner and liis court at Fort Columbus have established there a monstrous precedent, intended to justify every oppression of conscience, but a precedent which will never be copied by another court martial, unless, as the veriest slaves, we tamely submit to the unmitigated despotism of these military bigots.
The will to be terribly severe is here clearly evidenced ; the will of the scowling, hateful, heartless bigot, prepared, did it but dare, to write its edict of intolerance with Catholic blood, and persecute to the death.
The court is silent as to the alleged offence of James Duggan, qualifying it as dis- obedience of a grave kind ; and we and the world would have remained ignorant of the nature of his offence, were it not for the review of the sentence by General Wool. If the court were not aware of the illegality of its proceedings, and fearful to place its intoler- ance before the country, it would have frankly and honestly stated that his refusal to attend Protestant worship was the cause of his being court-martialed, and severely pun- ished ; and not, as they have had the hardihood to state, "positive and wilful disobedi- ence to orders."
Colonel Gardiner may be, as lie is known to be, most anxious to revive the waning glory of Protestantism, and his chaplain not unwilling to preach to mien forced to listen to him under the severest penalties ; but both will, I trust, soon learn that the soldiers of our country have consciences, and consciences, too, wliich both officers and chaplains must respect.
The severe sentence in the case of Duggan was submitted on the 12th inst., to Gen- eral Wool, and, I regret to say, was in part approved by him. The following is his order in the matter, taken from the record :
" It appears in the testimony that the prisoner had been previously notified that, if he desired to be excused from going to church, on account of religious scruples, he should make application to that effect to the commanding officer at the Fort. In refusing to do so, and in leaving the Company without permission, lie not only disobeyed orders, but showed an insubordinate spirit, which deserves punishment ; therefore, so much of the sentence as subjects the prisoner to forfeit $5 a month for six monthis, is approved ; the remainder of the sentence is remitted."
Painful it is to me to know that General Wool has so far approved of the finding of the court in the case of Duggan ; he should have at once annulled the whole proceedings; it deserved severe reprobation from the commanding officer, and should have received it.
144
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NEWENGLAND.
The ground assumed by General Wool for approving the sentence, in part, is the refusal of Duggan to acquaint the commander of his "religious scruples." This, most assuredly, does not justify the General's confirmation of the sentence, in part. Ist. The articles of war gave no right to command religious attendance ; consequently, the com- mandant had no right to look for explanation for non-attendance, whether the absence proceeded from religious scruples or other causes ; and, consequently, the confirmation of the sentence is not justifiable on this ground.
2d. It is asserted that "in leaving the Company without permission, he not only disobeyed orders, but showed an insubordinate spirit, and, on this ground, the sentence of the court against him is, in part, confirmed." This allegation is, I think, unfair, and calculated to deceive ; affording no justifiable ground for the confirmation of the sentence.
It is not alleged that Duggan deserted, but "that he left the Company without per- mission." Now, Duggan did not, I apprehend, leave the Company, but simply refused to march into the Protestant church, where his conscience forbid him to go, and where his country gave no authority to any person to order him to march ; consequently, the charge of disobedience and insubordination cannot be sustained, and General Wool gives no reason in justification of his confirmation of the bigotod sentence passed on Duggan for non-attendance at Protestant worship.
If the actors in this dishonorable affair were satisfied that they were right, why not speak out as men, and at once say that Duggan would not attend Protestant worship, and, consequently, "must forfeit his pay for six months, live on bread and water for two months and in solitary confinement ; the other four at hard labor, with ball and chain at his leg," and all would understand at once the severity of the punishment, and the object in inflicting it, which is this: that the Catholic soldiers might know that either they must attend Protestant worship at Fort Columbus, or be prepared to yield up their pay, and bear severe physical punishment. Were a Catholic officer to thus punish Protestant soldiers for non-attendance at Catholic worship, would the country tolerate it for a mo- ment? Would not a shout of reprobation ring out from one end of the land to the other ?
Is not persecution, whether Catholic or Protestant, still persecution ? and should not, in this instance, the public voice denounce the intolerant actors in this disgraceful affair at Fort Columbus? In pleading the cause of the persecuted Catholic, I amn but pleading the cause of the oppressed, and expressing, in the indignant terms of a free- mian, the guilt which the country will soon place to the account of the oppressors of conscience at this military Fort. When Lieutenant O'Brien was court-martialed by General Kalbach at Old Point Comfort, for refusal to attend Protestant service, the De- partment ordered the proceedings to be quashed. The Executive did not then consider that refusal to attend Protestant service constituted disobedience, but considered that there was neither disobedience nor ground for action, and ordered the case to be quashed. This is the highest authority in matters military, and inaintains the view I have taken in this case-that there is no authority to command the attendance of the soldiers at religious wor- ship, and no disobedience when the soldier refuses compliance with such illegal orders.
During the Florida campaign a case in point occurred, and was decided favorably to the rights of conscience. An order was issued for all soldiers to attend religious worship on a certain occasion ; two soldiers refused to march to the place appointed for the service ; they are court-martialed, and the court finds them guilty of no offence, no disobedience.
I had supposed that our officers were men of this stamp-generous lovers of human freedom, and as ready to fight for the rights of conscience guaranteed us by the constitu- tion, as for civil liberty. Am I mistaken? Are we retrograding ? Or are the Gardiners and other officers at Fort Columbus an exception to the officers in the service generally?
I ask the Executive to interpose its authority at once, and save our gallant little army from dishonor ; to rebuke so sternly this ill-advised and cruel oppression of con- science, that the bigots of the service may know that they will not be permitted to per- secute Catholic soldiers in the United States service.
This, believe me, is an opening wedge, intended to cleave to the very heart, the sacred right of liberty of conscience, and should be met sternly and firmly by every
145
DIOCESE OF HARTFORD.
friend of human freedom, until bigotry will have disappeared from our army, and the soldier's right to serve God according to the dictates of conscience will be as fully recog- nized as that of other citizens.
Bigotry now assails its hateful work on the poor soldier, who cannot, it appears, even serve God, if his commander should order the contrary, without exposing himself to severe punishment. Will we tamely submit to this whilst a remedy is at hand? Will we submit the sacred liberty of conscience to be annulled whilst it is in our power to strengthen and preserve this invaluable right? In Fort Columbus, New York Harbor, within a few hundred feet of the great city of New York, there is a sufferer for conscience. Have the rights of conscience, human liberty and unjust oppression no friend in New York ? Yours,
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.