Say Little, Do Much: Nursing, Nuns, and Hospitals in the Nineteenth Century 9780812202908

Citation preview

Say Little, Do Much

Stlcdi~~ i,r H~crlth,Ill,r~~s, cltrd Cnr~gii-oi,rg Joan E . Lynaligh, Series Editor

X corrlplete list of boolts in the series is a\ ailable fi-orrl the publisher.

Say Little, Do Much Nurses, Nuns, and Hospitals in the Nineteenth Century

SIOBAN NELSON

PENN

Philadelphia

a

Copvl-ight 2001 Universitx- of Pen nsvlvania PI-rss .A11 rights reserved PI-intedin the United States of h ~ n r l - i coa n acid-frrr paper

Publishrd bxUniversity of Pellllsyl~arliaPress Philadelphia. Pennsx-lvania 19104-.4011 Library of (:orlgress (:atalogillg-irl-Publicatiorl Data Nelson. Sioban Sa) little, d o rllilcll : rlurls, Ilnrses, and llospitals ill the llirleteelltll century / Sioban Nelson p. cln. - (Studies in hralth, illnrss. and cal-rgiving) ISBN 00-12>3614-5) (cloth : alk. paper) -ISBN 0-81"-1783.7 (pbL. : alL. paper) Inclltdes bibliograpliical refrl-r~icrs and index. 1. Nlu-sing- Religiol~sasprcts- Ch1-istianitx: 2. hIonastic and I-rligiouslife of x\.olnrn. 3. Hospitals. 4. Sisterlloods. 3. (:arirlg- Religious aspects- (:llristiarlity. I. Title. 11. Series. RT83.2.N133 2001 (i10.73'09-dc21 2001033028

Con tents

Chapter 1. "Say Little, Do Much": Veils of Invisihilit) -Nursing Nuns Chapter 2. Martha's Turn: Voxved TVomen and \7irt~lolls Tbrk

11

Chapter 3. Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness: An American Sllccess Story- The Daughters of Charity in the Northeast Chapter 4. Behind Enemy Lines: Religiolls Nursing in England - Conflicts and Solutions Chapter 3. At the Margins of the Empire: Religiolls TVars in the Hospital TVards of C:olonial S ~ d n e y Chapter 6. Frontier: "The Means to Begin Are None"

80 100

Chapter 7. Ckossing the C:onfessional Divide: German Catholic and Protestant Nurses Chapter 8. The Twentieth C:entur): "Ever) Day Life Got Smaller" Xbhre\iations Notes Bibliography Index Xckno~vledgrnents

151

This page intentionally left blank

Chnptrr 1

"Say Little, Do Much" Viils of I~zvisiDility- L V u r s i ~ ~ g L V u ~ ~ s

Some years ago at a North American nursing conference I delivered a paper on religious nurses and their impact on the nursing profession and the health care system. Tl'hen I had finished, a Ivornan stood to make a statement. She told the coilfererlce that she tvas of Boston Irish Catholic stock. She had ~vorkedas lmth a 1)edside nurse and a seilior adrrlirlistrator at a nurnher of Catholic hospitals o~vnedand rrlailaged by sisters. Yet ~vhenshe undertook her MBA and focused her major paper on Ivornen in seilior health care rnanagernent, she had f o ~ m dnone. The literature told her there Ivere none; she analyzed this deficiency from a ferrliilist perspectit-e and duly received a high grade. After lleariilg rny paper she realized her error - the tvornen tvere there, she'd e\-enbeer1 tvorlting for thern at the time. Yet, sornehotv, she had not beer1 able to see thern. In ~vhatfollo~vsI focus oil this blind spot. I look closely at religious nurses, their tvorlt, and its impact, airrliilg to integrate the history of religious and secular nurses into the story of the errlergeilce of professional nursing. The irlteiltioil is neither critical rlor celebratory. The fact that religious ilursing is argued to ha\-e been formative of professiorlal nursing ill profound and far-reaching Ivays is not iilteilded to pro\-ide a ratioilale for the "return" to a religious or spiritual basis for nursing practice. It is historical ol>servation.Nor are the religious nurses, tvith their potverf~llvocational imperati\-es,blarrled for subsequent dilerrlrrlas in the professionalizatioi1 of nursing -for its poor pay, its lo~vlyprofessional status, its gerldered character. Again, the vocational origin of respectalde nursing is llistorical obser\-ation- it cannot be escaped. Neither are nineteenth-century religious nurses argued to be ferrliilist in any tvay- latent, nascent, or crypto. Religious life Ivas not about iildi\-idualsbut about cornrnuilities of tvornen. These Ivornen did not care for franchise or ~vorltingconditioils. They Ivere on God's rnission, and their spiritual traiiliilg enabled them to turn llardsllip and ad\-ersityinto spiritual exercises in ol>edienceand humility. Necessity made them rrlotllers of invention. Moreot-er,in the United States a good proportior1 of these

2

Chapter 1

Ivornen tvere European. The battles and preoccupations of their Protestant sisters tvere a ~vorldalvay from their daily lit-esas irrlrrligrarlt nuns. But despite the eradication of self through total obedience striven for by religious Ivornen, despite their spiritual practices perforrrled to achiet-e Christian perfectioil through this erasure, and finally, despite their obedience to clergy and the narrow confines of religious life, these tvornen constituted a po~verfulsocial rnovernent. They tvere siilglerrlirlded rnissioilaries ~vhosefaith in God's tvill and belief in the miraculous enal>led thern to achieve far rrlore than any group of indi\-idualIvornen could e\-er ha\-e accomplished. They tvere the rrlearls to the creation of a Catholic ~vorldin the Netv Tl'orld, and the foundations they laid for the tvork of all Ivornen in the pastoral dorrlairl has never been subject to the scholarly scrutiny it desert-es. I appi-oacll this subject matter as a nursing historial1 of Irish Catholic backgro~md,a l>ackground that I belie\-e equipped rrle to recognize traces of Catholic culture, even ~vhenrerno\-edfrorrl its doctrirlal context. As a student nurse (arrned tvith a history degree) in a public secular hospital, I tvas often struck l>y the religiosity of nursing trainiilg. The !\.eighty rrloral frarnetvork and con\-entualrrlodel of practice under tvhich so rnany prograrrls operated tvere, in rny \-ie~v, ~ulpleasantrerrlirlders of rny convent schooling. But I Ivas even rrlore struck by a general lack of recogrlitiorl of this legac!; even as tve registered nurses in Australia in the 1980s Ivere still called "sister" and in sorrle hospitals expected to Ivear veils. Furthermore, rny Irish sensil>ilities tvere offended l>y the osteilsible Eilglislliless of nursing history. How did the story of rrloderil nursing and hospital reforrrl becorrle an Eilglisll one? In Australia the old nursing scllools all proudly laid clairrl to their Nightingale heritage, and the Irnperial flag-tvaving that once upon a time accorrlparlied this allegiance included the exclusion of Irish Catholic girls. Catholic girls had their otvn hospitals - St. \'incent's or Rlater Misericordia- hospitals seldorrl rrlerltioiled in the nursing histories. But it seerrled to rrle that at least in these hospitals the title "sister" and the veils rrlade sense- their heritage openly ackno~vledged,not l>izarrelyrescripted as an Eilglisll secular invention. Unlike the triumphant Nightingale nurses ~vhosestory ol>scui-esthern, religious nurses, Catholic nuns, Xrlglicail sisters, and deacorlesses are difficult to see and discuss-particularly in a collective sense. To o\-ercorrle sorrle of the difficulties entailed in crossiilg the corlfessioilal boundaries (the divisions bettveen Christian religious sects or groups that define tllerrl as Rorrlail Catholic, Rlethodist, Lutheran, and so forth) that still dictate our understanding of these Ivornen, I adopted the geileric terrrl "votved ~vornen."This rlotioil allotvs us to speak collectively about

"Say Little, Do Much"

3

those Ivornen tvho separated thernselt-esfi-orrl the rest of the tvorld to lit-e in a cornrn~mityaccordiilg to a set of religious precepts. Technically the deacorlesses did not talte \-o~vs - though they Ivere coilsecrated and "set apart." Xilglicail sisterhoods tvere not supposed to take \-o~vs, but they did. Catholic tvornen tvere all \-o~ved. The "active" cornrnunities, hotvet-el-, ~vhosetvork toolt tllerrl l>eyond the con\-enttvalls, toolt tvhat tvas terrrled "sirnple" votvs; lifelong solerrlil vo~vsbelonged only to tvornen l>ound to the cloister and "dead" to the 1vor1d.l The term vo~vedwomen emphasizes the fact that these were simply Ivornen tvho toolt a voluntary \-otv. Second, votved Ivornen produced \-o~ved lal>oi-.It tvas the \-o~ved lal>orof these Ivornen that built so much of the health care system that Ive talte for granted today. Their lal>orIvas a plleilorrleilal resource for Cllristiarl churches, rrlost notal>lythe Rorrlail Catholic Church - it created Catholic institutions and shaped Catholic life in the Netv Tl'orld. The story of nursing addressed in this book coilceiltrates on the English-spealting tvorld of North Xrnerica, Britain, and Australia. This a~vktvardcategorization represents the best educated and best paid nurses in the ~vorldtoday. These Ivere all ostensil>lyProtestailt countries ~vhich,until the Catholic diaspora of the nineteenth century, Ivere dorniilated l>y Protestant values and anti-Catholic sentiment. They thus pro\-ided a coilsisteilt and particular rnilieu for the tvorlt of the Catholic sisterhoods. It Ivas a rnilieu that expressed stroilg reservations over the entry of Protestant Ivornen into the ~vorldand into professioilal life. It Ivas a tvorld that Ivas fraught ~vithanxiety over the risiilg profile of Catholicisrn and the large nurnbers of irrlrrligrailt Catholics. It Ivas a tvorld tvhere social reforrrl rno\-ernents occupied the intellectual eilergies of rnany. Xrld finally it tvas a ~vorldthat held rorrlarltic ilotiorls of Sisters of Charity and Gothic fantasies al>outRorne, convents, and nuns. For its part the Catholic Church had to build its institutions and rninister to its irrlrrligrarlt rrlillioils in an English-spealting tvorld - an alien ~vorldfor the church tvheil only a tiny proportior1 of its nineteenthcentury follotvers e\-en spolte English. The nursing iluils tvho built a Catholic errlpire in the English-speaking ~vorldtvere largely irrlrrligrailt Ivornen. They tvere part of a vocational Ivave of European Ivorneil tvho Ivere building iilstitutioils and creating senices for the poor. They tvere doing all this long before the errlergeilce of the rrloderil hospital and scientific medicine. But tvhen these trends did appear the sisters tvere already old hands at a netv garne. Care of the sick as a serious and sltilled activity is argued to ha\-e emerged in se\-enteenth-cer1t~11-y France tvith \'incent de Paul's Daughters of Charity. The opening up of the pastoral dorrlaiil as the site of expertise and go\-ernrnent has l>een tvell exarrlirled by scllolars in the

4

Chapter 1

fields of poor la!\, psychiatry and prison reforrn.Hmt-ever, the role of pious Ivornen in this go\-ernrnentof the poor has 1-ecei\-edlittle attention. The achiet-ernentsof these tvornen in France Ivere of direct relet-ance to the subsequent developrnent of nursing ill the English-spealting tvorld. In particular, the corlrlectiorl l>et~veen these Frerlcll events and the Irish Catholic Church is argued to be of rrlajor sigrlificarlce. The Irisll diaspora brought a flood of tvornen to the Ne~vMbrldas novices and nuns, and also produced the first and secoild gerleratioil of con\-ententrants. This is a corrlplex story invol\-ing Catllolic errlarlcipatioil in Britain and Ireland; the resurgence of the Irish Church; the Irish diaspora and rrlass rnigratiorls of Gerrnan, Italian, and Polish Catllolic cornrnunities to the pre\-iously Protestailt stroilgllolds of North Xrnerica, Australia, and rnainland Britain (the United Kiilgdorrl rninus Ireland) ; and political turrnoil, such as the Nativist rnovernent in the United States. The care of the sick occurred ill the context of these religious and social conflicts, and the ~voi-kof the nursing nuns tvas part of, and significant to, the l~roadergoals of the Catllolic apostolic rnission. Of course the first Ivornen to be nursing and lmilding hospitals in the Netv Mbrld Ivere the Ivornen of Netv Frarlce -Jeanne nllailce and Marguerite D'Youville, founders of the HBtel de \'ille in nllorltreal and the Grey Nuns respectively. The contribution of these Canadian religious nurses to the developrnent of the nursing sisterhoods in Canada and the United States is irnrnense. But the story in Canada is truly distincti\-e ~vhenit corrles to the rlotioil of the English-spealting Protestailt ~vorld1,ecause Canada Ivas t~vocountries, one Catholic and one Protestant. The teilsioils and dynarnisrn that cllaracterized the ~vorltof Catllolic Ivornen in the Protestant English-spealting tvorlds of Australia and the United States Ivere very different from the teilsioils bet~veenCatllolic Frerlcll Cailadiails and English-speaking Cailadiails - tensions rnuch corrlplicated b y issues '.. of sovereignty and ilatioilal identity. For this reasoil the Canadian situation tvarrants special in\-estigationand has not beer1 covered in the current research. I do, hotvet-el; deal in depth ~vithone group of French Cailadiail tvornen, the Daughters of Providence, rrlissiorlaries in the Northtvest of the United States. In the nineteenth-century social landscape of Australia and Nortll Xrnerica, Ireland, and Britain, Catholic nuns tvere every~vhere- abroad in the ~vorldlike no other tvornen. They ran corporations, dealt ~vith national governments, jo~~rrleyeci on fact-finding rrlissioils - crossing the countr); indeed the tvorld, in search of recruits, funds, and ideas. They dealt tvith banks and businessmen ~vitha la~vyer'srnind, rrlastered the teilderirlg process for pri\-ate and state corltracts ~vitha mixture of faith and l~usinessacurneil, dealt tvith l>oardsof ilotaries and hostile bishops as a rrlattei- of course. These tvornen did not speak from platforrrls at tern-

"Say Little, Do Much"

3

pel-arlce meetings, they did not ~vriternernoirs, they did not express a political or sexual critique of contemporary society. Irnportantl!; neither did these tvornen seek the path of individual progress and personal de\-eloprnent, but errlhraced anonymity. They rrlobilized the ancient techniques of the cloister to "eradicate" self and becorrle the rrlere expressiorl of their holy rule. They tvere institution builders, ~voi-kersfor the poor and for their church. As St. ITincentde Paul had admonished thern, they said little and did much.:' They were, as we will see, "Marthas" -hard~vorking,resourceful, and indefatigal>le. The airrl of this ~vorltis not to clairrl territory for religious Ivorneil but to eradicate the di\-ide that separates these tvornen from their non-votved sisters, and to resituate the errlergeilce of rrloderil nursing ~vithinthe religious and pastoral dorrlaiils of nineteenth-century society. In realit!; the nineteenth-century nursing iililovators tvere all religious tvorneil. The very notion of "secular" rrlearlt sorrletlliilg quite differerlt in the nineteenth-century context.' It meant "nonsectarian" -not formally affiliated ~vitha religious sect, not "tvithout religion." The distance bet!veen Catholic, Protestant, and secular tvorneil Ivas ~vritlarge in the nineteenth century. This religious and social distance discursively situated secular nurses as the "ile~v[vat-e" of nursing reforrrlers - a positioilirlg that Ivas of rrlajor irrlportarlce in the Nightingale story. At the sarrle time as the tvorlt of the vo~vednurses Ivas ignored or trivialized, altvays depicted as a preparatory stage to real nursing, the religious and vocational ethos of the Protestarlt reforrrlers tvas erroneously endo~vedtvith a purely secular basis. Ho~vevei-,the historiographical pro1,lern corlfroiltiilg the study of religious nurses has l>een not just ~viththe issue of religion, but tvith the usual focus on secularizatioil (as the starting point of nursing). I tvould argue that this focus on secularizatioil has obscured the rrlecllailisrrls actit-ated l>y nineteenth-century tvornen to coloilize netv territory - territory that tvas to becorrle geildered professional territory. Also ol>scured is the relatioilsllip bettveen \-ocationalethos and the errlergerlce of a role for tvornen as part of a professiorlal tvorlt force. One of the l>arriers to rrlaltiilg \-isible and rethinlting the nursing iluils has been the idea that these tvornen Ivere "pre-professional." Professioils cannot include \-o~ved Ivornen- the nuns are not independent, they are ol>edientand follotv !\.hate\-el-path is decreed for tllerrl by their superiors. Doctors and la~vyers are professional. Nursing rnay or rnay not l>ea profession, depeildiilg on the definition used. Ho~vever,a religious Ivornan - even if she runs the largest public institution in a city of fit-e rnillion, holds higher degrees, and plays a leading role in professioilal associations- is net-er professional. The barrier in essence is the tacitly accepted view that there is a di\-ision bettveen the ~vorldof religion and the tvorld of ~vork.Alrrlost by

ti

Chapter 1

definition, then, secularization l>ecornes the only rrleails to professionalization. By coiltrast, ~vhatis proposed here is that nursing emerged as a hyl>ridreligious and professiorlal practice. Its continuing arnl>iguousand ambit-alent fit ~vithrrlodels of professioils is a legacy of those origins. Finally, it needs to be rrlade clear that, ~vhilethis particular story of nursing has European origiils, it took on a distincti\-e gloss in the New Mbrld. For the Catholic sisterhoods, Protestailt hostility and the irnpoverished state of the Catholic Church, corrlbiiled tvith the tvider cornrn~mity's desperate need for the skills and expertise of the sisters, ~voi-ltedto produce a iletv variatioil of the nursing religious sister. This tvas not the Catholic nursing sister of Europe - the sister-nurse of the New World tvas a new creature. To live l>y her nits in the New Mbrld she had to l>e professiorlal and accountal>le; she had to be inno\-ative and entrepreneurial; finally, she had to understand the politics and ecorlorrlics of her dorrlaiil to l>e self-f~mding.She, in turn, had a rrlajor irrlpact on the tvay nursing in North Arrlerica and Australia came to achieve a high let-el of professiorlalisrrl in the ttventieth century. O'Connell points out that at the time of the SecoildITaticanCouncil (1962), the Xrrlericarl church had 930 hospitals tvith 156,000 l>edsand adrrlitted 16,000,000 patients per year.' This was the result of the efforts of these nineteenth-cent111-y~vornen. The series of fit-e case studies presented here does not constitute the b.asis .' for a cornparatit-e analysis of religious ilursing o\-er the course of a century, in three corltirleilts and fi-orrl four coilfessioils (Rornan Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and Rlethodist). Rather, this collectiorl of essays is designed to convey the sense that nursing and hospital foundation Ivas part of a geildered iilterilatioilal rnovernent - a rnovernent that to a great extent tvas ileitller English 1101- Protestant. Chapter 2 exarrliiles the tvay nursing history, the history of tvornen, and nineteenth-century religious history ha\-e dealt ~viththe religious cornrnunities of tvornen. It argues that these Ivornen ha\-e fallen through the gaps in contemporary scholarship. Religious tvorneil are dealt ~vithseriously only by "insider" histories. They have not receit-ed serious coilsideratioil in the histories of Ivornen and philanthropy, they are seldorrl included ill professioilal nursing histories, and their "professional" contribution to English-spealting niileteeilth-century society is generally of only tangential interest to llistoriarls of religion. Concepts such as the ~vornen'ssphere and secularization are re\-isited to explore tvhat is argued to l>e a set of discursi\-e e\-olutioilary assumptions that set the basis and the lirrlits of nursing history. The I'incent de Paul Daughters of Charity are discussed, and their irrlpact on the sul>sequentrise of the nineteenthcentury religious ilursing - Catholic and Protestailt - examined. In Chapter 3 the Xrrlericarl "take" on this ITincentien Daughter of Charity is explored. Of irrlportarlce to this discussion tvere the extremes

"Say Little, Do Much"

7

of respoilse the nursing iluns tvere capable of evolting. As one of the rrlost \-isible syrnbols of Catholicisrn and foreign polver (Rorne), the "unXrnerican" identity of the nuns caused thern a great deal of difficulty. Hotvet-el; episodes such as the cholera epidernics, ~vhenthey volunteered to nurse the sick, and later their lleroisrrl during the Civil Tl'ar rrlade them corrlplex and unstable figures in the Xrrlericail psyche -vilified and rornanticized. But despite the social and political difficulties faced by the cornrnunities of nursing Ivornen in the United States, Catholic vo~ved Ivornen rrlarlaged to found an extraordinary ilurnber of hospitals right across the co~mtry.The tvorlt of Rlother Setorl of course features here. Her Sisters of Charity Ivere fo~mdedin 1809, the earliest non-French \-ersionof the \'incentien \-ision. The Old Tl'orld of Lorldoil and the Netv Tl'orld of the northeast Xrnericall cities Ivere not such differerlt unit-erses by the end of the nineteenth century as they had been ~vhenthe century l>egan.O\-el-the course of the century rural Xrrlerica had l>eenfilled ~vithcities, cholted ~vithiildustr!; and s~varnpedl>yirnrnigrants. The Catholic Church, filled ~vithirrlrrligrailt congregations, took enthusiastically to its role of unsettling Protestant certainties. In Netv York, Toronto, and Loildorl the defeilders of the Reforrrlatioil found thernselt-es in a pluralistic ~vorldof Catholics, Jetvs, and lil>erals.In England, the passage of the Catholic Errlarlcipatiorl Act in 1829 signaled the beginning of decades of debate, riot, and confusion over the role of the established church (Xilglicanisrn), the rise of secu1.cuisrn, and the colonial designs of the Catholic Church for the souls of England. Chapter 4 takes up this story through the Sisters of Mercy at Berrnondsey in the East End of London. This cornrnunity played a significant role in nineteenth-century nursing history, pro\-iding a tearrl of nurses to accompany Florerlce Nightingale to the Crirnea. 'lotller Mary Clare Rloore, the rrlotller superior of the Berrnondsey convent, tvent on to becorrle a corlfidarlte of Nightingale. But it is the period prior to the Crirrlearl events that is the focus of the chapter. Founded in 1838, this convent tvas the first to be estal>lishedin Eilglarld since the Reforrnation. The tvorlt of the sisters in\-olvedllorrle visitation and epiderrlic nursing. It Ivas not until after the Crirrlearl Tl'ar that their public staildiilg Ivas so boosted that they tvere able to open a hospital - the first Catholic hospital in Eilglarld since the Reforrnation. So this cornrnunity of tvorneil tvere \-ery rnuch ill the front line of the reestal>lishrnent of Catholicisrn in a \-eryhostile Britain. They tvere also ~vellestal>lishedin Britaiil prior to the great farnines in Ireland and sei-\-ed the l>urgeoning and increasingly desperate Irish poor. By the secorld half of the ilirleteerltll century the Catholic nursing orders began to share the stage ~vithcornrnunities of Protestarlt tvornen, sorrle votved, others not, tvho too had anstvered a call a'

S

Chapter 1

from God to nurse the siclt poor. This chapter looks at the corrlrrlorlalities bettveen religious nurses - their \-ocationalimperatit-e, their stroilg cornrrlitrrlerlt to an "actit-e" life, and their potverf~llsense of the need that they tvere meeting. It argues the irrlportailce of the religious sisterlloods in establishing the groundtvork to the Nightingale reforrns. The complexity of tvorlt, gender, and religiorl as it tvas played out in \'ictorian Eilglarld perrrleated to the bo~mdariesof the ernpire. In Chapter 5 I turn to the story of professioilal nursing ill colorlial Netv South Wales. In 1868 a tearrl of Nightingale-trained nurses arrived in the colony. But long before the Nightingale sisters diserrlharked at Sydney Cove, a group of French-trained Irish Sisters of Charity had been nursing the siclt in their hornes, and in 1837 they established a tvidely supported hospital, St. \'incent's. This juxtaposition, ill a srrlall rerrlote colon!; of Eilglisll Niglltiilgales and Irish nursing nuns in the city's only ttvo hospitals continues the story of Catholic Emancipation, Irish politics, Xilglicail tensions, and ~vornen's~voi-k.The Sisters of Charity and the Niglltiilgale nurses Ivere l>oth \-ictirns of sectariarl bigotry as each "cornrnunity" of Ivornen overstepped the l>ounds of fernale authority ~vhilestruggling to establish an irldeperlderlt dorrlairl - a hospital run by tvornen. This chapter, then, pro\-ides a case study of issues of competence, profession1' 1'1~111, religion, sectarianism, and colorlial politics. That strange bedfello~vsare l>orn of the exigencies of froiltier life is notvhere better illustrated than in the corrlplex arrarlgerrlerlts of Irish, French, and Q~li.l>ecois Ivornen that are featured in Chapter 6. To sorrle extent the story of the frontier sisterllood is the story of all the sisterhoods tvrit large. The pot-erty, the oppression, and the in\-enti\-enessthat cllaracterize successful cornrnuilities of religious Ivornen, particularly nursing cornrnunities, are in evidence tvhether one looks in Netv Yorlt City or Da~vsonCity. That said, there Ivas sorrletllirlg distincti\-eabout this experienced group of ~vornentvith a firrrl identity and coilfideilce in their rule and life, taltirlg on the enorrnous challenge of tvorking, not arrloilg cornrnunities of irrlrrligrarlt poor, but in the male ~vorldof rrliilirlg totvns, logging carnps, railroad carnps, forts, and rrlissiorl settlements. It Ivas a ~vorldirnpenetral>leto ladies ~vithoutprotectioil of \-eiland vo~v. Corrlrrlercialisrrl and l>usinessacurneil Ivere the skills developed by the successful sisterhoods in the sink or s~virntvorld of the North Xrrlericail !vest. The north~vestand the southtvest pro\-ide co~mterpointsfor our exarrliilatiorl of the pllerlorrlerloil of \-o~ved tvorneil in the tvilds. Quite different Ivornen, very differerlt religious cornrn~ulities,and different social and political contexts re\-eal rernarltal>le coilsisterlcies in rrlode of adaptation and successful estal>lishrneilt. Bettveen the ~vildsof the !vest and the factories of the east lies the rnidtvest. This episode of Xrrlericail settlerrleilt is distincti\-e.It does not

"Say Little, Do Much"

9

ha\-e clear parallels ~vithsettler societies in Australia or tvith industrial Europe. It is an Xrrlericarl story of cultural pluralism, ethilicity, and settlernent. For despite the great dorrlirlarlce of Irish in the Xrrlericarl Catholic Church, they tvere only the first Ivave, the English-speaking [vat-e,and the group tvell practiced in tril>alpolitics. The next largest group of Catholic irrlrrligrailts to the United States in the nineteenth century tvas Gerrnan. It tvas a Gerrrlail cornrnunity ill exile from persecution. Its goal tvas continuity of cornrnunity and tradition, continuity of liturgy and prayer, and continuity of language. These imperatit-esIvere in stark contrast to those of the Irish Church tvhich had been in expailsioilist rrlode throughout the century. The Gerrnan-Xrnericai1 story of nursing sisterhoods is also distincti\-ein that it introduced to North Xrrlerica a successful Protestarlt sisterhood of nurses- the deaconesses. Chapter 7 sets out to exarrliile these Ivornen, coililected l>yculture and language rather than religion, and explores their irrlpact on the Xrrlericarl health care system. The final chapter brirlgs together the collectiorl of essays to explore the errlergeilce of a "professional vocation" through the tvorlt of the nineteenth-century religious nurses in Britain, North Xrnerica, and Xustralia. The tvorlt of Ivornen ~vithinthese predominantly Protestant countries Ivas affected l>y social trends such as the secularization of nursing and teaching, the grotvth of a ferrlale tvorltforce, and the developrnent of rnilitary nursing. Thus, just as the religious nurses pioileered this professional space, secular Ivornen began to join thern in their ~vork,and the religious Ivornen, too, had to adapt and respoild to a changing profesthe religious and the secular sional climate. It is this interplay l>et~veen ~vorldthat is explored ill the final chapter. The piorleerirlg of netv tvorlds of energy and corrlpeterlce for tvornen through piety and cornrnunity Ivas a niileteeilth-century phenomenon. Through the turnult of diaspora and the rapid establishment of institutions for the pro\-isionof care to irrlrrligrailt poor and netv settlers, CathoIvorneil, alone on the stage, stepped out to rrlalte their rnark. lic \-o~ved Others soor1 follotved. By the late nineteenth century this hybrid field of geildered pastoral ~voi-khad l>ecornecrotvded tvith Protestant \-o~ved Ivornen and secular reformers. The t~ventiethcentury heralded a hardening of the Catholic Church's attitudes totvard cornrnunities of tvornen. Through progressive decrees, culminating in the promulgation of canon 1.at\. in 1917, the sisters tvere placed under direct clerical super\-ision, illcreasingly l>oundto their convents, and denied the possil>ilityof independent action. At the same time as the \'atican Ivas closing in, the ~vorldly professioils in tvhich sisters tvere engaged Ivere derrlarldirlg higher levels of traiiliilg and professional developrnent - placing the tvornen in an untenal>le positioil. In the ttventieth century the Xilglicail sisterlloods too, after decades of relative freedorn tvithin the church tvere gradually '

10

Chapter 1

brought ~ u l d e the r administrative control of the l>ishops.For its part, the deacorless rnovernent, ~vhichbegan as a nursing rno\-erneilt, steadily increased its pastoral role ~vithinthe \-arious Protestailt confessions, e\-entually forsaltiilg ilursing tvorlt for other forrrls of ministry. The nineteenth-century rise of nursing l>yreligious tvornen tvas therefore the product of a specific and time-limited set of contingenciesreligious, cultural, and political. These corltirlgeilcies geilerated a rerrlarkable field of possil>ilityfor cornrnunities of votved Ivornen - one the) did not pass by.

Chnptrr 2

Martha's T u r n Vourd Womrn and Virtuous Work

Jc>,ctr cn1ri~to n i~illng(> ( ~ J ~ I P I(1( >7001ri/otI~IIIILPIJI I 1 / ~ r t l IIL(IIJP ~ ( ~ 11ori ~ ~ J P I ~ O111J ~ I P he) home. She And cr srsfei, Jlcr)), zc~hosecrfed hose(fcrf the Lo,d'sfeef crnd ~ s 0) he) innnq sfn)ed t h o ? 11sfeitzngto hzs 7~lo)ds,\h7~1 J f n ) t h n 7 ~ drsfincted tcrllrr, ,o r11p C ( I I I L P to 1iori (r~td~ ( I I I J , 'ZOIIJ,do 1011 )tot C O ~ Pt11(rt1/11 S I S ~ P I 11(1r the zoo~k0) 177)se(f?Tell he) to come nnd lend n hnitd " Igt ine to get oit 7~11th But fheLoid nns7~loed,':\.lcr)thn, J f n ) t h n , )or1 crief,ettritgnitd fusszng crbouf lien c11orp1t1 5 Op,t; ,o 1rin1t1tlii~ig,;but o~i(>tlii~igir 1i(~prrnr1.T 1 1 ~ p n rJI(rr1 t nnd z f shnll /tot be fnlieitf,on7 he) "

J f n i tho LIP see the crcfzzle ecri 17est, p)crcfzcnl 11fe ~ ~ h l cI Sh zonnfed 277 fhzs to do cr~tdtoilfor ot11(>1,; 01, (>(rg(>~~tprr I I I I (i~o~lri~igfor God, cr~idn ~(>ndotp,r fei zloi ofsplilt ~ ~ h z cccri h )zes oite orrt of oiteself, n ~estlessnessto be rrp nnd doritg ~ ~ h z the c h need zozfhoz~fcritd the lo-clezozfhz17 zlnlte to clcrrin. 177

~

The spiritual paths open to wornen over the centuries of Christian practice tvere shaped by the popular Netv Testarrlerlt story of the sisters Martha and Mary. Rlary sat at the feet of Jesus and tvashed his feet in expensive oils. Martha fussed, pro\-idiilgfood for the apostles and follotvers, and criticized Rlary's selfishness. She spolte out irrita1)ly to Jesus, asltirlg for Rlary's help. But Jesus praised Mary's singulal; untvorldly de\-otioil, and criticized Rlartha's mundane and terrlporal preoccupations. Frorrl this story t~vopaths for Ivornen tvere delineated. Mary's path Ivas the prestigious path of prayer and tvithdratval from the ~vorldand its concei-11s-blessed by Jesus himself. Rlartha's path Ivas that of the lo~vly housetvife or the drudge, unable to separate herself from tvorldly rnatters. But after centuries of the cloister and devotion to Mary's path to perfectioil through prayel; finally it tvas Martha's turn. In the nineteenth century pious tvornen on 1)oth sides of the corlfessiorlal di\-ide follotved the inspiration of the Daughters of Charity to attend to their spiritual

12

Chapter 2

perfectioil through tvork in the tvorld. The rliileteeiltll century, ~vithits social dislocation, poverty, irnrnigration, and epidernics, ~velcornedthern. It tvas a time for deeds -for Rlartha's ~vork,not Mary's prayers. In this chapter Ive exarrlirle this nineteenth-century opening out of opport~mitiesfor pious Ivornen and the rrlaililer in tvhich they rno\-ed their ~voi-kinto the public dornain. Tl'e also look closely at the in\-isibility of these tvornen, both in the nineteenth-century context and to conternporary llistoriarls of Ivornen, particularly ilursing historians. \'otved Ivornen, it tvill be argued, have failed to generate intellectual interest because their consert-atisrn, the submission of indi\-idualityiilllererlt in votved religious life, and their errlhrace of gerlder corlstrairlts corrlbiile to constitute a life antithetical to contemporary \-alues. Paradoxically, hotvet-er,it is this \-ery triurnt-irate of attributes- consert-atisrn, suhrnission, and asexuality- that ernpotvered these tvornen to be pioneers and innovators. The origins, l>ackground, orgailization, and ti-airling of the sisterlloods tvarrant discussion here, as, despite the specificity of each cornrnunit); there are general elerrleilts to the life and training of nineteenth-century \-otved Ivornen. The chapter ends tvith the place of these tvornen in the story of nursing and the cllallerlge they pi-eserlt to the Nightingale \-ersion of nursing history.

The Power of Religious Itlentit) Rehg~olls1dent1t1allot\ed nolnen to 111 esent a n d assel t thelnsel~esIn prnate a n d p u b l l ~rials. It ellabled tllerll to re11 oil an autllorlt\ be)oi/d the rc~o~ld of inen and for those 11110 stepped b e l o i d accepted bounds.> pro\ ~ d e d~ r u c l a support l

Tl'hen Nancy Cott rrlade this obsert-ation in 1977 in The Bonds of1lbma11hood, she Ivas referrirlg to Netv Eilglaild Protestarlt Ivornen and to the enabling dynarnic that gretv bet~veenreligious fervor and the extension of ferrliiliile responsibility fi-orrl the llorrle to the charitable and, finally, humanitarian dorrlaiil of public philanthropy and social action. Cott argued that through subrnissioil to religious ideals these Ivornen practiced a . forrrl of self-assertion. This self-assertion ernpotvered Ivornen to at1'ical cllallerlge gerlder constraints, to "define self and find cornrnunity."" Cott's ~voi-kon Protestant New Eilglaild forrrls part of an extensive corpus of scholarly ~vritingson the Protestant tvornen tvhose efforts, in the first part of the nineteenth century, intimately irltersected ~viththe subsequent rise of political and social rnovernents in tvhich Ivornen, for the first tirne, played a rrlajor part.4Frorrl the al~olitioniststo the Christian Mbrnen's Terrlperailce Society, Ivornen clairrled the high rrloral ground by \-irtue of their sex, f o ~ m dthe \-oice to corrlrrleilt on the ills of society and to lobby politically for social change.TTlle female suffrage rnovernent tvas

Martha's Turn

13

built on the political consciousness that follo~vedfor a good rnany campaigners, and represerlted the culmination of nearly a century of political ti-airling and organizational experierlce for Ivornen. Not surprisingl!; the links bettveen these nineteenth-century ~vornen'sactivities and the political and social history of t~ventieth-cent111-y tvornen rrlake the earlier ~vorldof ferrlale political and social action of great interest to conternporary Ivornen historians." Hoxvever; Cott's comments are equally true for the other, less overtly political side of the coilfessiorlal di\-ide. Catllolic tvornen, too, relied on an authority beyond the tvorld of rrlerl to find self and cornrn~mity. Through piety, philanthropy, and a corrlrrlitrrlerlt to the social apostolate, thousands of nineteenth-century Catllolic Ivornen in the Old and New Mbrlds rnol>ilizedto forrrl religious cornrn~ulitiesof vo~vedt ~ o r n e i lIn .~ these cornrnunities tvornen ~voi-lted.They spent their lit-es estal>lishing the social institutions that tvere to becorrle critical to nineteenth- and t1ventieth-cent~1rysociety. In so doing, they piorleered the professioilal paths that eventually opened to all ~ v o r n e n They .~ were women who, to paraphrase Cott again, "practiced a radical forrrl of self-assertion" through suhrnission to religion. It is surprising, then, to find relati\-elylittle scholarly interest in the enorrnous ~vorltof the Catholic sisterhoods. Rlaria Luddy's study of tvornen and philanthropy in nineteenth-century Irelarld is typically disrnissi\-e: 1\1111e Protestant and Quaker \\oirleil de\ eloped ail lrldepeildeilt a n d s e ~ u l atrar d ~ t ~ oofn ~ ~ h ~ l a n t h ~ no\po ~ l ~ce r n e tn\th ~ c hr e m o ~ e d~tselt,t \ ~ t h ~the n f i ~ s tthree d e ~ a d e of s the Lenturl, froirl ~ l e r ~~nfluence, ~al C atllol~c\\oirleil d ~ not d d o so. 111 socletles orgamzed b\ C athol~csthe elerg\ exel red a IIonel tul contlol o\el the dlrectlon taken b\ notnen ~ ~ h ~ l a n t h r o l ~seen ~ s t spal , tlclllarl~In the f o lnatlon ~ of fenlale rellg~ouscongregatloils, and the lirlpact of su~11lrlfluerlce sllaped the conser\atlr e nature of C:athohc soc~alactlon among la\ and I e l ~ g ~ o l 'l s

Perhaps one prol>lern for conternpoi-ary scllolars is that Catllolic Ivornen engaged in puhlic social action collecti\-ely- ol>scuring their indi\-idual social identities behind habit and \-eil. Rlore than this, the religious tvay of life pursued by Catllolic tvornen actit-ely eradicated indi\-iduality.1°In its ideal forrn, rrlerrlhersllip in a cornrnunity ill\-olved the surrender of individual tvill, loss of birth ilarrle and identity, and indifference to place and one's tvork in life." \'otved tvornen espoused subrnissioil of individuality, unlike the ~vorkiilgclass lal>oi-activists or the actit-ist rrliddle and upper class tvornen so belo\-edby historians. Activist Ivornen reflect historians' o~vnd u e s of indi\-idualityand self-actualization ~vithout gender constraints. \'otved tvornen ernbraced geilder corlstrairlts and turned tllerrl to their advantage. A further prol>lern tvith Catllolic vo~vedIvorneil and their place in

14

Chapter 2

history is that it has been difficult to see them sirnply as tvornen. It seerrls that there tvere (and are?) three categories of hurnan l>eings: rnen, Ivornen, and nuns. This sleight of llaild recategorized pious Ivorneil ~ v h o undertook voluiltary \-o~vs, ~voi-edistincti\-e clothes, and lived apart from society- a recategorization that sei-\-edirrlportarlt f~lnctions.The original purpose of this asserti\-easexuality had been to protect Ivornen from male interference.1' In the nineteenth century when wornen set apart as "brides of Christ" left the corlfirlerrleilt of the cloister for the first time to ~voi-kin the ~vorld,they 1)rought the separatioil of the cloister tvith thern. Cloaked in its mystique, and reildered invisil>lel>ytheir political conser\-atism, their ol>edienceto authority, and their submergence of indi\-iduality, the sisters rrlailaged to create a place for themselves in but not of the ~vorld.The legacy of this categorizatioil is the continued elirrlirlatiorl of sisterhoods from coilsideratioil ~vhentllirlkiilg al>outIvornen and ~vork, Ivornen and the professions, and Ivornen and sltill. Notvhere is this erasure rrlore evident than in the case of nursing. Of all the female professionals, the nurse alone car1 clairrl a precise precursor in the nursing 1 1 ~ 1 1 .Indeed, in the t~vopivotal events for nineteenth-century nursing, the Crirrlearl War and the Xrrlericail Ci\-il War, nuns not only nursed aloilgside other tvornen, but pro\-ided the inspiration for rnany other Ivornen to corrle and do like~vise.They tvere also corrlpeteilt and experienced. In the Crirnea, Florence Nightingale's right llaild Ivere the Sisters of Rlercy from Berrnondsey, London, tvhile over 600 nuns ilursed on both sides in the Arrlericarl co11flict.l:~ Nursing, too, ~mlilteteaching and social tvorlt, rerrlairls to this day a sharply gendered practice, tvith fetv rrlerl choosing it as a careei-.l1The contribution of nursing n ~ u l sto the overall professioilal development of nursing is e\-ident in the training scllools they conducted, in their in\-olvernent in professiorlal associations, and in their participatiorl in the de\-eloprnent of the discipline in the unit-ersity sector.13But even rnore impressive than their intellectual or ethical irrlpact on the nursing profession has l>een their irrlpact on the health care systern as a ~vhole.In the area of sert-ice delivery, Catholic tvornen stand apart. In the United States, Canada, and Australia these tvornen ha\-e been l>othrrlajor health care pro\-iders and ~vorkingnurses since the early iliileteerltll century. The iilteiltiorl here is not to laud the sisters and their contribution to nursing and the health care systern, but rather to question the analysis that sets the lirrlits of history in a tvay that reilders these Ivornen in\-isible and colors the past (and therefore the present) in a particular tvay. M71y is there a l>lind spot in relation to religious tvorneil- even in nursing, ~vherethe results of the sisters' efforts sit, clear as l>eacons,in rrlajor inner city real estate portfolios in alrrlost e\-ery rrlajor to~vnand city in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Netv Zealand? The "Church" did

Martha's Turn

15

not buy these properties and build these rrlajor hospitals - srrlall cornrnuilities of hard~vorkingIvornen did. These tvornen Ivere often irnrnigrant, often Irish. They rleitller sought attention rlor receit-ed it. They did not care for suffrage or politics. They did not perceit-e their "~voi-k"in secular terrns. Thus the nursing sisterhoods ha\-e l>een of little irlterest to scholars from tvornen's history and nursing alike.

Margaret Susan Thompson agrees that Catholic women have fallen through the gaps in historical scholarship. She charges that, by neglecting the contril>ution of these tvornen, scholars "help perpetuate incornplete and highly inaccurate perceptions of religion's practice and significance."l(l Until recently, religiolls wornen have been dealt with seriously only l>y "insider" histories.li But religious histories, even ones syrnpathetic to the sisters, cornrnonly reirlforce this in\-isibility. For instance Rlarvin O'Connell descril>es the Sisters of St. Francis's associatioil tvith the Rlayos in Rochestel; nlliililesota (of Mayo Clinic farne) in terrrls that rernove the sisters' agency and initiative. He describes the hospital as opening "under the supervision of Rlayo," even though the sisters raised all the capital, and otvned the hospital, and Mayo had to be erltreated to support thern.lx Even George C:. Stewart, Jr.'s I ~ . I ( [ ~ -of ~ ICl~([l-itj, ~I,c while it lauds the nuns and their contribution to Xrrlericail society, at tirrles still reillforces the passivity of the sisters and the guiding hand of their male corlfessors (pastors and priests) ."I The situation is improving. Jo Ann McNarnara's Si.cte>:ciri Al-tt~.cgave ~vornen'sreligious life in the Catholic Church its o1vi1history and its o ~ v n mark."' Recent texts such as Mary Peckham Magray's The Tmtisfol-ttlirig Pon~ero f t l ~ e , Y ~closely ~ / ~ s exarrliiled the irrlpact of the Irish sisterhoods, and reconceptualized Ireland's farnous "devotional re\-olution" of the secoild half of the rliileteeiltll century as the sisters' achievement, not their genesis." Susan O'Brien's detailed work on the impact of French sisters in ITictorianEngland also errlpllasized the irrlportarlce of the sisters' introduction of their highly refirled "fernale decorative arts" into the stark Puritan aesthetic of 111 American history a cadre of women llistoriarls ha\-e tapped the rich archival sources to tvrite the stories of Catholic Ivornen pioneers. For instance, Carol Col>urnand Martha Srnith ha\-etvritten of the Sisters of St.Joseph of Carorldelet and 1)rought to the field a thorough account of the challenges the sisters faced and their contril>ution to the Catholic cornrn~nity.':~ Suellen Hoy's work charts the rrlajor contril>ution of Irisll tvornen to religious life in North Llrrlerica.21 Canadian scholar Elizabeth Srnyth has examined the marginal position of Catholic sisterhoods, particularly ~vithrespect to their ~voi-kin the

16

Chapter 2

field of education, and highlights the existence of a professioilal identity arrloilg religious ~ v o r n e n . ~ ~ This growing corpus of scholarly work has been concerned with the scope and impact of the sisterhoods. For instance, Coburn and Srrlitll cover the range of apostolic tvorlt, ~vithsorrle errlpllasis on education."" Srnyth's work on the influence of the sisterhoods, too, foclises on edlication." Joan Lynaligh, Jean Richardson, and Bernadette MacC:auley have pro\-ided analyses of nursing by sisters in Kansas Cit); Buffalo, and Netv York City respectively.'?hnd Kathleen Joyce's research synthesized these local studies into the historical backgro~mdto her largely ttventiethcentury re\-ie~vof religious hospitals in the United States. Barbra nllailil Wall rno\-edthis project further 1,y uildertaking a comparative analysis of t~vocornrnunities, the Sisters of the Iilcarrlate Tl'ord and the Sisters of the Holy Narrle in the !vest and rrlici~vest.~!~ To be sure, Chtholic women were not the only nineteenth-centliry religious Ivorneil to forrrlalize cornrnunity and to live apart yet in the tvorld. Scllolars of I'ictorian Eilglarld such as Martha I'icinus, Susan Casteras, and rrlore recently Susan Rlurnrn ha\-e provided details of the iiltricacies and diversity of religious cornrnuility arrloilg Xilglicail t~ornen.:~(' T'Vhile there is sorrle discussion of the nursing ~vorltto ~vhichset-era1of these cornrnunities tvere devoted, tvith the exception of Judith Rloore's tvorlt these refererlces rerrlairl tangential to the cerltral focus of these scllolars on the tvornen's cornrnunity life.:i1The deaconesses, particlilarly the Gel-rrlail and Xrrlericarl deacoiless rnovernents, have yet to receive such detailed exp~sition.:~' This omission is quite startling, given the primary sigrlificailce attached to Kaisers~verth,Gerrnaily in the early development of Protestarlt nursing cornrnuilities, and its influence on Florerlce Nightingale's \-ocation to nurse.

I b r n e n ailtl "Gootl Works" Blit who were these vowed wornen and how were they formed? In the Catholic Church, technically spealting, religious Ivornen tvho nursed Ivere not "nuns" but sisters in a cornrnunity of religious Ivornen. The term nun is an ancient one and irrlplies solerrlrl \-o~vs. Traditionally, solerr111 \-o~vs tvere lifelong, and \-otved tvornen Ivere b o ~ m dto rerrlaiil erlclosed in their con\-ent. They could not engage in apostolic tvork- nursing, orphanage ~vork,or teaching. The legal status of the rnany nineteenthcentury sisterlloods Ivas as conf~lsedas the terminology. In the nineteenth century the Catholic Church did not forrnally recogrlize the 11011ellclosed sisterhoods, and u p to 1900 each application for papal appro\-a1 Ivas dealt tvith on a case-by-case1,asis. This led to quite a degree of \-ariatiorl from one cornrnunitv to the next. Cornrnunities of tvornen could

Martha's Turn

17

be conternplati\-e,~vhichrrleailt tvitlldra~vnfrorrl the ~vorldand de\-oted to prayer- such as the Carmelites. Others Ivere restricted in tvhat tvas permitted; for instance, sisters rrligllt l>e allo~vedto teach, but the girls needed to enter the convent grounds as the Ivornen Ivere not allo~vedto leave, as Ivas the case ~viththe Ursulines. Other cornrnunities Ivere quite unrestricted in their pastoral activities and engaged in any ltirld of ~vorlt (prison visiting, asylurn tvorlt, rescue of tvornen) such as the Irish Sisters of Charit); the Sisters of Rlerc!; and the origiilal Daughters of Charity of St. \'incent de Paul. Each cornrnunity, then and no~v,is defined l>y its rule - a guide to the sister's identity as a rrlerrlber of this cornrn~mity,and the cllarisrrl (the special tvorlts such as nursiilg or care of the elderly) that the holy foundress had estal>lished the cornrnunity to pursue. Not all sisterhoods engaged in nursing, much less founded hospitals, but for sorrle this tvorlt Ivas ceiltral to their charisrn. X final point. Catholic cornrnunities of tvornen in the ilirleteerltll century tvere part of an iilterilatiorlal and an internationalizii~gchurch. Catholic tvornen Ivere caught up ill the great diaspora that led to the establisllrrlerlt of the Catholic Church in the English-spealting tvorld - in Britain as tvell as in the settler societies of North Xrrlerica and Australia. Gerrnan, Italian, and Polisll Catllolics also errligrated in great nurnbers. In the nineteenth century 91 of the 119 cornrnunities estal>lishedin the United States Ivere "European or Canadian in origin.":':' But the cornrnuilities estal>lishedon local soil or irrlported frorrl Europe Ivere not static in this changing ~vorld.Irish cornrn~mitiesassurned Australian or Xrrlericail identities, Gerrrlail cornrnunities becarrle Xrnerican. But rrlost cornrnonly Xrrlericarl and French cornrn~mitiesIvere filled ~vithIrish and Gerrrlail Ivornen - especially Irish ~ v o r n e n .It: ~all depended on immigration and recruitment patterns. This nineteenth-century flood of actit-e Ivornen follo~veda path piorleered in se\-enteentll-cei1t11ryFrailce l>ythe Daughters of Charity. Given that so rnany nursing cornrnunities tvere forrnall!; or in spirit, linked to this French \-ision of a nursing sister, it is tvorth exarninirlg tvhat tvas so radical and inno\-ativeabout the Daughters of Charity of St. \'incent de Paul.

Conn ter-Reforrnatioil Piety In seventeenth-centll-y France, the laity (or ordinary believers) estahlished nationtvide secular societies to spread the missionary zeal of the Co~mter-Reformation- the radical rno\-ernent that Ivas the Catholic Church's response to the cllallerlge of Prote~tantisrn.:~' Vincent de Paul (1576-1660) Ivas able to llarrless this zealous piety of the tvell-l>orninto forrrlal charital>le fo~mdationsand open a huge reservoir of ferrlirliile energy and t a l e ~ l t . :\'incent ~(~ de Paul's achievement was remarkable in

18

Chapter 2

that he succeeded tvhere so rnany others had failed: he Ivas able to institute and forrnalize an active (uncloistered) forrrl of religious life for Ivornen. In 1617, in collal~oratioi~ ~vithLouise de Rlarillac, he founded a national lay society: the Ladies of Charity (Darnes de la Chariti.). The Ladies of Charity pro\-ed successful in the pro\-inces\-isitingthe poor and ~vorkingarrloilg the sick. Hotvet-el; in the cities, the enorrnous popularity of the rno\-ernent arrlorlg the aristocracy proved prol>lernatic. In ailcierl ri.girne France, the social distance bettveen the poor and the ladies of the court, of ~vhornthe Paris confraternities of the Ladies of Charity Ivere comprised, tvas so great that Louise de nllarillac organized hurnbler Ivornen to perforrrl the taslts of care of the sick or poor on behalf of the de\-outladies of her society. In 1630 she began taltiilg couilti-ytvorneil into her llorrle and hiring them out as nurses to the Ladies of Charity. The Daughters of Charity (Filles de la Charite) errlerged as a solution to the problerrls of class and piety ~vhen,in 1633, Louise de nllarillac received ITincentde Paul's perrrlissiorl to offer these hurnhle tvornen spiritual as ~vellas practical instruction ill the tvorlt of the Chariti.~.::' The Daughters of Charity represented a new form of religiolis life. Extending the traditiorl of tertiaries, the un\-o~ved category of religious affiliate that errlerged in the t~velfthcentury and rrlost notal>lyproduced groups of Ivornen such as the Beguines, the Daughters tvere not a religious order in the strict sense of the terrn.::TThe religious state was precisely defined in the seventeenth century as the avotval of @e,;Detunl poverty, obedience, and chastity. W l a t is rnore, the rnedie\-a1latv of clausurn (cloister) for tvornen religious had l>eenreaffirrrled at the Council of Trent, and the Co~mter-Reforrnatiorlchurch ~vouldtolerate no exceptions. Pious tvorneil had a single vocational path - ~vithdratvalto the cloister. As a result of these constraints, the Daughters of Charity Ivere soelrrs not religieuses, they took only pri\-ate annual votvs, and their rule Ivas not ~vrittenuntil the society Ivas ~vellestal>lished.::!' Ever consciolis of their precariolis position, \'incent de Paul instructed the Daughters of Charity on tvhat to say if questioned l>ya bishop: If lle asks \ ou \lllo \ ou are, and ~f\ o u are rel~g~ous, tell lllirl no, b\ the grace of CTod;that ~t 1s not that \ o u do not ha\e h ~ g hesteem for ~ e l ~ g ~ obut l l s ,1f \ o u nere like tllerll \ ou \\ ould ha\ e to he enclosed, nrld that as n result \ ou \\ ould ha\ e to sn\ good-he to the serTlce of the pool Tell hlln that \ o u ale pool Dallghters of C h a r ~ t \and , that \ o u are gnen to God f o ~the serTIce of the poor, and that \ o u a1 e free to retlre or to he sent n ~ l n \ . ~ "

The second distinction bet~teenthe Daughters of Charit1 and traditional religious \\as that the Daughters I\ ere o\ ert\ helrningl\ of hurnhle origins. As mail\ as 80 percent of the earl\ recruits !\ere illiterate." Thus

Martha's Turn

19

the do~vryrequirement for convent eiltrarlce and the traditioilal literate religious life of liturgical de\-otionand prayer tvould sirnply have l>eenbeyond thern. As a consequence of their rrlodest l>acltground, the spiritual life of the Daughters of Charity Ivas de\-eloped and nourished by other, less traditioilal rneans. The selection process for Daughters of Charity tvas rigorous. The dispositiorl of the recruits Ivas scrutiilized and they Ivere only accepted into the order to becorrle one of "Christ's rnilitia" if they Ivere strong of l>odyand rnind, above reproach in rnoral/sexual deportrnent, and able to tvork. In return, the order provided for its rrlerrlbers in equally pragrrlatic terrns. It offered the successful recruit "a steady tvage, free accornrnodation, clothing, security, a rnodicurn of corrlfort in illness and old age, a decent l>urial,and also the sense of social prorrlotiorl that rnernhership of such ail esteerrled cornrnunity entailed." ' T h i s "esteem and social promotion" should not be underestimated as an irrlportailt attraction, along ~viththe ecorlorrlic security that tvent tvith rnernbership. Xccordirlg to derrlograpllic data used l>yJones, appi-oxirnately 7 percent of Ivornen in seventeenth-cerlt111-yFi-arlce Ivere unmarried. l:) The prospect of a secure existence for Ivornen ~vithoutfinancial iildepeildeilce Ivas slight. As Daughters of Charity these Ivornen tvere free from those rnaterial concerns. But of course the Daughters of Charity tvere rrlore than just ~vorkers:they Ivere a religious phenorneilon. The Daughters represeilted a potverf~llcorrlhirlatioil of asceticisrrl and pious service for corrlrrlorl Ivornen. Throughout the set-enteenthand eighteenth centuries the pheilorrleilorl of these pious tvorneil ~voi-lterscontinued to gi-o~v.Cornrnuilities of ~vornenIvere inspired by the Daughters of Charity, and the social apostolate for Ivornen that this forrrl of religious life pro\-idedbegan to l>e noticed in Protestarlt countries. The anticlerical French Revolution put an end to the rnonurnental grotvth of these cornrnunities, and tvhile sorrle !vent to the guillotine, the redesigilated "citizen ilurses" generally continued their ~vork,llorloriilg their corltracts tvith municipal authorities and leaving rnartyrdorn to the highhorn Carmelites. l 1 Under Napoleon the nursing sisterhoods, alone of the Catholic religious cornrnuilities, tvere fully and irnrnediately restored, successfully resisting the Ernperor's urge to unify all cornrnunities into a single national nursing l>ody.

Nirleteenth-Centlli-J Catholic Revival The anticlericalism expressed during the Re\olution continued to be a feature of rlirleteenth-centur\ political life. Frorn the 1848 re\olutions throughout Europe to the Paris Cornrnune in 1871, Garibaldi's Risorgirrlerlto in Itah, Bisrnarch's Kulturharnpf ill German\, and the Third Re-

20

Chapter 2

puhlic of France, Catholicisrn Ivas \-ie~vedas the eilerny of nationalism, lil>eralisrn, and socialisrn. Despite, or perhaps because of, its errlhattled state, in France fernale piety surged to an extraordinary let-el of intensity. Hundreds of thousands of Ivornen (cornpared to a fetv thousand rnen) heard God's call and rushed to join religious cornrnunities."' In 1878 there Ivere 133,000 religieuses ill France, seven for every thousand French tvornen. li The Irish church, too, a close companion of the French church, tvas about to l>egiilthe greatest corrleback in Christian historygoing frorrl alrrlost iloilexisterlt at the turn of the century (due to the efforts of the British to suppress the Catholic Church under the Penal Codes) to the je~velill the cro~vnof the Catholic Church's Englishspealtirlg ernpire l>y1900.l8 TVornen played no rrliilor part in this Irish Catholic rel>irth; l>et~veen 1841 and 1901 the nurnber of Irish nuns illcreased eightfold tvhile the Irish population halt-ed."' This figure does not include the export of nuns to the rest of the United Kiilgdorrl and the New World. For not only did the Irish church provide enorrnous ilurnbers of priests for missionary posts throughout the ~vorldbut, as Suelleil Hoy has pointed out, Ireland pro\-ided a hothouse for English-speaking ferrlale religious recruits. These recruits tvere obtained l>oth through direct rneasures (recruitrrlerlt drives) and through the estal>lishrnent of novitiates for overseas missions, training schools for bright girls tvithout do~vryprospects, and sodalities - parish societies. For instance, St. Brigid's Missionary School in Killtenny (1884-1958) trailled o\-el-1,900 young Ivornen for con\-ents, primarily in Australia, Netv Zealand, and the United States."' By midcentury Gerrnany Ivas also undergoing a Catholic revit-al, tvith cornrnuilities of religious Ivornen providing the impetus and energy belliild the rel>uildingand reassertioil of a Gerrrlarl Catholic identity." Cut short by Bisrnarck, this tvorlt yielded fruit for the New TVorld as rrlillioils of Gerrrlails abarldoiled Europe and headed abroad.

In the nineteenth centlirl as t o d a ~ ,there Jtas no single training that all Catholic sisters uildert\ eilt. There I\ ere and are, hot\ e\ el; important traditions - a repertoire of possil>ilities- that the fo~mdressesdret\ upon to create a pclrticulclrcorrlrrlunit\ of norrleil religious. The priilcipal ti-'1ditioils for nursing cornrnunities tiere the Rule of St. I'incent de Paul,

Martha's Turn

21

Figure 1. .Sirt~r.rof Cicrr.itj. Il'ood car~ing,Chsimir Tollet, from Les Edifices ho.sl~itcrlios, 1892. T\vo nulls \\.as11and bandage a inail ill a French llospital \vard, possibl:, a inilitary hospital. Courtes:, ofNationa1 Lihrar:,of Llediciile, Bethesda, hlarylaild.

22

Chapter 2

F ~ g u r e2. LL4inbrrlcrnce. X n a ~ sCoudour, France, 1870. Interlor of a Red Cross h o s l ~ ~ t na la ~ dduring the slege of Paris ~ + o u n d e ds o l d ~ e rb e ~ n ghelped b~ a ilurslilg 11~11a n d a Red Cross nurse. Courtesl of N a t ~ o n a Llhrarl l of hled~clne, Bethesda, \la1 \ l a n d

the Rule of St hugustine ( t h ~ hospital s code dates hack to the Ch-usades aild the hospitaleis), and the Rule of St. Francis. The \'incentian rrlodel \\as the irlost influential on nineteenth-centui~iluisirlg coirlirluilities of Catholic aild Protestailt norrlen. This rule \\as de\ eloped in se\ enteenthcelltun France. TZ'ith it a nev rrlode of religious life for norrleil errlerged !\here foi the fii st time the acti\ e apostolate (01 good \\ orlts) I\ as the coi e of tlleir spiiitual life.') T\'hat \'incent de Paul and Louise de Marillac cleated nith the original Daughteis of Charit\ !\as 1' iule for nornen \\here "\\oih" \\ah central.?l TVoi-k dominated o\er praler, o\er dail\ of-

Martha's Turn

23

fices. These tvornen's very religious life !\.as defined 1)y a pragrrlatic attention to the needs of those around thern, as distinct frorrl an ascetic spiritual life of prayer. The irrlpact of this initiative is hard to overstate. It pro\-ided the rrlodel for countless Catholic cornrnunities and the ubiquitous St. \'incent Hospital; influenced Lutheran Theodur Fliediler in Kaisers~verth,founder of the deacorlesses rno\-ernent;rno\-ed Quaker Elizabeth Fr); prisorl reforrrler and founder of the group of Protestarlt tvornen ~ v h o called thernsel\-es the Sisters of Mercy; and illspired all the Ailglicarl sisterhoods and, of course, Florence Nightingale. To join a religious cornrnuility ill the iliileteerltll century a tvornan cornrnonly needed a dotvry. Although hurnble cornrnunities such as the French Daughters of Charity did not ha\-e a dotvry requirement, ill the first half of the rliileteeiltll century in Ireland, \\.hen elite Ivornen dorniilated the convent rno\-ernent, the rninirnurn surn \\.as £500-600. By the second half of the century it had dropped to £200-300."" Lay sisters, who forrrled a servant class in convents, did not require a dotvi-y. Ho~vever,the Catholic diaspora radically altered the opport~mitiesavaila1)le to tvornen ~vithoutdo~vries.To attract !vornen on "rnissions," that is foundations ill non-Catholic countries such as Australia and North Arnerica, the dotvi-y requirerneilt \\.as cornrnonly ~vaived.In the United States, too, the distinction bet~veenlay sisters and clloir sisters carrle to 1)e coilsidered undernocratic and \\.as a1)andoned 1)y cornrn~nities."(~ The religious training ofwornen in the nineteenth centllryis difficult to investigate or cornpare. The rule of each cornrnunit!; the designated prayers and suggested readings, novitiate training, retreats, and special de\-otions,all deperlded on a coilstellatiorl of factors - such as the inclination of and influences oil the foundress. Ail irrlportailt influence \\.as the fo~mdress'sconfessor. Here the rnan's otvn religious ti-airling !\.as highly significant. If he !\.ere a\'incentian (a rrlerrlher of the rrlale order of priests established 1)y \'incent de Paul), then this iilflueilce \\.as likely to 1)e pronounced. If he !\.ere aJesuit, then the spiritual exercises of Ignatius Loyola ~vould1)e important. The foundress of a cornrnunity also relied on her otvn stroilg spiritual call-\\.hat God \\.as derrlaildiilg of her. Her rule !\.as de\-eloped in collaboratiorl ~vithsympathetic clerg!; tvho ~vouldassist its srrlootll passage through the \'aticail. For instance, the rule of the Irish Sisters of Charity had a strongJesuit influeilce. Rlary Xilterlllead had beer1 unable to undergo her novitiate trairliilg in France (due to ~var)and had gone to York in Erlglaild instead. The Bar Convent at Yorktvas the Institute of the Blessed \'irgin, founded 1)y Ward, the so-called fernale Jesuit. Later, the rule of the Irish Sisters of Charity \\.as forrnulated tvith the assistailce of a Jesuit p i - i e ~ t .X " ~similarly complex story collld be told of e\-erycornrn~mity,as each rule has its history and its o ~ v nset of religious traditiorls that it calls upon to shape the tvornen tvho enter the cornrnunity.

24

Chapter 2

The training of novices tvas (and is) the responsibility of the no\-ice rnistress. The novice rrlistress tvas the rrlost sigilificailt person in the cornrnunity after the rrlotller superior. She tvas cornrnonly in that role for rnany years, and could l>e responsible for an entire generation of novices. The no\-ice rrlistress assisted no\-ices to achieve spiritual perfectiorl through attendance to the rule and the study of the life of the holy fo~mdress.No\-ices tvorlted on spiritual exercises recorrlrrlerlded by the fo~mdress,and in ol>edienceto the no\-icerrlistress and the rrlotller superior. Corrlrrlorl texts for study in the iliileteerltll century Ivere the I~nitatio Christi and the Life of St. Teresa of Ll\-ila.'"7ir~cent de Paul provided explicit guidelines for nursing sisters in his "Conferences," lessoils he held in a ~vorkshopf ~ i - r n a tThese . ~ ~ classes were faithfillly recorded by Louise de nllarillac and subsequently published and translated. The Confererlces Ivere ~videlyused l>ynursiilg cornrnuilitie~.(~~' In addition to the novice mistress, the confessor for the community played an irrlportailt role in the religious life of the sisters and rrligllt or rrligllt not l>ein\-olved directly in the forrrlatioil of no\-ices.As their confessor he tvas respoilsible for providing spiritual guidance to sisters (during confession), for conducting religious services for thern, and often for lloldiilg retreats for thern. Retreats tvere a time tvhen each rrlerrlher of the cornrnunity exarrliiled herself, her ~vork,and her ol>edienceto God, and then reaffirrrled her vo~vs.The question of corlfessor Ivas often a \-exed one. Sisters tvent to great lengths to have control over the selection of their confessor, one ~ v h ofitted in ~viththeir traditiorl and offered them spiritual guidance sympathetic to their rule.'ll As archbishop of Dublin, Paul Cullell drily rerrlarlted about the sisters: "Although after their fashion they ~villdo rlotlliilg but as they tvill be told, still, they ltno~vhotv to rrlailage so as to l>etold tvhat they tvish."'l2 Just as there was and is great variance in religiolis rule, there was also a \-ariety of organizational rrlodels of religious life. In the rliileteeiltll centur); religious cornrn~ulitiesof tvornen not sul?ject to the cloister rule Ivere a new pheilorneilon outside France and New France. Rorrle did not proclairrl any general rule or guidelines for these new cornrnuilities, and each car\-edits o ~ v npath in adaptation to local needs, ~vhileat the sarrle time praying for forrrlal recogilitioil frorrl Rorne, terrrled Papal approbatio11.'~:~ The L7incentian mode of organization revolved around the rnothe r h ~ u s e . (A~11l recruits were trained centrally in the Paris head office or rnotherhouse. This practice ensured that e\-ery Daughter of Charity received identical training, Ivas shaped ~ m d e rthe experieilced eye of the novice rrlistress for the entire cornrn~mity,and Ivas sent into the field from Paris to a region atvay frorrl her horne. In this Ivay recruits Ivere transforrrled from sirrlple pro\-incial tvornen into Daughters of Charity. This centralized organization also rrlade the Daughters relatively irldeperlderlt

Martha's Turn

25

of church politics and the machinations of bishops. In financial terrrls it rrlearlt that they could allocate their resources centrally and strategicall!; as opposed to being stvept up ill each bishop's plan for charital>le tvorlts in his diocese. It also rrlearlt that the cornrnunity had to ha\-e organized structures to reiilforce the liillts bettveen the sisters, tvho ~vorkedin pairs in regioils far from their llorrles and far from Paris. The Daughters of Charity estal>lished elal>orate cornrnunication ilet~vorks,~vrittenreports of confererlces ~vithI'incent de Paul, ile~vsletters,retreats, and annual visits to rrlaiiltaiil their spiritual life in such difficult isolatioil. For instance, ~vhenone rrlerrlber died her fellow sisters tvould participate in a collective ol>ituary process. A11 the glory and individual credit denied in life Ivas granted in death and used as a rrleails to streilgtlleil the Daughters' collectit-eboilds and to reillforce the heroic nature of their calling. In the nineteenth-century Netv Tl'orld, these rrlecllailisrrls ltept ah\-estrorlg liillts bettveen Ivornen isolated l>y rnany thousands of rniles. They pro\-ided sisters ~vithguidance in their piorleerirlg endeavors and nourished new fo~mdations~vithrecruits trairled at the rnotherhouse in Cologne, or Ernrnitsl>urg (Rlarylaild), or Cork, or Rlontreal. Instead of follotving the rnotherhouse rnodel, sorrle cornrnunities coilstituted each house separately. In this case legal jurisdiction for the cornrnunity came not from a central body but from the diocese ~vherethe cornrnunity resided. The Sisters of Mercy tvere (and are) one such group. As an iilterilatiorlal cornrnunity they rrlairltairled strorlg links ~vithintheir organization, but rerrlairled fully under the jurisdiction of their local bishop. Hotvet-el-,~vhethercornrnunities of tvornen are rnotherhouse or diocesail in organization, conflicts tvith rrlerl dorrlirlate nearly all their stories. Wlether the prol>lerntvas the theft of the sisters' rnoney l>ypriests or bishops, or punishments such as the denial of sacrarrleilts and interference ~viththeir rule, the Ivornen frequently struggled against heat-? odds to keep their ~voi-kgoing and their cornrn~mitiesintact. Cornrnunities tvith a rnotherhouse structure rerrlairled free to quit a diocese ~vherea bishop or one of his clerics rrlade their lives a misery;"" diocesan commuilities did not ha\-e this option. Yet, despite the plentiful tales of oppression, as Tllorrlpsoil points out, "nuns Ivere in a seller's rnarltet."(l(lT'Vhen e\-erybishop needed the energy and sltill of the sisters to help de\-elophis diocese, it made sense to ~voorather than l>ully.Moreot-er, as the sisters becarrle rrlore experierlced in l>oth their ~voi-kand their organization, they ltnetv hotv to rrlarlage situations that their predecessors did not.'li The nineteenth-century Catholic Church Ivas distinguished by the \-ariety of forrrl and structure of religious life. There tvere large cornrnunities ~vithrnany convents or houses all ruled l>ytheir rnotherhouse, there tvere large cornrn~mities~vitheach house a separate entity operatirlg ~vithin

26

Chapter 2

its diocese; there tvere also cornrnunities that started off one Ivay and split, changed, and rrlerged o\-el-tirne. For instance, tvhen nllotller Setoil f o ~ m d e dthe Xrrlericail Sisters of Charity in 1807, these tvornen operated under a rnotherhouse structure. Rlid-century the New York Sisters of Charity and the Sisters of Charity of Cirlcirlrlati split to becorrle diocesarl cornrnunities. The Xrrlericail Sisters of Charity then rrlerged ~viththe French cornrnunity, becorrliilg a branch of the Daughters of Charity of St. I'incent de Paul. Thereafter the Sisters of Charity of Ciilciililati forrrled other foundations ~vellbeyond the diocese of Cincinnati.'18 The communities of sisters that were highly s~lccessfillas nurses tended to be of the rnotherhouse structure, though not exclusit-elyso. The large cornrnunities of Daughters of Charity, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of St. Joseph, and Sisters of Pro\-idence all becarrle rrlajor health care pro\-iders. The rnotherhouse structure fostered skill de\-eloprnent, and the Catholic Church uilderstood and valued l>othtraining and experience. The spiritual training of the sisters equipped thern to lead, to establish netv cornrnunities, and to recruit and trairl new rnernhers. It Ivas ~vhatseparated the sisters fi-orrl the rather rnotley group of enthusiastic arnateur secular nurses that began to appear follotving the Crirrlearl M'ar and the Civil M'ar.

Protestant Apostolic Call For a Protestant wornan the situation was very different. For her; God's call tvas to the place into tvhich she had l>eenplaced by God - the farnily llorrle as a daughter, a ~vife,a rnother. Good deeds reflected God's 1)lessirlgs and rederrlptiorl tvas a matter of acceptance of God's ~vill.In a radical shift in perspective, virtuous Protestarlt tvornen in the nineteenth century extended the l>ounds of the dorrlestic sphere to ellcornpass the social needs of those a r o ~ m dthern. This refrarning of the ferrlale realrrl of influence gat-e perrrlissioil for Ivornen to re-site their energies l>eyond their o~vnfour ~valls. As the ilirleteerltll century ~voi-eon, possil>ilitiesfor Protestarlt Ivornen slo~vlyernerged. The first such possibility came out of Germany's Catholic Rhineland. This regioil had been al>sorbed into Protestarlt Prussia ~vith the Corlgress of I'ienna in 1813. The tvork of the Daughters of Charity from the ne~vlyestal>lished rnotherhouse ill Strasbourg began to l>e noticed, and arrloilg Lutherans too there arose a rnovernent for a social apo~tolate.'~!' For Lutheran wornen the most significant event was the revival of the female diacoilate l>yPastor Theodur Fliediler at the srrlall Rhineland totvn of Kaiserstverth in 1838."' Fliedner was both driven by the vocational call to be of service to the poor and needy and stirred by the success of the Daughters of Charity in e\-angelizing arrloilg the poor. His ~voi-krrlai-ked a radical break for Luth-

Martha's Turn

27

erarl Ivornen that rnoved tllerrl into the puhlic sphere. Such Ivas the success of the deacorlesses that tvithin a few decades they trailsforrrled the social institutions of Lutherans ill ilortheril Europe. Deacoilesses from Stvitzerland to Nortvay took over the rrlarlagerrlerlt of hospitals, nursed, and tvorlted arrloilg the needy. In Britain, too, tvornen Ivere called to serve God through tvorlt tvith His needy. But again it Ivas not clear how this could be achiet-ed. Debates in and outside of the pulpit raged on the vexed question of a "Protestant Sister of Charity."i1 Consensus was never to be reached on the subject, but the full garnut of options found expressioil in \'ictorian England, rarlgiilg frorrl the deacorlesses and l>il>lerrlissioilers to female religious cornrnunities scaildaliziilg Protestarltisrrl tvith votvs and hal>its."

Institlitional reform in Britain and institutional foundation in the New Mbrld Ivere situated tvithiil a broad prograrrl of social reforrn. Education, sanitation, housing, the orderirlg of puhlic space, epiderrlic control, and prison, asylurn, and ~voi-lthousereforrrl Ivere all part of the slveep of acti\-ities pursued ill the ilirleteerltll century l>ygood citizens and the state alike. The o\-erpopulated cities and \-ast nurnbers of irrlrrligrarlts from Irelaild and the Continent, coupled tvith the enorrnous prosperity of industrial Britairl and Northeast Xrnerica, estal>lishedthe irnperatit-es of social reforrn. It is here that the rrloderrl professioilal nurse appeared. Professiorlal nursing in its rrloderil foi-rrl errlerged in tailderrl tvith rnajor trailsforrrlatiorls in the rrlarlagerrlerlt of the health of populations, ill the deli\-eryof health care, and, indeed, in the care itself. The history of professiorlal nursing is a story of these nineteenth-century scientific and rrloral irnperatit-es. Under their irnpact, l>y the early t~ventiethcentury, unified training and registratioil procedures Ivere in place in Britain, the United States, Canada, Ireland, Netv Zealand, and Australia. The traditioilal view of these developments is an evolutionary one. Broadly speaking, the trajectory for the errlergerlce of professiorlal nursing goes as follotvs: The predecessors of the rrloderil nurse Ivere the tvell . post-Reformation Eurrlearlirlg but ~mtrainedCatholic nursing n ~ u l sIn rope nursing had fallen into ignol>le hands - ser\-ants and fellotv patients. The reforrrlist nurses, personified in the figure of Florerlce Nightingale, estal>lished trained secular ilursing as a career for respectable Ivornen. Ostensibly, Nightingale's invol\-ernent in hospital reforrrl began ~viththe estal>lishrnentof the Niglltiilgale F ~ m d . Accordirlg to legend, Nightingale deployed these funds to esta1)lish a rrlodel training scllool of nursing at St. Thornas's Hospital in London. St. Thornas's personified tvhat l>ecarne ltno~vnas the Nightingale systern:

28

Chapter 2

all-po~verfulrnatroil, elite corps of students, ti-airling undertaken by !yard sisters, nurses resident in nursing horne. St. Thornas's graduates, so the tale tells, passed out into elite positions as rrlatroils of key hospitals in Britain and throughout the tvorld. Through her tireless correspondence, Niglltiilgale continued to be intimately in\-olved in their achievements. Rloreo\-el-,in additioil to her tvork at St. Thornas's, tvhere she Ivas directly invol\-ed ~viththe nurses, Niglltiilgale Ivas a ltey adviser on all rrlatters corlceriliilg hospitals in Britaiil till the end of the ilirleteerltll century. The impact of the Nightingale legend is as irrlportarlt as the true story. The legend rrlaltes Niglltiilgale the inventor of the trained, elite nurse and the rrloderrl safe hospital. But the Nightingale Fund's reputation depeilded as rnuch oil ~vhatit Ivas perceived to ha\-e achiet-ed as tvhat it actually did.':) The authoritative biography of Nightingale 11y Thomas Coolt Ivas published in 1913, a mere three years after her death. The sources Ivere pro\-ided to Coolt by Sir Henry Borlllarrl Carter, literary executor, lifelong friend, relative and adviser of Nightingale, and secretary of the Nightingale Fund from 1861 to 1914. Many of the figures discussed by Coolt tvere still ali\-e,and the glories of Niglltiilgale's achiet-errlerlts tvere charted in high relief. Rloilica Baly f o ~ m dthat all the suhsequent ~vorkson Nightingale had used Cook as a prirnary source and barely reexarrlirled the origirlal d o c ~ r n e n t sThis . ~ ~ explains the rernarkable consistency of the Nightingale legend. Of course it Ivas very irnportarlt for Nightingale's reforrrls to ha\-e credibility. As Baly puts it, "Xlthough the concept of nurse training had been accepted, it Ivas still necessary to harnrner home the rne~sage."~" Henry Bonham Carter had a \-estediilterest in the "steady progress to~vardthe light" theory of history. Contrary to the official vietv, Baly reveals that not rnany of Nightingale's graduates !vent on to reforrrl the British hospital system, though a few certaiilly did."] Nor was her model training school the actual application of a Nightingale vision; rather, Nightingale lost rnany a battle for control of the school, and the hospital, the trairliilg prograrn, and the nurses it produced seldorrl pleased her. But perhaps the actual story is less the point than the errlhlerrlatic sigilificailce that Niglltiilgale carrle to assurne for nursing. Early llistoriails of Nightingale, and of the development of the profession, to a great extent looked uncritically at the Niglltiilgale legend, sllarirlg the reforrrlist agenda. It Ivas expedient to portray nursing as a unified, educated professioil evol\-ing fi-orrl religious ignorance to sophisticated expertise. These llagiograpllies shaped rrloderil nursing's sense of itself. Their discourse o\-ershadotved earlier developments in nineteenth-century nursing, overstated the iniquities of the past, and overlooked the tvork of other reforrners. recently, ho~vever,Nightingale's vietvs on Ivornen, class, rrledical authority, and nursing education

Martha's Turn

29

disappoiilted a generation of re\-isionisthistorians tvho l>larned the elitist and feminized nineteenth-century retvorlting of the nurse for rnany of the contemporary trials of the nursing p r o f e s ~ i o i l . ~ ~ But history always tells 11s ahout the present, about what we choose to study and care to re\-eal about our collectit-e past. The study of nursing nuns has offered rlotllirlg to the professioilal project that until quite recently so expeilded ilursing's historical energies. For other llistoriarls the picture again lacks nuns. They are, after all, hard to see through the ~vallof fortllrigllt tvornen tvith opinions on issues that still matter to us such as politics and ferninisrn. English historian Xilile Surnrners has been a lone voice since the 1980s, explodirlg the notior1 of secularization and professiorlalizatior1. Her tvork emphasizes the role of philanthropy, religion, and class in the gentrification of nursing.'Her research on the Protestarlt nurses reveals the irrlportailt ground~vorkperforrrled by religious nurses ill Erlglaild in raisiilg clinical and professiorlal expectatioils of nurses in the lead-in to the Nightingale stoi-y.;" For nursing hagiography in nineteenth-century Protestant England to set out to create nursing anelv, ~vithscant reference to the Catholic Church, is of course perfectly understandal>le. In that sectariarl context, secular nurses Ivere Ivornen tvho tvere not rrlerrlbers of religious cornrnunities- but they Ivere not tvithout religion. F. B. Srrlitll attributes Nightingale's success ill the Crirrlea partly to the fact that Niglltiilgale negotiated this particular rrlirlefield so tvell. "Miss Nightingale had the ad\-antage in the government's view l>yl>eingsafely Protestant but other!vise religiously Summers agrees. She argues that so-called secular ilursing tvas rrlore often than not Protestarlt In fact, the errlergerlce of the irrlage of nursing as secular pro\-ided the rrlearls through ~vhichProtestailt tvornen Ivere able to corrlrrlit themselves to a recognizably Catholic forrrl of life and avoid the sectariarl repercussions. But to depict the nineteenth-century reforrrlers as nonreligious is to rnisunderstand the religiosity of the civic reforrrl rno\-ernent.

Religions Wornen as Nlu-ses Even if the importance of the Catholic and Protestant nursing sisterhoods in the errlergerlce of nursing as a respectal>lepath for Ivornen is granted, it still does not anstver the question ~vhetherthe nuns Ivere corrlpeteilt nurses. The verdict on the nursing corrlpeterlce of the St. John's House Sisterllood in Lorldoil by Surnrners, Moore, and Helrrlstadter is certainly p o ~ i t i \ - e . ~ Vthe o r Catholic sisterhoods, the story is varied and complex. Niglltiilgale at tirrles thought they tvere good nurses, ~vhileat other tirrles she thought not. Her report on Italian nursing nuns Ivas highly critical; hotvet-el-,she had a great deal of time for the "dear Daughters of Charity"

30

Chapter 2

she found ill T~i-key.~:' She was dismissive of her enemies - the Irish contingent of Sisters of Rlercy in the Crirnea, but lauded her allies - the (also Irish) Sisters of Mercy from Bei-rnond~ey.~~ The nursing sisterhoods all engaged in home nursing- this is often overshado~vedl>yllospital nursing. The clinical and social impact of this ~voi-kl>ysisterlloods is difficult to determine. Nonetheless, Magray's exarnirlatioil of Irish records re\-eals a rernarkal>lelevel of cot-erageby nursing nuns. She estirrlates that in 1830 set-en Dublin coil\-eilts\-kited tell thousand patients. By exterldiilg this figure to include household rrlerrlhei-s the figure she estirrlates is 78,000 people came into direct contact ~vitha ilursing Even if a more modest estimate of the range of influence of the sisters is rnade, as a group of Ivornen tvorlting ~viththe siclt poor, their corporate knotvledge of the coilditiorls of the poor and the rrledical and apothecary needs of the siclt must ha\-ebeen considerable. Paradoxically ilursing nuns tvere criticized l>y Dorothy Dix and her nurses for lto~vtotvingto rrledi~irle,~"~vhereas theywere opposed in France for refusing to recogrlize rrledical authority as s ~ p i - e r n e .common ~~h criticisrrl arises out of restrictiorls irrlposed l>ytheir religious rule oil the care of men, the care of pi-egilailt tvornen, and treatrrlerlt of venereal disease. Again there tvas a !vide range l>othin rule and in its application. After all, arrny nursing ill\-olved the exclusive care of rnen, and epiderrlic nursing Ivas not possible ~vithoutattending to the cleaillirless of patients - cllolera nursing scarcely seerrls suitable for the rnodest. In fact, rrlerl ahvays represented the majority of nineteenth-century hospital patients. Sisters at the frontier certainly deli\-eredbabies, although niileteeilth-century Ivornen in child1)irth ~vouldnot expect to be adrrlitted to hospitals, other than specific "lying-in" institutions." Catriona Clear in her landmark work on Irish nuns rrlaiiltaiils that they Ivere not full nurses. She asserts this position even though she cites e\-idencefrorrl a rrledical officer that the sisters did perforrrl all the nursing at the hospital - except for the care of rrleil ~vithvenereal d i ~ e a s e . Clear ~" see.rns unaware that no respectable nurse ~vouldhave perforrrled such care, 1101- tvould she ha\-e been expected to. Secular nurses ~vellinto the t~ventiethcentury received assistance in the irltirrlate care of rrlerl through male nurses, orderlies, and dressers.!"'The final farrliliar criticisrrl raised l>y Clear is that the "daily tirrletable of spiritual examination" irlterfered tvith the sisters' ability to l>e effectit-e nurses. Again, there tvas a !vide range of cornrn~mityexpectatioils of their sisters, expectations that have changed over tirne. Daughters of Charity for instance, ha\-e net-er had in place religious duties that take tllerrl atvay from the bedside. In general, though, as Ive tvill see, the ttventieth century brought pressure frorrl Rorrle on religious tvornen to devote thernsel\-esto a fuller daily prayer regirnen. In the nineteenth centur); long before diplorrlas or training registers,

Martha's Turn

31

these religious Ivornen nursed. They tended the sick, cared for the dying, assisted at surgery and rail apothecaries. They ltnetv the siclt and the poor of their cities and totvns. They took o\-el-during epidernics, and set up ~vellorganized hospitals - sites of philanthropy and rrledical practice. In this tva); the vocational !vat-e of erlergized pious Ivornen trailslated itself into a netv forrrl- the religious nurse. The Rlartllas of the nineteenth century ltept quiet but they did not lteep still. Beneath the attention of rrlerl of potver, unnoticed or disrrlissed by tvornen ~vithvoice and ideas, dri\-en by \-ocational ideals that obeyed God's call, they !vent to ~voi-k.

Chnptrr 3

Free Enterprise and Resourcefulness

Tlrc>\!\tc~r\ o f C h n ~ ! h70!1111cr71~ t l i ~( Ij I !~~(o!/Jotirrbc>~J ~ I ~ I / I I ! / I ~ P I ~ I(IftJr~ PI!~ zs nufho)rsed fo ncrme znfe)ncrl econoin) of the ri/strtutroi/. The Szsfo-Se~-crni/t ! t r d!\~riir\ ~ ~ P ItoI crd~r~itPcrtic>~!tr L, %d/r(/rcr~g~ P l r ~ \ ! o n ~ !to \ , h ! r ~r ~ r i ~ n ~cr~id the thein; to;0)ocu)ei/ecesscr))f~,o-crzsronscrnd mcrke o ~ d r i / n )e\f~endrtu~esfo~ ) esfnblzshinei/t, nitd to ~ e c n z ~moite) e comri/gf,om pnq-f~nfzenfs,doncrfzoi/s 01 ot/r?)U J I S P . . BiriMi~igor to~!\!d?~crblc~ ~c.l,ni~~rliot(I? \ ( ~ I ! ( ~ ! O I ! P I J b~ t / i ~ Bon~d - 1857B1-Ln7orfo1t h ~c>girlcrtio~!, ~ r l f t h ~Trrr\twr o f t l i ~R O ( / I P S \t. ~ PLII I cI~'5~ Hos@rtcrlofthe Srsfe~sof Chcr~zf).'

In the second half of the nineteenth century Catholic hospitals, oxvned and conducted by cornrnuilities of votved Catholic Ivornen, tvere playing a rrlajor role in hospital foundation in the United States. In fact, Catholic sisters f o ~ m d e da total of 299 hospitals l>et~veen1829 and 1900.' The Protestarlt pride and rarrlparlt anti-Catholicism of the period could lead one to assurne that the United States Ivas the c o ~ m t r yleast liltely to support the tvorlt of Catholic Ivornen through taxes let-ied on the hardtvorltirlg Protestarlt majority. One tvould be tvrong. In fact, unlike Britain, ~vhereProtestant dorrlirlarlce Ivas net-el-breached l>ya Catholic hospital system, or Australia, tvhere the large Catholic cornrnunity produced a net~vorkof fine public hospitals o~vnedand conducted l>y cornrn~ulities of Ivornen religious tvith virtually no go\-erilrnent aid in the rliileteeiltll century, in the United States the spirit of free eilterprise paradoxically f~lnctionedto support the sisters' efforts. Throughout the couiltry the sisters Ivere able to pro\-ide the best \-alue for money in the care of the indigent sick, to corrlpete for public teilders to secure these rnonies, to gain coiltracts ~vithinsurers, railroad and rrliiliilg companies, federal govel-nrnent, and arrny. They attracted excellent doctors, collaborated tvith rrledical schools, and rail teaching facilities. Importantly, in return for

Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness 33 their private patients, they opened up hospital practice to pri\-aterrledical practitiorlers excluded l>y the rrledical l>oards of corrlpetiilg hospitals. They thereby estal>lishedprivate hospital care as the province not of the rich but of the rnodest. By the end of the century patient fees Ivere ~vhat supported Catholic hospitals. They created the prototype for the rrloderil t1ventieth-cent~1ryhospital and laid the foundation for the ttventiethcentury dorrliilailce of pri\-ate institutional and rrledical care in the U.S. health care systern. The success of the sisters' nursing tvorlt, far rrlore than their tvorlt tvith schools or orphanages, is the story of the sisters corrliilg to understand the particularities of the Xrrlericail political and ecorlorrlic clirrlate to run the best l>usinessesin the rnarltet. Xrrlerica respected that.

An Actij e Path for Arrlericail I b r n e n Finding their place in the United States was a challenge for the Catholic sisterhoods. As one of the rrlost \-isiblesyrnbols of Catllolicisrrl and foreigil potver (Rorne), the "un-Xrnerican" identity of the nuns caused them a great deal of difficulty. Hotvet-el; the cholera epiderrlics of the first half of the nineteenth century, ~vhenthey \-olunteered to nurse the sick, and later their heroisrn during the Ci\-ilTl'ar, rrlade the nun a corrlplex and unstal>le figure in the Xrrlericail psyche -vilified and rornanticized. In this chapter I exarrliile the impact of Catholic tvornen on the health and ~velfareof nineteenth-century Xrnericans, and their role in shaping the Xrrlericarl health care systern. I look closely at the Daughters of Charity of St. \'incent de Paul, the largest single cornrnunity of Catholic nursing Ivornen, as rrlajor health care providers for both the rliileteeiltll and the t~ventiethcenturies. The irrlportailce of the Daughters' epiderrlic nursing, their role in the care of irrlrrligrarlt cornrnunities, their tvorlt during the Ci\-il Tl'ar, and, finally, their relationship ~vithrrledical rnen, are all irrlportarlt elerrlerlts of their story - and of the story of Xrrlericail nursing. The Catholic nursing sisters, rrlost particularly the Charities, developed a successful rrlodel of hospital sei-\-iceprovision for the Xrrlericarl public. These tvornen created the health senices (to use a rrloderrl terrn), 1)uildirlg their rrlajor institutions through a corrlbiilatioil of sirrlple faith and sophisticated skill. It is the interplay of these attril>utes, faith and sltill, that needs to be ~mderstoodif tve are to appreciate hotv the sisters, as rrlodest votved tvornen, achiet-ed so very rnuch. The Daughters of Charity are irrlportailt for another reason. They represent the first Anglophone adaptation of the rrlodel for an "actit-e" religious life for Ivornen developed l>y\'incent de Paul and Louise de hlarillac.:' We examine how this distinctive path for wornen, which emerged during the Counter-Reforrnatiorl in seventeenth-ceilt~~ry France in response to rnassit-esocial dislocatiorl and ~videspreadpoverty, found such

34

Chapter 3

easy application arrlorlg pious ilineteenth-century Xrrlericarl Ivornen, desperate to rrlalte a differerlce to the suffering that surrounded thern.

Catl-lolicisrnin the Uilitetl States Around the world the C:atholic Church was on the rise in the nineteenth century. And its progress !\.as rernarltal>le. In 1820 no Catholic could hold public office in Britain, the Church had only a tiny presence in the United States, Australia, and Canada, and its missionary actit-ities in the East and Africa !\.ere only beginning. By the end of the centur); it had sur\-it-edtrials of fire to achieve such a positioil of defensi\-e certainty that papal infallibility had been proclairned; the Catholic position in Britain tvas \-astly expanded, ~vithprorrliileilt British con\-erts leading the English church; ill the United States the church tvas filled ~vithirnrrligrailts to becorrle the country's largest congregation; and the Irish church tvas the star in the English-speaking church's crotvil, providing thousands upon thousailds of priests, nuns, and brothers for the ne~vly established English-spealting Catholic ~vorld. But it was not only Catholicism that adopted a tone of strident and over= bearing coilfideilce in the nineteenth century. In the United States the First and Secorld Great ,l~vakeningsstirred religious passions of an evangelical ltind." Many hundreds of thousands of solils were "saved" at revival rrleetirlgs that slvept the country. Rleantvhile, the rising nurnhers of irnrnigrants, industrialization, and the rapid rate of social change in the cities unsettled Arrlericarl coilfideilce in the nation's capacity to assirnilate all the netvcorners and still retain its traditions. In the ceilters that recei\-ed the rrlilliorl Irisll paupers ~ v h ofled the farnine after 1845, such as Boston, Netv York, and Philadelphia, the social dislocatioil caused l>ythe tide of such poor, desperate, and igrlorarlt peasantry flooding into the city slurns led to a rrlajor l>acltlash. In the decade before the Ci\-il Tl'ar, nativist seiltirrlerlt and the political rnovernent knotvn as the "Knot\.-Nothings" set out to counter "foreign" influences. Anti-irnrnigrant feelings frequently spilled over into violence. Anti-Catholic riots took place across the country; the tvorst unrest !\.as in Philadelphia in 1844, \\.here churches and houses \\.ere burned and fifteen people killed. In Louis\-illeill 1835 t1venty !\.ere killed and hundreds injured ill Knot\.-Nothing riots.'] The fears produced by Protestant renewal and the flood of pauper Catholic irrlrrligrarlts \\.ere further iilflarrled by the extraordinarily popular salacious tales of escaped nuns. The traveling road shot\. of "escaped nun" Rlaria Rlonlt (~vithbaby), !\.hose "a~vfuldisclosures" of her convent life !\.ere such a bestseller, provided a type of Puritan porilography that revealed nuns as sex slaves for priests, \\.it11 abortion and infanticide as corrlrrlorl practices, and ~vithunt\.illing girls rrlade captive in an inter-

Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness 33 national ~vhiteslat-e trade.' It was good business for speaking-tour prorrloters and booltsellers, and it spa~vnedail entire genre of "disco\-ered docurnents" such as plans of secret passages bettveen convents and rnonasteries, secret diaries, coilfessioilal docurnents, and testirrlorlials of "escaped" n ~ m and s "reforrned" pi-iestsx The main target of such hostility and fevered imagination was the convent nun - the sister alvay from the ~vorldand erlclosed by high tvalls belliild tvhich unspeakal>le acts tvere thought to l>e cornrnonly perpetrated. The active tvorlting sister, tvhose daily tasks brought her into contact tvith the poor and infirrn, ~vhosehospital pro\-ided care for all, tvas conspicuously al>sent from these accounts. Ho~vever,~vithpassioils running high, the distirlctioil bettveen actit-e sisters and ellclosed orders tvas certainly not clear to an angry mob, and the con\-ent and the llabited Ivornan l>ecarne the direct target of arson and intimidation. Even con\-entsfilled tvith schoolchildren or orphans tvere on occasioil surrounded and threatened. The Ursuline convent burned to the ground ill 1834 ill Charlesto~vn,Rlassachusetts tvas the llorrle of sisters and schoolchildren." Given the climate of hysteria, it must ]lave been unsettlingfor the pious Xrrlericarl tvornan to feel called l>y God to dedicate her life to ~voi-k~vith His needy. For her, as tvith her Eilglisll counterpart, this call tvas a recognizably Catholic one. Protestarlts tvere con\-inced that the Catholic Church preyed on the irrlpressioilable rrliilds of ~vealthytvornen. They suspected rrlacllirlatioils by the nuns tvho conducted scllools for ~vealthy Xrrlericarl girls. Mbrse still Ivere priests (perhaps the dreaded Jesuits), ~ v h oIvere believed to cllarrrl and lure tvorneil to "surrender" to Catholicisrn."' The image of seduction is important, for it offered the central rrlotif of rnany Protestarlt anxieties arouild Catholicisrn and around the relationship l>ettveenthe priest/coilfessor and the young tvornail/nun.ll More reasoned fears were expressed 11y Catharine Beecher. In her Xrrlericarl M'ornen's Education Associatioil 1836 annual report, she ~varnedthat the best and the l>rightest of Protestarlt Ivornen rrligllt l>e driven to con\-ert to Catllolicisrrl "for the potver it gives tllerrl to throtv their energies into a sphere of definite utility under the control of high religious respoilsil>ility."I'

Elizabeth Setorl ailtl the Daughters of Charit) The story of Elizabeth Seton is one such conversion story Elizabeth Ann Seton, first Xrnerican-born saint and founder of the Sisters of Charity in 1807 (later called Daughters of Charity), begail a rno\-ernent of tvornen, the Xrrlericarl Cllarities as they tvere ltno~vn,~ v h oestal>lishedan extensive net~vorkof fine hospitals throughout the country. Elizabeth Seton's path to Catholicism, her rejectioill>yfarnily and society and the difficulties she

36

Chapter 3

and her children suffered ha\-e been ~vellrecorded. Tl'hat is of iilterest here is that her call to Catholicisrn and her call to serve the poor tvere synonymous. This \'illcelltiail irnpulse had no Protestarlt parallel in the first decade of the ilirleteerltll century, and it derrlarlded of Elizabeth that she car\-e the Ivay for Xrrlericail Ivornen. The Napoleonic tvars made the affiliation of the Xrrlericail Charities ~viththe French Daughters irnpossible, so the path tvas created as an Xrrlericail one, led l>yan Xrnerican-l>orn forrrler Protestant. The Xrrlericarl Sisters of Charity l>egan nursing in the first Xrrlericail rrledical teaching hospital tvhen they took o\-er nursing at the Baltirrlore Infirrnary in 1823. The opportunity to ~voi-kat the Baltirrlore Infirrnary, ~vhichIvas affiliated ~viththe University of Rlaryland, tvas the best clinical introduction to rrloderrl rrlediciile and hospital rrlailagerrleilt availal>le at the tirne, and tvas to sei-\-ethe sisters in good stead for further hospital ~voi-k. The rule of the Daughters of Charity, formulated l>y\'iilceilt de Paul and Louise de Marillac, provides guidelines for the sisters in the "exposed" area of hospital tvork. Their training focuses oil the dual rrlaterial and spiritual benefits their nursing tvork l>ringsto the sick poor and gi\-es thern clear guidance oil Ivays to rrlaiiltaiil their "interiority" alvay from the protection of the convent tvalls and gri1le.l:) The success of the sisters at hospital management and nursing built rrlore success. They Ivere experienced nurses ill estal>lished hospitals right at the beginning of the Ivave of hospital foundation that accornpallied url>anization and industrialization. The Sisters of Charit!; therefore, tvere perfectly placed to becorrle experts ill the field. Their cornpeteilce and energy rrlade them rnuch in dernand. Ho~vever,as their energies produced great assets for the needy church, their iildepeildeilce becarrle increasingly irksorrle to rnany l>ishops. This tension carrle to a head for the Xrrlericail Charities in Netv York in 1846.

hlotllerhouse Versus Diocese TTF ( i ~ p t pI I ~ /PI I ~ \ I O ~ O \11(~t(/t0) 5, \ t ( / ~ i d l ~Oi g I ~t 1 1s110)(: ~ 7(1(/t~li11ig /I sli1117o)~(k, ho;Dr~/gcrndfecr~zng, .c/loi/de)ri/g7~~hzch ofthe st) zlgglos 7~loukdbe sn-cled, rc~hrch rc~ouldnot, - Srsto

of C h n ) z f ) ,T Ioj H o s f ~ z f n l1891'' ,

In 1845 Bishop John Hughes of New York declared that he felt the Sisters of Charity required sorrle "rnodification to their systern." The specific difficulty that infuriated Hughes Ivas the care of boys. The care of boys over the age of seven Ivas proscril>ed l>y the rule of the Xrrlericail Sisters of Charity (in conformity ~viththe origirlal French cornrnunity rule).

Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness 37 Hughes needed sisters to care for l>oysand girls in the rapidly exparldiilg parochial scllool systern. He tvanted fifty-t~vosisters, a sixth of the ilatiorlal congregation, to belong to his diocese a1orle.l' The response of the Sulpician priest superior of the Sisters of Charity at their rnotherhouse ill Ernrnitsl>urg,hlarylar~dl(l~vas that "we consider this step of yours as calculated to inflict a deep and dangerous ~vouildon the cornrnuilit!; and if the exarrlple l>e irnitated, and every bishop in the Uilioil had the same right, I tvould corlsider it ~ n o r t a l . " ~ ~ In 1846 the individual Sisters of C h r i t y in New York City were forced to rrlalte a choice - stay in New Yorlt ill a l>reaka~vay cornrnuility ~vithinthe diocese, or leave Netv Yorlt and rerrlaiil part of the origirlal cornrn~mity under the Ernrnitsburg rnotherhouse. Thirty-three of sixty-ttvo Ivorneil chose to rerrlairl in Netv Yorlt at the institutions they had tvorlted so hard to estal>lish.They 1)ecarne the Sisters of Charity of St. \'incent de Paul, of Netv York.lVThis community established St. \'incent's Hospital in 1849 and tvent on to be led l>yBishop Hughes's sister, nllotller Angela Hughes. The division of the cornrnunity and the risk of further splirlteriilg as other bishops rrlade clairrls on the sisters to becorrle purely diocesan ~vorkers,led the cornrn~mityto streilgtllerl its iildepeildeilce l>yseeking unification tvith the cornrnunity in France. In 1838 the Arrlericarl Sisters of Charity 1,ecarne part of the French order, the Daughters of Charity of St. \'incent de Paul, as the Arrlericail pro\-ince of this iilterilatioilal cornrnunity of Ivornen. This uil-Llrnerican rno\-e tvas uilacceptable to sorrle Sisters of Charity, and in the end five iildeperlderlt cornrn~mitiesforrned.l!' This time of turbulence was a decisive event in the history of religious Ivornen in the United States. The increasingly potverf~lll>ishops,as both cornrnunity and political leaders, tvere ~msyrnpatheticto religious ~voi-kers, rrlale or fernale, ~ v h oIvere not under their corrlplete jurisdiction."' The Daughters of Charity were a very important community of women, ~vithextensive resources and rrlore than 300 rrlerrlhers prior to the 1846 split. The 1)ishops tvanted their energy and resourcefulness, but tvanted it as their o~vn,a tool for their rninistr!; not in a collal>orative and negotiated relationship. One elerrlent of the proldern Ivas that the 1)ishops Ivere particularly irritated by the fact that sisterhoods tvith a rnotherhouse systern, such as the Daughters, Ivere guided l>y priests not sul>ject to episcopal authority.'l Moreover; it is scarcely surprising that the patriarchal 1)ishops Ivere irlcliiled to interpret irldeperlderlt beha\-ior by the sisters as e\-idenceof male influence. They appeared to l>etllreaterled by the perceived male usurpation of their diocesan a~lthority.~' C:lerm were consistently blind to the independent authority women exercised ~vithiiltheir otvn organizational structure. This l>lindness has been shared l>yhistorians ~ v h orely on the correspoildeilce bettveen rrleil on sisterhoods' business, interpreting the forrrlal silence of the tvornen as

38

Chapter 3

literal silence, rather than understanding the protocols invol\-edin ecclesiastical corresporlderlce - ~vhichis hierarchical and legal is ti^.':^ It is no surprise that a bishop tvould ~vriteto the male superior (priest) of the Daughters. This does not, hotvet-el-,irnply that the rrlotller superior had no \-ie~vsor iilflueilce oil the matter. Rloreo\-el-,the issue of rnisogyny arrloilg the clerg!; though undenial>le, should not l>e o\-erstated. The Christian Brothers, as a ilorldiocesarl rrlale lay cornrnunity (non-priests) Ivere also in coilstant conflict ~vithpriests and l>ishops.'l In fact, Jesuits, ~viththeir politics and their independence, Ivere prol>al>lyrrlore detested by diocesail clergy than l>y Protestants! The issue here is about polver. The bishop tvas a prince of the church ill his realrn. Those ~ v h olay l>eyond his influence and control tvere a constant thorn in his side.

The Arnerican Con text Despite the split of 1846, the Daughters of Charity continued to build and rrlarlage hospitals throughout the co~mtry,establisllirlg forty-four hospitals l>et~veen 1823 and 1898. (See Table 1 for a list of hospitals established or rrlarlaged by this cornrnunity in the iliileteerltll century.) Xccording to Sister Xrrnigel; tvhose 1947 thesis exarrlirled the nursing tvork of the Daughters of Charity in the Easter11 Province, "the purposes for ~vhichthese hospitals tvere founded car1 l>ereduced to three in order of frequency: 1) pestilence; 2) lack of hospitals in various localities; 3) the requirements of rrledical education."" In what follo~vsI examine the de\-eloprnent of hospitals l>ythe Daughters of Charity of St. ITincentde Paul accordiilg to Xrrniger's precepts plus an additional one - the Ci\-ilWar. Tl'e look specifically at five hospitals conducted l>y the Daughters of Charity: the Buffalo Hospital of the Sisters of Charity, Buffalo, Netv York, f o ~ m d e din 1848; St. Rlary's Hospital, Troy Netv York, founded ill 1850; St. Rlary's Hospital, Rochester, New York, founded in 1837; Pro\-idence Hospital, Tl'ashington, D.C., founded ill 1861; and St. Joseph's Hospital, Philadelphia, rrlarlaged by the Daughters of Charity in 1859-1947. These hospitals are a sarrlple of those conducted by this srrlall group of tvornen, in ~vhatbecarrle the Nortlleast Province of the Daughters of Charit!; o\-elthe ttventy-year period 1848-68. The discussion focuses oil the de\-eloprrlerlt of expertise and persoililel arrlorlg the Daughters and their grotvirlg corporate experierlce as they resporlded to the di\-erse needs and cllallerlges of conducting hospitals.

It has been tell noted that i t Ttas epidemic nursing that first brought the nursing 1\orh of the sisters into prominence. It must ha\e seerrled to the

Free Enterprise and Resourcefulness T ~ B L1EH O ~ P I TE~~LT~ ~I\HED BL 1823-1900

1823 1827 1828 1883 1834 1838 1840 1844 1845 1846 1848 1848 1830 1832 1832 1833 1836 1836 183'7 1838 1839 lSb0 1861 1861 18b2 1863 1864 lSb3 1866 1869 18bt) 1870 1870 1871 1874 1875 1876 1881 1885 1892 1895 1896 1898 1898

OR

1\1m XGED BI

THE D

39

~ U C ~ H TOFECRHXRITI ~ ,

Baltimore Infirmar\ Baltllnore Alarlile Hospltal St. Louls hlullanphl Hospltal, no\\ De Paul hlarlland Hosl~ltal,Baltltnore C llarlt\ Hospital, Neil Orleans lbchmond hledlcal C olleqe Infirmar\ St \ Incent's, \Iolln t H o p e St. \'111~ent s, Dollaldson\llle, Lou~slana St. \'lil~ent s a n d St. LIarl s, Detrolt Ilashlngton Infirmnl 1, Ilashlngton, D C Slsters Hospltal, Buffalo, Ne\\ York St.Jollil's Infirlnnr\ a n d St. Mar\ le nurses abaildorled their posts tvhen the epiderrlics struck."l There is no douht that the sisters received the in\-itation to epiderrlic nursing ~vith both great fervor and great trepidation." Nonetheless, they not only held firrrl but took u p the challenge. Sorrle tvere fearless. Many of course Ivere terrified and prayed to God for coui-age.'"~n the confiision and desperatioil that struck the cities in the rrlidst of an epidernic, there Ivas sorrletlliilg extraordinary in the lleroisrrl and calrrl tvith ~vhichthe sisters \-olunteered to nurse ill the cholera, smallpox, yellow fe\-el; typhoid, and diphtheria hospitals. It tvas the rrlost \-isible and corporeal of actions. Their distinctive dress, their calrrl demeanor, their pious acceptance tvere all ancient and po~verfulChristian rrlotifs that stood notv in stark contrast to the panic, desertion, and pl~mderingof a city in the grip of an epidernic. It Ivas the type of behavior that had astounded the Rorrlails during the plagues of the third century, and its impact Ivas no less po~verful during the nineteenth-century !vat-es of cholera."\hnd in the Unites States, too, ~vherernany people still iilterpreted epiderrlics as di\-ineretribution, the actions of the sisters, the polver of their faith, and their heroisrrl touched ~nany.:~) The epidemic nursing of the sisters also provided the city authorities ~vithsomething of a fait accornpli. Tl'hat could they do tvith those hospitals once the epiderrlic had subsided? The epiderrlic could returil at any tirne; there Ivere still no nurses to speak of; the sisters had earrled the respect and trust of all and Ivere tvell entrenched in the hospital. To throtv tllerrl out ~vouldbe at the \-eryleast ungrateful and graceless. It Ivas a llaild played tvell l>ythe sisters in Irelaild and in the United States. By these rrleails - through initiative and then l>ydefault - they acquired the rrlailagerrleilt of a great rnany puhlic institutions, fi-orrl the Charity Hospital in Netv Orleails to St. ITincent'sHospital in Norfolk, I'irgi~lia.:~~ The Church's position in these cities and towns laid waste by epidemics Ivas critical. So rnany of the dead and dying tvere the Church's o~vn.It tvas the poorest tvho suffered the rnost, and the poor Ivere the irrlrrligrailt Irish in the slurns of the industrial So not only were the sisters serving the poor and dying, they Ivere rrlaltiilg sure that Catholic souls Ivere restored to God. For a nineteenth-century pauper, to find oneself a cllolera \-ictirn in the care of a nun, perhaps fi-orrl one's otvn horneland, rnust surely have l>eena potverf~llincellti\-eto return to the faith of one's birth. As the Xrlrlals record, many a prodigal soul affirrrled the evangelical rrlissiorl of the sisters in those circumstances. In Buffalo the cholera epiderrlic of 1849 tvas the first big test of the

Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness 41 Daughters and their hospital, and they rrlailaged to bring almut a great success. The sisters rose to the occasion to derrlorlstrate such heroisrn, de\-otion,and care that praise poured ill from all quarters.:':$Bishop Timon of Buffalo expressed ill his cori-espoildeilce the belief that "the service of the sisters during the cllolei-a epiderrlic earned them respect and acceptance arrlorlg Protestarlt cornrnunity elites. ":$l The sisters were also praised by the Elifalo il.IedirnlJolrrtlnlfor their "astonishing" dedication.:$' But it Ivas rrlore than dedicatioil that rrlade them a success. Their outcornes tvere excellent. The survi\-a1rates for their cholera patients Ivere drarnatically better than those of the temporary municipal pest house - a rnortality rate of only 39 percent, corrlpared to 53 percent for the co~mtyhospital.:"' The yelloxv fever in Virginia, in the summer of 1833, provided another lleroic stage for the Daughters of Charity. As soor1 as the epiderrlic took hold, the sisters \-olunteered and sent three Ivornen frorrl Ernrnitsl>urg to Portsmouth, ~vherethey took o\-er the na\-a1hospital. Later arlotller group came fi-orrl Baltirrlore to nurse at Norfolk. In addition to the eulogies that filled the press on the de\-otion and heroisrn of the sisters, the yellow fe\-el-epiderrlic delivered the Church ttvo re~vards.First, a Kno~vNothing Senator, Robert 1 ' . T. Huntel; publicly retracted his previously stated position on Catholics. Hunter is quoted ill the Ilbslri~?gtonSe~?til?el as saying: But fell011 Lltlzens, I \\erlt n llttle too far, nlleil I snld ~t!Ins proposed to proscribe C athollcs from all offices In t h ~ countr\ s There are some offices, t\hlch sons and dallghters of the chill ch a1 e st111 consldel e d colnpetent to discharge, 1 Incan the o f f i ~ e sof C llrlstlnrl chnrltl, of nllillstratlon of the slcli. Tlle Slsters of Cllarlt\ inn\ enter onder pest-hollse, fl oln t\hose dread pol tals the bl aTest and strongest lnan quails a n d shl Inks; she ma\ breathe thel e the bl eat11 of ~ ~ e s t l l e n t\hlch ce t\alks abroad, ln that rllnrlsloil of nllser\, 111 order to rnlrllster to dlsease \ \ h e r e ~tIS rnost loathsolne, a n d to I elle\e s u f e n n g 11here ~t1s most hell~less'-

Second, one philanthropic victim of the epidemic willed her mansion to the sisters for a hospital. Arm Plurne Behan had coilti-acted yellotv fe\-elnursing her ~la\-es.:'~ Her beneficence alloxved the sisters to open the Hospital of St. \'incent de Paul, Norfolk in 1836.:$!' It was the sisters xvho excelled at inspiring such sentiments, and the Church tvas eager to exploit the opport~mitiesthey 1~-oughtfor rappi-ochernent ~vithstate authorities, e\-ellthe cllailce of sorrle state funds in return for the sisters' efforts. The dearth of suitable tvorneil in the cornrnunity at large to rrlarlage and staff a hospital tvas the key. The nursing ~voi-kof the sisters constituted a trurnp card in the Church's hand. It pro\-ideda crucial rnechanisrn by ~vhichthe church negotiated itself from the rrlargirls to the center of social and political influence ill a city."'

42

Chapter 3

Lack of Hospitals In upstate New York, the cities of Buffalo, Rochester; Troy and Xlhan); s~varnped~vithirrlrrligrarlt poor and fearful of epidernics, Ivere the pioneering to~vnsfor the sisters and their nursing sei-\-ices.l1 The frontier totvn of Buffalo l>urgeoiled through the 1840s and 1850s to becorrle Xrnerica's largest iillarld port. M'est~vardexpansion and the Erie Canal made Buffalo the key irltersectiorl bettveen northeast and northtvest l>ettveen New York City and Chicago. It attracted ~vorkersand irnrnigrants as they traveled !vest; it also found itself the terrniilus for rnany tired and sick irrlrrligrailts ~ v h ocould go no further. Thus iildustri.1' 1'ization, expansion, and irrlrrligratioil l>rought both ~vealthand poverty to Buffalo. The ne~vcornersduring the rrliddle decades of the nineteenth century tvere Irish and Gerrrlarl- a great rnany of tllerrl Catholic. The poor and iildigeilt Ivere largely Irish Catholic. Xccordirlg to Buffalo historial1 David Gerl>er,the good citizens of Buffalo Ivere disirlcliiled to philanthropy -particularly philanthropy to~vai-d Irish Catholics. The only ttvo institutions ill the city in 1840 Ivere the orphanage and the poorhouse. Neither of these institutions perrrlitted priests to \-isit- their secularism barely disguised ailti-Catholici~rn.~' These conditions were similar to those in New York City and in the other totvns of the industrial ilortheast. Ho~vever,Buffalo Ivas a netv city- not a Philadelphia or a Boston tvith a po~verfulold ascendancy to coilteild ~vith. Important, too, tvas the fact that its first bishop tvas Jollil Tirnon, no Irish firel>rand such as Netv York's John Hughes, but ail Xrnerican-l>oril ITincentian.Tirrloil had no desire to arltagoilize Xrrlericail sensibilities against the Church; as a ITiilceiltiailmissionary he had ~vorkedin Protestant and froiltier cornrnunities. At the same time he Ivas the soil of Irish irnrnigrants, atvare of the culture and l>ackground of the poorest of his diocese, and his I'incentian training rrlade hirn rrlore a European Catholic than rrleil such as Hughes. Gerber sho~vshotv the Catholic Church tvas able to dorrlirlate local cllarities largely by default 1)ecause the prejudices of Buffalo Protestarlts against Catholics "sternrned public and private efforts to care for the ileedy."':'Jean Richardson flirther argues that the sisters stepped into the 1)reach pro\-ided l>ya disorgailized rrledical profession." The sisters prornptly a\-ailed themselves of state and county funds for capital expenditure and oilgoiilg patient care to found a 100-bed hospital in 1848. Private patients supplemented this f~lnding.Within the year a severe cllolera epiderrlic had corrlrrlerlced and the sisters offered their hospital to the city. The hospital at Buffalo tvas atypical of hospitals established l>yCatholic Ivornen at this tirne. First, it begail as a large-scale civic institution (100

Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness 43 beds). Second, it tvas publicly funded. In addition to the rrlaiilterlarlce rnoney for the care of the indigent, there Ivas rnoney for county patients, rnoney for the care of sick almshouse irlrrlates and irrlrrligrailts fi-orrl the State Corrlrrlissioil of Emigration, and pri\-ate patient funds. l' Capital costs Ivere supported l>yfund raising and substantial state endotvrnents. In 1848-51 the state accounted for 41 percent of the sisters' incorne. It is sorrletllirlg of a surprise that, in the llorrle of Kno~v-Nothing-ilorrliilated Presiderlt Rlillard Fillmore, the 1831 application for $14,000 in state appropriatioil should go But political pragmatism meant the accorrlrrlodatiorl of the irrlrrligrailt vote. Richardson argues that "in addition to funding an inexpensive rrleails to provide for the pool; the grotving irrlportailce of Catholic \-otesprorrlpted state politicians' generosity to~vardCatholic cllaritable institutions." 191Cloreover;Tirnon was extrernely careful to stay clear of pro\-olting anti-Catholic sentiment. In his diocese the sisters Ivere expressly forl>iddento proselytize and ordered to "refrain fi-orrl spealtiilg of religiorl to Protestailts inside and outside the hospital, unless Protestailts 1,roached the sul>jectthernselt-es.""' The Daughters of Charity continlled to found hospitals in the Northeast, follo~vingthe netv settlements. St. Mary's Hospital in Troy, Netv York Ivas established in 1850 precisely 1)ecause of the pi-oblerrl ~vithstar\-ing Irish irrlrrligrailts sick tvith "ship fe\-er" (typhus)."' The Re\: Peter Haverrrlails tvorked arrloilg the ternpoi-ary shelters the city had set up for the irrlrrligrarlts and requested sisters from Ernrnitsl>urgto run a hospital.jl In Rocllester Sister Hieronyrno O'Brien, veteran of the 1833 yellotv fever epiderrlic in Norfolk, \'irginia and one of the origirlal Buffalo hospital sisters, accepted the invitation to open a hospital, another St. Mary's, in 1837."" In 1839 Sister Ursllla Mattingly founding sister servant of the Sisters Hospital, Buffalo and forrrler sister ser\-ant of St. Rlary's, Troy, took charge of St. Joseph's Hospital, Philadelphia. St. Joseph's had also l>een set up in response to the needs of Irish irnrnigrants. Urllilte Troy, Philadelphia tvas not tvithout hospitals, but the successful rrlerrlbers of the Irish cornrnunity corlsidered it irrlportailt to ha\-e a third hospital to pro\-ide for their otvn. Tell years later, the Daughters of Charity took over the hospital from the Sisters of St.Joseph. The hospital then cllailged fi-orrl a debt-ridden trouhled iilstitutioil to a standard Daughters hospital that ran tvithout irlterfererlce and rrlade rnoney. Gail Casterline rnay have rrlissed the critical point in the handover of St.Joseph's to the Daughters. She states: In August 1859 the hoard \ oted to h e s t Itself of the lrlterilnl Innnagelneilt of the ~ abrupt d~smlssalof the S ~ s t seof ~ h o s l ~ ~ tb\ a l leas~ng~t to the S~stersof C h a r ~ tThe St. Joseph 1s puzzl~ilg,but appnrenth tllelr repln~erllerltsllnd closer tles to the

44

Chapter 3

h i e r n r ~ l l \nrld [Re\.] T k o d referred to the ne\\ superior, Sister Ursula Alnttiilgl\, as an "old acqllaintance.""'~ce."'~

TVhat Casterline fails to appreciate here is that, despite "old acquaintances," in bringing Sister Ursllla Mattingly to the helm of a hospital in trouble, the hoard Jtas calling in one of the most sllccessfill and experienced hospital nurses in the country The key issue for St. Joseph's was the terms of the Daughters of Charit) contract. The) xvould not enter into an arrangement with the hospital under the terms with ~ t h i c hthe Sisters of St. Joseph had been forced to ~ t o r k - a high level of medical and hoard member interference. The Charities' contract stiplllated fill1 independent management of the institution. In this Jta) costs dropped, care irnpro\ed, and the diocese's problems with the hospital Jtere sol\ed. The management of the Daughters of Charityxvas also considered something of a "selling point" of the hospital. Note the acl\ertisernent of late 1839: St Joseph's Hosp~tal-I ~ + o l l lcall d the attention of all ~ + h o m ~t ma\ concel n to the ad\ert~senlentof St. Toseph's Hospltal 111 nrlotller colunlil. Tins llospltnl llns r e c e n t l ~been leased to the S~stersof Charlt\, under \\hose sole management ~t noT+ 1s Strangels Tlsltlng t h ~ sc ~ t \ \ h o ma\ be taken 111, and all other pelsons ileedlilg l\~ildcare nrld tender ilurslilg of n home, as \\ell as the rnost slilllful m e d ~ c a lattendance the c ~ t \a f f o ~ d s~1111 , find theln all In t h ~ sa d t n l ~ a b l eInstltlltlon S ~ s t e rhI Ursula \Iatt~ngl\ 1s the h l o t h e ~ S l l p e r ~ oof ~ the hollse S e ~ e ~ a l Inlportailt cllailges ha\ e o ~ c u r r e dln coilsequence of the lease referred to nbo\ e. T h e hIed~calFacult\ of the Hosp~tal,f o lnelll ~ elected b\ the Board of C 01pol ators a1 e no\\ a p p o ~ n t e db\ the S~stersof C:ha~1t1 This necessltl I eqllll e d an entll e nl \ \ l l ~ c lrecen l e d ~ t nppolrltirleilt s oil Tuesile\\ orgnnlsatlon of the A l e d ~ ~Facult\, da\ Sept 13t11, a n d 1s no\\ const~tutedas follo~+s

In another city fill1 of poor Irish, Boston, the case of Chrney Hospital (founded in 1863) shotvs the difficulties that existed for the sisters ~vithout ally state or rrlajor pllilarltllropic support ill the sei-\-iceof the desperate poor. Wealthy Irisllrrlail Xndretv Carney unfortunately died before his ~villtvas finalized, and the hospital tvas denied its l>equest.""T'Vithout a major l>enefactor, and in anti-Catholic New Eilglaild, the hospital's clairrls for state support Ivere rejected. Rloreo\-el; in 1848 the patients Ivere destitute: "Not a single persoil now receiving care and support is able to pay one cent. The only tvay I ha\-e of keeping our doors open to the poor is by seildirlg our sisters out every day to solicit aid.""" In 1892, when the hospital was nearly crippled by its debt, the legislature declared that no rnoney tvould be @\-ento institutions not ~vholly under state control. The disappoirltrrlerlt 1~-oughttestirrlorlials of the irrlportarlce of the Carney from such disirlterested parties as the Helx-etv Benevolent Societ~."'Soinfilriated was the Bostotr Post that it established a

Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness 43 subscription to rrlake up the $10,000 -a quarter of the arnount Ivas raised in a 1veek.j" As the sisters established and conducted hospitals throughout the Northeast they encountered a variety of contexts -frorrl tvell-f~mdedBuffalo to desperate Carney in Boston. The sisters learned to a\-oidiilflarrlirlg Protestarlt anxieties and to build friendships in the l>i-oadcornrnunity. They also learrled to rrlake their hospitals vital to local rrledical interests.

It was not only the epidemics that opened the door of public institlltiorls to the sisterhoods. Their reputation brought irrlportarlt friends. The nursing nuns in the early to rnid-nineteenth century Ivere often, l>y experience or reputation, able to develop good ~vorkingrelatioilsllips ~vithdoctors. These relatioilsllips fostered the idea that collal>orate veiltures could be estal>lishedto irnpro\-ethe care of the poor. In this rrlaililer hospitals tvere founded by the sisters in succession across the northeast. The original hospital corltract that l>egan the Daughters ill their nursing ~voi-kis an historic one - ~viththe first teaching hospital in the United States. In 1823 the Sisters of Charity agreed to ~voi-kin the Baltirrlore Infirrnary ~vitha group of doctors from the Rledical Faculty at the University of Rlaryland. It tvas an acute iilstitution tvith three physicians and four surgeons and a special tvard for eye diseases, plus one tvard for sailors.'!' The contract for the sisters' service was carefully negotiated to allow them appropriate pri\-acy and lit-ing condition^.'^^' The role of insurance levies in filnding hospital foundation is evident e\-en in this early exarnple. The firlancing of the contract for the sisters Ivas rrlade possible in part l>ythe 1798 federal law that taxed e\-ery rnerchant searrlarl nventy cents per rrlorltll to undertvrite the care of sick and disabled searnen. The Baltirrlore Infirmary housed one of rnany 111.1'1 iile ~vards,funded l>ythis tax, that sprang up arouild the country and e\-entually led to the construction of federal hospitals at rrlajor ports.(i1 The promotion of private medical practice, and its increasingly significant role in the United States health care system, is also part of the success of the sisters. The sisters tvere critical to the de\-eloprnent of medicine, particularly in Buffalo, tvhere the sisters provided clinical facilities for t~vofledgling rrledical colleges. In Buffalo the sisters estal>lished close liillts tvith the Niagara University Rledical School, pro\-iding the scllool ~vithits clinical facility, and in 1849 adrrlitted medic.I' 1 irltei-rlsthe first Daughter of Charity hospital to do so.'l2 However, the issue of rrledical resideilts rerrlaiiled prol>lernatic for the sisters, tvho terrniilated and restored the resideilt prograrrl on set-era1occasiorls throughout 1849-56. The sisters terrrliilated their relationship ~viththe Buffalo -'

'

46

Chapter 3

College in 1883, l>ecorningthe teaching hospital for the Niagara Rledical Scllool ~ m t i l1898.'1:'At that time the aging sister servant, Sister Florence O'Hara, completely reorganized rrledical departrrlerlts ~vithin the hospital in order to accorrlrrlodate new specialties and opened those positions to physicians not affiliated ~vithNiagara Unit-ersity nlledical School. Tl'hen the entire faculty of the ~miversityresigned in protest, she accepted their resignations. The unit-ersity lost its teaching facility and Ivas subsequently forced to close dotvn. The sister ser\-ants~ v h osucceeded Sister Florerlce continued the tvorlt of reorgailiziilg rrledical sei-\-ices~vithinthe hospital and the hospital's relationship to rrlediciile in Buffalo. 111 1899 Sister Blanche Hooper re\-ie~vedthe perforrrlarlce of doctors in the light of the nurnher of pri\-ate patieilts they tvei-e bringing to the hospital. Those doctors tvho failed to bring pri\-ate patients Ivere sacked.'ll Finally, at the end of 1899, Sister Felicita McNulty almlished the rrledical 1)oard and rerlegotiated all contracts for the year 1900. She brought matters under coiltrol through rrlaildated rnonthly staff meetings, at the first of ~vhichshe appointed the cllairrrlarl of the corrlrrlittee (no elections!) to create byla~vs,a constitution, and a procedure for selection of rrledical appointments."" Importantly, she renegotiated the terrrls under tvhich doctors could charge their pri\-atepatients, rrlaltirlg it rrlore pi-ofitalde for pri\-aterrledical practice.'l'l Private patients continued to provide the most stable and profitable iilcorrle sources for the sisters. By 1903 private patieilts acco~mted for o\-erthree tirrles rrlore revenue than county and city patient^."^ Even at St. Joseph's, Philadelphia, which began as a philanthropic respoilse to the suffering first [vat-e of Irisll farrlirle victirns, patient fees Ivere essential for the hospital. Despite the predorrliilailce of Irish-born patieilts (83 percerlt of the 1850 adrrlissiorls tvere born in Ireland and the figure rerrlairled high for the next fit-e decades), throughout the nineteenth century St. Joseph's relied on patients tvho could pay their tvay. "As early as 1830, 78 percerlt of St. Joseph's inpatients paid 1,oai-d fees, and the ratio of pay-to-charity cases continued to be one of the highest of any hospital in the cit); averaging any~vherefrorrl50 to 80 percerlt paying patieilts through 1900."'1TTh~ls it was not the destitute victims of the Irish farnine that supported St.Joseph's through these years; in fact, poor Irish still filled the beds in the city's other hospitals throughout this periodrepreserltirlg 48 percent of patieilts at the Quaker Pennsylvania Hospital. Prorrlirleilt Plliladelpllia doctors played a significant role in the establishrnent of St.Joseph's. Gail Casterliile argues that disaffectiorl tvith the restricted opportunities for rrledical practice in Philadelphia's existing hospitals rnay ha\-ebeen a factor. Dr. Tl'illiarn E. Horrler and a Dr. Keatiilg had beer1 part of a contra\-ersial rrlass resignation from the Blockley Xlrnshouse tvheil rrledical teaching Ivas discontinued oil the tvai-ds.'l!'As a

Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness 47 progressi\-e collal~oratioi~ l>ettveenrrledicirle and philanthropic Irish citizens, St. Joseph's l>eganits operatior1 tvith rrledical scllool affiliation and resideilt rrledical officers. Hotvet-er, !\.hen the Daughters of Charity assurned control of St. Joseph's in 1859, this arrarlgerrlerlt ceased, as the sisters felt it incornpatil>le tvith their rule to share the hospital tvith undiscipliiled rrledical students at night. In 1880 the sisters allo~vedthe reintroduction of rrledical students to the hospital - but under their otvn t e i - r n ~That . ~ ~ good behavior was a requirement of the arrangement is hinted in the Annual Report of 1897 tvhei-e the sisters cornrnent: "It is a pleasing duty to record the gentlemanly deportrrlerlt and self-sacrificing lal>ors of the resideilt doctors. The best ~vishesand ltirldliest feelings of the Sisters and all coililected tvith the Hospital follo~vtllerrl in their future lal>ors." This opportune association between private medicine and the success of hospitals by the end of the rliileteeiltll century car1 e\-enl>eseer1 in the Ivay St.Joseph's pi-orrloted its scllool of nursing. One of its attractions tvas argued to be the hospital's "open" policy for private patients. This rrlearlt that nurses had the opportunity to l>uild good relations ~vitha large nurnber of private practitioners, relatioilsllips that ~ ~ o uassist l d tllerrl in establisllirlg a thri\-ing pri\-ate practice !\.hen they corrlpleted their hospital training: Tlle ad\nntages of tlle scllool to its pupils are those afforded h\ its nark of cllaritl in the ttards, as also in the experience gained in the cal e of p r i ~ a t epatients in the inail\ rooms de\ oted to their use. hlail\ of tllese patients still rerllniil under tlle care of tlleir lloirle ph\siciails, thus assuring for tlle nurses n professional acqualntance oiltslde the h o s l ~ ~ t astaff, l ~ + h doo not forget the sl\~llfill,consclentloils nurses \\hell tlle snrne nurses enter tlleir lrldepeildeilt professlorl outslde the hospital.-L

Medical training, and the open policy of accommodating private medicine, 1)rought fuilds to the hospital and supported nurses. These rrledical associatiorls also made the institution financially viable and clinically irnportant to the development of l>oth the rrledical professioil and private nursing ill Philadelphia.

In the history of both nursing and of the Catholic sisterhoods, the Xrnericall Civil M'ar is cornrnonly cast as the defining e\-ent, the rupture betIVeen the old and the l l e ~ ~For . ~the : ~ sisterhoods this is true in a literal ratllei- than a figurative sense. For during the Ci\-ilM'ar rnany Catholic Ivornen volunteered to tvork in the hospitals and cared for the ~vounded on l>oth sides. The Daughters of Charity nursed ill tt~eilty-fivedifferent

48

Chapter 3

areas during the Ivar; they ser\-ed in rnilitary hospitals and prisons, in tents and improvised hospitals, and turned their existing hospitals o\-erto the care of soldiei-s.;' Keen to seize the opportunity the clerm vollinteered the services of nuns frorrl all rules and cornrnunities from all o\-er the United States. Altogether sorrle 600 Ivornen from t~venty-onecornrnunities (or roughly 20 percent of nurses o\-erall) nursed soldiers on lmth side^.^" For some orders this Ivas a logical exterlsiorl of their religious life and their votv to serve God's poor and sick. These tvornen turned their experieilce and sltill to the job at llaild and arrived as ready-rnade experieilced nurses and hospital rnangers. For other sisters it tvas a radical departure and one totvard tvhich they rnay have beer1 r e l u ~ t a n t . ~ ( ~ Despite the charges of proselytisrn made against a nlirnher of sisterhoods, the Ivar increased the staildirlg of l>oththe sisters and the church to a rerrlarkable extent." The horror and hostility with which sisters had previously beer1 rrlet by 11011-Catholics tvas lessened and, rrlore important, their utility in the acute hospital setting tvas corlfirrrled in the rrliilds of go\-ernrnent, doctors, and the rnilitary. Nursing skill tvas one irrlportailt elerrlent of this success. Ho~vever,of great importance, too, Ivas the discipline and reliability the sisters offered, not as a group of enthusiastic amateurs, but as a discipliiled corps - something the army related to and adrnired. Although it is a corrlrrloilplace that the sisters tvere the unsung heros of the Ivar (after all, their rrlerrlorial at Tl'ashington tvas not built until the t~ventiethcentury), there tvas, in fact, a great deal of direct appreciation and recogrlitiorl of their contril~utionto the nation. The annals of each cornrn~mityrecord the laurels receit-edby their tvar nurses. Liilcolil, Grant, and Jefferson Davis all sang the praises of the nursing ~luils.~"rn fact, in 1874 Presideilt Ulysses S. Grant requested that a Dorrlirlicarl nursing sister, Rlother Josephine, a veteran of the Battle of Perry\-ille, Kentucky, unveil the Liilcolil Rlonurnent at Springfield, I l l i n o i ~ . ~ The " war also rrleailt that rnany thousands of rrlerl Ivere grateful for the efforts of the sisters, less suspicious of their habits and \-eils,and ~vellatvare that the sltillful atteildailce of an intelligent nurse rrlade all the difference betIveen life and death."" In the decades folloxving the Chi1 War; the number of communities invol\-edin hospital fo~mdationcontinued to clirnh, until it pealted in the 1890s at fifty-nine cornrnunities that estal>lished eighty-nine new hospitals l>et~veen1890 and1900.X1The Chi1 T'Var also provided the sisters with tangi1,le opport~mitiesto estaldish new iilstitutioils and coilsolidate existing ones. For instance, in Washington, D.C. in 1861 the Daughters of Charity volunteered to sei-\-ethe ~voundedsoldiers tvherever the go\-ernrrlerlt required thern. At the same time the Tl'ashington Infirmary tvas

Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness 49

F~gure3. St. Josepll's Hospital, Plllladelphla. Male s u r g ~ ~ nards, al 1880s. Re1111nted~ l ~permlsslon th of the Dallghte~sof chant^ Xrch~res,h l b a n ~Yell , York

redesignated as a military hospital and closed to the public. The Daughters of Charity Ivere then appi-oaclled by a group of Tl'ashington physicians to establish a ci\-ilianho~pital.~TThe rate for ward patients was $4.00 per tveek, pri\-ate roorrls availal>leat extra cost, and "A11 rrlerrlhers of the rrledical professioil of the District (had) an equality of pri\-ilege."":' Irnmediately follotving the Ivar the hospital continued to enjoy federal and puhlic support and Ivas granted a corlgressiorlal appropriatiorl of $30,000 for a netv l>uilding, and annual fuilds for the care of the indigent in the District of C ~ l u r r l h i a . ~ ~ St. Mary's Hospital, Rochester; New York, was another hospital whose fate Ivas caught up tvith the Ci\-ilTl'ar. This institution tvas estal>lishedin 1837 by Sister Hieronyrno O'Brien, one of the sisters tvho begail the sisters' Buffalo hospital. In coilti-ast to the relative prosperity of the Buffalo foundation and the Pro\-idence Hospital in Washington, in Rochester the sisters slept on pallets of stratv through their first tvinter ~vithlittle rrlore than their habits for covei-s.~" C:ounty funding for poor patients was hard to corrle by in Rochester, and Sister Hieronyrno fought a running battle ~viththe Board of Super\-isorsof County TIPlfare.X(i In 1859 friends

50

Chapter 3

Figure 4. Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent d e Paul, St. \'illcent d e Paul Hospital, Birmingham, Alabama, abollt 1906. Colu-tesy of the Center for the Study of Nursing Histor!; University of Penils!,lvailia.

of the hospital petitioned T'Vashington to authorize a department at St. Rlary's for the care of sick searrleil and bargerrlerl on the Erie Canal. The hospital ~vai-dtvas forrnally rlarrled "Marine Departrrleilt of the Hospital of the City of Rochester."" 111 1861 Sister Hieronyrno was denied aid from the state legislature and her co~mtypayrnents tvere refused by the Board of supervisor^.^^ As the only hospitals in western New York, Sisters Hospital in Buffalo held the federal navy corltract and St. Mary's, Rochester, tvith much relief, secured the arrny contract. (As legend has it, ho~vever,Sister Hieronyrno had to go to Washington in person in 1864 to force the federal go\-ernrnent to pay her their debt of $30,000.X") Estimates vary but betIveen three and fit-ethousand soldiers Ivere treated at St. Mary's o\-erthe course of the Ivar at the rate of $5.50 per tveelt.""Folloxving the war; in an effort to rrlairltairl dernand, Sister Hieronyrno ad\-ertised the hospital (lxiefly) as an "In\-alid Retreat." She prorrloted the hospital as pro\-idirlg farrn fresh food, fresh rnillt, baths, and the "best rrledical team in Ivestern Netv Yorlt." The nurses Ivere described as possessiilg "sltill and

Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness 31 fidelity"; the choice of doctors Ivas one that "patients call rrlake . . . to suit themselves. "!I1 The Xrnerican context, then, provided the Daughters of Charity with a "rnarket" for their skills. The place of the Daughters of Charity in the forefront of nineteenth-century Xrrlericail nurses tvas created by the Ivaves of epiderrlics and the nursing skills the sisters de\-elopedin the care of infectious patients; by the lack of hospitals throughout the country during this ailtebellurn period; by urbanization, iildustrialization, and irrlrrligratiorl- ~vhichled to an o\-er~vhelrningderrlarld for nurses and hospitals in lmth new settlerrlerlts and older cities; by the steady improverrlerlt in rrledical knotvledge and the need for rrledical training and facilities for pri\-ate rrledical practice, and the subsequent need for better educated and disciplirled nurses; and finally, by the Ci\-il War, ~vhich produced rnany friends for the sisters and created funding opportuilities for their hospitals. The Daughters of Charity did not create these conditions, but neither they did rrliss the opportunities these e\-ents afforded them to corlsolidate their position in Xrrlericail society, and to re.1' 1'ize their \-ocation to sei-\-ethe sick and the poor. The sisters' ability to respoild so positively to the social and political cllallerlges of nineteenth-century Xrrlerica deperlded on their organizational structure and training. X corrlbiilatiorl of their rnotherhouse structure, their organization and training, and their distinctive sense of apostolate rrlade tllerrl hospital l>uilderspar excellence.

Organization arl tl Trailling Elizabeth and Emily Black~vell,the first fernale rnedical gradllates and practitioilers in the United States, grasped the true secret of the Daughters of Charity. Corrlrrlerltirlg on their experience of the French Daughters of Charity they declared: Xn\oile nllo has seen nlu~11of tllese slsters 111 actual \\orl\, . . . 11111soon percene that the 111act~calsuccess of these 01ders does not depend upon I e l ~ g ~ o enthllus slasnl, but upon ail excellent busliless orgaillzatloil. Rellg~ousfeellrlg there IS among them, and ~t1s an llnl1ol rant a ~ In d filhng t h e ~ ranl\s r and k e e l ~ ~ 1111 ng t l ~ e ~ r Intel ests; but the I eal secret of their success 1s the excellent openlng a f orded b\ their1 for all lasses of \\oirleil to a useful and r e s p e ~ t e dsoclal 11fe."'

Despite the Black~vells'sanguine views as to the value of religiolls fer\-or,their obsert-ation that the sisters excelled in "business orgailization" is tvell rnade. W l a t they rnay not have ~mderstood,as secular outsiders, Ivas that the sisters' acumen tvas not a sirrlple byproduct of religious fei-\-oror the outpouring of pre\-iouslyfrustrated ferrlale talents, but the result of training. Not e\-ery cornrnunity tvas successful at hospital ~vork,

52

Chapter 3

~vhereasotllers Ivere farnous for it. W l a t tvas it al>out the Daughters of Charity? After 1838, cornrnunities of Daughters of Charity in the United States Ivere rrlailaged in conformity tvith the con\-entionsset do~vnl>yFrance. The relationship bettveen dioceses and the rnotherhouse l>ecarne increasingly forrnalized, and the rnotherhouse toolt the lead in ensuring that the cornrn~mitiestvere clear about their properties, their institutions, and their relatioilsllip to the diocese. A11 property deeds tvere held l>ythe rnotherhouse at Ernrnitsburg (safe fi-orrl dorrliileeriilg l>ishops!),and all hospital l>oardsIvere taken over frorrl local diocese and cornrn~mityrnernbers and trarlsferred in toto to the sisters. Moreover, the sisters also began to express reluctance to l>ecorneinvol\-ed ~vithany foundation they did not 01\11 and independently administer, preferrirlg to avoid difficulties and rrlaiiltaiil their independence. Ernrnitsburg l>eganto offer clear guidelines for the sisters as corporate citizens, providing "Forrns of Rleetings," so that "the sisters rnay rrlore easily see how rrleetirlgs should l>ec ~ n d u c t e d . " ~A: 'letter fi-om the Director at Ernrnitsburg to the cornrn~ulityat Troy in 1875 clearly sho~vsthe stroilg role that the rnotherhouse toolt in ratioilalizirlg processes for the sisters. I have been thinking seriously for some time, \\.hat irletllod to adopt to prevent

anyil-regularityin holding meetings of the~al-ious C:orpol-ations. . . . Irregl~larities in recording irlirlutes of ineetiilgs, or oirlissiorl of the same, \\.hell required b!, la\\., might render the Chrporation illegal; and ill case of a lalvsuit, the propert!, held by such C:orl~orationsmight be lost to the C:omrnllnit): That sllch il-reglllal-ities occur I have evident proof, having found the iniilutes of irleetirlgs not signed by the proper Officer [Sister] or rather not signed at all, rendering such nleetiilg 11el-fectlyillegal; and, in some instances, the annual meeting- nl?oc/j.r~/~c~r.rcrr?oinitted. Other irregularities inay render the rlleetirlgs illegal and destroy the legal existence of the Bod!, C:orporate."

'

The letter goes on to provide the sisters with a step-bj-step guide to corporate process, ellding uith the postscript: Ha\ iilg recei) ed the iniilutes of rlleetiilgs from some but not in proper shape, o b s e r ~ eto the lettei the tollot\lng. lliite tn~nutesneath on slngle leaf of toolsLap paper, eil~loseit illto a large eil\elop, b\ itself, and address it to hlotller Euplleinia.

Not all the sisters' foundations were remiss in this way At St. Mary's Hospital, Rochester, directors' rrleetiilgs Ivere carefully rninuted from 1837 to1949. Illcorporatioil toolt place in 1857 and the detailed rninutes reveal the financial ~vorltingsof a rrlajor corporation. The rrleetirlgs of the

Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness 33 Presiderlt (sister ser\-ant), treasurer, and secretary ( t ~ v oother sisters), discuss rrlatters such as the purchase of gas stock or the decisioil to pay off the floating debt."" The sisters as individuals were all named on the mortgage documents, l>oards of trustees elections, deeds of incorporation, architect contracts, and so forth."" The "excellent business organization" noted by the Black~vellswas underpinned by rigorous religious training. This training shaped the Ivornen in their relatior1 to tvork, to each other, and to God. It provided thern tvith the faith that, as instruments of God, great things tvould be achieved by the lotvly to His glory. It also provided them tvith a nettvorlt of ~vhat~vouldtoday be called "mentors," to assist the individual tvornan to de\-elopskills for God's purposes and to rrlaiiltaiil her religiosity. The organization of the Daughters of Charity is ceiltered around the rnotherhouse. A11 netv rrlerrlhers of the cornrn~mitycorrlplete their training at that rnotherhouse. For the Xrrlericail Daughters of Charity this rrlearlt that e\-erysingle nineteenth-century sister Ivas trailled at Ernrnitsburg, Maryland. The sisters' spiritual "forrnation," as it is called, Ivas therefore corlsisterlt and the result of tried precepts. Mbrrleil ~ v h odid not derrloilsti-ate the correct persolla1 and spiritual attril>utestvould be e\-ident to the no\-icerrlistress and be 1~-ought to the attention of the superioress of the cornrnunity and the confessor. These indi\-idualstvere highly experienced in training Ivornen and allocatiilg tllerrl their duties tvithin the organization, alvare of their strengths, tvealtnesses, and potential. But ~vhatof the "interiority" of the nursing n ~ u l ?W l a t Ivas it that her spiritual forrrlatiorl stro\-e to create? It rnay be difficult for the secular rrlirld to accept, but the let-el-headed and pragrrlatic qualities of health care pro\-ider and skilled nurse coexisted, in the nineteenth-century \-o~vedIvornail, tvith a miraculous \-ie~vof hurnan existence that guided her ~voi-kand decision-rnaking. The Catholic nun Ivas net-el- alone; in addition to her religious cornrn~ulity,her life tvas enriched and ernpotvered by the cornrnunity of saints and an untva\-ering certaiilty that God tvould tvork through her to achieve His goals. In this frarne of rrlirld she 1,ui-ied holy rrledals on land the sisters coveted for hospital extensions,!" she wrote angry letters to St. Joseph when debts mounted, she b.'ugairled .' ~viththe Blessed ITirgin,offering statues and chapels to repay her efforts on their l>ehalf.9xIt was a resollrcefill and positive interiority that equipped the ilineteenth-century nun to lteep going, to lmild on successes, and to learil from errors. The skills of new recruits, once training Ivas cornpleted, Ivere lloiled by strategic placements. The rnotherhouse structure rrlearlt that a cornrnunity Ivas orgarlized lilte ail arrny or a corporation. It Ivas a highly centralized structure, iildepeildeilt of the bishop or the diocese. This structure a

54

Chapter 3

allotved for centralized strategic decision-rnaking. Did they think they should build ailother hospital in this or that state? Should they decline this invitation because the bishop tvas hard to tvork tvith? TVho ~vouldbe a good person to send on this difficult assignment? TVho needed rrlore guidance and ~vouldbenefit frorrl ~vorking~vitha rrlore experieilced individual? Suhrnission and obedience, ttvo essential attril>utes instilled during spiritual formation, rrlade the sisters completely acquiescent to the directi\-es of their superiors. This enabled the rnotherhouse to apply the huInail resources of the cornrnunity expeditiously, accordirlg to their centrally deterrrliiled need. In this Iva!; experieilce tvas coilsolidated. For instance, Sister Ursula Mattingly tvas sent from Buffalo (1848-33), to Troy (1835-39), to St. Joseph's, Philadelphia (1839)."" Sister Rosaline Brotvn, one of the Buffalo pioneers, estal>lishedSt. Mary's Irlfailt Xsylurn and Maternity Hospital in 1854, then in 1860 founded Pro\-ideilce Retreat (for the rnentally ill) at Buffalo.loo Sister Hieronymo O'Brien, a \-eteran of the yellow fe\-el-epidernics, helped found the hospital in Buffalo (1848-57) and Ivas "Chief of Staff Sister Nurses" there.lol She went on to esta1)lish St. Mary's, Rochester in 1857. Sister Mary de Sales Taylor is another exarrlple of a Ivornan ~vithan impressive curriculum vitae. In 1832 she becarrle superior at St. Rlary's Hospital, Detroit. Under her leadership the sisters nursed 339 cholera victirns during the 1834 epidernic. She established a rrlerltal asylurn, and in 1869 she opened Providence Hospital, Detroit, for rnothers and babies. She is eulogized in the aililals for "an ability to plan and execute . . . united to a shre~vdilessthat rrlastered e\-erydetail of corrlplex l>usinessaffairs. In l>usinessshe had the inflexil>le methods of a l>usinessrnan.""I" In addition to obedience, the sisters' training also equipped them to lead, to esta1)lish new cornrnunities, and to recruit and trail1 netv rnernbers. Nightingale's much quoted "For ~vhattraining is there to cornpare ~viththat of a Catholic nun?" Ivas precisely about this poiilt."):' The Catholic Church ~ulderstoodand \-alued both ti-airling and experience. Sorrle of these tvornen established three or four hospitals fi-orrl nothing. They ltnetv hotv to raise loails frorrl individuals - rnany of their rrlortgages tvere from They understood the way government worked and ~vhatfunds tvere a\-ailable from the co~mtyor state. They estal>lished good relatiorls tvith the rrledical professioil and Ivere the beneficiaries of nursing contracts through private corporations. Basically they ltnetv hotv to do business, hotv to raise rnoney and build support, how to deal ~vith clergy and the rrledical profession. They did this their entire tvorlting lives, ~vithoutthe distractioil of farnily cares, and ~vithutter corrlrrlitrrlerlt and professionalism, traiiliilg a new gerleratioil of sisters in their tvake.

Free Enterprise and Reso~lrcefillness 33

Conclusion: An American Success Stor) Thus, through religiolls training, centralized administration, and skill building, the sisters tvere rernarltal>lytvell suited to talte oil the corrlplex task of hospital foundation and nursing. Not only did these Ivornen show ~vhatcould l>e done, tvhat diligent and discipliiled tvornen had to offer the cornrnunity ill the field of health care, but hospital foundation tvorlt pro\-ided a platforrrl frorrl tvhich the Church could increase Catholic stoclts in the broader cornrnunity. The hyl>ridity of their role as service pro\-iders,go\-ernrnentfund holders, key corlrlectioil points bettveen the church and the state rrlade tllerrl perhaps the rrlost \-isiblerrlerrlhers of the Catholic Church to the non-Catholic corrlrrl~mity. The impact of Catholic tvornen on the health and tvelfare of nineteenthcentury Xrrlericarls tvas extraordinary. The sisters ~voi-ltedat the "coalfaces" of epidemics, battlefields, and irrlrrligrailt slurns. But ~vhatis rrlost astonishing is that the sisters trailsforrrled these desperate responses to overtvhelrning social need into opport~mitiesfor the development of health care services to the Xrrlericail public. Tl'ith political knotvhotv, and in partrlersllip ~vithpri\-ate medicine, they turned their efforts into selfsustaining, e\-enprofitable enterprises. A11 the ~vhilethey tvalked a careful path of ol>edienceand iildepeildeilce on the bishop's soil.

Chaptrr 4

Behind Enemy Lines Rdigious LVursingin England

- Co?zjlictsand

Solutions

Like their sisters in Ireland, France, German); and the United States, pious ilineteenth-century Eilglisll tvornen felt the call to serve God through ~voi-k~vithHis needy. The rrlost farnous nurse of all tirne, Rliss Florence Nightingale, Ivas one such tvornail. Nightingale's call to sei-\-e God occurred in 1837, ~vhenshe tvas just set-e1lteeil.l The extraordinary irrlpact of Florerlce Nightingale on the de\-eloprnentof nursing trairliilg during the second half of the rliileteerltll century has effectively o\-ershadotved earlier e \ - e n t s . T o understand how nursing in England became synonymous ~vithNightingale's otvn project and how it eclipsed all other narratives in the history of nursing, it is necessary to exarrlirle the corlditiorls ~mderlyingthe professionalizatioi1 of the care of the sick. These conditions, it ~villbe argued, are less the product of rrledical and scientific arrarlgerrlerlts of the period than the result of a \-ocational[vat-e of godly tvornen. It is this vocational tvave, its irrlpact on nursing, and the problerrls it caused for Protestarlt Eilglarld that are the su1)ject of this chapter. Xccordirlg to Catholic legend, the first nursing rrlissioil in Eilglarld and Scotlaild Ivas 1)egun by the Irish Sisters of Rlercy in 1838 at their Berrnondsey con\-ent in the East End of L ~ n d o n .Catholic :~ Emancipation in 1829 Ivas the critical event that stirnulated not only the foundation of the first convent in Eilglarld since the Reformation, but the foundation of the Irish Sisters of Rlercy in 1831.l I begin with a disclission of the position of Catholics in Britain, the irrlpact of Catholic Errlarlcipatioil on the Church ill Ireland and England, and the political irrlplicatiorls of a re\-italizedCatholic Church tvith both English and Irisll elements. T I P rno\-e then to exarrliile the Berrnondsey story ~vhatit tells us about terlsiorls bettveen Irish and Eilglisll Catholic ilotioils almut the place of tvork in the spiritual life of tvornen. The chapter then turns to a distincti\-ely Eilglisll solution to the pro1)lern of Protestant Ivornen called to sei-\-eGod through an active life. The irrlportailce of forrrlal nursing in the rnany Protestarlt sisterhoods that emerged in nineteenth-century Eilglaild tvill

Behind Enemy Lines

37

be examined. Finally, the lirrlitatioils of l>oththe Catllolic and Protestarlt nursing cornrnunities tvill be addressed, and the astonishingly successful Niglltiilgale solution to these prol>lerns discussed. In 1829 the final Catllolic Errlarlcipatioil Bill reversed a policy that had b.'uied - - Eilglisll Catholics frorrl puhlic life, from a military career, and from attending university.' In Ireland the Penal (:ode was even more set-ere, affecting iillleritarlce and civil rights." But despite such severity Catholicisrn had been eradicated in ileitller Eilglaild 1101- Ireland. The history of Catholicisrn in each country ill Britain is quite distinct, and here tve car1 only allude to the dorrliilailt issues. In Eilglaild the Catllolic Church existed ill rural pockets, protected by po~verfulrecusant aristocratic farnilies. Within the estates of these farnilies rrlasses ~vei-eheld in private chapels. It Ivas not a public religion. The church had no forrrlal hierarchy - no bishops or parishes. It retained a pre-industrial flavor of aristocratic devotion, strong European links through \-isitingclergy, and a largely rural sense of social ~ b l i g a t i o n . ~ T'Vith Catholic Emancipation in Britain - that is, the relaxation of prohil>itionsagainst Catllolic religious practice and against Catllolics entering puhlic life -came a Protestarlt panic that three h ~ m d r e dyears of Eilglisll Reforrrlatiorl ~vouldbe slvept alvay ill a Catholic assault. The furor that raged in Parliament, in the press, and from the pulpits clairrled disaster for Protestant England. Fueling these fears tvas the rrlass irnrnigratiorl of poor Irish that follotved decliilirlg coilditioils in Ireland, the influx of foreigil clergy seeltiilg exile from political turrnoil in Europe, and a grotving Protestailt obsession tvith Catllolic life and ritual. In the secoild half of the century, the Catholic Church assumed a far rrlore Rorrlarl cllaracter than had pre\-iouslybeen the case - a trerld that becarrle ltno~vnas Ultrarrloiltarlisrrl.TThe power of Ultramontanism was in its heightened sense of ritual, its opulent European aestheticism, and its pursuit of exterior rrlailifestatiorls of the sacred. Rorrle Ivas in a belligerent and defensive rnood, its increasingly irltrailsigerlt position made clear tvith the papal declaratioil on infallibility in 1870."

In England the reestablished Catholic Church cut its path through a s~vathof controversies. Its rrlost disturl>ing potver to Protestailts Ivas its ability to attract, unsettle, and "seduce" pious Protestarlts- taking tllerrl over to Rorne.l0 In this climate of Gothic obsessions, private religiolis scruples, evailgelical revivals, and iloilcorlforrrlist resistance to the established church, defections to Catllolicisrrl questioned not only the English Reforrrlatioil but Erlglisll so\-ereigilty and rlatioilal identity. As Florerlce Niglltiilgale put it,

58

Chapter 4

I l m e al\$a\sthought that the great theologi~alfight has \et to he fought out in

England bettteen C athol~c~sm and Protestant~slnI n Gel Inan\ ~t t\as tollght three hundred \ears ago. The\ kilo\$ \\h\ the\ are Protestants. I ile\ er l\ne\$ ail Eilglisllinail \tho did and if lle inquires he be~orllesa C atllolic."

There was an element of scandal attached to con\ersion. B) rnidcentury it became something of a fashion -a daring act to he o\ercorne h) religious compulsion and "tllrn" to Rome. Catholicism's most famous Protestant scalps were the Oxford scholars and leading Anglican clergjmen John Henr) Nexvrnan (1843) and Henr) Manning (1831), both of whom eventllally became cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church."

In Ireland Catholics endured the persecution of the Penal Codes with Celtic stoicisrrl and stubl>ornness.Stripped of their hierarchy, oppressed by onerous tithes that had to l>e paid to the hated Church of Ireland (Anglican), the people clung to their faith. The church relied heat-ily on France for the Catholic education of its rnoneyed classes and the trairliilg of priests (no priest Ivas perrrlitted to be ordairled in Ireland) .I:' But there Ivere few priests, few churches, and rrlilliorls of souls to care for. In those years of persecution the Catllolicisrrl of the corrlrrlorl people became bleilded tvith local custorns. Celtic festivals and celebrations rrlerged into a ~vorldof holy [vatel; saints' relics, and rniracles. The Irish church had sur\-it-edthe Reforrnation, but it Ivas a Catholic Church unlike any other, full of a rnedieval lo\-eof festival and rnagic, ignorant of doctrirle." Prior to the Reformation ordinary people (fi-om Italy to England) ltnetv little of religious doctrine, nor Ivere they expected to. Such rrlatters Ivere left to a pious, highhorn elite. One of the effects of the Reforrrlatiorl Ivas tvhat Jean Delurneau descril>ed as the "confessionalizatiorl of Europe."15 Over the course of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, through religious tvars and intense coilflict l>ettveen the confessions, the corrlrrloil peasant 1,ecarne the object of e\-angelisrn.A11 citizens carrle under scrutiily fi-orrl the priest, pastor, or cornrnunity of elders. In the Protestant ~vorldthey becarrle Puritans, Xnal>aptists, Lutherans, C.1' 1\mists, : . and so forth. They fought and felt religion, argued over scripture, and for the first time developed a personal relatioilsllip ~vithGod. In Catholic districts the parish Ivas erlergized l>ylay societies, by a new l>reed of better-educated clergy, l>yclose sur\-eillance of sacrarrlerlt attendance (particularly coilfessioil) , and l>ythe large nurnhers of religious \-ocatioils to the priesthood, l>rotherhoods, and, o\-ertvhelrningl); the sistei-hoods."' The Irish had not been sul~jectto this process. The English-ordered Reforrrlatioil in 11-elaild had l>eena spectacular failure. It tvas the English ~ v h omade so rnany Irish rrlilitarlt Catholics and, in Irish eyes, made con-

Behind Enemy Lines

39

\-ersion to Protestailtisrrl a traitorous act.li With Emancipation in 1829, the rrlajor tasks facing the ne~vlyestablished Irish Church Ivere to rel>uild Catholic institutions in Ireland, evangelize arrloilg the poor, and bring thern l>acltinto the fold. The pressures oil existing services in the first half of the century tvere rnassive. In Irelarld under the Penal Code, poor relief had been tied to rnernhership of the (Protestant) Church of Ireland. Follotving the repeal of the Penal Code in 1829, Catholic institutions for the care of the poor and irlfirrrl tvere established, but they tvere s~varnped e\-en before the Farrlirle of 1845 dro\-errlilliorls out of the countryside to relief ceilters in the cities and all over Britairl (and in the United States and Canada) .IX Ireland needed workers for the Church, it needed priests, brothers and nuns. and it needed tllerrl in their thousands.

Catholicism in Ellgland The ~ @ r delif~nitsroitof E)rtrsh zndrrst)) corrld itof hn-cre fnkeit $lace And fhme tot O(YI/ /17!/1/1/101~ 11 ~ J P of /(/Oo/(t / I I I L O I / ~t l r ~ ~ T J P ~ ~ I - \ ~ I I ( ~~oplol(' ~ P I / (If helnitd. . . ,Yecr1(4 011 of them settle rit the bzg crtres ofthe ritdrrsf~zcrlcr~ens, zohe)e the) fo)in the lo7~lestsf~crfrrso f f h e coininrritzf) -A red)zch Eitgels, 1845''

IVell before the first potato crop failure in 1845, the Irish, Protestant and Catholic, had been steadily corrlirlg to Eilglarld to tvorlt as both skilled and unskilled tvorlters."' There was great poverty among the Irish imrnigrants, and they l>ecarnemuch loathed as "drains" on the poor relief of a cornrn~nity.'~ More than this, their poverty and appalling living conditions led to poor health. W l e n cholera and typhoid epiderrlics struck, they struck hardest on the Irish quarter of each British city." The Irish mortality in epiderrlics becarrle so e\-ident that the Irish 1,egan to l>e corlsidered the cause of these epiderrlics - including the so-called "Irish fe\-er" or dy~entery.':~ Once Ireland's sliccessive potato crop faillires set in (which began "the Great Hunger" or "the Farnine"), the nurnhers of poor Irish in British cities stvelled. This rapid influx of desperate Irish only sei-\-edto increase the British cornrnunity's abllori-erlce for the dirty, igrlorarlt " P a ~ i c i y . " ~ ~ In mainland Britain (as in Canada, the United States, and Australia) panic arose over the irrlplicatioils for civilized society if all tvas to be overtvhelrned by peasant Irish." In the eugenics-dominated nineteenthcentury tvorld, fear led to hysteria over racial corltarrliilatiorl by the Irish tvidely corlsidered the "rnissing link" bettveen the Negro and the Xilglo In this hostile English world, the struggling Chtholic Church became the center of solace and refuge for hundreds of thousands of Irisll

ti0

Chapter 4

The srnall, elite English Catholic cornrnunity tvas forced to accorrlrrlodate Irish ~veavei-sin the north, dock ~voi-ltersin the seaports, and rrlill ~voi-lters in the Midlands. Its aristocratic churches tvith their private pelvs for the ~vealthyIvere l>urstingtvith staildirlg Irish poor.'" For the English church, the Irish came to he its greatest challenge. For sorrle it Ivas corlsidered God's great ~voi-kto ~vhichthey had l>eencalled as a consequence of Catholic Emancipation. X rninistry to the poor Irish Ivas both their duty and their destiny. But as the church reestal>lished itself in Britain, despite its Irish congregations, it carefully avoided the appoirltrrlerlt of an Irish hierarchy and stayed tvell l>eyond the reach of the internationally po~verfularcllbisllop of Duhlin. So the Irish congregations of the Eilglisll Church Ivere sei-\-ed by a rnixture of Irish, con\-ert English, and Corltirleiltal pi-iests."B~lltunlike every other Englishspealtirlg Catholic Church in the ~vorld,it did not becorrle dorrlirlated by Irishrnen in the nineteenth centui-~.:~'

Sisters of Mercy, Berrnontlse~

It was to one of these overwhelmed poor London parishes that a request came to Rlotller RlcXuley ill Duhliil, fo~uldressof the Sisters of Rlerc!; to establish the first convent in Eilglarld since the R e f o r r n a t i ~ n . In : ~ ~1838 Bishop Griffiths, vicar apostolic of the Loildorl District, requested perrrlissiorl from Xrcllbisllop Rlurray of Duhlin to send ttvo ladies from England to be instructed in the religious life of the Sisters of Rler~y.:~' According to the Annals, it was decided that the Cork house was appropriate for these ladies, l>oth of tvhorn tvere converts and rrlerrlbers of prorrlirlerlt English fa~nilies.:~:~ Late the follo~vingyear these two women, joined by four Ivornen frorrl Cork and nllotller McXuley, "quietly took possession" of their partly corrlpleted convent in Berrnond~e!;:~~ designed by the fasllioilable architect of the period (and Catholic con\-ert)A. M'. Pugin.:'" The English newspapers were obsessed with the story of these women and the estal>lishrnent of a Catholic foundation, and eilcllailted by the prorrlirlerlt role the aristocracy Ivas playing in this sensation. X group of six Ivorneil had been lit-ingpiously uilder the guidance of Bishop Griffiths ~vaitingfor the house to l>e estal>lished.This group iilcluded Lady Bar-. Eyre, daughter of an earl. Barely had the cornrnunity l>een estabb.ala lished, under the forrrlal adrrlirlisti-ation of the young but experieilced Rlother Mary Clare Rl~oi-e,:"~ than the first English reception of nuns

Behind Enemy Lines

61

(the taking of \-otvs) in three hundred years took place. It Ivas by all acco~mtsan astorlisllirlg event, Lady Barbara in silk and diamonds, her hair dressed by Her Rlajesty's hairdresser.:)' It was featlired (with illustration) in the Illustrated London L \ b i 011 ~ ~ 12 ~ Decerrlher 1839. Perhaps in deference to the farnilies of the novices, or for rnaxirnurn irrlpact in Protestailt England, the preseiltatiorl cerernony tvas rrlore lilte a society tvedding than a religious cei-ernony.:)"M'itnessed by over five thousand people, it caused a sellsation. At least one tvornan, ~ v h o~vouldlater convert to Catllolicisrrl and 1,ecorne a Sister of Mercy, heard about the cerernony as a sclloolgirl in Yorkshire and deterrrliiled to becorrle a 11ui1.:)!) For the Church, anxiolisly reestablishing itself in England, i t was of tremendous benefit to be able to attract, instruct, and adrrlit Ivornen of birth and influence to a religious order. Thus the parlor at Berrnondsey Ivas said to be ahvays l~rirnrningtvith those seeking instruction. lo There was a great deal of work for the sisters to perform among the poor of London, and the death toll fi-orrl nursing the ill Ivas high during the first fetv years.ll The sisters established twenty-two foundations in England:1y schools, a hospital, a creche for working mothers, a night shelter for the homeless, a hostel for ~vornen.~:' Over this period the ~vouldcontinue to nurse the sick poor in their houses, provide nursing care to rrlerrlhers of the ~vealthyclasses and ailing clerg!;ll and, most notal>ly,respoild to the call for nurses ill the Crirnea. It appears that relations between the sisters and Bishop Griffiths, and later Bishop Grant and Cardirlal M'isernan, Ivere rrlost cordial. nllotller Rloore Ivas an intelligent and diplorrlatic leader and there is no hint of the personality clashes and potver struggles that dorrliilate the early years of other cornrnunities. nllost rernai-kaldy, the cornrnunity Ivas not starved for funds. Bellefactors Ivere plentiful and dotvries tvei-e substantial. Thus the rrlore usual tale of pot-erty and exploitatioil does not apply to the Berrnondsey cornrnunity. Nonetheless, there tvere difficulties. The rrlost notable proldern that dogged the Sisters of Mercy in their early years Ivas the teilsioil bettveen the Eilglisll Catholic Church, its con\-erts and supporters, and the spirituality and rule of the Irish nuns. There Ivas little choice of \-ocational approach for the eager Eilglisll con\-ert.There tvas, too, igilorailce of the differerlces l>et~veencornrnunities and the di\-ergentreligious rules that existed tvithin the church. The Sisters of Mercy Ivere (and rernain) a ~voi-kingcornrnunity. X product of the re\-italized Irish church, the cornrnunity existed to help the pool; not for the spiritual aspiratioils of its rnernhers. McXuley declared that "God blesses labour, not ritualized asceticisrn." In fact, she corlsidered "love of 1al)our the rock upon ~vhichso rnuch false spirituality is tvi-eclted.""' T'Vork, she felt, "offers the holy grail of rnartyrdorn." l' Mother McAuley was derisive of the fact

"

62

Chapter 4

that "sorne ~vouldrather tvear a hairshirt than scruh a grate; rather pray than dress a cancer. . . . ~vorltsof rnercy are generally rrlore mortifying than other penances - bad smells, loatllsorrle diseases, rrlore disagreeable than the discipline." l8 But "love of labour" was not the prime virtue of the English converts left to conduct the Berrnondsey convent once Moore returned to Cork. Tl'ithout Irish leadership, the cornrnunity begail to drift from their rule, and net\. pro\-isions !yere rrlade for those ~ v h otvished to live a rrlore traditiorlal religious life - the ellclosed life of prayer and asceticisrrl as opposed to tvorlt arrloilg the poor. Rlarlias of religious devotion begail to emerge and, finally 1)izarre experirrleilts ill rule and religious life led to the recall of nllotller nlloore after an al>senceof only six r n o n t h ~ . ~ ' The idea of work as a means to self-mortification was a central tenet to the religious life of this Irish order. This view did not meet tvith the Gothic and rorrlailticized notion of Catholicisrn, popular in nineteenthcentury England, a \-iewthat tvas reirlforced by the aristocratic and rnedie\-a1serltirrleilts of the English church. The \-ow of poverty Ivas also one that corlcerrled the farrlilies of !yell-born recruits. The llard frugal life of the Sisters of Rlercy Ivas coilsidered far rrlore extrerrle than their asceticisrrl (their acts of pious self-denial), and it Ivas felt to be illappropriate for such genteel t ~ o r n e n .The ~ ' challenge, then, for this Irish foundation Ivas to absorb its Eilglisll erltrailts yet retain the rule and the spirit of the \-ocation as Catherine McAuley had intended. After its uncertain 1,egiilning, the Eilglisll foundation of Sisters of Rlercy tvas led by Rlotller Rloore for thirty-three years, thus successfully a\-oiding fasllioilable rrlailias and rule by poorly trained convert religious. The proof of their success, and of Moore's adaptability, carrle tvith the invitation to nurse soldiers in the Crirrlearl Tl'ar.

Mother Moore had become acclimatized to dealing with the English, calrrlirlg anti-Catholic anxieties, and lmilding 1~-idgesbettveen the t~vo cornrnunities. After all, she had had to deal tvith English clergymen, Eilglisll aristocrats, and English con\-erts. Her nuns had included rnernbers of the royal farnil!; daughters of Protestarlt ministers, and daughters of rrlerrlhers of the British High Cornrnand.'l Moore was experienced at guiding the rrlarlias of convert !vornen into a disciplirled and useful religious life, and accustomed to dealing ~viththe elite of English society. Florence Nightingale, therefore, Ivas perhaps not such an unfamiliar creature for nlloore to deal tvith on the highly sensitit-e political rrlissiorl to the Crirnea. The Sisters of Mercv set off to the Crirrlea as sooil as the call for nurses

Behind Enemy Lines

63

Ivas rnade. The opportunity to further the Catholic llaild in Britain tvas a prirrle one. nllotller Rloore led her party of sisters to Frarlce even before Niglltiilgale had agreed to go. After sorrle frarltic letter ~vriting,the Catholic coiltiilgerlt tvaited for Nightingale's group and joined her party in France, diplomatically accepting her leadership."TThe larger goal of the expedition Ivas for Catllolics to l>eseer1 to serve the British military cause, assisting, tvithout favor, the poor British soldier. The public relatiorls irrlpact of this exercise rrlade it possil>le for Catholics to counter the continuing opposition to their presence in Britain, and to provide their friends ~vitha case for tolerailce and support. It Ivas, therefore, necessary for Rloore to cope tvith Nightingale, to a\-oid sectariailisrrl and Irish/ Eilglisll disputes, to tvorlt tvell and hard, and in so doing rrlake frierlds for the church ill high places. The church hierarchy in Erlglaild Ivas o\-erjoyed at the outcome of the Crirrlea - not~vithstandingga rel>ultefi-orrl Ireland and Rome for allotving the English nuns to be placed ~ m d e rthe leadership of a Protestarlt ~vornail.~:' At the very time that the Irish sisters were on the verge of being recalled (due to ~ulsatisfactoi-yarrailgerrlerlts over their chaplaincy and teilsioils tvith Nightingale) ,"l Mr. Ne~vdegate,a member of Parliament ~ v h ohad rrlade his entire parliamentary career into a single-issue campaign to rid Eilglarld of convents, tvas speaking to his Con\-entIrlspectioil Bill."" Its fate in the House of Commons was a matter of great anxiety for the church ill Ellgland, especially for Rloore. Bishop Grant tvrote to Moore on 12 August 1853 to apprize her of its progress: Bless the slsters f o ~me, a n d tell them that dlu Ing this last sesslon of Parliament n o one dared sa\ a slilgle nard agalilst oil\ eilts or rellgloil, although the blgots lla\ e been o t h e r t \ ~ sTerT e actlre This silence 1s art1 ~ b u t e dthrollgh , the dlrlne bless~ng, to the S~sters"'

The Bermondsey Sisters of Mercy, then, were key actors both in the establisllrrlerlt of Catllolicisrrl in those early decades after Catllolic Ernancipatiorl and in nursing's great nineteenth-century saga- the Crirrlearl War. There they ~vonthe adrrliratioil and lifelong friendship of Florence Niglltiilgale (although her relationship ~viththe Irish corltirlgeilt of Sisters of Rlercy net-er tvarrned). They later tvorlted in the first Catllolic hospital to be estal>lishedin post-Reformation England, supporting the high profile carrlpaigil of Cardinal M'isernan. Before they even returned from the tvar, the Catllolic hierarchy Ivas of the view that the popularity and support of the sisters ~vouldl>eusefully turned to esta1)lish a Catholic hospital for incural>les." As Dl-. T'Vhitt); vicar general of Westminster; put it, "tve ought not to lose the opening n o ~ vrrlade for your sisters."'?;lgain it tvas to l>ea first such institute since the Refoi-rrlatioil and tvas therefore subject to enthusiasm, ceremony, and opposition.

64

Chapter 4

Lilte the convent, the first Catholic hospital in England tvas the object of aristocratic patronage. Officially it came under the Knights of Jerusalem, a lay order of tvealthy Catholics. The hospital tvas the bishop's shotvpiece, ~viththe sisters alrrlost props in his display of Catholic skills and success. The patients, incurable children, tvere tvell endo~ved~vith toys and boolts. The hospital tvas \-kited by the royal family; \-estrnents in the hospital chapel Ivere presented l>yPope Pius IX. In nursing terms, hotvet-er,the direct irrlpact of the Sisters of Rlercy Ivas limited. The sisters' rrlost rrlerrlorable nursing came ~viththe call to the Crirnea. They served the church's purposes both there and ~viththe Hospital of St. John and St. Elizabeth, and nursed tvealthy patrons and clergy in their h ~ r r l e sThey . ~ ~ did not establish a hospital of their own and did not engage in the professionalizatior1 of nursing ill Eilglaild. Nursing rerrlaiiled one of many activities they pursued ~vhencalled.(1° In fact, the sisters were campaigners- a shining Catholic light for all to see. They tvere carrlpaigrlers for Catholicisrn, exerrlplars of the polver and utility of \-o~vedIvornen. Nursing, thanks to the Crirrlearl War and Florence Nightingale, tvas an asset to that campaign. But rrlost irrlportarlt of all, they tvere there, tvalking the streets of Eilglaild in hal>its,"' calrnly going about their l>usiiless,teildiilg the sick and poor, singing their prayers. Through their piety, devotion, and e\-en death, the sisters raised the profile of Catholicism, offering an English path to a Catholic \-ocation. They led by inspiration, l>i-inging an English presence to the iconographic Soeur de Chariti, tvho fascinated so many Eilglisll visitors to the Continent. Xrld it is to the irrlpact of this image and its errlhlerrlatic polver on the nineteenth-century pious irrlagiilatiorl that Ive n o ~ vturn.

The Protestant Response .

zozfh (111 the de-crotronof Srsto ofJ1e)cq brrt uvth itoite o f f h e mrstcrlies o f h o

C l (YTl

The tensions that erupted in niIIeteeIIth-ceIItllr~Protestantisrn can he seer1 in the coilflict o\-er religious nursiilg. To have n ~ m abroad s in England crystallized Protestailt England's quandary of ~vhatto do tvith its pious tvorneil. The Sister of Rlerc!; or Soeur de Chariti., tvas ~vellltno~vnas the generic, if inaccurate, tei-rrl for a nursing nun.":' Visitors to the continent ~vitnessedtheir labors and on occasiorl directly experienced their care. The cult of St. ITincentde Paul and the tvorlt of the Soeurs de Chariti, greatly appealed to ci\-ic-rnindedand virtuous people corlcerrled to find solutions to the o\-er~vhelrning social problerrls caused by industri-

Behind Enemy Lines

65

alization.'ll These problems of crime, poverty child labor; and civic disorder Ivere understood by both Catholics and Protestarlts in evangelizing terrns. The airrl of the nurnerous groups ~ v h otvorlted and proselytized arrloilg the poorer classes throughout the nineteenth century tvas that Christian practice rnight civilize the dangerous and unruly rrlass of the pool-.'I' Through prayer, literacy for Bible reading, meditation, and reglilar sober lit-ing,the unruly and raucous tvorlting classes Ivere to be transforrrled into rrlodel citizens. For !yell-l>orn rrlerrlhers of Eilglisll society, their regular visits to the Corltirlerlt provided opportunity to study Catholic rrletllods of charital>le relief. Rlore specific "fact-finding" rrlissiorls also took place early in the ilirleteerltll century. For instance, in the 1830s, prior to the estal>lishrnent of Xilglicarl sisterhoods, Ed~vardBouverie Pusey (influential leader of the Oxford Movement) \-kited Duhlin and tvas given perrrlissiorl l>y Mary Xilterlllead to attend the profession of Sisters of Charity."" Nightingale Ivas specific in her research: she described her Rorrlail holiday as "a course oil convents and hospitals."'li By the mid-nineteenth century the notior1 of a ferrlale institute had l>ecornethe corrlrrloil topic of serrrloils and parnphlet~.(~?hs Augustus Muhlenherg stated in 1872 in his T/~,orrg/~,f,c 017 E - c ~ n ~ ~ g l iSisterhoods, cal "The question no lorlger is, Shall Ive ha\-e sisterhoods? But of tvhat kind shall be their forrn, their organization, et cetera, in order to conformity [sic] ~viththe genius of our Protestailt religion."'19

Protestant Motlels of Fernale Religious Life

In 1833 an Anglican clergynan, John Keble, gave the Assize Sermon at Oxford that tvas later published uilder the title of "National X p o s t a ~ y . " ~ ' It is difficult to read this sermon today and grasp just what caused such controversy and led to a radical rno\-errlent that dorrlirlated nineteenthcentury religious life in Britain. The positioil staterrlent irrlplicit in Keble's seemingly innocuous serrrloil Ivas that Xilglicailisrrl is a divinely ordairled religiorl of ritual, sacraments, and apostolic authority. It Ivas a clefensit-e position, one that tvas resporldirlg to a f~lndarnentalistrevival in Xnglicanisrrl that, along ~viththe Great X~vakeningrevivals in the United States, made the Bible the sole tool for Christian practice. The debate that erupted a r o ~ u l dthe errlergeilce of Protestailt cornrnuilities of Ivornen religious ill Eilglaild tvas colored by the controversies ~vithinXilglicailisrrl and irlflarrled l>ycontinuing high profile con\-ersions of Xrlglicarls to Catholici~rn.'~ There was great controversy debate, and acrirnony o\-erthe appropriate religious life for Ivornen, and there existed

66

Chapter 4

!vide variation in approach. For those of an evangelical ternper the essential elerrleilts of any orgailized activity by Ivorneil Ivere, first, that it l>e super\-ised and superintended l>ya pastor. Second, the pastor Ivas only a substitute father. The ~vornan'sotvn father retairled full authority over her and could recall her to llorrle duties as required. This Ivas the ltey issue accordiilg to the bishop of Lincoln, Charles Tl'ordstvorth: "No \-o~vof ol>edienceto a superior of a sisterhood call l>edefeilded ~vhichrrlilitates against any clear duty to God or to parent^."'^ Early efforts at nursing came as evangelical philanthropists responded to epidemics. In 1829 Quaker Joshua Hornhy established a horne visiting service for the poor in Liverpool. In the cllolei-a epiderrlic of 1831 the care of the sick tvas the tvorlt of pious individuals. The first forrrlal traiiliilg of nurses in nineteenth-century Erlglaild occurred as a result of the efforts of Quaker Elizabeth Fry. Follo~vinga visit to the ceilter of the re\-it-a1of the fernale diaconate, at Kaisers~verth,Gerrnail!; Fry f o ~ m d e dthe Protestant Sisters of Mercy in London, in 1840, in order to train Ivornen to care for the sick in their o ~ v nhornes. The ilarrle Ivas changed to Institute for Nursing Sisters in defererlce to concerns over popish tendencies. The Fry nurses Ivere Protestailts of good character tvho had received training at Guy's Hospital, London. The cost of the Institute tvas borne by doilatioils from paid patients, ~vhichsubsidized care of the poor. Fry's l>roadlyProtestarlt Institute tvas ahead of its tirrle. It also garrlered the skill and energy of tvorlting tvorneil. For the 1,etter class of ~vornan,t~vo paths gradually errlerged for those ~ v h o~vishedto dedicate their lit-es to God's ~voi-k- the deacoiless and the n~n.':~M'ithin this evangelical frarne~vork,espoused priilcipally by "lo~v"elerrleilts of the Xilglicail Church, Quakers (such as Fry), and Rlethodists, there Ivere variations to the rnodel. For instance, Mildrnay Park, founded in 1861 by the Re\-.Tl'illiarn Pennefather and his tvife Catherine, Ivas run along the lines of Pastor Fleidner's Kaisers~verth.Pennefather also tvelcorned Presl>yterians,and the Ivornen tvho corrlpleted trairliilg tvei-e not in general Xilglicail deaconesses. By 1884 there Ivere 200 deacoilesses and 1300 associates. The deacorlesses took no \-o~vs, tvore a distinctive uniforrn, and lit-ed at Mildrnay Park, superintended l>yRlrs. Pennefather.'l Mr. Pennefather's enthusiasrrl for the contril>ution of ~vornenIvas terrlpered by the tvish to pre\-ent thern from getting "abo\-e" thernselt-es. He ~vished"to rrlake the rninistry of Christian tvornen as efficient as possible, tvithout terrlptirlg thern out of the lotvly sphere assigned to tllerrll>yGod. "" The North London Deaconesses Institution, established in 1862 by Elizabeth Ferard, the first Xilglicail deacorless to be "set apart" (the deacorless version of professioil or votv talting), tvas also rrlodeled on Kaisei-~tverth.~(~Xs "it is exceedingly desirable that a Deaconess sholild he, to a great or less extent, a practical nurse," this cornrnunity assurned

Behind Enerny Lines

67

responsil>ility for nursing at the Great Nortllerrl Hospital, London, in 1863.;; They were assisted in this task by an experienced nursing deaconess sent over frorrl Kaiserstverth for that purpose.ix A different model was that of the Rochester Deaconess Institution, ~vhichoffered a t~vo-yeartraiiliilg prograrrl for tvornen in preparatioil for parish ~vorlt.These Ivornen resided in their parishes, not in a cornrnunity house. They gained nursing, home visiting, and scripture class training to equip tllerrl to "rnost fully fulfil their roles as rnan's help-rnate." The Rletllodist and Xilglicarl deacoiless institutes in Erlglaild did not attract rnoneyed or high-born tvornen to the sarrle extent as did the Xrlglicail sisterhoods. But neither tvei-e they for the lo~vly.For instance, the Rlethodist Deaconess Institute at Me~vl>urilHouse, Loildorl required caildidates to l>e "~vornenof good education and a d d r e ~ s . The " ~ ~ deaconess role tvas not necessarily a lifelong state, though it could be. It tvas assurned to be the dorrlaiil of single tvornen or tvidotvs. The tvornen tvere expected to have the perrrlissioil and support of their farrlilies and, unlilte Kaiserstverth, to l>epro\-idedfor l>ythem as required.""

X second initiative in the development of modern nursing occllrred as part of the Oxford Movernent ~vithinthe Xrlglicarl church. In 1845 an Xrlglicarl religious order, the Order of the Holy Cross, or the Parlt I'illage Sisters, tvas established to rrlirlister to the sick poor. This group, f o ~ m d e dl>yPusey, undertveilt no traiiliilg. The sisters cared for the sick poor in their hornes. X secoild group, the Sisters of Mercy, tvas established in Devonport in 1848 l>y bliss Priscilla Sellon. In 1853 the Parlt I'illage Sisters Ivere absoi-l>edinto the De\-onport Sisters of Rlerc!; under Rliss Sellon's leadership. The rrlodel cornrnonly adopted l>yXilglicarl tvornen tvas that of do~vry requirement for clloir sisters and the option of lay sister status for poor Ivornen. The life of the tvornen tvas generally ordered around liturgical ol>ser\-ancesand set prayers. Selloil Ivas a key figure in nineteenthcentury Xnglicanisrn. In her orgarlizatioil there Ivere three levels of participation. Each group had a distinct habit, identity, and rule. The tertiary group tvas corrlposed of ~vornentvho lived at horne, took a rrlodified \-o~v,and rrlairltairled regular prayer observances. These tvornen ~vould

68 Chapter 4 perhaps corrle together at retreat tirne. The secoild group lit-ed tvithin the convent but tvent abroad perforrrliilg charital>le ~vorkssuch as ilursirlg and llorrle visitation. The third group adhered to a severe rule of prayer, discipline, and fasting. They tvere enclosed, !vent l>arefoot,and rose at night for prayers. In this cornrnunity all dorrlestic tvorlt Ivas perforrrled l>ythe sisters, and the rnany critics of Selloil tvere corlcerrled at the severity of the rule. One of Sellon's rrlost tvidely read critics Ivas a Rliss Rlargaret Goodrnan, ~ v h o~vi-otea best-selling book follotving her experiences as a rrlerrlher of the cornrn~mity.Goodrrlail portrays Sellorl as unstable and ~ r u e l . ~ T T h i s perceptioil of tvornen dorrliilated nineteenth-century fears of fernale cornrnunities. It tvas thought that Ivornen laclted the stability and reasoned nature of rrlerl and therefore required the rrloderatirlg influence of the pastor to pre\-enttllerrl frorrl succumbing to religious rnania. There are those for tvhorn Selloil personified these traits, and her adrninistration, l>yrrlore than one account, tvas quixotic and tyrannical.x:' Mlirnrn argues that the Anglican sisterhoods were in fact quite alltonornous and conducted uilder the authority of the rrlotller superior. She clairrls that the role of the pastor tvas to provide a place for them to do their tvorlt, as opposed to tvielding potver tvithin the cornrnunity."As with the Catholic sisterhoods, the impetus for the foundation of Xilglicail cornrnunities invol\-ed the tvornen t h e r n ~ e l v e sT'Vith . ~ ~ a sympathetic pastor, irlforrrlal parisll associatioils of Ivornen l>ecarneforrrlalized into cornrnunities. Officially the sisterhoods had little place in the Xrlglicarl polity until the ttventieth century but if they existed ~vithiila syrnpathetic diocese there Ivas little their opponents could do about thern. Liltetvise, if they felt the need to find a rrlore syrnpathetic bishop they Ivere free to ~ r l o \ - e . ~ ( ~ The role of the pastor in gaining recognition and acceptance of the cornrnunity- for rnounting its defense - has led to the notior1 that the cornrnunity itself tvas the product of clerical initiatit-e. It is the ilarrles of the male founders or cofounders that are often best ltno~vnl>eyond the cornrnunity. Pusey's eilcouragernent of sisterhoods is better ltno~vnthan the identities of the Ivornen tvho founded the cornrnunities (tvith the exception of Priscilla Sellon). In East Grirlstead the Sisters of St. Rlargaret Ivere the iilspiratioil of John nllasorl Neale, tvho rrlade the forrrlatiorl of the sisterllood an irrlportarlt part of his life's ~voi-It.x7 The story of a member of the Sisters of St. Margaret, Emily Scobell, ~vell illustrates the teilsioils l>ettveen "high" and "lo~v"elerrleilts of the Xnglicall Church and the Ivay the sisterhood epitomized this di\-ision.Ernily Scobell tvas the daughter of an e\-angelical Xrlglicail pastor. Her father had opposed her "high" tendencies, forbidding her to go to coilfessioil or \-isitthe poor. His opposition is instructit-e.W l e n she joined the corn-

Behind Enemy Lines

69

rnunity (against his ~vishes), he tvrote derrlarldiilg of the rrlotller superior by ~vhat"right" she had invaded his llorrle and stolen his childxxHis resistarlce to auricular corlfessiorl goes to the heart of Protestailt anxieties over the irltirrlate relationship that tvas thought to occur bettveeil a confessor ( a priest) and a tvornan - another rnan's ~vifeor daughter. Accordirlg to Bishop Tl'ilberforce, the corlfessiorlal superseded "God's appointrrlerlt of intirnacy l>ettveenhusl>andand ~vife,father and Soon after joining the communit); Scobell died of scarlet fever contracted through nursing. She left a generous bequest of £400 to the cornrnunity (and the larger part of her iillleritarlce to her l~rother) . There tvas a riot at her funeral. The sisters had their habits tor11 and Neale Ivas attacked by a large rrlob iilceilsed that Scol>ell'sproperty had been "stolen" by the church, and that Neale and the sisters had assurned the role of chief rnourners at the f ~ l n e r a l . ~ ~ The isslie of inheritance and the disposal of fortune was a sensitive one. Xccordirlg to Murnrn, rrlost cornrnunities gave the tvornen time to rrlalte a ~villand organize their funds before taking vo~vs.Rlurnrn clairrls that the record on such fillailcia1 trarlsactioils derrlorlstrates a surprising degree of financial autonorny for ITictoriantvornen. There Ivas certainly a great deal of rnoney invol\-ed.Irllleritailces of diarrlorlds for chalices, railtvay stock, full funding of con\-entbuildings, and so forth carrle from tvealthy The dowry paid by choir sisters averaged around 3 0 0 , h i t in a great rnany irlstailces it Ivas much rrlore than this. Like the Berrnondsey Convent of Mercy, these affluent and tvell-bred institutes Ivere sorrletlliilg of an English phenomenon- Catholic and Anglican. In sorrle cases a Ivornan could e\-en enter, as in rnedieval tirnes, ~vithher sei-\-antas a lay sister (though she did not retain her ser\-ant'sservices in the nineteenthcentury con\-ent). " L a y sisters were part of nearly all communities in the ilirleteerltll century, and these eiltrarlts and the no\-ices generally preforrrled all the rnanual ~voi-k- sorrletllirlg that required great trairliilg for aristocratic novices.":' Nonetheless, the work ethic that distinguished the Catholic communities irlspired by ITincentde Paul Ivas stroilgly rrlailifest in these Xrlglicail sisterhoods too. The rules of the Sisters of Charity (Anglican) required the sister to rrlalte sei-\-iceto the poor her first devotion. Both the Sisters of the Holy Church and the Sisters of the Holy Rood decried burdensorrle prayers and offices that tvould interfere ~viththeir ~voi-k.One prospectit-e calldidate to the Cornrn~mityof All Saints recalled the first question asked by the rnother superior: "M7lat call you do?""' Perhaps not surprisingly, a habitual peril for these communities was the defection of its rrlerrlhe1-s to Catholicism.!'" Mass defections occlirred at the time of the Gorllarrl J ~ d g r n e n t . In ! ~ ~fact, Mumm reports that 36 percent of the Ivornen tvho left Xrlglicarl cornrnunities did so to becorrle

70

Chapter 4

Catholic. Not only did such drarrlatic changes of side undermine the corlfiderlce and stability of the fledgling cornrnunities, they reinforced popular pre-judice that the sisterlloods tvere all crypto-Catholic in the first place. Thus Protestant nurses tvere produced from a range of innovati\-e and experirrlerltal religious and practical trainings. There tvere deacoiless prograrrls ~vhereIvornen rerrlairled at horne for their training, tvore no uniforrn, experieilced no cornrn~ulit!; right through to \-o~vedIvorneil ~ v h opunctuated their ilursing tvork tvith regular periods of prayer. A11 these Ivornen, frorrl Rletllodist deacoiless to Ailglicarl nun, had to fight for their place in the sun, and that place tvas far from stable. But of all the \-aried tasks they undertook, their nursing impulses had often prorrlpted calls for their establishrnent, developed loyal follotvings for thern, and profo~mdlyinfluenced the suhsequent course of professioilal nursing ill Britain, and thereby the tvorld.

Protestant Nllrses The spontaneous philanthropy of pious women in the nineteenth century tvas given direction by the establishrnent of ferrlale religious cornrnunities. At the sarrle tirne, the rrlagrletic pull the Catholic Church appeared to exert over these Ivornen tvas lessened 1)y the pro\-ision of acceptalde (though still debated) Protestarlt alternati\-es. Although teaching, orphanage ~vork,and care of penitents assumed great importance, particularly into the ttventieth century, in the iliileteeiltll century it tvas the nursing tvorlt of the sisterlloods that pro\-ided rnaxirnurn irnpact. It Ivas also highly relet-ant to suhsequent professiorlal de\-eloprnents in secular nursing. The earliest groups of religious Ivornen in England, Catholic and Protestant, tvere all primarily engaged in nursing. The epiderrlics of the first half of the rliileteeiltll century, the stvollen rarlks of paupers due to the Irish farnine, and the lack of any suitable iilstitutional pro\-isionfor their care, called the pious and corrlpassioilate to their aid. The precise training each sisterhood offered its rrlerrlhers Ivas highly variable. Most received sorrle rudimentary ilursing traiiliilg, and they generally received broad practical experience in horne nursing, epiderrlic nursing, and hospital nursing. Deaconesses received about ttvo years ti-airling to equip thern for Bible reading, health rrlissioil ~vork,rrlarlagerrleilt of parish charity ~vork,teaching, and care of the sick. In addition to home \-isiting and epiderrlic nursing perforrrled on occasiorl 1)y all the sisterhoods, the Anglicail cornrnunities offered Erlglaild sltilled clinical nurses ~vithexperience in hospital administration, Ivar nursing, and rrledical and surgical care. Frorrl as early as 1831 the A11 Saints Sisterhood, one of the leading

Behind Enemy Lines

71

Xrlglicail nursing cornrnuilities, received forrrlal training at TlPstrrlirlster Hospital, L ~ n d o n . By " ~ the 181iOs and 1870s the nurses of St. John's House, A11 Saints, the Holy Rood, and the Cornrn~mityof St. Rlargaret pro\-ided the rrlost experieilced and best-trained nurses ill the ~ o u n t r y . ! ' ~ Anne Summers has shown how remarkably effective these sisterhoods Ivere in raising the starldards of organization and care in the teaching hospitals.!'!' These women were professionally competent; they derrlailded better pro\-isions (frorn l>andagesto diet) for patients. They also super\-ised and trained the nurses tvorking tvith tllerrl and insisted that clearling ~voi-ltl>e perforrrled l>y cleailers and not nurses. In practical terrns, these groups of nurses perforrrled irrlportarlt tvork, establishing the rrloral integrity of nursing as a pious \-ocatioil, and furthering the cause of trained nurses. E\-ell before the Crirnea, the Fry nurses and St. John's House sisters ~vorkedin the hornes of the poor and rich alilte, ill hospitals and in poorhouse infirmaries. Their success eilgerldered debates about the ability of hospitals to afford trailled nurses, and of the role of nurses ill the rrlailagerrleilt of epiderrlics and other puhlic health measures. It tvas they ~ v h opioneered the field as an area of virtuous actit-ity,as tvell as a focus of errlergeilt expertise - rrloral and scientific.

St. Jol-111's House The most influential of all communities in this respect, and in relation to its impact on Florerlce Niglltiilgale's thinlting and experience of nursing, Ivas St.John's House, forrnally the Order of St. Jollil the Evangelist. This cornrnunity Ivas fouilded in 1848 as a "Training Institution for Nurses in Hospitals, Farrlilies and for the Poor." The nursing focus of St. John's House (ilarned after its parish location), its subsequent irrlpact on London teaching hospitals, and its atypical organization and rule distinguish it frorrl the other sisterlloods and deacorless foundations, and link its history rrlore \-itally~viththe errlergerlce of secular ilursing follotving the Crirrlearl TVar. As Carol Helrrlstadter points out in a series of papers, St.John's House otved its foundation to a pious rrledical reformer, Robert Bentley Todd, a f'u-sighted . - ' individual tvho achieved prorrliilerlce as a rrledical innovator and He was aware that his goal for hospital reform required a new type of nurse. St.John's House Ivas to provide and train these nurses. Their nursing successes tvere impressive. In 1836 they assurned corltrol of King's College Hospital, London, in 1866 Charing Cross Hospital, London, and in 1867 the Hospital for Sick Cllildreil in Nottingharn."" Over this period they frequently rejected proposals to take over other hospitals due to lack of resources.1o2 Unlike other religious commlinities of women, St.John's House sisters

72

Chapter 4

Ivere adrrlirlistered by a council of t~venty-fourrnen. St.John's House Ivas an experiment - a rrlodel nursing cornrn~ulity,established to reforrrl patient care and aid the development of scientific medicine. Uilder syrnpathetic patronage it succeeded in these tasks, corltrollirlg the hospital en\-ironrnent,trairliilg nursing staff and pro\-idinga stable en\-ironrnent for patient reco\-ery. The sisterllood pro\-ided Ivornen tvith an opportunity to unite professioilal, spiritual, and philanthropic goals tvithin an Xrlglicarl context. This Ivas an inno\-ativeappi-oacll to corrlplex practical pi-oblerrls and a pragrrlatic rrleld of rrlodels that at first appeared the solution to hospital needs and the \-ocationaldesires of tvornen. Difficulties soor1 ernerged. The first superior of the cornrnunity tvas a lo~vchurch Ivornan, Elizabeth Ferard. She acquiesced ill a structure that gave the House blaster prirnary control o\-er the sisterhood. This structure stviftly pro\-ed a rrlajor ol>stacle tvhen a high church Ivornail, Mary Jones, close friend and rrlerltor of Florerlce Nightingale, took o\-er the cornrnunity. 111 1868Jones led a defection from St.John's House, leaving it bereft of sisters. She declared: "I arrl by the \-oice of the Sisters the Superior of rny Sisterhood, and as such I must diligently care for the needs and jealously guard the rights of rny Sisters. X constitution of our otvn is essential, and tve rnust clairrl the right to regulate our o ~ v ninner life.""':'Jones and her sisters formed a new comrnlinit); the Sisterhood of St. Mary and St. John, and achieved self-governance and spiritual freedom. For its part, the council little understood how problerrlatic these structural issues tvei-e for the sisters and sirnply 1,egan again, perceiving the issue as a syrnptorn of incipient Rorrlarlisrrl arrlorlg the sisters. X decade later St. John's House Ivas rrlailagirlg ttvo rrlajor Loildorl teaching hospitals, King's College Hospital and Cllarirlg Cross Hospital, ~viththirty-five sisters overseeing 219 n ~ r s e s . ~The ( ' l sisterhood xvithdre~v yet again due to coiltiilued dissatisfaction ~viththe coiltrolliilg role of an increasingly ~msyrnpatheticcouncil. Prol>lerns also rose directly through clinical and professioilal coilflicts tvith rrledical rnen. For instance, at King's College Hospital, the farnous Lord Lister's irnprornptu oil-~vai-d surgery tvould take over the entire ~vardfor long hours (full troop of rrledical students ol>serving,loud and terrifying explanations, blood on the floor, and so forth), rrlaltiilg the care, even the feeding, of other patients irnpossil>le.Other difficulties ill\-olved the a1,usive and insulting treatrrlerlt of Ivornen by one atteildiilg olxtetrician, Dr. Hayes, ~vhichled to a forrrlal corrlplairlt by the sister in charge. The absence of acltno~vledgrrlerlt of Sister Xirnee, the Sister Superintendent, in the annual reports of King's College Hospital served as the last stra~v.l("The second rift ended in a nasty press Ivar and the sisters 1)eing unable to reclairrl £15,000 of their funds from St. John's House. The Xilglicarl Guardian Ivas the sole support for the sisters. The Titlles and medical journals clairrled that the

Behind Enerny Lines

73

issue tvas one of igrlorarlt and overl>earingtvornen standing in the Ivay of rrledical progress.l("l This second defection effectivelycaused the demise of St.John's Holise, although it did coiltiilue ill an attenuated forrrl until Mbrld War I. Mean~vhile,the cornrnunity that had seceded continued its tvorlt and rerrlaiiled in great derrlarld The successive failures of St. John's House highlighted the failure of the hybrid rrlodel tvhere tvell-born pious Ivornen trained and regulated ilursing ill a rrlajor teaching hospital, superirlteilded l>y a corrlbiilatiorl of male religious and rrledical rnen. The rrlodel foundered on the need for the tvornen to establish a realrrl of irldeperlderlt spiritual and terrlporal authority ~vithinthe hospital and ~vithintheir cornrn~mity.Both the lack of recogrlitiorl of their spiritual needs and the refusal of the council to recogrlize that their expertise and experience derrlarlded a corresporldiilg area of polver and authority led to a collapse in relations bettveen the hospitals and the sisters, and the council and the sisters. The rnovernent for religious tvorneil in Protestailt England, then, achieved a great deal of success in the second half of the nineteenth century. It Ivas the Xrlglicarl sisterhoods in the south of England and evangelical Xrlglicail and nlletllodist deacorlesses throughout the country that achieved the rrlost forrrlal and prorrlirlerlt cornrnunities of tvornen. They achieved recogilitioil and \-isibilityfor Ivornen, forrrliilg the critical rrlass of active Ivornen tvho participated in a host of cornrnunity actit-ities,such as Bible and rrlissioil groups, overseas missions, and terrlperarlce societies. It tvas in this rrlaililer that the political and social laildscape of ilirleteenthcentury society carrle to include tvornen. Tl'ornen, for their part, colonized rrlore and rrlore territory as l>elongingto the "the ferrlale sphere." Education, orphan care, prisorl reforrn, rescue ~vork,llorrle nursing, and higher education forrrled the locus of such actit-ities. Institutional ilursing by religious tvornen, ~vithits orgailizatiorlal and infrastructure dernailds, Ivas left to the Xrlglicarl sisterhoods. Unlike the Lutheran deacorless rnovernent, the deacorlesses in Protestant Eilglarld largely rerrlairled part of the pastoral machinery of the parish. Under the authority of the pastor, safe ~vithinthe patriarchal horne, their range and pi-ofessioilalisrrl tvei-e limited. In Eilglarld trained and professional nursing activity derrlarlded a rrlore centralized and autonornous orgailizatiorlal base than tvas generally allotved in the deaconess rnovernent. Through a separate orgailizatioilal structure, Ivornen such as Elizabeth Fry, Rlary Jones, and Sister Xirrlee tvere able to set up sltilled nursiilg orgarlizatioils for pious tvornen. Over the period from the 1840s to the 1870s, these Ivornen Ivere able to offer good care fi-orrl respectal>leIvornen to private patients and to hospitals on a coiltract 1)asis. Xrlrle Surnrners charts the rernarltal>le yet largely unol>ser\-edirrlpact of

74

Chapter 4

these g r o ~ p s . ~ ( ' Vthe ~ nfirst instance they offered a high standard of postsurgical care. This Ivas in an era ~vhensurgical innovations Ivere being developed and pri\-ate surgery by the country's leading surgeons took place in the llorrles of the tvealthy. Postoperatit-e reco\-ery then as notv relied on skilled aftercare. These Eilglisll "Soeurs de Charite" de\-eloped these skills and becarrle highly sought after. Second, as corltract nurses to rrlajor hospitals, they l>roughtthese skills and a high standard of practice to the teaching hospitals. The records of the Boards of Go\-el-ilors rrleetirlgs corrlplairl almut the cost of the sisters, and the heavy costs in irnpro\-ed patient diet, l>andaging materials, and so on that they insisted tvere necessary for proper care.lO!'Moreover, they refused to pel-forrrl dorrlestic ~vork,so the hospital had to fund "scrubl>ers" in additioil to nurses. It is, therefore, from this group of predominantly Xrlglicail Ivornen that the atvareness of the possibility of reforrrl and its uses and benefits perrrleated rrledical and hospital practice in the years leading up to the Crirrleail Tl'ar. Follotving the Crirnea, the enthusiasm for trained nursing raised the sisters' otvn stakes even higher, as they Ivere the only group to provide trained nurses for alrrlost another ttventy years. Ho~vever,despite their success and clear \-iability,the lirrlits of their approach for Erlglaild had l>ecorneclear. The Xilglicarl affiliation of these cornrnunities Ivas illtolei-able to both the rloi~corlforrrlistelerrleilts of English Protestarltisrrl and the e\-angelical elerrleilts of Xnglicanisrn. Rloreover, this occurred ill a rrlore geileral clirrlate of secularization and dernocratization. The sectariarl tensions e\-ident in the upheat-als ~vithiil Xnglicanisrn, bet~veenXilglicailisrrl and the ilorlcoilforrrlist sects, and bettveen Protestailtisrrl and Catholicism streilgtlleiled the case of "lil>erals" tvho held that the secularization of state and civic institutions tvas the only sane and peaceful response to religious divisioil. The liberalderrlocratic frarnetvorlt strove to prevent the extrerrlities of re\-olution that dorrlirlated coiltiileiltal politics, and at the same time to lirrlit the official role of the Xrlglicail church and the capacity of the Catholic church to influence British politics. Franchise debates, the rights of tvornen, attitudes to irnrnigrants, and coloilial responsil>ilities Ivere all issues that expressed religious, patriotic, and civic turrnoil. In this clirrlate it tvas not possil>lefor Catholic tvornen to talte over the adrrlirlistratioil of Eilglisll hospitals, rlor tvas it desirable for Xilglicarl Ivornen to reirlforce the ascendancy of the estal>lishedchurch. The deaconess groups did not address the issue of institutional care of the sick to any great measure, and therefore the reforrrl and secularization of nursing required ail English solution. Religious ilursing Ivas, then, a force for reforrrl and a door~vayfor respectable Ivornen to the public dornain. Hotvet-el; for Protestarlt En-

Behind Enerny Lines

75

gland it tvas a rno\-ernent ~vithclear limitations. Neither Catholic 1101Xrlglicarl sisterhoods tvere able to rrlalte sigilificailt irlroads into the !yellestablished hospital systern. Uillike the situation in New South \Vales and Noi-tll Xrnerica, the nineteenth century ill Eilglarld Ivas a period not so rnuch of hospital foundation as of reforrn.ll0 The established hospitals in Eilglarld operated ~vithinpreexistiilg go\-eriling structures. Boards of go\-ernors, ~ v h ogenerally represerlted respectalde Protestant England, ~vouldhave coilsidered it their cllarter to pi-eser\-e Eilglisll institutions from the hands of Catholics. The heritage of the Eilglisll Reforrrlatiorl could not be squandered by the restoratioil of hospitals to the hands of n ~ m s For . the Xilglicarl sisterhoods much of the sarrle tllirlkiilg applied. Medical support for the sisterlloods had !vaned by the 1880s. Moreover, the sharp distiilctiorl bet~veen"high" and "lotv" church and the presence of iloilcorlforrrlists on hospital 1,oai-ds tvould have rrlade the ~vholesaleappoiiltrrleilt of Xrlglicarl sisterhoods to the rrlarlagerrlerlt of hospitals extrernely contra\-ersial. For iloilcorlforrrlist churchmen, keeping puhlic and pri\-ate resources out of the control of the "official" but reserlted Xrlglicarl church ~vouldhave underlain much resistance to the sisterhoods. As opposed to coiltiileiltal Europe, tvhere the nursing cornrn~ulities Ivere cornrnonly exerrlpt fi-orrl arlticlerical decrees,ll1 in England the di\-isions tvithin Protestarltisrrl and \-irulent anti-Catholicism rrlearlt that there Ivas not to be an English religious solution to the pi-oblerrl of nursing. This Ivas despite the 1~-ave and innovati\-e Protestant rrlodificatioils to the Catholic rrlodel eilgirleered o\-er the course of the century. In England, the rrlodel of a rnodern, scientific, and derrlocratic nation, a \-iew de\-eloped that it Ivas desirable to move 1,eyond religion in the fields of education and go\-ernrnent and scientifically to shape its citizenry ill ci\-ic,rloildeilorrlirlatioilal Christian virtue. It Ivas in this context that the Niglltiilgale respoilse to the pi-oblerrl of religious ilursing pro\-idedsuch a potverf~lland resoilailt solution.

The Nightingale Solution Despite her singular qualities and achievements, Florence Nightingale Ivas a Ivornan of her era. Lilte other serious-rninded and pious ITictorian Ivornen, she felt called to a useful life and th~vartedby the coilstraiilts of the role of da~ghter.~l?hs an adolescent during the controversies of the Oxford Movement, she tvas tvell atvare of the religious life that a good rnany of her peers ~vouldchoose. She rnust have follotved the scandals caused by conversions and the lo\-e affair the Eilglisll upper class conducted tvith the trappings of Catholicism, if not Catholicisrn itself. She

76

Chapter 4

had her o ~ v nstruggle, too, ill this respect. In her correspoildeilce tvith Henry Rlanning, ~vhornshe had rrlet in Italy, she expressed the urge to becorrle a Catholic and en\-iedthe life and training of nuns. In 1832 Niglltiilgale tvrote to Manning, notv a Catholic priest, If \ o u line\\ nllat a lloirle tlle Catholi~Church \\auld be to me. A11 that I \\ant I shollld find In hei XI1 mr ditficult~esr+ollldbe remored 1 hare labor~ollsl\to pick up, here and there, ci utnbs b\ t\hich to lire She t\ollld glre tne In\ dad\ bread Tlle daugllters of Saint \'iil~ent\\auld ope11 tlleir arms to nle. Tller l m e alreadl done so; and t\hat shollld I find the1 e; \1r r+oik alreadr laid out tor me instead of seeking i t to and fio and findlng none; In\ home, s\tnl~ath\,hllman and dl\iile. . . . T211\ Larlilot I enter tlle Catholi~Church at once as tlle best form of truth I hare ere11 knor+nand as cutting the Goidian knot I cannot untie " '

Nightingale continued to observe the nursing work of Catholic nuns. She educated herself on the differeilce l>ettveen Daughters of Charity (tvhorn she altvays praised) and cornrnunities tvhere the sisters did little hands-on nursing and rrlade their otvn spiritual life, not care of the sick, their essential tvork (such as cornrnunities she obsei-\-edin Rorne) ."I In addition to her efforts to secure time at a hospital run by religious Ivornen, she \-kited Pastor Theodur Fleidiler at Kaiserstverth. There she Ivas able to study the orgailizatiorl and training of the deaconesses. But it Ivas the nuns ~ v h oreally fascinated her. First she follo~vedtheir tvork from afar, en\-ying their training, utilit); and purpose. It Ivas this training that Ivas such a problerrl for her. She understood that efficient nursing and hospital reforrrl entirely relied upon the effective trairliilg of Ivornen. She even temporarily entered a convent to learn rrlore about that training."" T'Vhen the call to the Ckimean War came, Florence Nightingale was well researched but not ~vellexperienced. The Ivar proved a battle for Nightingale on a nurnher of fronts: she had to rrlairltairl the support of the TVar Office, the arrny, arrny rrledical men, and her heterogeneous group of nurses - including her adversar); Irish Sister of Mercy nllotller Frarlcis Bridgernan. T~vothings tve car1 say emerged clearly from this experience. First, Nightingale hated the sectariailisrrl and contra\-ersy that dogged e\-eryissue ~vhenit tvas clouded by religious coilflict.ll'l Second, she developed a close and highly spiritual relatioilsllip tvith nllotller Rloore, the leader of the Sisters of Mercy from Berrnondsey, London. Not only did these t~voIvornen corresporld for rnany years follotving the ~vai-,but Nightingale's attachment for nllooi-e is e\-identfrom the fact that on her return to Lorldoil she irnrnediately tvent to the Berrnondsey convent, and, finding the sisters about to corrlrrlerlce a spiritual retreat, rerrlairled tvith tllerrl for a few days before announcing her return frorrl the tvar. Although Nightingale tvas the undoubted heroine of the tval; the nurs-

Behind Enemy Lines

77

irlg sisterhoods, too, gretv in popular coilfideilce and stature. Other Crirrlearl lady nurses published their otvn accounts of the tval; rnany of ~vhich Ivere critical of Rliss Niglltiilgale and lauded the Catholic As we ha\-e seen, Catholic sisterhoods, for their part, took advantage of puhlic enthusiasm to open a hospital in Loildorl in 1836. Niglltiilgale tvas particularly corlcerrled to disco\-era plan in the Xrrny nlledical Departrrleilt to introduce (Catholic) Sisters of 'lercy as female nurses at the \'ictoria Hospital at Southarnpton. Apparently this lobby carrle from a Catholic convert, Dr. Andrew Srnith.llTThe Protestant sisterhoods also had fi-iends in high places, ~vithDeputy Irlspector Gellei-a1Rlouat putting their case: "~vornen,as a rule, car1 only rrlake good and useful nurses ~vhenled to the adoptioil of this rrlost trying and disagreealde of occupations frorrl strong rrloral feelings . . . and Protestarlt sisters must forrrl an integral portion of the cornrnunity." As a woman of her generation, Nightingale had begun as something of a Catholic fellow traveler, illspired by the life and tvork of the nuns ~vitha \-ocationalsense that God had called her to forge her otvn path and lead others along it. But, as Bolster puts it, "Her attractiorls are for the organization rather than the doctriiles of the Catholic Church."12' The religious order constituted the spiritual/ethical "space" from tvhich, ~vhen pressed by the Nightingale Fund, she forrnulated a ilorlsectai-iail forrrl of nursing suitable for English society. Her European research, the Crirrlearl experience, and the advice and inspiration of Mary Jones, forrnerly of St. John's House, and Rlotller Rloore, Berrnondsey Sister of Rlerc!; pro\-ided the accurnulated ~visdornfi-orrl ~vhichthe "Nightingale Systern" Ivas to emerge.

""

The Nightingale Svsterrl But t7oo t11o((g11ts7o111(11 God 110s ~ T J ( > I I IIL(> I I L I (i~11ol~ I$> / I ( I T J P OPPII, j 1 5 t to znfirse the n ~ ~ s f z c)elzgzo)/ al to the f o ~ m sof the ofhe) . es;Deczcr1(4 among ( ~ J O I I L P Ito I I I L ( I ~ I ' Pt l i ~ ~ " / rI (~I I I I ~ I ~ I / I I ~oPjItI1~ 1L~o ~ d . 5~co11dl1 - t o g ~t il i~~~(111 ~r~ o)gcri/z;atron fo) the11 crct17~zt)I I / 7~1h1ch the) corrld be t~aznedfo be '%cri/dinardens o f f h eL o ~ d" -Flo~e~~ce~\igl~fz~~gale, 1889"

During the patriotic fervor of the Ckimean T'Var, the gratefill British public (including loyal citizens from Netv South Wales) contributed generously to a f ~ u l dto estaldish a system of trained nursing. This tvas not Nightingale's initiatit-e; she Ivas far too busy exarrliilirlg arrny sanitation, the tvater supply of India, and a thousand other pressirlg questions to focus on nursiilg.'" Nonetheless, the Nightingale Fund demanded her response. Taking copious ad\-icefrom Mary Jones (a frequent, pri\-ileged

78

Chapter 4

\-isitor to Nightingale's siclthed), studying the rules and contracts of St. John's House, and dra~vingoil her otvn encyclopedic ltno~vledgeof hospitals follotving decades of research, she begail to develop her o ~ v n systern.l":' The sisterhoods provided the model for hierarchical organization, tvith the Niglltiilgale sister responsil>le for ensuring decorurn and respectability, super\-ising the conduct of patients, nurses, and doctors. The in\-ention of the nurses' horne tvas another "cloistered" elerrlent of critical importance. In addition to the irnpi-o\-ernentin hygiene and health the llorrles facilitated, they pro\-ided the crucial opportuility for the training in "character" that Nightingale coilsidered so essential to improve n ~ r s i n g .The ~ ' ~homes, too, made it possible for respectable girls to train as nurses, reassuring their farnilies that a safe and cllaperoiled en\-ironrnentIvas pro\-idedfor their non~vorkingtirne. The nurses' llorrle Ivas "A place of rnoral, religious, and practical training of character, habits, intelligence, a place to acquire knotvledge, both tecllilical and practical. . . . It is there that order, discipliile and method . . . rnust be first taught, or they ~villnot l>earnenal>leto tvard di~cipline."~"" T'Vhat was later to become known as the "Nightingale system" of training and hospital reforrrl in\-olves a nurnher of ltey aspects: rrlatroil in authority, nursiilg prol>ationers in residence, instruction from the tvard sister, and supplementary lectures on hygiene. nllorlica Baly's thorough exarrliilatiorl of the historical record points out that this "systern" tvas not the result of a thought-out rrlaster plan. Nightingale did not, in fact, have control over St. Thornas's, ~vherethe systern tvas introduced. M'ardroper, the rnatron, Ivas not a lady, and Nightingale frequently despaired of the entire l > u s i i ~ e s s . l y ~ o n e t h e l eas s sa, reslilt of Nightingale's profile and the Fund's effective publicity rnachine, the St. Thornas's experirnental rrlodel becarrle nursing scripture. 111 fact, Niglltiilgale l>ecarne synonyrnous tvith ~lursing.~" Her influence extended fi-om military nursing to all rrlatters coilcerilirlg nursing, poorhouse nursiilg, home \-isiting, and rnidtvifer y. The failure of Catllolic nursing to rrlake an impact on I'ictorian nursing reforrrl in Eilglarld is indicative of the fact that hospital reforrrl rerrlairled a Protestant concern in Britain. Hotvet-el; disunity tvithiil the Protestarlt confessions, in the context of the Oxford Movernent and 11011corlforrrlist anger, left the highly successful Xrlglicarl nursing sisterlloods ~vithoutthe broad popular support enjoyed by Catholic sisterlloods else~vhere.The success of Florerlce Nightingale, lilte the success of the active orders of religious nurses that preceded her, Ivas that she provided a solution to the pro1,lern of religious terlsiorls in Britain. Ibcational nursing led by godly tvornen could achieve a rrliracle arrlorlg the old hospital nurses. The Anglican sisterhoods, like the Catholic sisterlloods in Catllolic

Behind Enerny Lines

'79

countries, had shotvn ~vhatcould be done. The irnpro\-edrrlarlagerrlerltof hospitals, better clinical skill, and irnproved care Ivere ~mdisputed.But there had to be a Ivay to provide this care ~vithoutfueling the religious teilsioils that dorrliilated \'ictorian Britain. As Baly has tvell demonstrated, St. Thornas's traiiliilg Ivas not \-ery successful, and Niglltiilgale pri\-ately did not think rnuch of it. Its success tvas that it offered much of ~vhatthe sisters had proven to ~vork,tvithout the religious iiltrigue to upset the board or the secret sisterhood to upset medicine. But rrlost irrlportailt of all, it successf~lllyllarrlessed the \-ocational Ivave of Ivornen in a tvay that rernoved religious teilsioils yet rrlaiiltaiiled its pious eilergy-\'ictorians lo\-edit.

Chaptrr 5

At the Margins of the Empire Rdigious Wars i n thr Hosjbital Wards of Colonial LYyd7zr~

Despite its position at the \ e n margins of the British Empire, colonial N e ~ tSouth TVales plaled its part in the Nightingale mo\ernent for the reform of nursing.' As patriotic members of the British Empire, colonials contributed generollsl\ to the Nightingale Fund set u p during the Crimean TVar b\ an enthllsiastic British public. Miss Nightingale honored this contribution in 1868 117 pro\iding a team of \\omen to bring her distinctile stile of trained nurse to Australia. H o ~ t e l e r long , before the Nightingale sisters disembarked at Sldne) Cole, a group of Frenchtrained Irish nursing sisters had been bus\ caring for the people of Sldne) at St. \'incent's Hospital. Sldnej's St. \'incent's Jtas an excellent hospital, led through the centur\ 117 distinguished and edllcated It \\as funded h\ s~lhscriptionsand supported b) a tide section of the Sjdne) commllnit\.' St. \'incent's became the hospital of choice for all prilate patients, foreign \isitors, and embass) staff, and e\en boasted a suite for the R o ~ a N l an. Yet despite the achielernents of the Sisters of Charit\, professional nursing in Australia is comrnonh considered to ha\ e begun in 1868, then Miss Nightingale's distant relatile and protegee Miss Luc) Oshurn and her team of file neul) trained sisters arri\ed in Sldne). Their task Jtas to reform nursing at the S)dne\ Infirmar), the oldest hospital in Xllstralia. The stor) of the English Nightingales and the Irish nursing nuns in nineteenth-cent~lrjSldnej's t u o hospitals continues the L'ictorian stor) of Catholic Emancipation, Irish politics, Anglican tensions, and the emerging terrain of torne en's uork into the colonial ~ t o r l dof N e ~ tSouth TVales.' In Sldne), at the boundaries of Empire, the jllxtaposition of these t u o communities of nursing Jtornen prolides a case stucl) that addresses the issues of competence and professionalism, religion and sectarianism, and church and colonial politics as the) shaped the emergence of professional nursing.

At the Margins of the Empire

81

The TJrarlnv of Distance The Chlorn of Neu South TVales \\as on11 fiftl \ears old u h e n fi\e Irish Sisters of C:harit\ disembarked at S\dne\ C:o\e, in earl\ sllrnrner; on the last da\ of 1838 ' The \o\age had taken four months The sisters Jtere accompanied on their outuard \o\age h\ an English Benedictine priest, Father TVilliam Ullathorne It \\as his responsihilit\ to ensure that al-rangements uere made for the sisters that befitted their hol\ and unu o r l d l ~status, and that the\ a\oided the unseeml\ task of communicating directly with cren and fellon passengers. In 1838 S ~ d n e y was the administrative center for the entire continent and for New Zealand. At that time the total population of the continent was 132,000. In New South TVales there Jtere 77,000 Ellropeans." New Holland and Van Diemen's Land,; as Xllstralia was then k n o ~ t n Jtere , settled in 1788 when the British finall) accepted the loss of America and needed somexvhere other than LTirginiato transport their convict ships. The European community of Sydne) consisted of the military presence required of a garrison olltpost of the British Empire, plus administrators, comicts and former comicts, guards and their families, and a handfill of free settlers. Half the population Jtas English, a quarter Irish, with Scottish and sllndr) other nationalities making u p the remaining quarter. The English Jtere in charge, the Scots worked hard and prospered, and the Irish were a thorn in e\er)one else's side. It Jtas thus a rnicrocosrn of British societ\."

Irish Versus English: Sisters of Charity and Dr. Polding But there was one major difference between "Home" and the colony: in Sydney there Ivere few \vornen.!' The shortage of women meant that the dorrlestic and sexual services of con\-icttvornen \\.ere at a prerniurn. O n arri\-a1the tvornen Ivere placed in the hornes of the coloilial leadership and settlers. Mbrrleil tvho corrlrrlitted a further offense or became pregnant (a corrlrrloil occurrence) \\.ere put to tvork (accornpanied 1)y their ba1)ies) in an institution kno\vn as the Ferrlale Factory at Parrarrlatta- a half-day journey 1)y ship iillaild from Sydney. The Ferrlale Factory tvas first established in 1801 for about fifty Ivorneil, ~ v h oIvere occupied \yea\-iilg linen and ~vool.It Ivas rebuilt by Go\-erilorRlacquarie ill 1818 and 1)y 1842 accorrlrrlodated 1,203~vornen.H' It was here that the Sisters of Charity were first put to work, among a thousand tvornen and children, t~vo-thirdsof ~vhorn\\.ere Catholic." The niceties of their chaperoned journey to Australia \\.ere sorne~vhatat odds ~viththe brutal reality of the Ferrlale Factory, the lack of suita1)le accornrrlodatiorl or fillailcia1 support available o n arri\-al,and the Ivay they \\.ere

82

Chapter 5

left to fend for themselves in the hostile society of Netv South Wales. Despite these difficulties, the sisters took to the ~voi-k~vithenergy. Even acco~mtingfor the enthusiasms of insider historians, the sisters rnust ha\-e been a ~velcornechange to at least sorrle of the irlrrlates of the Ferrlale Factory and their chi1dren.l' The concentration of Irish arnong convict Ivornen in Sydney Ivas high.':' Before 1815-21 nearly 35 percent of convict Ivornen tvere Irish; o\-era11in 1788-1828 40 percerlt tvei-e." For hornesick Irish tvornen, the sisters 1~-oughtthe coilsolatiorl of the church and taught the children. Their success in rrloderatirlg the rrlood of the Factory Ivas enough to be rrlerltioiled in dispatches to Rorrle by the vicar general of the colony, Dr. Jollil Bede Polding. Characteristically, the sisters are in\-isible in this clerical correspondence. Their achiet-ernents Ivere attrilmted to the genius of their confessor, Ullathorne, ~ v h oaccording to Poldiilg "goes to Parrarrlatta once a tveek . . . he has forrrled the house of the Sisters of Charity, . . . his lal>oursha\-e made the Factory the abode of penitence."'" Relations with the vicar general began badly and were to deteriorate. In a decision that sho~veda startlirlg iililocerlce of the coloilial situation, Sister Mary Cahill declirled a government stipend for the sisters.l'l Mean~vhile,Poldirlg (also an English Benedictine) did not pro\-ide for thern. Poldiilg received a go\-ernrnent stipend of £800 per year. He also had possessiorl of the £2000 Ullatllorile had brought out tvith the sisters in 1838. Poldiilg had assured Xikenhead, foundress of the Irish Sisters of Charity, that he ~vouldpro\-idefor the sisters, Hotvet-el-,once in Sydney he instructed the sisters to tvrite to Dublin for their do~vries.Uilltno~vnto the sisters, Mary Xilterlllead fortvarded the dotvries to the Berledictiile agent in London, the Re\-erend Tllorrlas Heptonstall. So ~vhilePoldirlg rnustered the resources to gi\-e property to Beiledictirle nuns and other property purchases, the substailtial do~vriesthe sisters had 1~-ought to the order tvere at Polding's disposal and never rrlade a\-ailable to thern, and the sisters struggled in desperate pot-erty and actual hunger.li The confiision over dowries was part of a more general confilsion over the nature of the Sisters of Charity, how they Ivere supposed to live, and ~vherethey fitted into the Catholic Church ill Sydney. The Irish Sisters of Charity had only begun in 1815. Rlother Mary Xikenhead, their foundress, Ivas still ah\-ein 1838. In 1841 the total nurnber of tvornen religious ill Irelaild Ivas only 987 -of a population of eight rnil1ion.l"The rule by ~vhichthe cornrnunity lit-ed Ivas forrrled under Jesuit iilflueilce that ernphasized a tvorldly rrlissioil requiring flexibility and adaptability and a stroilg spiritual interiority."' It was founded as a centralized institute under the rnotherhouse systern, tvhich stipulated direct rule tvithiil the cornrnunity as opposed to rule by a l>ishop."' This was new territory for

At the Margins of the Empire

83

Ivornen both in Irelaild and in Australia, and Polding's understanding of or iilterest in issues rnav have been lirnited.

Mother Xikenl-lead's Sisters of Charity Mother Xikenhead was the daughter of an apothecary and her religious \-ocationto the poor gat-e special emphasis to care for the sick. Xikeilllead Ivas also a convert to Catholicism, and from the l~eginningher rrlissioil Ivas one of outreach ~vitllhospitals open to all. She deterrrlirled that she ~vouldfind a rrleails to pro\-ide the poor ~vitllcare that could rrlatcll anything rnoney could lmy. This tvas not sirrlple philanthropy but a philosophy that eilcorrlpassed rrlaterial goals and expectations for the cornrnunity. The fo~mdationof St. \'incent's Hospital in Dublin expressed this pragrrlatic rrlerger of clinical and philanthropic goals. One of Xikenhead's early pi-oblerrls had been the death rate arrlorlg the sisters in\-olved in siclt \-isitation. Rloreo\-el-,not only Ivas llorrle visiting a persolla1 health risk to the sisters, but Xilterlllead Ivas corlceriled that the sisters tvere themselves a source of coiltagioil as they traveled fi-orrl house to house. Her only solution tvas to bring the poor to the sisters, tvhere their Ivants could be supplied and the sisters could care rrlore efficiently for greater nurnbers of poor. It tvas this "logistical" corlsideratioil that led Rlother Xilterlllead to the possil>ilityof a hospital." