USA > Ohio > Cuyahoga County > Cleveland > A history of Catholicity in northern Ohio and in the diocese of Cleveland from 1749 to December 31, 1900, Volume I, pt1 > Part 16
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
FR. GILMOUR, Bishop of Cleveland.
P. S .- Wednesday evening I sent the original of the above letter, now re-written from memory-but substantially what the original contained-to the Leader office, asking its publication. Its insertion in the columns of the Leader was refused. When, yesterday (15th) afternoon, I sent Rev. G. F. Houck, my secretary, to ask for the manuscript, he was assaulted by Mr. Cowles, who failed to return my manuscript, forcing me thus to depend on memory for the reproduction of its contents, as best I may.
The Bishop published a second letter in the Cleveland Press, on June 20, 1882, in answer to an editorial published in the Cleveland Voice, attacking him in regard to the "Cowles Case." The following passages are quoted from that letter :
Editor Press :
In the last issue of the Voice there is a long and very violent article on the now burning question of Mr. Edwin Cowles' treat- ment of his daughter, consequent on her conversion to the Catholic religion, in which it is charged that the conversion of the lady in question "was one of the most infamous and brutal cases of proselyting that the history of the Church, in this part of the world, at least, records;" and further, it is stated that "a special dispensation from the Pope himself was secured, and a concealment of the fact of the conversion and an effort made to reveal it to the father only when the child had been made dead to him and the world by immurement within a foreign convent," and that all this asserted wrong was made "not from piety or zeal for the salvation of the soul of the convert, but simply and entirely from vindictive hate towards the father."
"Were the above the language and thought of the Voice itself, likely it had remained unnoticed, but it is the language of Mr. Cowles, studiously circulated privately through Cleveland since his daughter's conversion. The object is to prejudice the public mind and to create the belief that Mr. Cowles was so great a power against the Church that all the power of the Church, from the Pope down to the Catholic servants formerly in his house, were all
149
IN THE DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND.
banded in a gigantic conspiracy for his humiliation. There is nothing like exaggerating one's importance, and persuading one's self that he is a tremendous power, because he edits a know-noth- ing paper in Cleveland. This Mr. Cowles has done, and to such extent that he is the laughing stock of the country. He has a local influence that finds sympathy in the deep prejudice of the Western Reserve, where as yet the more liberal sentiment of the country has not found solid footing. But that Mr. Cowles or the Leader has ever formed the subject of Catholic thought outside the narrow limits of Northern Ohio is the quintessence of nonsense, or that the Pope, or the Church, or anybody else within the Church in position or influence ever conspired or plotted for the conversion of his daughter is the purest nursery tale. Conversions in the Catholic Church are not such rare or such extraordinary things. They are of every day count, and form no matter of comment, unless, perchance, the convert be some distinguished person. Nor would the conversion of Mr. Cowles' daughter have formed the subject of a day's comment, beyond the circle of her immediate friends, had it not been for her father's well-known hostility to the Church that drew attention to the matter.
"There was nothing remarkable or unusual in the conversion of Mr. Cowles' daughter. She had been raised with the usual prejudices against Catholics. She went abroad, and like so many others, found Catholicity different from what she had been taught. The discovery excited a desire to know more, and with knowledge came faith and final conversion. Such is the usual course with all converts, and she was no exception. Such cases are of every day occurrence, and but for the frenzied anti-Catholic utterances of her father had remained unnoted and unheralded. The statement of any plot or conspiracy for her conversion is a worthy sister to the now long-exploded Maria Monk slander. The statement that the Pope gave any dispensation for her to conceal her faith is a gratuitous falsehood. There may have been a delay to promptly notify her family, from the natural dislike to meet a father's anger, but a dispensation to conceal her religion and play the deceiver- never. Pope, nor bishop, nor priest did, nor could, grant such dispensation, and I know whereof I speak. Were such trickery practiced in the Catholic Church, converts would soon discover it. and being mostly Protestants of the more intelligent class, and many of them converts at the loss of friends, fortune, and social position, they would rise up to expose such fraud and return to their former belief.
"Such statements are the purest fables, and the Voice, in repeating them, only evidences the tenacity of slander, or the gratuitousness of malice in religious controversy. There was no
150
A HISTORY OF CATHOLICITY
such dispensation granted. I much doubt if the conversion of Miss Cowles was ever made known to the Holy Father, beyond the announcement of the fact when, perchance, she, like others, was introduced to him at a public audience.
