143

Chapter Six Behind the Veil: Power and Authority, a Delicate Balance.

The people were essential to, and the priests pivotal in, the making of the Maitland Diocese. But, in the most pervasive aspects of daily life, it was the religious women who were to perpetuate and maintain the structures established by Lynch and extended by Murray. Priests were indispensable to the sacramental church but their small numbers and the vastness of the diocese limited what they were able to do. Religious women, on the other hand, because of their numbers and functions, were able to extend their influence to every level both within the Catholic community and beyond. Although their goals were similar to those of Murray and the clergy, namely to spread and consolidate formal Catholicism in the diocese, they operated in a different way, exercising agency for the same ends but using different means. The sisterhoods reflected and perpetuated the class structure of the diocese and that structure became part of their power base as they contributed to the making of the diocese and the moulding of its people.

Women religious were numerically the largest single group within the formal hierarchy of the . Despite their unique position, however, submission, with its assumed powerlessness, underpinned popular as well as ecclesiastical attitudes to religious sisterhoods. Maureen Purcell's investigation of women religious in the Maitland Diocese explores their submission as an abdication of power. 1 A Dominican sister and mediaeval historian, Purcell considered that the Christian faith and religious life were potentially the most liberating forces of all. Her hard-headed, uncompromising and intellectual approach admits of no sentimentality. She argues that submission by religious women was not only a compromise but a denial of principle

1 M. Purcell, 'The Original Sin: Submission as Survival, Women Religious in the Early Maitland Diocese', in S. Willis, (ed.) Women, Faith and Fetes, Melbourne, 1977, pp. 194-217. 144 which diminished their integrity and precluded 'creative risk-taking'.2 For her, the women religious of the Maitland Diocese abdicated their rightful power. As an historian, Purcell understood the sisters' predicament, but as a religious she could not condone what she saw as their failure, their submission, which she believed rendered them powerless.

Marina Warner's study of the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by implication, underlines the potential power of women religious but she takes a more optimistic view of its realization. The position and status of such women were very much bound up with the place of the Virgin in the Catholic Church and in attitudes to her. In particular, Warner points to the central paradoxes of the cult of the Virgin, with its 'multi-layered concept of ideal womanhood'. 3 It is a paradox, too, which extends from the Mother of Christ to His brides, the spiritual mothers of the coming generations of the church. Although Warner herself does not try to tease out this paradox explicitly in relation to women religious, she does realize the possibilities (rather than only the limitations) for these women. Significantly, she identifies Teresa of Avila and Catherine of Siena as women 'who were able, once they had capitulated to the conditions the Church demanded, to assert their ideas and their authority as independent and active women'. 4 As Doctors of the Church, a title officially bestowed upon them, they were members of an exclusive male-dominated pantheon and exercised considerable power and influence both by virtue of their personalities and by their position. For Warner, unlike Purcell, capitulation or submission could be a means of empowerment. Warner concludes,

Paradoxically, the veil and the surrender of a certain system of values that the veil implies, could procure a woman an education, a certain freedom of manoeuvre, and a certain exercise of influence unattainable for other women, with the exception of princesses, queens and heiresses.5

2 Ibid., p. 208. 3 M. Warner, Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and Cult of the Virgin Mary, New York, 1976, p. 344. 4 Ibid., p. 76. 5 Loc. cit. 145

Warner's use of 'could' reflects her view that power was conditional not automatic. Nevertheless, this power was there for women. The Queen of Heaven herself was a woman who held an uncommon place in the scheme of things.

Much depended on the relationship of sisters to ordinaries. The office of bishop bestowed upon its incumbent ecclesiastical power. It was by its very nature public and impersonal, but dependent also upon 'rituals of reification' for force and effect. 6 An important, even crucial part of this process, was what Dening calls the authority of the person holding the office. By contrast with power, authority, thus defined, is private and personal and is dependent upon the abilities and personality of the individual concerned. If the barque of Peter were to have a successful landfall in the Diocese of Maitland, not only her captain but also her officers and crew required an understanding of the boundaries of power as well as the exercise of authority. Religious women had ecclesiastical power, although it was considerably less than that of their clerical superiors. As a consequence their authority had to weigh more heavily in their dealings with their local ordinary if they were to protect themselves and their apostolic endeavours. The class, background, education and sophistication of superiors were important in the exercise of their authority. We should not underestimate their abilities or the force of their personalities in any relationship with their canonical and ecclesiastical superiors.

Murray brought three sisterhoods to Maitland: the Dominicans, the Sisters of Mercy and the Sisters of St Joseph. (Two other groups spent time in the diocese but did not stay.) ? These religious women had not only inherited the religious traditions of more than a thousand years; they had participated in, and were practitioners of, nineteenth-century changes. They all had their ultimate origins in the formation of the in

6 G. Dening, Mr Bligh's Bad Language, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 80-83. 7 These groups, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd and the Brigidines, will be discussed below. 146 the sixth century, and of the later mendicant orders, the Dominicans and Franciscans. 8 Each of these older orders had a single founder as leader and prophet who had drawn people to himself and to religious life. Their centralised form of government, based upon episcopal exemption, reflected the circumstances of their foundation. In practice, the Sacred Congregation of Regulars in Rome assigned a cardinal protector who defended the group's interests, thus limiting the authority of the local bishop. The protector could not change or alter the constitutions of the order, nor act in his own right in its regard except as a delegate of the Holy See. 9 Central government allowed flexibility, promoting unity for those orders whose houses were scattered over vast geographical areas. It also gave them a great deal of power to act independently.

By contrast, religious institutions founded during the great expansion of orders in the nineteenth century, tended to an 'atomistic' or diocesan structure. That is, they were under the control of the bishop.1° The bishop's power over them was considerable, governing in his own right and not as a delegate of the pope. 11 Diocesan congregations were completely under the bishop's ju:risdiction. 12 The sisterhoods of the nineteenth century had moved far away from the older, established traditions of the monastic and contemplative life. For example, traditional religious orders, such as the Dominicans, took solemn vows while religious congregations founded in the nineteenth century took simple vows. Although the intent of both solemn and simple vows was the same, there were differences in the invalidating force of each.13

8 M. Walsh, (ed.) Butlers Lives of the Saints, North Blackburn, 1991, p. 212. 9 D. I. Lanslots, OSB, Handbook of Canon Law for Congregations of Women Under Simple Vows, New York, 1972, pp. 131-164. 10 For a discussion of the episcopal powers of the bishop, see D. J. Keenan, The Catholic Church in Nineteenth-Century Ireland: A Sociological Study, Dublin, 1983, pp. 52-53. 11 A term used by A. Fahey in his case study of nineteenth-century nuns, 'Female Asceticism, in the Catholic Church: A Case Study of Nuns in the Nineteenth Century', PhD., University of Illinios, 1981, p.139. 12 For some examples of negative experiences of the power and authority of bishops, see K. MacDonald, 'Women Religious and Bishops — Some Experiences', Religious Life Review, Vol. 100, 1983, pp.15-23. 13 'Solemn vows contained in themselves the power of invalidating contrary acts, while simple vows rendered acts contrary to the vow only illicit.' In other words 'simple' vows could be deprived of legal efficacy. C. Dortel-Claudot, 'The 147

Canonically, however, only orders with solemn vows were deemed to embody the true religious state. It was not until changes were made in the Code of Canon Law in 1917 that nineteenth-century congregations acquired the full religious state and some legal independence.14

The number of nineteenth-century diocesan foundations grew as quickly as they did partly as a result of a revolution in common piety but also because they suited the purposes of the local ordinary, whether he held to an Ultramontane or a Gallican ecclesiology. 15 Foundations from already tried and proven communities were most acceptable to bishops trying to address needs within their respective dioceses. In Europe and the Americas bishops bent upon centralization deliberately isolated these new congregations and would brook no outside interference. Any attempts by Rome to legislate against the unchecked increase of these congregations were thwarted, especially by the Gallican bishops of France and Belgium. Having stood out against the growing authoritarianism and power of the papacy, they saw any such papal legislation as curtailing their own episcopal authority. 16 Diocesan institutes suited both the new authoritarianism of the institutional church and, at the diocesan level, the self-determination of Gallican and Ultramontane bishops. 17 The legacy of these changes had significant implications for the suffragan dioceses created in in the second half of the nineteenth century.

In some respects the new form of religious life and the active apostolates of nursing, teaching and other charitable works, gave religious

Evolution of the Canonical Status of Religious Institutes With Simple Vows from the Sixteenth Century Until the New Code', Periodica de Re Morali, Canonici?, M. R. MacGinley, (trans.), Liturgica, Vol. 74, 1985, p. 5. 14 Before the nineteenth century, the sole religious state, true and juridical, was the regular state established within an order with solemn vows. It was not until the New Code of Canon Law of 1917 that nineteenth-century religious congregations obtained full status. Ibid., pp. 5-7. 15 For an explanation of these terms, see Chapter Two. 16 J. D. Holmes and B. W. Bickers, A Short History of the Catholic Church, Kent, 1983, p. 243. 17 F. J. Callahan, 'The Centralization of Government in Pontifical Institutes of Women With Simple Vows', Dissertio Laurearn in Facultate Iuris Canonici Pontificate Universitatis Gregorianae, Rome, 1948, pp. 42-45. 148 women power within both the church and the secular world. 18 They were no longer bound by the restrictions of enclosure and the lengthy recitation of the Divine Office. Sisters became active, visible and available to engage in work beyond the convent walls. At the same time, the diocesan form of government typical of their congregations gave bishops the means to control the new-found power of religious women. Bishops could and did impose restrictions upon the sisters in their respective dioceses. Notwithstanding, religious women responded in various ways to these episcopal constraints and demands. Successful superiors worked out a modus vivandi which, while satisfying their bishops, gave themselves considerable power. In this complex relationship, power and authority were delicately balanced.

Bishops were aware of the power wielded by religious superiors and aware of the fact that these women sometimes limited episcopal authority. They were also conscious of the fact that nuns might operate so as to render the bishop relatively helpless. In the early 1850s there were, for example, negotiations to send Sisters of Mercy from Ireland to the Crimea with Florence Nightingale. Many of the Irish hierarchy were totally opposed to the idea. One of their number, writing to Cullen in Dublin, wryly observed that,

The nuns, however, seemed determined to go, and although after their fashion they will do nothing but as they will be told, still, they know how to manage so as to be told what they wish.19

These women understood where they stood in relation to the authority of the bishop, knowing that they were obliged to accept his word, if it came to that. But they were not beyond manipulating his word. Nevertheless,

18 For a discussion of the advantages of the non-cloistered life, see L. Jarrell, 'The Development of Legal Structures for Women Religious Between 1500 and 1900: A Study of Selected Institutes of Religious Life for Women', United States Catholic Historian, pp. 25-35 and Callahan, op. cit., p. 42. For Anglican attitudes to sisterhoods within the Church of England, see J. Studdert, 'Attitudes to Monasticism: Changes in Anglican Attitudes Towards Monasticism Between the Suppression of the Monasteries and 1900', MA (hons), University of New England, Armidale, 1976, p. 302. 19 Quoted by Mary L. Peckham, 'Religious Archives: A Rich Source of Social History', Paper delivered to the Adelaide Conference of Sisters of Mercy Archivists, 1995. 149 only certain sorts of challenges to episcopal authority, done in certain ways, were acceptable.

The particular circumstances of the foundation, and the nature of governance of the three sisterhoods which came to Maitland, were integral to their subsequent position and role in the diocese. Some aspects of their history and ethos will be dealt with in Chapter Ten. Here I am mainly concerned with their institutional relationship with James Murray, and with the part he wanted them to play within the diocese. One, the Sisters of Mercy, owed its origins to Catherine McCauley, a middle-aged woman from the Irish Catholic gentry. In 1822 McCauley had inherited a considerable fortune from Quaker friends. Catholic-Quaker links were not unusual in Ireland, the latter being the least sectarian and most tolerant among the dissenting Protestant sects. With her fortune Catherine established a House of Mercy at Baggot Street, Dublin, for the care and education of orphans, homeless women and girls. It was, perhaps, an unlikely location in the then fashionable part of the capital. Catherine, however, knew exactly what she was doing. She aimed to challenge her wealthy neighbours, among whom she was a welcome guest, to offer their daughters and their financial support for her work.20

Young, educated women did join her and this small group of lay women gradually developed a conventual way of living. Initially, Catherine had opposed the idea of her lay group becoming a religious order. One view from the Sisters of Mercy themselves attributes her reluctance to the fact that she had imbibed a dislike for religious congregations from her Protestant friends. 21 It is more likely that while she valued her own absolute independence and power, she realized that in the long term she needed the security, authority and status which only a formalised religious sisterhood could provide. Moreover, there was some opposition from certain individuals who saw her community as a

20 A. Bolster, Catherine McAuley In Her Own Words, Dublin, 1978, pp. 28-43. 21 Ibid., p. 36 . For further discussion of the foundations of the Sisters of Mercy, see M. B. Degnan, Mercy Unto Thousands, Dublin, 1958 and M. S. McGrath, These Women? Women Religious in the History of Australia, The Sisters of Mercy Parramatta 1888-1988, Kensington, 1988, p. 9. 150 duplication of what the Sisters of Charity were already doing.22 These did not include Daniel Murray, Archbishop of Dublin, who persuaded Catherine that her future lay in a sisterhood and that there was a place for her sisters in the diocese. 23 As bishop, Daniel Murray might also have been ensuring his episcopal authority over Catherine by persuading her to come completely into the fold. No bishop would have wanted such a powerful and independent group operating within his jurisdiction.

Another sisterhood which came to, and stayed in, the Maitland Diocese, the Dominicans, followed a different path in accommodating themselves to nineteenth-century Irish conditions. Their superior at the time, Mother Mary Columba Maher, a cousin of Paul Cullen, had attended the Dominican school at Clontarf. She had entered the community as a lay sister (an uncommon move for someone of her high social status) but because numbers were so few, she was raised to the status of choir sister. Soon after her profession in 1814 she became the prioress, but the prioress of a community on the verge of extinction. 24 Financial difficulties and a dearth of new recruits with their dowries, essential for the financial well- being of the order, had left the community almost destitute. With the advice and help of Father Cruice, OP, Columba Maher purchased a property, Cabra, on the outskirts of Dublin in 1819. She also managed to secure for her sisters the right, denied by the penal laws, to wear the Dominican habit, a concession which contributed greatly to the rebuilding of their esprit de corps.25

Columba Maher wrought further significant changes within her Dominican community. The administration of the convent had been in the hands of the Dominican friars and the community functioned, according to the norms of centralized government, under the jurisdiction

22 Daniel Murray and Mary Aikenhead had founded the Sisters of Charity in Dublin in 1815. For a life of Mary Aikenhead, see M. Bayler Butler, A Candle was Lit: The Life of Mother Mary Aikenhead, Dublin, 1953. 23 McGrath, op. cit., p.9. 24 Life of M. Magdalen Butler, Drogheda Convent Archives, in M. Smith, OP, 'The Great Schism of the West', A Research Paper, n.p., n.d., p. 7. 25 A. O'Hanlon, OP, Dominican Pioneers in , Strathfield, 1949, p.15. 151 of the master-general of the Dominican Order. However, depleted numbers among the friars, the death of Father Cruice in 1825 and strained relations between the Dominican sisters and the friars left the women in a vulnerable position. Above all, the need to have the approval and support of the local ordinary led Columba Maher to petition Rome for a change in jurisdiction. Writing to Cullen, then Rector of the Irish College in Rome, she made it clear that she was aware of the ecclesiastical climate. 'There is you know an objection to nuns not under the authority of the bishops. It would seem they cannot thrive upon any other footing' .26 Hers was a crucial and courageous move, which Cullen facilitated. In January 1832 Pope Gregory XV1 issued a brief constituting the Archbishop of Dublin, Daniel Murray, Apostolic Visitor and Ecclesiastical Superior of the Community.27

Because of the Dominican commitment to, and involvement in, schools, Columba Maher had also asked that they be permitted to recite the Little Office of the Virgin Mary. This was to be said in place of the longer and official Divine Office read by clerics and enclosed orders of religious men and women. She also petitioned Rome to dispense the group from the rule of strict enclosure to which they had been bound since the foundation of the order in the thirteenth century. These requests were made at some cost to the community, for the sisters had to relinquish some of their traditions and their particular status within the hierarchy of religious orders. Notwithstanding, Columba Maher believed that such changes would enable her sisters to move from one convent to another and ultimately to serve the needs of education better. Most importantly, they meant survival for the community. 28 Columba Maher, an extraordinary and powerful woman, a risk-taker, broke with the traditions of centuries so as to ensure survival and revival.29

26 For full details in the negotiations regarding the change in jurisdiction, see M. Smith, 'The Great Schism of the West', The Status Controversy Concerning the Irish Dominican Sisters of the Nineteenth Century, and Their Affiliated Congregations, research paper, OPA. 27 A History of Cabra , n.d., p. 13, OPA and Columba Maher to Cullen, 1 July 1848, Cabra, ICAR. 28 O'Hanlon, op cit., pp. 16-17. 29 For a discussion of the role of nineteenth-century foundresses and their rule, see Jarrell, op. cit., p. 30. 152

In contrast to Catherine McCauley and Columba Maher, both of whom had actively sought the support of their bishop and had taken on diocesan government, another woman in a remote corner of the Australian colonies took a different road. Australian-born Mary MacKillop, with an Englishman, Father Julian Tenison Woods, established the Sisters of St Joseph at Penola in South Australia in 1866.30 This sisterhood had been founded to meet the special needs of the Australian condition, 'to go into remote parts of the colony and give proper religious instruction to the poor scattered children.' 31 In the tradition of the mendicant friars, these sisters went in groups of two or three into isolated areas and there lived, often without the benefits of the Mass and access to the sacraments.32 The readiness of these Sisters of St Joseph to forgo regular Mass made them unusual among Australian religious sisterhoods at that time.

Against the accepted trend, Mary MacKillop believed that central government, as opposed to diocesan, was vital to the survival of the newly founded sisterhood. It was Mary herself who achieved the miracle of papal acceptance of that form of government for her order. 33 In her presentation to Rome in 1874, she had made it clear that 'separate provinces and novitiate may not tend to the general good until we have all been firmly established in one definite rule'. 34 There was to be no 'atomistic structure' for Mary's sisterhood or so she intended. Despite her very decisive views on government, so desperate were bishops for nuns that they invited Mary's sisters to their dioceses. In particular, Bishop Matthew Quinn brought a group of them to Bathurst and then set about gaining control.

30 P. Gardiner, An Extraordinary Australian Mary MacKillop, Alexandria, 1994, p. 57. This is an authorised biography by the Vatican's official postulator for the cause of sainthood of Mary Mackillop. It is, consequently, very focused in its content and intent. 31 J. E. Tenison Woods, 'Memoirs of Rev. J. E. Tenison Woods' dictated to Miss Anne Bulger, Books 1 and 2, Book 2, p. 26, RSJLA. 32 Purcell, op. cit., p. 201. 33 Gardiner, op. cit., p. 156. 34 Mary to Mons Kirby, 27 April 1874, Rome, File 1874, Vol. 1, MHA. 153

The Josephites began a school at Perthville near Bathurst in 1872 with the expectation that they would establish similar schools in 'all the most remote and scattered districts' of the diocese. 35 But, foundress and bishop clashed over the issue of government with Matthew Quinn insisting on his right to have jurisdiction over the religious congregations within his diocese.36 This ultimately irreconcilable conflict between Mary MacKillop and Matthew Quinn forced most of Mary's sisters to leave the Bathurst Diocese. The women who left valued the rule which Rome had approved, and hence followed Mary back to Adelaide. However, one woman remained. Quinn pressured Sister Mary Hyacinth, a contemporary of Mary, to stay in Bathurst to train the young postulants whom he had just brought from Ireland. 37 It was from this group that Quinn constituted the Diocesan Sisters of St Joseph, a sisterhood under his direct control. 38 But Quinn had made an uncanonical foundation." Sister Hyacinth Quinlan had taken her vows in Mary Mackillop's institute and should have been dispensed from these vows before 'joining' Quinn's group. Under great duress, Hyacinth had complied with Quinn's demands and was thereafter, because of her particular personal and spiritual situation, powerless. 40 It was these Diocesan Sisters of St Joseph whom James Murray, a cousin of Matthew Quinn, invited to Maitland in 1883.41

The Dominicans, the Mercys and the Diocesan Sisters of St Joseph, each under episcopal control, came to, and stayed in, the Maitland Diocese. Two other congregations of religious women with whom Murray had

35 Freeman's Journal, Sydney, 21 December 1872. 36 For further insights into Mary MacKillop's view of authority, see Gardiner, op. cit., p.127. See also M. Potts, -We never Sink", Matthew Quinn as Bishop of Bathurst, 1865-1885', BA (hons), University of Sydney, 1971, p. 99. 37 M. Press, Julian Tenison Woods, Sydney, 1979, pp. 153-154. 38 For a discussion of the conflict between Matthew Quinn and Mary MacKillop, see B. Zimmerman, 'The Search for Legitimacy: Mother Mary Aquin Leehy and the Sisters of St Joseph of Lochinvar, 1890-1960', M.Litt., University of New England, Armidale, 1987, pp. 8-32. 39 In this sense Quinn's foundation was uncanonical. Interview with Father Paul Gardiner, Mount Street, Sydney, 10 August 1986. 40 Press, op. cit., p. 155. 41 Souvenir Booklet Sisters of St Joseph, RSJLA. For a different view of the foundations of the Sisters of St Joseph, see J. Tranter, 'A Study of the Foundation of the Sisters of St Joseph of Lochinvar', MA, University of Newcastle, 1988. 154 dealings did not remain. The Sisters of St Brigid arrived in Maitland at Murray's request in 1883. A diocesan sisterhood, they had been established in Ireland by Daniel Delaney, Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, in 1807.42 They set up a convent and school at Coonamble in the north-west of the Maitland Diocese, but when diocesan boundaries changed in 1887 the district of Coonamble and the Brigidine community were subsumed into the Bathurst diocese.43 The departure of the other sisterhood, the Good Shepherd of the Order of St Benedict (later known as the Good Samaritan Congregation), was a different matter and it related directly to Murray's aims and views about his power and authority.

Founded by the Archbishop of Sydney, John Bede Folding, OSB, in 1857,44 the Good Shepherd Sisters were to support and promote Polding's 'Benedictine dream', and in particular to promote Benedictine spirituality by means of schools. 45 To this end„ they had arrived in Maitland in 1864, two years before Murray himself.46 He came not knowing that they were already in his diocese despite three interviews with Folding in Rome in February 1866.47 Later, Murray confided to his friend and mentor, Tobias Kirby, Rector of the Irish College in Rome, that,

I regret so much that Dr Polding never mentioned to me in Rome that there were nuns in Maitland and when I arranged with the Dominicans of Kingstown I was fully under the impression that there was no convent at Maitland.48

42 I. Murphy, The Diocese of Killaloe 1800-1850, Dublin, 1992, p. 135. 43 Almanac of the Diocese of Maitland and Home Journal,1 900, Maitland, 1900, p. 18 and 1906, p. 23 and Almanac of the Diocese of Maitland and Home Journal, 1906, Maitland, 1906, p. 23. The Sisters also founded a community at Cundletown, Manning River, in 1899 but this school was eventually taken over by the Sisters of St Joseph in 1907. E. 2.24, Murray Papers, MDA. 44 N. Turner, Catholics in Australia: A Social History, 2 vols, North Blackburn, Vol. 1,1992, p. 130. 45 P. O'Farrell, The Catholic Church and Community in Australia: A History, West Melbourne, 1977, p.174.. 46 H. Campbell, Centenary, The Diocese of Maitland 1866-1966, Maitland, 1966, p. 166. See, also, C. M. Slatery, The Wheeling Years 1857-1957, Sydney, 1957, and P. Fitzwalter, 'Annals of the Sisters of the Good Samaritan', AGS. 47 Murray to Cullen, Rome, 2 March 1866, Australia 58/1, DDA. 48 Murray to Kirby, East Maitland, 22 November, 1866, Kirby Letters, No. 317, ICAR. 155

Polding's duplicity or oversight had affronted Murray, who, in any case had an abiding dislike for both the man and his Benedictines. Murray's knowledge of the Benedictines in Western Australia had made him very wary and his dealings with the Sydney Benedictines had confirmed him in his views. Writing to Kirby in late December 1866, Murray urged his friend to use his influence to stop the appointment of Benedictines as bishops, advising Kirby that 'one of them [Dean O'Connell] gave scandal by his excessive drinking and was found in Sydney quite drunk and in the company of bad women'.49

Murray's need for sisters was urgent, but at the same time he wanted sisters who would be subject to his plans and authority. He therefore had very mixed feelings about the Sisters of the Good Shepherd. As he pointed out to the Dominican prioress at Kingstown in his attempt to re-assure her about his need for her sisters and their likely role,

The schools conducted by the nuns here are intended for the poorer or rather, I should say for the humbler class of people, this professed object debars the children of the rich from attending their schools and hence they go to Protestant schools.50

Unlike Mary MacKillop, Murray was concerned with the wealthy and the powerful as well as the poor. He predicted that these Good Shepherd Sisters would 'leave at Christmas'.51 According to Murray, their return to Sydney was not his doing but he expressed his satisfaction with the outcome. Had they remained at Maitland they would, he said, have been answerable to Polding rather than himself. This situation 'would not suit so well'. 52 Whatever the circumstances regarding their departure from

49 Murray to Kirby, 29 December 1866, ICAR. For a detailed account of the 'Sheehy Affair', see C. P. Dowd, 'Papal Policy Towards Conflict in the Australian Catholic Missions: The Relationship Between , OSB, Archbishop of Sydney, and the Sacred Congregation De Propaganda Fide, 1842-1874', PhD., ANU, Canberra, 1994.pp. 273-296. 50 Murray to the Dominicans at Kingstown, East Maitland, 20 November 1866, quoted by Campbell, op . cit., p. 73. 51 Loc. cit. 52 Murray to Kirby, Rome, East Maitland), 22 November 1866, Kirby Letters, No. 317, ICAR. 156 the diocese (and the details are obscure), their central government would have brought them into conflict with the new bishop.

Other factors contributed to Murray's unease regarding the Sisters of the Good Shepherd. Writing to Cullen, he complained that the sisters were 'not well educated because servants and persons otherwise unfit' were being admitted to their congregation. 53 Lower-class religious women had not been part of his experience. Catholic gentry, such as the Murrays, were not only conscious of their position but protected it fiercely. Moreover, Murray, never having been a parish priest, had not directly experienced the poor in a day-to-day pastoral role. As secretary to Cullen, he had moved in the best circles in Dublin and among the powerful and privileged. It was no accident that he brought the Dominicans first, then the Sisters of Mercy and finally the Sisters of St Joseph to his diocese. Concerning the departure of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd from Maitland, he concluded with obvious relief that the 'whole affair is most fortunate'.54

Murray's attitude to, and acceptance of, the Dominican sisters were very different. Shortly after their arrival, he wrote to Cullen in most enthusiastic terms that 'the community is everything I would desire'.55 He went to trouble and expense for them, suffering some inconvenience himself to provide housing appropriate to their social and ecclesiastical status. The house previously occupied by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd was 'a miserable thing' and he would be 'sorry to ask any nun to go into it'.56 As a consequence, he decided that the Dominican sisters would have the house he himself had planned to occupy in West Maitland. It had seven rooms on the ground floor and eight bedrooms upstairs, with a separate kitchen and a bathroom. Such was his concern that Murray advised the superior, 'if you find it does not answer you, we

5 3 Murray to Cullen, East Maitland, 19 March 1868, Australia, 58/1, DDA. 54 Murray to Kirby, East Maitland, 22 November 1866, Kirby Letters, No. 317, ICAR. For further discussion regarding the departure of the Sisters of the Good Samaritan, see Tranter, op. cit., pp. 56-61. 55 Murray to Cullen, East Maitland, 29 December 1868, DDA. 56 Murray to the Dominicans at Kingstown, East Maitland, 20 November 1866, quoted by O'Hanlon, op. cit., p.50. 157 shall place you elsewhere'. 57 Nothing was too much trouble as he welcomed and provided for these women.

Murray's positive reaction to the Dominicans, and later to the Sisters of Mercy, largely resulted from their Irish birth, class and ties of blood. The high level of sophistication and education of the Dominican Sisters was in no doubt. The first prioress of the Dominican Convent at Maitland, Mother Mary Agnes Bourke, was a cousin and contemporary of James Murray. 58 The daughter of a wealthy merchant, she was born in Dublin in 1825 and educated by Quakers. 59 She entered the Dominican Convent, Kingstown, in 1848 where her novice mistress was Mother Mary Agatha Moran, a sister of Patrick Francis Moran, contemporary and friend of James Murray and later Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney. Soon after Agnes Bourke's profession she became mistress of novices, an office which she held for the next fourteen years." Given these ties of friendship, class and blood, it is not surprising that Murray visited the community at Kingstown seeking a community of sisters to help him in his diocese of Maitland. Nor is it surprising that his cousin was nominated as the prioress of the new community. Her superior obviously knew a thing or two about the politics of dealing with ecclesiastics.

The other Dominican volunteers for the Maitland community, five choir sisters and two lay sisters, had all been trained by Mother Mary Agnes. In addition, the sub-prioress, Mother Mary Theresa Molloy, though not a relation of Murray, had friends and influence in high places. Her brother, Gerard Molloy taught at Maynooth, became vice-rector then rector of the Catholic University and was later numbered among the Irish

5 7 Loc. cit. 58 Purcell in Willis, p. 196. Purcell did extensive research both in Australia and Ireland on the Dominicans at Maitland and their association with James Murray. I have been unable to establish the exact nature of the family connection but the Dominicans themselves hold to the tradition of Agnes Bourke as Murray's cousin. 59 In penal times upper-class Catholics had few options for education. Quakers would have been the most acceptable of religious groups. They valued education, were often successful financially and were the most democratic in their structures. Women were not marginalized among them. Murphy, op. cit., p. 224. Paul Cullen himself had first attended a Quaker school. The Quakers remain an almost neglected group in Irish history and await serious investigation. 60 O'Hanlon, op. cit., p. 71. 158 nominees for the Archdiocese of Sydney. 61 Future groups of sisters from Ireland included more of Murray's cousins from his home county of Wicklow.62 The class, background and sophistication of these women as well as their family ties with Murray made it easier for them to deal with, and be accepted by, their bishop. At the same time, their education and charm made it easier for the bishop to deal with them.

The Dominican sisters were very dear to Murray's heart. The closeness of the Dominican Convent to his house in Maitland allowed frequent visits to the community and the arrival of mail from Ireland provided further opportunities for Murray to enjoy their company. It was as if they were his family, as indeed some of them were. As he confided to Cullen, When I received your letter I paid a visit to the nuns and read extracts from your letter. They are ever so much obliged to your eminence for your kind remembrance of them. They are indeed a treasure and are doing wonders.63

Murray's affection for his 'treasure' is obvious and his comments about them reveal that they, in turn, were quite capable of playing upon that affection. For example, in an earlier letter to Cullen, he wrote,

The nuns are well and doing wonders. On my first visit to their schools after Christmas they had everything changed [meaning apparently, the furniture and ornaments]. I told them that like all nuns they were upsetting everything, even the Blessed Virgin to whom they gave, I must admit, a better and more commanding position.64

In many respects they were the blood sisters he did not have. Moreover, they provided the female companionship which had been largely denied him in the male-dominated environment of Rome and the bishop's house in Dublin.

61 Purcell in Willis, op. cit., p. 196. 62 Loc. cit. 63 Murray to Cullen, East Maitland, 19 March 1868, Australia 58/1 DDA. 64 Murray to Cullen, East Maitland, 31 January 1868, Australia 58/1 DDA. 159

The ties of affection which existed between the bishop and his nuns were by no means restricted to the Dominican Order, although they seem to have held first place. Other sisters who came to the diocese at Murray's invitation also received his fatherly attention. Next in Murray's esteem were the Sisters of Mercy, who had arrived in the diocese from the Mercy Convent in Ennis, County Clare. Bishop Matthew Quinn of Bathurst, who was visiting Ireland in 1874, had invited these sisters to Maitland on behalf of his cousin, Murray. They too, like the Dominicans, were a known quantity and had quality connections. Mary Theresa Molloy, of the Maitland Dominicans, had a blood sister at the Convent of Mercy at Baggot Street, Dublin. 65

After negotiations with Quinn, during which the superior of Ennis Convent had insisted that the sisters should travel only by the 'best line of steamers', ten sisters left for Maitland in June 1875.66 Sister Mary Stanislaus Kenny, an accomplished linguist, mathematician and teacher of declamation, led the group. As novice mistress at Ennis she knew well the six young professed sisters and three postulants who accompanied her. Delighted to have them, Murray announced their arrival to Cullen, saying that he had not expected so many. 67 The bishop had made preparations for their accommodation on this occasion, not by relinquishing his own home but by asking the parish priest of Singleton, Father Fontaine, to offer his presbytery. 68

As with the Dominicans, Murray, exerted his considerable personal charm, going to extraordinary lengths to make the Sisters of Mercy welcome. He even travelled to Sydney to meet them. He and his efforts obviously impressed them, and one of them subsequently described him as 'a prince in every sense of the word". 69 Expressing his thanks 'in a most gracious manner' to all those passengers who had been especially kind to the sisters, he obviously revelled in such occasions and took great pride in

65 Purcell in Willis, op. cit., pp. 197 and 212. 66 Reminiscences of Maggie O'Connell, RSMSA. 67 Murray to Cullen, Maitland, 2 September 1875, DDA. 68 Reminiscences of Maggie O'Connell, RSMSA. 69 Loc. cit. 160 presenting his new nuns to all his visitors. The postulants he singled out, as 'the hope of Australia'. 70 He seems to have particularly enjoyed the company of these young women for on his visits to his friend, Father Foran at Singleton, he made a habit of calling at the convent at tea time whereupon, the novices and postulants would be invited to perform dances, such as lancers, quadrilles and waltzes, for their special guest. 'Watching the dainty feet in their clumsy leather shoes', says Sister Austin Dwyer, 'gave the company many a laugh'. 71 The ease of relationship between the Bishop and the Sisters of Mercy, particularly their superior, Stanislaus Kenny, allowed for the easier exercise of initiative and foresight by the women.72

Murray's relationship with the third group of sisters, the Sisters of St Joseph, who arrived at the small village of Lochinvar in September 1883, was not so close. For example, he managed to overlook them in his Pastoral of 1883, in which he identified the Sisters of St Brigid and the Brothers of St Patrick lately come to the Diocese. 73 Moreover, the first house of the Sisters of St Joseph was a rambling wooden building which had been an hotel in earlier days. It was to serve as a convent and school for eighteen months, until the first postulants arrived. 74 But Murray did accompany the original four young Bathurst Josephites from the Dominican Convent at Maitland, where they had stayed overnight, to their new home at Lochinvar. In Murray's address of welcome, he made the point that the Sisters of St Joseph at Bathurst had already established twenty new convents in just a few years. It was his hope that in due course he might say the same of the Sisters of St Joseph of Lochinvar. Here was a different priority, that of numerous convents in isolated areas

70 Loc cit. 71 Reminiscences of Austin Dwyer, RSMSA., 72 Loc. cit. 73 Pastoral Letter of the Most Reverend Dr Murray, Bishop of Maitland to the Catholic Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Maitland, 14 September, 1883, pp. 5 and 8, MDA. 74 History of the Sisters of St Joseph of Lochinvar, 1883-1965, Maitland, 1965, p. 3, RSJLA. 161 of the diocese meeting the needs of the children of labourers, settlers and selectors.75

There are obvious reasons for Murray's seemingly less enthusiastic approach to the Sisters of St Joseph. By the time of their arrival in 1883 he had been bishop for nineteen years. His episcopacy was well established. He had already introduced two congregations, the Dominicans and Mercys, who had been in the diocese for sixteen and eight years respectively. These sisters had fulfilled all his expectations. Murray's own relations, as well as relatives of close friends, had numbered among the founding groups. They were from his own social class and many were well educated. He was familiar and comfortable with them. By contrast, the Sisters of St Joseph of Lochinvar were not of his own class and only one of the founding group was Irish-born. Nor were they as well educated or as experienced as the first Dominicans and Mercys. Moreover, their uncertain beginnings at Bathurst and a possible residual association with Mary MacKillop left them vulnerable and a little suspect.

Murray had successfully brought to, and settled in, his diocese those sisterhoods whose form of government accommodated his view of formal ecclesiastical power. Just as important was the informal power of his charm and ecclesiastical dignity which he exercised in dealing with these women. However, the sisters themselves also had their own forms of power which they could use to their advantage. Their social status and skills well suited Murray's purposes but they also strengthened the hands of the sisters themselves. Thus far, we have largely looked at these communities of nuns from Murray's point of view and requirements. We now consider them from within their communities and as women involved in a variety of activities and in positions of strategic advantage.

The women who were responsible for the governance of the Dominican community at Maitland and later foundations possessed considerable personal authority in terms of their social status, education

75 A Priest of the Maitland Diocese, Souvenir of the Silver Jubilee of the Sisters of St Joseph Lochinvar, New South Wales, n.d., 1906,p. 9, RSJLA. 162 and family background. We have already seen the qualities of the founding prioress, Mother Mary Agnes Bourke, who held office for nine years. The sub-prioress during that time, Mother Mary Theresa Molloy spoke French, German and Italian fluently, and she carried herself (and her considerable height) with personal dignity and elegance. A gifted musician, artist and mathematician, she was an excellent teacher.76

During the nine years Bourke and Molloy were in office, they established the Star of the Sea Convent and School in Newcastle. In 1873, the parish of Newcastle, formerly in the Sydney Diocese and under the jurisdiction of Polding, became part of the Diocese of Maitland. Bishop Matthew Quinn, acting for Murray who was in Europe, requested that some sisters from Maitland take up primary schools in Newcastle. In June 1873, Mother Mary Agnes Bourke arrived in Newcastle with the founding community. The sisters lived, temporarily, in the old presbytery while they purchased a house beside the church for £1,600. On Murray's return from Europe, they presented the property to him in lieu of the old presbytery, which became the school. In December of that same year, the community bought the site of their convent and school, a house on the dominant hill bounded by Tyrrell and Wolfe Streets.77 In other words the Dominicans, who were no innocents abroad, exercised good business sense and quickly accumulated considerable capital.

On this occasion both the power of the bishops and the shrewdness of the prioress and her community were at work. The bishop exercised his power by inviting the Dominicans to Newcastle, thus claiming the hitherto Benedictine territory as his own. On the other hand, the Dominican community exercised its power in choosing and buying prime Newcastle real estate for their convent and school. Religious women were not locked into economic dependency. Unlike their married sisters whose material state depended on the circumstances and predilections of their

76 Obituaries of the Dominican Sisters, Book 1, 1867-1929, p. 13, OPA. 77 Golden Jubilee Booklet, 1867-1917: St Marys Dominican Convent Maitland, Maitland, 1917, p. 39, OPA. 163 husbands, religious women, as long as they worked collectively, could have some financial independence.78

Two other early Irish Dominicans proved to be outstanding leaders building on the foundations laid by Agnes Bourke and Theresa Molloy. One, Pius Collins, arrived from Kingstown, Ireland, in 1868, and the other, Bertrand Walsh, came three years later. These two women between them guided the Dominican congregation for thirty years, alternating in the positions of prioress and sub-prioress. Pius Collins, a gifted teacher, specialised in music, singing and dramatic art while Bertrand Walsh, a keen educationalist, encouraged up-to-date schools and the higher education of the sisters. Both women exercised great foresight. 79 Two foundations occurred while Pius Collins was prioress, one at Moss Vale (Southern Highlands) in 1891 and another at Strathfield (Sydney) in 1894. Both these resulted from a request by Archbishop Moran, who asked the Maitland community 'to aid in the great work of building up the Holy Church in the Diocese of Sydney'. 8° This request came and the subsequent foundations were made, of course, with the approbation of Murray.

But Pius Collins, like Agnes Bourke, was not totally at the beck and call of bishops. As prioress she exercised her discretion in responding to Moran's invitation. 81 Although Moran had requested sisters for Moss Vale in 1890, she did not act immediately. It was a flattering and, no doubt, welcome invitation which provided the Dominicans with further opportunities to establish themselves in developing areas. Nevertheless, Pius Collins waited until community numbers had increased sufficiently so as not to stretch their already extended personal and economic resources. The foundation in Newcastle in 1873, was supplemented by another at Tamworth (in the north west) in 1876 and by the Deaf and

78 M. Lake, 'Historical Considerations IV: The Politics of Respectability: Identifying the Masculinist Context', Historical Studies, Vol. 22 No. 86, April 1986, pp. 10-131 and p. 122. 79 Obituaries of the Dominican Sisters, Book 1, 1867-1929, p. 35 and Book 2, 1930- 1958, p. 31, OPA 80 Golden Jubilee Booklet, 1867-1917, p. 57, OPA., 81 Obituaries of the Dominican Sisters, Book 1, 1867-1929, p. 35, OPA. 164

Dumb Institute at Waratah (Newcastle) in 1888. 82 Moran had asked that the sisters should decide where the convent and school were to be situated and he offered them sites in the Blue Mountains, Mittagong and Berrima (both on the Southern Highlands). 83 Obviously Pius Collins was able to use her political skills to accommodate the demands of the bishop and the interests of her sisterhood.

In 1891 Pius again exercised her own judgement, on this occasion choosing the site at Strathfield for the new convent. As subsequent developments proved, her timing and choices were sound. Having made her decision regarding the site, Pius Collins set about the business of implementing it. At Murray's suggestion (though one can well imagine Pius herself manoeuvring him into making it), she wrote to Vincent Dwyer for information. Appealing to his male ego and the greater freedom of movement he had, she asked him if he

would ... quietly look around and see what is to be sold about the [Strathfield] district in the way of land and houses. Perhaps you could secure some auctioneers lists, they generally go more into detail than the advertisements in the paper, but you know best.84

Pius Collins' apparent bowing to the greater knowledge of Dwyer in these matters smacks of the acquiescent nun. But she knew how to go about buying real estate. Although she could not publicly appear to be doing business nor appear to be worldly wise, she knew what she wanted. Employing a womanly tactic, she made her request quite charmingly. Even within the context of religious obedience, which acknowledged the power and authority of the bishop, religious women could be self- determining.85

82 OPA. 83 Golden Jubilee Booklet, 1867-1917, St Marys Dominican Convent Maitland, New South Wales, pp. 57-58. OPA. 84 Pius Collins to Vincent Dwyer, 1 July 1891, Dominican Convent, Maitland, OPA. 85 For a discussion of the contradictions in religious life, see S. Burley, 'Paradoxes in the Lives of Religious Female Teachers, South Australia, 1880-1925', History of Women Religious Conference Papers, 23-24 June 1994, pp. 17-19. 165

Among the Mercies the leader of the founding group of sisters at Singleton, Mother Stanislaus Kenny, holds pride of place. Born in Limerick in 1841, the daughter of Matthew and Erina (McMahon) Kenny, she had entered the convent at Ennis in 1859 and went from there to Singleton in 1875. She held office until her death in 1901, except for two intervals of two or three years each. In other words, Stanislaus Kenny was the foundress who set the agenda for the Singleton foundation. During her 35 years as Reverend Mother, she provided vigorous leadership which established the sisters not only at Singleton and in the Maitland Diocese but in other dioceses throughout Australia and New Zealand. 86 Her dealings with bishops were, consequently, considerable.

The Sisters of Mercy themselves have described Stanislaus Kenny as a woman of 'patient, buoyant spirit', with wonderful self control. Well educated, she was a linguist, mathematician and teacher of declamation. These qualities and her considerable diplomacy and skill with figures stood her in good stead when dealing with the Catholic hierarchy. During her time in office, she and her sisters accepted requests for 24 new foundations, convents and schools, in the Dioceses of Maitland, Armidale and Wilcannia and in the Archdiocese of Wellington and the Diocese of Dunedin in New Zealand. They also established three orphanages. It was Stanislaus Kenny who dealt with the bishops and priests concerned in these new foundations. There is no clear evidence of any clashes with these men. Nor were clashes likely since women like Stanislaus Kenny did not confront authority. She herself acknowledged that in such negotiations there were difficulties 'of no ordinary nature', but she was prepared to see the will of God either in the decision of 'the higher power [the bishop], or in the force of circumstances'. 87 Her power lay in her ability to influence those with canonical power and to interpret circumstances. Stanislaus Kenny balanced the spiritual forces in her life with management skills of governance, administration and business acumen.

86 Souvenir of the Opening: Convent of Our Lady of Mercy, Singleton, 1909, RSMSA. 87 Memento, Reverend Mother Mary Stanislaus Kenny, n.d, RSMSA. 166

Like her Dominican counterparts, Stanislaus Kenny showed remarkable skill and enterprise in her building programme, particularly with the convent and school at Singleton. A benefactor had donated the original land for the convent, but by 1909 that small site had grown to 24 acres of land surrounding the convent, with grounds in front 'artistically laid out.' 88 Tradition has it that Kenny 'fought' with diocesan authorities over the acquisition of this 'extra land'. She insisted that the convent have an impressive driveway, at the centre of which she subsequently placed a large statue of the Blessed Virgin. 89 Mercy tradition stresses, as one would expect, that Stanislaus Kenny had great respect for bishops and priests whom she treated with the utmost deference and kindness.90

The early leaders of the Josephite community had not the experience, education or sophistication of their Dominican and Mercy counterparts. As a consequence, in Murray's dealings with them he was much more involved in the direct exercise of his episcopal power. Sister Ambrose Joseph Dirkin, leader of the founding Josephite group, was only 23 when she arrived at Lochinvar in 1883, having been professed as a religious sister just the year before. Yet even Joseph Dirkin was no ignorant native-born country girl. Her family, from Co. Armagh, had settled in the small town of Tichborne in the Bathurst Diocese in 1860 where her father, Matthew, surveyed and built the road between Parkes and Forbes. 91 In 1890 Murray exercised his right to appoint another of the founding group, Australian-born Imelda Flood, as Joseph Dirkin's successor. Only 21 when she arrived at Lochinvar in 1883, Flood had been professed in January of that year. 92 The youth and inexperience of these women and the small number of sisters in the community meant that Murray's involvement was assured.

88 Souvenir of the Opening: Convent of Our Lady of Mercy, RSMSA. 8 9 Interview with Sister Maria Joseph Carr, ex-reverend mother, Singleton, October 1994. 90 Memento, Reverend Mother Stanislaus Kenny, n.d., RSMSA. 91 Profile of Sister Ambrose Joseph Dirkin, RSJLA. 9 2 Profile of Sister Imelda Flood, RSJLA. 167

Joseph Dirkin and Imelda Flood were in a very different position from that of Agnes Bourke and Stanislaus Kenny. They were also beholden to Murray in different ways. While convent records provide no clear evidence, tradition has it that the sisters were very fond of their bishop and Murray in turn was very kind to them and a most generous benefactor. 93 The sisters readily accepted the bishop's demand to staff schools in remote areas of the diocese. Between 1883 and 1889 the Josephites established convents and schools at Quirindi, Knockfin, Pokolbin, Burwood (Merewether), Carrington, Dungog, Largs and Brookfield. 94 Above all, it was important for them, because of the circumstances of their founding at Bathurst, to be useful and needed. They were obliged to demonstrate their success in bricks and mortar. During the guardianships of Dirkin and Flood, for instance, the new convent at Lochinvar was completed, with its 'rose window designed with symbols of the order'. It is recorded that the building which stood as a very visible sign of their success, cost £3150. 95

In 1893 Murray appointed Sister Hyacinth Webber to the position of sister guardian, with Sister Evangelist Hyde as her assistant. Hyacinth, born in Dungog, was the daughter of a bricklayer and Evangelist, whose father was a saddler, was born in Sydney. They were 'local sisters' and had both attended the Dominican school at Maitland. 96 Webber and Hyde alternated the role of sister guardian and assistant until 1927. Between 1893 and 1908 these sisters were responsible for foundations at Krambach, Wingen, Aberdeen, Glendonbrook, Wybong Upper and Lower, Cundletown, South Cessnock and Kurri Kurri. They also engaged in an extensive building programme at Lochinvar itself, which in the period 1907 to 1908 included a new kitchen and tanks, a brick refectory, a dormitory for boarders built at a cost of £600, an infirmary for the sisters and a two-storey dormitory costing £900.97 Possibly as a legacy of their

93 Souvenir of the Silver Jubilee of the Sisters of St Joseph, Lochinvar, p. 12. 94 History of the Sisters of St Joseph of Lochinvar, 1883-1965, Maitland, n.p., 1965, p. 5. 95 Souvenir of the Silver Jubilee of the Sisters of St Joseph, Lochinvar, p. 22. 96 Profiles of Sister Hyacinth Webber and Sister Evangelist Hyde, RSJLA 97 History of the Sisters of St Joseph of Lochinvar, p.5. 168 origins and circumstances, the Lochinvar Josephites threw up strong leaders of their own, native born, who knew the ways of the bush and bush people.

All three congregations showed considerable independence in the way they were able to meet the costs of their respective building programmes. Sometimes they did this with a minimum of fuss. One Sister of Mercy commented that her superior, Magdalen Meany, 'built the hospital, the chapel and the college. No one knows where she got the money; they never questioned'. 98 At other times the sisters' efforts were well publicised. The Maitland Mercury gave valuable and expensive front page space to advertisements for the 'Bazaar and Grand Lottery' in aid of the Dominican Convent and the church and schools at Maitland.99 The Maitland Mercury goes on to describe the event held over three days early in August 1871 and names those lay women who gathered around the nuns to support them in their fund-raising venture:

A row of stalls is ranged on either side, under the supervision of Misses Healy, Misses O'Keefe, the Misses Rigney, Mrs Ewens, Miss Canty, Misses Brown, Miss Goold, Mrs O'Brien, Mrs Crennan, Mrs Daly and Miss Daly.ioo

The support of local people reveals the esteem in which they held the sisters and the capacity which the latter had to rally helpers around them for their various causes. The diocese and its needs provided the opportunity for religious women, even the inexperienced Sisters of St Joseph, to exercise initiative and enterprise.

The Sisters of St Joseph at Lochinvar nominated the 'Great Bazaar of 1904' as one of the significant events of their first 25 years in the diocese. The effort was a 'splendid financial success, the total net proceeds being £620'. Again the people gathered around the sisters to help with 'clearing off the heavy debt'. The women in particular were outstanding in their efforts and were named and identified in the newspaper report: Mrs

98 Reminiscences of Magdalen Meany by Sister Mary de Paul Deasy, RSMSA. 99 Maitland Mercury, 1 August 1871. 100 Maitland Mercury, 3 August 1871. 169

Charles Keys, Miss M. Kavanagh, Mrs P. Long and Mrs P. Ryan. 101 It was the nuns who enabled these women to have their names publicly acknowledged and their place recognized in the local community. Characteristically, the nuns themselves remain anonymous. But it would be a mistake to confuse anonymity with powerlessness. It would also be a mistake to underestimate the role of women, both religious and lay, in the making of the nineteenth-century church; these women were not simply passive observers but agents of change.102

The ability of the various sisterhoods to fulfil their financial obligations was vital to the continuing goodwill which existed between them and their bishop. The sisterhoods in the Maitland Diocese carried out extensive building programmes and met the costs, but such success was not always the case in other dioceses. For example, William Lanigan of Goulburn, friend and contemporary of Murray, complained to him at the opening of the Presentation Convent at Wagga Wagga, 'It is a grand building but very extravagant and in every way costly. My advice has been slighted several times'. 103 The superior of the convent, Mother John Byrne, had planned what was later described as a 'magnificent convent, the prettiest, most symmetrical and certainly the best institution of its kind in the colony'. 104 While this Tudor building remains an 'architectural gem', its construction plunged the small, struggling mission into considerable debt. Benefactors, feeling the effects of the drought, were unable to support the venture and the debts continued. So did the feud between Mother John Byrne and her bishop. 105 Mother Byrne had

101 Souvenir of the Silver Jubilee of the Sisters of St Joseph, Lochinvar, pp. 61-62, RSJLA. 102 For a discussion of the role religious women played in the development of Western culture and the Roman church, see P. Ranft, A History of Womens Religious Communities, 4th to 17th Century, Hampshire, 1996. 103 W. Lanigan, Diary, 7 December 1876. Lanigan wrote frequently to Murray advising him of what was happening in his diocese and seeking advice, MDA. Both Murray and his cousin, Matthew Quinn, attended the opening of the convent at Wagga Wagga. N. Fox, 'Religious Women, The Search for Visibility and Meaning', MA(hons), University of New England, Armidale, 1986, pp. 75-88. 104 The Express, Wagga Wagga, 14 May 1881. 105 For the details of this encounter and other clashes between Byrne and Lanigan, see Fox, op. cit., pp. 75-88. For an example of the way women religious dealt with bishops in relation to finances, see B. 0. Korner, 'Philippine Duchesne: A Model of Action', Missouri Historical Review, Vol. 86 (4), 1992, pp. 341-362. For a 170 overstepped the boundaries; she had confronted the bishop and she had not taken his advice. The bishop's power had been disregarded and he responded accordingly. James Murray, on the other hand, knew how to be constructively managed.

At Maitland both the Dominicans and the Sisters of Mercy used their considerable skills to accommodate Murray's demands not only with regard to new foundations and properties but also in relation to the internal government of their respective communities. On these occasions the bishop's authority was recognized but the sisters determined their course of action. In 1906 the Dominicans approached Murray, during his official visitation, about the impending appointment of the elderly Hyacinth Donnellan as a local superior. 106 Hyacinth Donnellan had numbered among the group of pioneering sisters who had arrived in Maitland in 1867. Described as a woman of rich culture, outstanding intellectual endowments and striking personality, she had, in her earlier years served as sub-prioress and as a local superior at Newcastle and Tamworth. However, the sisters believed that Hyacinth was no longer suitable for the office. Murray apparently paid heed to their request for he wrote to the prioress, Bertrand Walsh, 'It is impossible for me to consent to or sanction her [Hyacinth] appointment as local superior of St Mary's Newcastle or indeed of any other Dominican Convent'.107

In dealing with the Dominicans and Sisters of Mercy, Murray usually relied on the authority of the superiors. His involvement in, and influence over, the Josephite community at Lochinvar was more direct especially when obedience and religious observance were at issue. In 1897 Sister Mary Aloysius Cahill, one of the four founding sisters from Perthville, had approached Murray about a transfer to the Sisters of St

detailed study of the effects of confrontation between bishop and religious sisters see I. Ffrench Eagar, Margaret Anna Cusack: A Biography, Dublin, 1970. Cusack, an Irish Poor Clare, fought for the liberation of the underprivileged in nineteenth-century Ireland. She used words as her weapon, attracting the ire of many ecclesiastics both in Ireland and in the United States of America. 106 Hyacinth Donnellan died five years after the incident described above. The Obituaries of the Dominican Sisters of the Holy Name Province, 1867-1929, Book 1, p. 22, OPA. 107 Murray to Bertrand Walsh, 29 December 1906, OPA. 171

Joseph in Tasmania. 108 This request was not unprecedented since Sister Ambrose Joseph Dirkin, the first superior, had done the same in 1894. Bishop Murphy of Hobart had invited her to Tasmania because she was a talented teacher and musician. Dealing bishop to bishop, Murray had found no problem with Dirkin's request and she left for Tasmania in January 1895.109

By contrast, Aloysius Cahill's reasons for wanting to go to Tasmania are not altogether clear. In her letter in August 1897 to Dwyer, who was acting for Murray in his absence, she claims,

If my decision, according to my convictions be right I ought to leave. The sisters in Tasmania are anxious to receive me. I know them well and I do not fear the future amongst them as I do those at Lochinvar.110

One of the Josephites in Tasmania, Columba Cahill, was her own blood sister, who subsequently became the sister guardian of the Tasmanian branch. 111 Ambrose Dirkin was also there, as well as other Josephite women she had lived with at Perthville. In addition, Aloysius Cahill's letter suggests that all was not well in the Lochinvar community, at least as far as she was concerned. Sister Guardian at the time, Hyacinth Webber, had joined the Lochinvar community as a postulant in 1886 and had been trained by the sisters of the founding group. 112 Murray had appointed her Sister Guardian in 1893 and three years later, when numbers made it possible for the sisters to hold an election, they elected Hyacinth to the position. 113 Whether or not Aloysius Cahill thought that as one of the senior, experienced sisters the appointment should have been hers or

108 A group of five sisters had made a foundation from Perthville at Westbury, Tasmania in 1887, Torch Bearers for Christ, History of the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart in Tasmania, 1887-1966, n.p., 1966, p. 8, RSJLA. 109 Profile of Sister Mary Ambrose Joseph Dirkin, RSJLA. 110 Sister Aloysius Cahill to Bishop Dwyer, St Joseph's Convent, Largs, 26 August 1897, Bishop Dwyer's Correspondence, MDA. 111 Torch Bearers for Christ, p. 23. 112 The first appointed novice mistress was Sister Imelda Flood, appointed in 1889. Until that time Sister Ambrose Joseph Dirkin seems to have been responsible for the training of novices. RSJLA. 113 It was not unusual for the local ordinary to appoint the superior of diocesan sisterhoods particularly when their numbers did not allow a quorum. 172 whether the administration was not in keeping with what had gone before we do not know.

Whatever the reason, Aloysius Cahill went to Tasmania, to the convent at Oatlands which had been opened in 1893 and established as the Mother House of the Tasmanian Josephites. Within a few months of her arrival, she wrote again to Dwyer regretting her decision,

I have not known a moment's peace since I came here ... My Lord I only ask you to consent to my return and I will endeavour to repair what I have done.114

Aloysius returned to Lochinvar in December 1897. Dwyer, again in the absence of Murray, inquired of the Sister Guardian, Hyacinth Webber, whether Cahill had brought letters from her superior, or 'has she taken this responsibility into her own hands?' The bishop went on to advise Hyacinth that under 'the present circumstances' Cahill could 'remain as if she were a parlour border until 'we come to some arrangement'.115 Apparently some arrangement was quickly reached for the convent diary records that Aloysius Cahill was re-admitted to the community on Christmas Eve.116

Aloysius Cahill seems to have had a penchant for independent behaviour, actions which earned her a stern admonition. In 1901, Dwyer wrote to the Sister Guardian, Evangelist Hyde, on behalf of Murray, saying

that in consequence of her [Aloysius'] conduct before leaving Lochinvar for Krambach [a new appointment], he [Murray] has come to the conclusion that her presence in the community threatens to be a scandal to the sisters. It seems futile to hope for a radical change for the better in one who after going through so many varieties in pursuit of her own sweet will, still conducts herself so utterly at variance with the way of a true religious.117

114 Sister Mary Aloysius Cahill to Bishop Vincent Dwyer, St Joseph's Convent, Oatlands, 5 November 1897, Bishop Dwyer's Correspondence, MDA. 115 Bishop Vincent Dwyer to Sister Mary Hyacinth Webber, 14 December 1897, Bishop Dwyer's Correspondence, MDA. 116 Profile on Sister Mary Aloysius Cahill, RSJLA. 117 Bishop Vincent Dwyer to Mother Mary Evangelist (precise date unclear) 1901, Bishop Dwyer's Correspondence, MDA. 173

As it turned out, Aloysius Cahill outlived both bishops. In 1933 she was the first Lochinvar Josephite to celebrate the golden jubilee of her religious profession. The day was made memorable by Solemn High Mass presided over by the then bishop, Edmund Gleeson, who crowned her with golden roses! 118 Aloysius Cahill had been a founding member of the Lochinvar community and of a number of its branch houses, Merriwa, Dungog, and Aberdeen. Having worked in most of the branch houses of the congregation both as a superior and a subject, until her semi-retirement, she returned to Lochinvar to serve as portress. She died there in 1947 at the age of 86.

According to both Murray and Dwyer, Aloysius Cahill did not behave in the spirit of a 'true religious', because she was not the submissive and acquiescent nun. Her handwriting does suggest that she was a strong-minded woman. Ironically and enigmatically, her obituary notice described her as a woman 'who faced difficulties undreamed of and as 'a brave woman who did hard things quietly', remarks which might suggest that her sisters felt for the complexities of her character more than bishops did. 119 Although Aloysius Cahill had redeemed herself through her longevity and her subsequent achievements, she had learned a very hard lesson. It was a lesson which her superiors understood well. That is, individual action and open questioning of episcopal power and authority could end only in humiliation.

Canon law delineated very clearly the power of ecclesiastical superiors, but embedded in the power structure of the Catholic Church was a fundamental paradox. The Vatican Council of 1870 which defined papal infallibility on matters of faith and morals, in practice, also reinforced papal power. In the sometimes stormy sessions of this council, the Australian suffragan bishops stood firm in their support of this

118 Profile of Sister Aloysius Cahill, RSJLA. 119 Loc. cit. 174 measure and thus helped to ensure its success. 120 It might seem that in so doing they were diminishing their own power, but the reality was very different. As Purcell points out, the more they emphasised the power of the papacy, the more they strengthened themselves as its agent, a phenomenon for which she coined the term, 'creeping infallibility'. 121 In drawing upon these papal well-springs, bishops enhanced their own power in their often far-distant dioceses. Similarly, religious superiors in their respective congregations could be and were participants in that same 'creeping infallibility' as they dealt with their own sisters and with the Catholic community at large.

The popular view of nuns, held by clerics and laity alike, sees them as grateful, silent, dutiful, obedient and long-suffering until death. 122 At the same time, religious women, while being self-effacing, could also be assertive. While silent and dutiful, they could voice opinions and make decisions. While humble they could hold prominent positions and while powerless, they could also be in control. Religious women appeared to be acquiescent but they could also exert authority not only within their convent walls but beyond them, even while remaining within them. Indeed, the diocese and its needs provided the opportunity for religious women to exercise initiative and enterprise. Their status as religious women with active apostolates gave them a new-found power which they exercised in various ways. Through their charm, sophistication and education, through their ability to rally those around them to their cause, through their building programmes and financial acumen and through their capacity to get things done, these women were a force within the Maitland Diocese. However, theirs was rarely a confronting power. If it had been, it would have led only to severe censure and admonition from the ecclesiastical authority and powerlessness.

120 J. Murray, Pastoral Letters of the Right Reverend Dr Murray, Bishop of Maitland, to the Catholic Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Maitland, Maitland, n.d., pp. 208-214. 121 M. Purcell, 'Bishop Murray and the Patrician Brothers', Journal of Religious History, Vol. 8, No. 1, June 1974, pp. 79-89. 122 Bishop Matthew Quinn's exhortation to the Sisters of Mercy at Bathurst, Freeman's Journal, 19 February 1870. 175

Both the Dominicans and the Mercys had strong women among their founders and subsequent superiors, women who successfully protected the autonomy of their houses and whose stability in office provided continuity. The Josephites were less independent and less sure, taking some time to produce a strong leader whose capabilities and consequent authority matched those of Agnes Bourke and Stanislaus Kenny. These remarkable women transcended the formal limitations of their canonical circumstances to exercise power and authority over and above that which Murray thought he was allowing. The paradox of their ability to act was that it ultimately resided in their acquiescence, an acquiescence established on their own terms, according to their own season and in their own way. The Simplicities and Mysteries of Faith

(x) The faithful gather in their Sunday best. Buchanan, East Maitland c.1900

(xi) The mysteries of faith celebrated in all their Glories. The High Altar, Muswellbrook, 1907