Mary Ward, 1585-1645: A Personal Tribute

Mary Ward, 1585-1645: A Personal TributeAuthor(s): Dominic Ó LaoghaireSource: Archivium Hibernicum, Vol. 37 (1982), pp. 3-10Published by: Catholic Historical Society of IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25487438 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 07:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Catholic Historical Society of Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchivium Hibernicum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:47:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=chsi

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25487438?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


MARY WARD, 1585-1645: A PERSONAL TRIBUTE

by DOMINIC 6 LAOGHAIRE

This is not the subject I set out originally to study. Still less had I any intention of speaking or writing about it. My attention had been attracted to, and still remains fixed on, the extraordinary contribution made to education in Ireland, and from Ireland, by Edmund Rice and Nano Nagle, and by the

host of others in their institutes and in the many other institutes which

flowered so providentially in our country when and where they were so much

needed. The odd chronology is mine, for my mind was led back from

Edmund Rice and his Mount Sion in the Waterford of 1802 to Nano Nagle, in

whose Presentation rule he was professed, and her introduction of the

Ursulines to the Cork of 1771. Thence I became captivated by Angela Merici

and her company of St Ursula back in the Brescia of 1535. Much later it came

to my notice that the Loreto Sisters in Ireland were looking back beyond Frances Ball and the Dublin of 1821 to a 'Galloping Girl' from the Yorkshire

of 1585 called Mary Ward. The description was applied in derision to herself

and her companions but it covered a reality of which they could have been

proud if that had been their tendency. So it was late in my life that I came to

read of Mary Ward and to discover in the process how few in Ireland seem

ever to have heard of her. That, coupled with the fascination she has

exercized on my mind, is the reason why I have now come to write and to

speak, but without any pretension to expertise as a historian. The connecting

thread, the abiding interest for me, and the relevance, in my view, for the

Ireland of the nineteen-eighties, is the early manifestation and the long continuance of the search for the most effective method of harnessing and

perpetuating voluntary effort in education. It is fascinating to see how

common was the early feeling that it was necessary to be free from the

pressure of the bureaucracy both of the church and of the state. As a lifelong member of a bureaucracy myself I feel I can use the word without pejorative overtones and understand as well the over-riding necessity of harmonizing the

good intentions of voluntary effort with the wider policy aims of church and

state. I can also, however, appreciate the dimensions of the voluntary effort, be grateful for its vital energy and, nowadays, in the words of Mary Ward,

hope even against hope (in spe contra spem) for its continuance and

intensification. The two vital considerations for Mary Ward in attempting to

establish her Institute in the first half of the seventeenth century were that it

should be free from enclosure and responsible to one superior rather than be

subject to individual bishops. Freedom from enclosure and from constant

compulsion to a distinctive religious habit was a simple necessity, in her

straightforward thinking, if her educational work was to be done properly

anywhere and if any work at all was to be done in her own homeland where

penal laws against Roman Catholics were in full force. The same ideas had

been in the mind of Angela Merici a century earlier and in Mary Ward's time

3



the Ursulines were still unenclosed, though not for long; their enclosure began in Paris in 1614. My main source of detailed information consists of two

volumes in German by Josef Grisar, SJ, Professor of History at the Gregorian

University, Rome. Both books are in the series Miscellanea Historiae

Pontificiae, the first volume (No. XXII) relating to complaints in 1622 against

Mary and the English ladies and the second volume (No. XXVII) relating to

consideration of the case by the Roman tribunals. The first volume was

published in 1958, the second in 1966. They are both available in the Killiney

library of the Franciscan Fathers through whose courtesy I was enabled to

consult them.

The outline of Mary Ward's life can be summarized briefly enough. Born in

Yorkshire of a comfortable and well-connected family in 1585, the same

year, incidentally as Cardinal Richelieu, and of St Francis de Sale's crisis of

conscience, she lived through the beginnings of bad times and persecution of the Catholic faith in England until she left to join the Poor Clares in St Omer in the Netherlands at the age of 21 in 1606. After a year as out sister she left

and founded, from her own resources, a new Poor Clare convent for English ladies at Gravelines. Her conviction of a different vocation compelled her to

return to England in 1609. Shortly afterwards she went back to St Omer with seven companions to found her own house and free school for English girls.

Her scheme was approved by the local bishop in 1612 and forwarded to

Rome. It was favourably received but never formally approved. She visited Rome herself in 1621 and had discussions with the pope. She opened houses and schools in Rome (1622), Naples (1623) and Perugia (1624) to show in a

practical way the kind of life she proposed. These schools succeeded at the

cost of much labour and privation for the ladies involved but were ordered by the church in 1625 to be suppressed. On her way back to the Netherlands, from where she had founded four houses, St Omer, 1610, Luttich, 1616,

Koln, 1620 and Trier, 1621. Mary felt inspired to try again in Munich. She

opened a house and school there in 1627 and went on to foundations in

Vienna, 1627, Pressburg, 1628 and a proposed foundation in Prague, also in

1628. Again her schools were successful, again at the cost of extremely hard work although she had powerful friends. But she also had powerful forces

working against her in Rome and by April 1628 there was a decree from

Propaganda for the suppression of her entire work. Because of the nature of

the times there was some lack of clarity and there were further decrees in

1628 and in November 1629. In May 1629 Mary had had an interview herself

with the pope, Urban VIII, at Castel Gandolfo, following which a special

congregation was set up to review her case again. Nevertheless her houses in

the Netherlands were suppressed in 1630, St Omer in January, Luttich in

April, Koln in May and Trier in August. As a result of events in Luttich, Mary was assumed by the Holy Office to be in rebellion and was imprisoned in

Munich in 1631; one of her closest collaborators, Winifred Wigmore, was

similarly imprisoned in Luttich. On appeal to the pope they were both

released after about two months and sixteen months respectively. Only one



of her foundations, the house in Munich, fully survived the wreckage of

1630/31 but it did survive to provide the main foundation from which the

whole edifice of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin arose after foundations in

Augsburg in 1662 and from there in London and York after 1669 and a very limited papal approval in 1703. As to Mary herself, she lived in Rome in

community with her own sisters of the Institute, and with an allowance from

the pope, uritil 1639 when she herself went to England with letters of

recommendation from His Holiness to King Charles and his Queen, Henrietta

Maria. On the outbreak of the civil war there she was forced to retire to

Yorkshire where she died in 1645. After summarizing such a chequered career one feels it essential to quote

the remarkable words which the pope used about Mary on her release from

imprisonment in 1631. They are as follows: 'You may affirm that in this

Holy Tribunal the English ladies who have lived under the Institute of Donna

Maria della Guardia [the Italian way of referring to Mary Ward] are not

found nor ever have been found guilty of any failure which regards the holy and orthodox Catholic faith'. What then, one may ask, was the problem which produced all the trouble? It was two-fold, the novelty of Mary Ward's

concepts, on the one hand, and the nature of the times themselves on the

other. I have already referred to her desire, necessity as she rightly saw it, to be free from enclosure and constant distinctive habit if she and her Institute were to achieve anything in England and, further, to be independent of local

church authority. The words in which she commenced the expression of her intent in 1612 are, however, positive rather than negative. They indicate also

her own native directness of speech, an admirable trait which, nevertheless, contributed not a little to misunderstandings

? involuntary and sometimes,

I'm afraid, not so involuntary ? of her objectives. The words are as follows:

Since the very distressed condition of England, our native land, is

greatly in need of spiritual workers; just as the priests, both religious and secular, exercise an increasing apostolate in this harvest, so it seems

right that, according to their condition, women also should and can

provide something more than ordinary in the face of this common

spiritual need ... so we also feel that God (as we trust) is inspiring us with the pious desire that we also should embrace the religious life and

yet that we should strive according to our littleness to render to the

neighbour the services of Christian charity which cannot be discharged in the monastic life. Accordingly we have in mind the mixed life, such a life as we learn Christ our Lord and Master taught his chosen ones, such a life as His Most Blessed Mother lived and handed down to those of later times .. .

Looking back on it now, this was a remarkable reaction to the circumstances of the times. It was, in itself, however, too much too soon, particularly for

acceptance by men. This is perhaps still the case even at the end of the twentieth century. It seems to me to have been a dignified and restrained cry for the full acceptance of women in the wider work of the apostolate, so

eminently reasonable, particularly, in the circumstances of the times that the

5



mystery is that it went unheeded. As to the actual circumstances of the times, there were many contradictory currents. From England itself there were two

currents. In the first place there was the unrelenting hostility and pressure of

the reformation and this was later focussed, even abroad, on the wealthy and

influential English ladies who were Mary's companions. There was also, sadly, an almost equally unrelenting pressure from the secular church authorities

whose suspicion and fear of religious communities, particularly of the Jesuits, led in Mary's case to quite extraordinary excesses. Each of these two currents

was organized and had agents in Rome and elsewhere. One can understand

the official state pressure but what can one say about the church pressure,

especially the tone in which it is expressed in the following extract from the

report of the agent of the English secular Catholic clergy in Rome, the Rev.

Thomas Rant, after the suppression of the schools in Italy in 1625: 'Their

school is took away; they shall stay in Rome if they will but their habit shall

be took away. Their houses in Perugia and Naples shall be undone'. The same

odd spirit seems to have influenced official Roman sources because the result

of the investigation in 1625 was conveyed not to Mary and her companions but to their landlord who was instructed simply to see to it that they left his

house, and separately, because their community was not approved. The good man's reply is on record ?

they had paid their rent to the end of the year and

what other accommodation could they find in Rome in the Holy Year of

1625. The Jesuit connection also produced conflicting currents. It arose from

Mary's inspiration, as early apparently as 1611, that her rule for her Institute

should follow that of the Society of Jesus. She said that she had heard

distinctly 'not by sound of voice but intellectually understood' that she

should take that rule; that she should go to the Father General and that he

would oppose. As indeed he did for many reasons, but principally, one

supposes, because Ignatius Loyola had enjoined most strictly that the Society should not have responsibility for any order of women. Mary's decision,

therefore, left her without the formal support of the Society, with the assist

ance, certainly in the early days, of individual Jesuits but with the outright

hostility also of other Jesuits who felt that her Institute was an embarrass ment to the Society and only added to problems which were already serious.

That was bad enough, but what was much more damaging was that, in spite of the official attitude of the Society, there was some disbelief in the genuine ness of this attitude. For example, Fr John Bennet, the agent of the English secular clergy in Rome, reported in 1622: 'The Jesuits disclaim openly but I

know they assist underhand what they can'. There was also, unfortunately, some readiness to work off hostility to the Jesuits on the 'Jesuitesses' as they came to be named.

Other cross-currents arose from the nature of the support which Mary was

able to arouse on the continent. As a noble English lady, but much more so, as a truly remarkable person in her own right, she gained access to ruling houses everywhere. This was of immense consequence in facilitating her

foundation of houses and schools, first in the Spanish dominions in the

6



Netherlands and in Koln and Trier, which came under the same Papal Nuncio, then in Italy where Spanish influence gave her access to the pope and helped the founding of a house and school in Naples, and later, decisively for her

Institute, in Bavaria. But the support of some in those turbulent days involved the opposition of others. The Spanish connection was fatal to her in

English circles. It did not help her when the policies of Urban VIII inclined

towards France and away from Spain and the Empire whose influence he

found oppressive in Italy. The support of others, notably Maximilian of

Bavaria, and the Emperor Ferdinand, was invaluable but it ultimately must

have aroused some suspicion in official church circles. Temporal aid from the

princes was essential during the Counter-Reformation but care had to be

exercized to avoid such aid spilling over into the religious area. Schools were

all very well, but schools founded and supported by the princes? Schools,

moreover, under an Institute such as that proposed by Mary Ward? An

Institute which had made its way into Vienna and was occupying a disused

church placed at their disposal by the emperor before the restoration of the

archbishop? An Institute willing to engage in apostolic work amongst adults as well as children when there was a need for it, as there undoubtedly was at

that time in Bohemia? It is not difficult to see how Mary Ward's generosity of

soul and disregard for self-interest must have aroused all the cautious instincts in a church organization only just recovering from the shocks of the

Reformation and still a prey to the anxieties of the Thirty Years War. There

was, finally, the thorny question of authority and authoritative teaching, more crucial than ever after the Council of Trent. It is remarkable how simple the issues can appear from one side, how complex and confusing from the

other.

After her successful foundation in St Omer and her draft constitution

entitled 'Schola Mariae' of 1612, Mary Ward dispatched a revised version, entitled 'Ratio Instituti', to Rome in 1615. There were already murmurings

against her at this stage and a long circular was written in her defence in

March 1615 by Bishop Blaise of Namur who unfortunately for her died in

1618 before her real problems began. Mary herself set out for Rome from

Luttich on 21 October 1621, on foot with five companions, and arrived in

Rome on 24 December. She had an audience with the pope, Gregory XV, on

28 December and left with him a further draft of her plan, later entitled

'Institutum F. This was examined during January and February 1622 by a

special Congregation of bishops and Regular Superiors. This examination

coincides with a further outbreak of complaints from England. In May the

agent of the Spanish Infanta Isabella, Senor Vives, learned in an audience

with the pope that there was little hope of approval without enclosure. Mary Ward then reduced the scope of her request, 'for the northern lands only' and

in July asked for permission to open a school in Rome. This was granted and

activities commenced in October 1622. It was not until 23 July 1624 that the

first decree was issued against 'the Jesuitesses' by the newly created

Congregation de Propaganda Fide, whose first secretary Francesco Ingoli,

2



exercized such a powerful influence of hostility to Mary and her affairs. This

decree did not affect the schools in Rome, Naples and Perugia. Gregory XV

had died in 1623 and had been succeeded by Urban VIII. Mary had an

audience with the new pope in October 1624 in Frascati and submitted a new

document, later entitled 'Institutum IF. A new special Congregation was

named to look into the affairs of the 'English ladies' but this resulted on

11 April 1625 in a decree against the schools in Italy. It did not affect the

schools in the Netherlands. The execution of the decree was not completed until 1626, indeed in the case of the Naples school, not until 1629. In

November of 1626, however, Mary left Rome.

Reading the detailed account of the events and the correspondence, it is now a little hard to understand how both sides could have been in good faith. It is sad to reflect that all the educational activity should have counted for

nothing as against what appeared on the official side as a simple and

persistent failure in obedience. One can understand the seriousness of this in

the circumstances of the times; one cannot but sympathize with Mary Ward,

nevertheless, and wonder how it was that after so many Roman encounters

and so many discussions with the pope himself she was not conscious of

having received a clear refusal (see her letter 28 November 1630). The contrast between this letter and the words of the papal bull is stark. The bull,

apparently prepared for His Holiness well in advance by Ingoli and signed on

13 January 1630, was not published until 21 May 1631. In the face of words such as these one can only wonder at the persistence of Mary Ward and ask

oneself what possible grounds she could have had for hope at any stage. But, in the first place one must remember that she was not aware of these words at

the time. One must remember also that she had in her memory the words of

Bishop Blaise of Namur blessing her efforts in the Netherlands and recalling the preliminary approval of 1617 from Pope Paul V when her work had been

in progress for eight years and the full scheme of the Institute had already been sent on to Rome. Mary might well wonder what had changed between

1615, indeed 1609, and 1630. Her exposition of her purposes and her

exhibition of them in practice had been clearly set out, perhaps too clearly, from the beginning. Be that as it may, her own submission to the will of the

church, as it finally became clear to her, was total and in keeping with her

whole-hearted personality. When she reached Rome in 1632, after her

imprisonment in Munich, the pope informed her that 'he had permitted the

trial of her virtues'. He could not allow her Institute but he did allow her

a house and sisters with her in Rome, with financial support, and permitted the continuance of the house and school in Munich. There was real poverty there at times after the loss of support from other houses (and incidentally the pressure of the Thirty Years War: Munich was entered by Gustavus

Adolphus in 1632 and the elector was forced to leave); but we find Mary

writing in her own typical fashion from Rome to Winifred Bedingfield in

Munich in 1636 to say 'Jesus forbid you should make such children as you teach pay one penny for windows, wood or anything else.' There were many



visitors to her own house on the Esquiline in those years. Complaints to the

pope continued, however, and he is reported to have said on one occasion

that he was very glad to hear the news because the visitors were either good or would become so on frequenting that house.

I am tempted to let the last word on this occasion be with Mary Ward

herself. After the outbreak of the Civil War in England she retired to York

and lived eventually at Manor House, Howarth, where she had rooms for two

priests but where many more lived at times. During the siege of York by the

Parliamentary forces in 1644, she and her household had to move into the

city, carrying everything they could by hand. The siege lasted six weeks and

over five hundred cannon balls found their mark, one on the roof of Mary's house. When the siege was raised and they returned to the Manor House they found it almost in ruins with piles of dead hastily buried in the garden. Only two rooms were usable, the chapel and Mary's own room. She had a priest in

the house at Christmas 1644 and for New Year's day 1645 when she had

confession and communion for the last time. She died without further rites

on 21 January 1645, retaining the full use of her senses to the last and

referring to 'God's vocation, preserve it and let it be constant, efficacious and

loving'. The last word is in keeping with what she had earlier said many times, in spite of all her illnesses, trials and privations, 'Be merry. In these times

mirth is next to grace.'

I have resisted the temptation of ending there in favour of a, perhaps more

controversial, conclusion but one which I feel was at the heart of my reason

for writing about Mary Ward in the first place. Is it possible that we men, like

John Knox (though he was perhaps speaking ironically), have too much

underestimated 'the monstrous regiment of women' and undervalued the

inspiration of women like Mary Ward in particular? That we have concentra

ted too much on the juridical and bureaucratic aspects to the stifling of the vital impulse of caring? It is true that Frances Ball and Mary Aikenhead, both of whom owed their formation to the Institute in York, found more oppor tunities than obstacles in the Ireland of the nineteenth century. It is true also

that our own Nano Nagle, who found her inspiration in another direction and

well before the end of the eighteenth century and who laboured in education

virtually alone until she was nearly sixty years of age, it is true that she also

eventually won through to immense success with her Presentation Sisters. It is

impossible to exaggerate what these, and other, religious institutes achieved for education in Ireland (and elsewhere) and are still achieving in our own

day. They have done this notwithstanding, others may say because of, man

made restrictions in the matter of enclosure and otherwise. But the great flood of generous-hearted girls has now tailed off. Is it time to look for, and

listen more closely to, new ideas from the girls themselves? Is theirs not still a

highly desirable ingredient even in our more organized educational systems? And is it not from consideration of the achievements of the founders that

further development could come? I chose to end, therefore, with the enlight enment of one man, Frances de Sales, who had to yield to prevailing ideas but



who nevertheless wrote in 1620, just before Mary Ward went to Rome: 'No. I

have never wished, in any convent where I had full authority, to enclose the

girls because they did not have the inclination for it, and I have always said

that the grand characteristics of enclosure depended on inspiration and not

on authority from outside.'

Letter of Mary Ward from Munich to the Pope on 28 November 1630

'Most Holy Father ? All that has been said and done at the present time

against ours in Flanders and some parts of Germany cause me to have recourse

to your Holiness and in all humility to lay what I now write before you for

your paternal consideration. It is now thirty years since, through the mercy of God, I determined to leave the world and to apply myself to a spiritual life. Twenty five years since I left my native country and parents the more to

please and better to serve His Divine Majesty. Ten years I employed in prayer,

fasting and penance, and other things suitable for such a result to learn in

what order of religion or mode of life I was to spend my days according to

the Divine preordination. And that which unworthily I now profess, and by the mercy of God have for twenty two years practised was not (God Himself

being my witness) either as a whole, or in part, undertaken through the

persuasion or suggestion of any man living, or whom I have ever seen, but

totally and entirely (as far as human judgement can arrive) ordained and

commended to me by the express word of Him who will not deceive nor can

be deceived. Who also gave light to understand and know the said state, inclination to embrace it and love it, clear demonstration of its utility, abundant manifestation of the glory thence to redound to the Divine Majesty,

loving invitations to labour in the same, made efficacious also by giving

strength to suffer for it, indubitable promises of promoting and perfecting it, and assurance that this Institute shall remain in the Church of God until the

end of the world. By this short explanation I pretend nothing less than to

prefer such lights or inspirations before the authority of Holy Church nor my interior assurance before the judgement and decision of the Sovereign Pontiff, but only in the present extremity in which I find myself obliged to do so, to lay all as it is before you, which having humbly set forth, if your Holiness

commands me to desist from these practices, I will not fail to obey. May God

in His mercy have no regard on this occasion to my unworthiness but inspire Your Holiness to do in it what will be most to the Divine Glory.



Documents

Mary Ward, 1585-1645: A Personal Tribute