"Catholics were not the first to publish her conversion. The Voice first published it to Cleveland, and it was not until long after it had been heralded far and wide that the fact was mentioned in our local Catholic paper, the Universe. And though for years I have had facts and letters in my possession gravely damaging to Mr. Cowles' character because of his treatment of his daughter, yet I have silently borne all his bitter attacks until his late continued 'abuse. In pure defense, and to show the public the insincerity of the man, and to protect religion against his malice, I opened a new chapter in his character.
"Mr. Cowles states his daughter has been an invalid for these 20 months past, and then boastingly adds she has been most tenderly cared for. I believe all that; and bad as Mr. Cowles may be in controversy, I assume he would not physically maltreat his child. But the ill-treatment I complain of occurred previous to his daughter's return from Europe, and immediately on her return. Is perhaps her present sickness not a sequence to the mental pain that a father's anger and the struggle between conscience and filial affection would entail? Mr. Cowles, in an angry and exceedingly scurrilous letter, written me three days ago, charges that an effort was made to immure his daughter in a foreign convent. He has made the same accusation in private, and it finds publicity in Sunday's Voice, and the Church and priesthood are roundly abused. But both Mr. Cowles and the Voice forget to state that Mr. Cowles' daughter was informed, when all efforts to alienate her from her Catholic faith had failed, 'that she should consider herself abandoned by her family.'
"The article in Sunday's Voice was evidently intended to influence public opinion and excite sympathy for Mr. Cowles in his trial for assaulting, so rudely and unprovokedly, my secretary. When in controversy with the pen, an opponent resorts to physical violence, he writes his own defeat. And when a newspaper permits, as did the Leader, Sunday, the suggestion of assassination of an opponent, it is time the police see to it.
"My charges are, first, that for conscience sake, Mr. Cowles persecuted his daughter while in Europe. Second, that on her return to America, he did the same in Cleveland. These are my charges, and so far Mr. Cowles has not attempted to deny them, nor will he, knowing full well my ability to substantiate them. Let Mr. Cowles squarely deny them, and then the issue will be before the public, and let me take the consequences if I fail to prove
.
151
IN THE DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND.
them. Side issues and restatements of old and oft refuted slanders have nothing to do with my two distinct charges as above made. Nor will it do to plead kindness in sickness after the date when the persecution was inflicted. My charges are clear both as to time and place. Let them demand the evidence and I shall produce it. ¡R. GILMOUR,
Bishop of Cleveland."
After the above quoted letters appeared, Edwin Cowles sued Bishop Gilmour for criminal and civil libel. He also at the same time sued in like manner the Editors of the Cleveland Press and Catholic Universe for publishing the letters. As set forth in his two letters, the Bishop had based his charge against Edwin Cowles on the fact that he had in his possession a number of letters written by Miss Helen Cowles herself, accusing her father of inter- fering with her liberty of conscience .* After the suits were entered the Bishop consulted his attorneys and found to his great surprise that unless the statements in the letters from Miss Cowles were sworn to by herself as true, they could not be brought into court as evidence. It was a trying dilemma for her, to choose between appearing publicly against her father, and allowing the Bishop to fail in his defense against the libel suits. After many delays, and much pleading on the part of the daughter, the Bishop finally yielded, in not forcing Miss Cowles to testify in court, as she was in bad health ; also in not insisting on the sworn identification and truth of her letters in his possession. As he felt that without her testimony he could not hope to clear himself of the libel charged against him, he accepted the proposition of Edwin Cowles' attor- neys, to withdraw, in a card to be published in the Leader, the original charge, in so far as it might be construed to imply physical violence of father to daughter. This the Bishop did on September 25, 1884, whereupon the suits were withdrawn. Thus ended the case, which had been tried meanwhile at the bar of public opinion, with its verdict against Edwin Cowles, who never rallied from the blow he received by the conversion of his daughter to the Catholic Church.
Sometime after her conversion she married a Mr. Pomeroy, and went with him to Europe. There she again became quite ill,
*The letters are now preserved In the Diocesan archives of Cleveland.
152
A HISTORY OF CATHOLICITY
and was taken to a Catholic hospital in Naples, where she died in communion with the Catholic Church.
"THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT" CASE.
The Catholic Knight made its first appearance in Cleveland, in June, 1882, as a semi-monthly paper, and was thus published until December, 1886. It then appeared weekly. Its ostensible object was to promote the interests of the Knights of St. John and other kindred societies, and it might have done good work had it con- fined itself to this legitimate sphere. In less than two years from the time of its first issue the Catholic Knight threw off its mask, and its columns became a channel for malcontents in the diocese and elsewhere. Editorial attacks on the Bishop of Cleveland, and on bishops of other dioceses and their administrative acts, as well as on priests and laymen who were loyal to their bishop, were of almost weekly occurrence. Anonymous and signed communica- tions, as well as answers to real and apparently fictitious question- ers, were of the same stamp as the editorials. The paper, in conse- quence, although bearing a Catholic name, was most un-Catholic in tone and spirit and became a scandal to the good priests and to the rightminded laity in the Diocese of Cleveland and neighboring dioceses. Although the editor was repeatedly warned by the Bishop to desist from his scandalous attacks on lawful authority, and to keep within the limits of legitimate Catholic journalism, no heed was paid to the warning. The editor espoused every case that was antagonistic to the Bishop, notably the cases of the Revs. John B. Primeau, Patrick F. Quigley, D. D., and of St. Vincent's Asylum, Toledo. Language was not too disrespectful or imperti- nent, insinuations not too vile, and charges not too absurd, but they appeared against the Bishop or his adherents of the clergy and laity, in the columns of the Catholic Knight. The editor and his "correspondents" were shrewd enough, however, to attack from ambush in language that kept them safe from criminal libel. Finally, after repeated but fruitless warnings, the Bishop published the following condemnation of the Catholic Knight, on October 2, 1890:
To the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Cleveland :
For the information of all concerned, and for the special information of the clergy and laity intrusted to our care, we
1
MOTHER OF SORROWS' CHURCH (INTERIOR), ASHTABULA.
153
IN THE DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND.
publish the following instructions and decrees of the Third Council of Baltimore, and respectfully inform both clergy and laity that these decrees are in full force in the diocese of Cleveland, and no one, lay or cleric, is at liberty or authorized to disregard them, or by subterfuge or individual explanation do away with their binding force. The decrees speak for themselves and are as follows, viz. :
"We are filled with shame and greatly grieved that, in virtue of our pastoral duty, we are obliged from time to time, to admonish the editors of Catholic journals that neither they nor their correspondents shall assail persons in eccle- siastical authority; more especially Bishops, viciously misconstruing, criticising. and condemning their decisions, decrees, and regulations, given and enacted in the administration of their dioceses, thereby holding them up to the ridicule and contempt of both Catholics and Protestants. They should rather learn from the Apostle (Heb. xiii, 17) to obey their prelates and be subject to them. They should, by their example and writings, commend the same obedience to others. They should remember the counsel and command of our Holy Father, Leo XIII, who, in his Encyclical of January 25, 1882, lays down that, in the first place the names of Bishops shall be held sacred by Catholic writers. Their office, the high authority in which they are placed, and the duty they have to fulfill, make them worthy of respect. Nor shall private individuals arrogate to themselves the right to judge those things which in the exercise of their author- ity their sacred pastors shall ordain. From such interference, disorder, and intolerable confusion must needs follow. Hence this reverence, which should be found in all, should be especially found in Catholic journalists, as a conspicu- ous example for others to follow.
"Now, that this evil, which to the scandal of the faithful and even of Pro- testants, grows and spreads from day to day, may not increase and prevail with impunity, we believe that recourse should be had not only to admonitions and exhortations, but also to ecclesiastical punishments. Wherefore, if in the future, any persons, whether lay or cleric, either themselves or through their associates or others encouraged by them, attack, in newspapers, pamphlets or other pub- lications for the people. ecclesiastics, especially those invested with the dignity of office, using against them injurious, abusive and insulting language; still more if they presume to canvass and condemn through any of these publications the motives of the Bishop in the government of his diocese we declare that not only the writers themselves but also the patrons and abettors of this most per- nicious abuse, are disturbers of order, contemners and enemies of ecclesiastical authority, guilty of the most serious scandal, and therefore when their crime is sufficiently proved, they may be punished with Canonical Censures."-III Plen. Coun. Balt. Tit. VII, Nos. 230-231.
In accordance with the above teachings and prescriptions of the Third Council of Baltimore, we have twice officially condemned the Catholic Knight, of Cleveland, as a paper un-Catholic in tone and teaching; a fomenter of discord; an inciter to disobedience and rebellion ; a falsifier of law and fact, and a cesspool of scandal.
Mindful of the admonition that the evil-doer should be admonished, and at present not wishing to proceed to canonical censures, though the Third Council of Baltimore authorizes us to do so, we now for the third time condemn the Catholic Knight and forbid its circulation in the diocese of Cleveland, and by virtue of our episcopal authority we hereby withdraw from each and every priest in the diocese of Cleveland, and reserve to ourselves, the power to absolve: 1. Joseph J. Greeves, editor and proprietor of
154
A HISTORY OF CATHOLICITY
said Catholic Knight. 2. All and every one, lay or cleric, asso- ciated with, or aiding and assisting said Greeves in the office and work of editor of said Catholic Knight. 3. All correspondents, lay or cleric, who write for, or in any way contribute news or matter to the columns of said Catholic Knight. 4. Canvassers, agents, or distributers of said Catholic Knight, lay or cleric, even those who have paid their subscriptions, and who after the publication of this letter continue to receive and read said Catholic Knight, or have others to read it for them. 6. All others, lay or cleric, who in any way support or encourage said Catholic Knight, or by money contributions, or by purchasing or borrowing copies, or receiving free copies, or pretended free copies thereof, encourage or recom- mend its circulation; or who, secretly or publicly, directly or indirectly, recommend or have others to recommend said Catholic Knight, or who in any way aid, or abet, or encourage, or counsel said Catholic Knight in its course of scandal, and falsehood and contempt of law and authority.
The above limitation of faculties and reservation will go into effect Sunday, the 19th inst., so that after that date no priest in the diocese of Cleveland can absolve said Joseph J. Greeves, or any of the persons,. lay or cleric, described or included in the above classes.
We hereby direct that next Sunday, the 5th inst., this letter shall be read and published to the people at each and every Mass said or sung in churches having a rector or resident pastor, and in the mission churches on the first Sunday visited after Sunday, the 19th inst.
Given under our hand and seal at our Episcopal residence, Cleveland, this second day of October, eighteen hundred and ninety. ¡RICHARD GILMOUR,
Bishop of Cleveland.
The condemnation of the Catholic Knight did not change the spirit of the paper, but did seriously affect its circulation, as many of its subscribers, though not approving its course, were prompted by curiosity "to read what the Knight had to say" about diocesan affairs. Now, that the Bishop condemned the paper, they and all other obedient Catholics within his diocese ceased to take it.
Although the penalties, attached to the condemnation of the Knight, ceased at the Bishop's death, the condemnation continued as to its moral effect, because the reason for its condemnation also continued, as above stated. The steady lessening of its
155
IN THE DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND.
boasted but never large circulation led to the eventual discon- tinuance of the paper .*
THE QUIGLEY CASE.
Another of the cases that gained much notoriety through the newspapers and otherwise, and which reached the public in dis- torted form, was that of the Rev. P. F. Quigley, D. D., at the time "(1889) pastor of St. Francis de Sales' church, Toledo, to which position he had been appointed in 1885, by the Administra- tor of the diocese, the Rt. Rev. Mgr. F. M. Boff, during Bishop Gilmour's absence in Europe.
Owing to his well known eccentric character, it was not long ere he got into trouble in Toledo, which brought his name into undue prominence in the newspapers. Repeated complaints of various kinds were made against him to the Bishop, forcing the latter to make inquiry, and to take action. This aroused Father Quigley's opposition and enmity, and led him to oppose his bishop, openly and in secret, notably in the case of the Rev. J. B. Primeau, whose adviser and abettor he was in his case, an account of which is given in another part of this chapter.
Matters came to a climax when Bishop Gilmour suspended him from the exercise of priestly functions, and removed him from the pastorate of St. Francis de Sales' church, Toledo, as appears from the letter he sent him on March 19, 1889, of which the follow- ing is a copy :
"Cleveland, O., March 19th, 1889. "To Rev. Patrick Francis Quigley, D. D.
"By virtue of the powers conferred on bishops by the Council of Trent, Session XIV, chapter the first, de Reformatione, I, Richard Gilmour, Bishop of Cleveland, for cause, of which I have certain knowledge, hereby and by these presents 'ex informata conscientia,' suspend you, Rev. Patrick Francis Quigley, a divinis, for the three months next following, and by these same presents hereby remove you from the office of Pastor of St. Francis de Sales' church, Toledo. Three months from the date of this letter you will report to me for duty.
*Shortly after Bishop Horstmann came to Cleveland, the editor of the Knight called on him, with a request that the official notices of the diocese be published in hls paper. The Bishop refused his request.
