[73]

CORRESPONDENCE

DR. RICHARD O'CONNELL, BISHOP OF KERRY

REV. DEAR SIR,-Regarding certain statements made by Mr. W. H. Grattan Flood in his letter on my article on Dr. Richard O'Connell, I would wish to make the following reply.

1o. There is no place in Killarney known now as Sheep Hill. Fair Hill, the place of execution referred to, was indeed formerly called Knockaun-na-Gaerach, but this, like many other old place-names, is altogether forgotten; and the visitor to the fair town by Loch Lein would just as successfully ask the oldest inhabitant for the site of Sheep Hill, as for the Douros of Ptolemy, the geographer.

2o. Archdeacon Lynch does not quote a tradition, but as a contemporary makes the definite statement that Dr. O'Connell was buried in Aghadoe-Catholici noctu in Cathedrali ecclesia de Achadeo sepelierunt illum.' Before writing my article, I had seen the statement contained in the Rinuccini MSS., giving Muckross Abbey as the place of the Bishop's burial, but I thought then, and still think, that the account of Archdeacon Lynch is the true one. Just as a modern bishop of Kerry is buried in his Cathedral in Killarney, and not in the Franciscan Church-so it was with Dr. O'Connell. It is not probable he was buried in Muckross, while Aghadoe was so near, and so much more suitable.

3°. Though it is indeed true, as Mr. Flood states, Dr. O'Connell was at Bordeaux in 1602; he was staying there, awaiting a favourable opportunity of returning to Kerry, as a guest of the congregation of Irish priests established there in 1600-not, however, as a student. The Irish College in Bordeaux was not founded until 1605, when Dr. O'Connell was already for some years labouring as a priest in Kerry.-Faithfully yours,

Milltown, 14th June, 1903.

DENIS O'CONNOR, C.C.

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE IRISH COLLEGE, ROME REV. DEAR SIR,-I have read with interest your article on 'The Beginnings of the Irish College, Rome.' I am not sure that Dr. Gibbons intends it as a criticism on his quotation from

my Month articles, but I am sure he will not expect me to discuss a matter which enters only incidentally into the question I am there considering. All that I wished to say in that paragraph was that the Marefoschi Visitation was carried out under conditions which made it impossible to feel confidence in its conclusions, and the Sommario which Dr. Gibbons epitomizes seems to me to confirm that view. I leave alone its details, to judge of which would require access to documents, some of which are beyond my reach, and others of which may be no longer extant. I confine myself to a broad fact which any one can appreciate. This Sommario is not merely the compilation of one' who was no partisan of the Jesuit cause'; it is the very Report of the Marefoschi Visitation, which the Cardinal had published at the time, that it might serve as one stroke in the intended discharge of lightning. Yet what does it do? Within the space of a century and a half of the history of any college whatever there will always have occurred incidents of administration to which, rightly or wrongly, exception has been taken by persons affected, and out of which disputes have arisen, and perhaps consequent official visitations. But it will always be unfair in some later age to pick out these untoward incidents, to remove them from their natural situs among innumerable other incidents of an opposite kind, to mass them together as though they were representative of the whole, and then use them as a justification for inflicting the gravest personal injury on a generation of administrators unborn at the time when they occurred.

In conclusion, let me thank Dr. Gibbons for correcting me on one point. It was, as he says, Mgr. Sersale, and not Mgr. Alfani or Mgr. Caraffa, who was Cardinal Marefoschi's lieutenant in the Visitation of the Irish College. The other two prelates worked under him and his fellow Visitors at the Roman Seminary, and elsewhere.

31 Farm-street, London, W.

SYDNEY P. SMYTH, S.J.

MISSION HONORARIUM

REV. DEAR SIR,-While reading the letter of 'Honestus Tertius,' under the above heading, in your last issue, it occurred to me that if he had thirty years' experience in missionary work, he would have considerably modified his calculations and conclusions, and perhaps have supplied reliable data for a solution of the delicate question which he essayed to

examine. My reason for saying so will best appear from a brief review of some of his statements and arguments. Here are his words : 'What is a just stipend?' According to your correspondent (Honestus Secundus') it ought to be, in this country at least, £15 per week, of Mission or pseudoMission (namely, Parochial Retreat). That is: suppose a Father is engaged in work for 26 weeks, or half the year, he ought to be maintained, and receive £390 for the work of half a year, etc. This is a good illustration of the truism, that you can prove almost anything by figures, if you separate them from the circumstances to which they refer. Suppose a Father is engaged in work for 26 weeks, and receives £15 per week of Mission or Parochial Retreat, does it follow that he is maintained and receives £390 for the work of half a year? Yes, but only upon four conditions, no one of which has ever been realized in fact. First, that the Father works the whole 26 weeks in a single parish without one day of rest; second, that a Father could do this; third, that he could get it to do, and fourth, that he has no travelling expenses to pay. The first of these conditions may be dismissed as chimerical, because no pastor would allow a Father to give them a Mission or pseudoMission of 26 consecutive weeks; and certainly would neither maintain nor pay him for giving it.

The second condition is equally chimerical. Are 26 weeks of Mission or Parochial Retreat the work of only half a year? The Parochial Retreat in Ireland invariably consumes 10 days of the Missioner's time, including the Saturday going to, the Monday returning from it. Twenty-six Retreats must, therefore, occupy 260 days, whereas a half-year contains only 182 days and a fraction of a day. How squeeze 260 days into 182? Besides the Parochial Retreat always includes two Sundays, and therefore 26 Retreats must include 52 Sundays. How get 52 Sundays into half a year? Thirteen Retreats are, therefore, all that would be physically possible in half a year.

But are even 13 morally possible. Retreats and Missions put abnormal pressure upon heart, nerves, brain, and health, from which it requires one, two, or even three weeks, to recover. Now, 13 Retreats in half a year would leave only four days between each two Retreats for recovery. Who could bear this strain regularly and constantly for half the year? Could 'Honestus Tertius'? I confess that I could not, and perhaps I am as strong and as healthy as he is. In giving these

Retreats, I have almost invariably delivered 21 discourses in eight days, and in addition had to spend in the confessional the hours which nature craved for repose. I have heard confessions as many as 16 hours the day before closing a Retreat or Mission. Could I or any other man continue giving such Retreats for half a year without at least one free Sunday between each two Retreats?

I once gave Missions and Parochial Retreats for eight months consecutively, without taking the free Sundays, but this was exceptional, and I paid for it by years of illness; and I could name more than one of my companions who sank into early graves for similar indiscretions, or if you prefer to term it, zeal which did not count the cost.

If you allow this one free Sunday, then only eight Retreats, including 16 Sundays, with eight free Sundays will be morally possible in the half year, that will be 24 Sundays with only two to spare out of the 26.

It must not be forgotten, however, that the Missioner has more to do between Retreats or Missions than recover his

wasted energies. He has to return to the feet of his crucifix to prayer, spiritual reading, fasting, study, and the other observances of his Rule, in order not to lose himself while trying to save others, and to renew his spirit of devotion, if he is to communicate it to others; for in this it is true, to a very large extent, that'Nemo dat quod non habet.' And he has besides, in most cases, to do home work in order to live; for, as will presently appear, he could not live by his professional labours as a Missioner while his vow of poverty cuts off any private means he may have possessed. If you allow him the space of two Retreats for home work you reduce the morally possible number to six. The third condition, that he can always get this amount of work to do, has still to be considered. In this the Missioner is like the unmarried woman, he cannot propose, but must wait to be asked; and frequently he is not asked. Because the half year for Retreats and Missions is usually confined to about three months before Christmas and three more before the conclusion of the Easter duties. When a hot wave of fervour passes over the parishes, he may be asked to do more work than he can; when it does not so pass, he has no alternative but to join the ranks of the unemployed.' If he gets five Parochial Retreats or their equivalent in Missions to give in the half year it is about as much as he is invited to

give on an average. There are exceptions, I know, but you cannot have general calculations upon exceptions.

6

Now, let us do a sum in proportion. As 26 weeks of missionary labour are to 5 Parochial Retreats or their equivalent in Missions: so are maintenance for 26 weeks and £390 to maintenance for five weeks and £75-for that is all the Missioner would receive for the average work of half a year, even if he were paid £15 per week.' But he actually receives only about a third part of this. For Honestus Tertius' does not forget to inform us that parish priests follow the established custom of giving £5 per week to each Father giving a Mission, and (they) pay, at a somewhat higher rate to one or two priests giving a Parochial Retreat.' This established custom therefore makes the Father's income for Missions about £25 a-year, but the somewhat higher rate' for Parochial Retreats brings it up to about £30 for both Missions and Retreats. And as a fact, £30 a-year is about the average income of a Missioner from his professional labour in Ireland, and considerably less across the water. And out of this he has still to pay his travelling expenses before he can count his net income. And, moreover, out of this net income, which is frequently under £20, his Order has yet still to feed, clothe, and lodge him 46 weeks out of the 52, and train him as an expert and a specialist. No wonder if he is passing rich on £20 a-year. These facts, I think, show the wisdom of the Church in providing other means than the pecuniary fruits of their professional labours, for purely Missionary Orders to live by, so that all their Missions and Retreats may be given for the love of God and of souls, and none for filthy lucre.' Mind, I do not attempt to answer the question, "What is a just stipend?' put by Honestus Tertius,' but only to remove erroneous impressions which might be conveyed by his figures.

6

The I. E. RECORD came into my hands late in the month, too late to allow of this letter being inserted in the following number. Perhaps it may never find its way into any number, and in that event it can grace the Editor's waste-paper basket, which is, possibly, the most fitting place for it. I speak under correction by others who may be better informed, but, so far as I know at present, this letter can be justly signed

VERITAS.