The following paragraph appeared In the Catholic Knight, on July 29, 1893:
"After this issue the Catholic Knight, of Cleveland, and Catholic Standard, of Toledo, will pass Into the hands of the Catholic Press Association, Mr. Joseph J. Greeves having disposed of his entire interest in both papers, to enable him henceforth to give his un- divided attention to the steadily increasing business of his Catholle hook store." Not long after this the owner of the hook store made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors.
.
156
A HISTORY OF CATHOLICITY
"Given under my hand and seal at my Episcopal residence, Cleveland, this nineteenth day of March, eighteen hundred and eighty nine.
¡RICHARD GILMOUR,
Bishop of Cleveland."
The writer, as the Bishop's messenger, served the above quoted letter on the Rev. Dr. Quigley, at his residence, in Toledo. Not knowing what charge prompted this extreme action, and fearing its consequences, he warningly asked the Bishop whether he felt certain that he had just and sufficient cause for writing such a letter. The Bishop assuring him that he had such cause, the letter was served, as above stated. To the credit of Father Quigley be it said that he obeyed the mandate of his Bishop, and imme- diately vacated the pastoral residence. Availing himself of his rights, according to Canon Law, he at once appealed his case, and shortly after went to Rome for redress. His removal and suspen- sion caused much excitement in his parish, and in Toledo. It thus reached the newspapers, and through them, the country at large, with the result that much criticism, adverse to the Bishop's action, was aroused.
On April 6, 1889, the Bishop sent a long and exhaustive statement of his grievances against Father Quigley, to Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect of the Propaganda, without however giving specific reasons for the suspension inflicted and the removal made. When asked by the Cardinal, about a month later, to give at once the specific reasons, the Bishop replied, in June following, that as soon as he felt it was opportune and prudent, he would do so without further delay. On this answer Cardinal Simeoni at once acted, by ordering the re-instatement of Father Quigley as pastor of St. Francis de Sales' church, thus overruling the Bishop's action. Father Quigley returned to Toledo in December, 1889, and resumed his former pastoral charge by authority of the Holy See. As was to be expected, he was welcomed by his parishioners, and remained their pastor till his death, in August, 1895 .*
*In 1894 the foundation for a new parish school was begun on lots in the rear of St. Francis de Sales' church. Permission to build the school was granted by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Horstmann who relied on the representation made to him by the Rev. Dr. Quigley, sustained by his parish council, that the site was suitable and the project easy of accomplishment. After the foundation was finished, by means of borrowed money, at a cost of over $25,000 It had to be abandoned, as the site proved very unsatisfactory. At this writing the parish has yet to face the debt, with nothing but the foundation walls to show for it. Dr. Quigley caused Bishop Horstmann also considerable trouble, relative to mismanagement of parish affairs. However, on his death bed, he wrote the Bishop a letter of apology.
157
IN THE DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND.
THE PRIMEAU CASE.
One of the cases that excited much notoriety and widespread interest, as it also gave rise to grave scandal, was that of the Rev. John Baptist Primeau. It was also the last case in Bishop Gilmour's disturbed administration of nearly nineteen years, for he died within six months after its settlement, after an illness of nearly two years. The public facts in the case, given as succinctly as possible, are as follows: The Rev. John B. Primeau had been pastor of a large and flourishing French parish, in Worcester, Mass., for twelve years-until January, 1882. For good and suf- ficient reasons he left his parish and the Diocese of Springfield, and made search for pastoral employment elsewhere, in ten different dioceses. He finally made application to Bishop Gilmour, in May, 1882. In the following month he came to Cleveland and a few days later (June 22) he was given pastoral charge of Archbold, and its missions-Bryan, Stryker and Wauseon. He held the charge till November 15, 1883, when, on the plea of ill health, he asked to be relieved of it. His request was granted, and he went to France. He returned to the United States in July, 1884, and in the month of September following called on Bishop Gilmour and asked him for pastoral work. As the Bishop then had need of a French priest for St. Louis' parish, in Toledo, he appointed Father Primeau pastor thereof, by letter, dated September 26, 1884. The Bishop having received several complaints a few years later against Father Primeau, he resolved to dismiss him from the diocese, and to do so before presumptive incardination might justly and legally be claimed. On November 24, 1888, he sent Father Primeau notification to that effect, as appears from a letter he sent him, of which the following is an exact copy :
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.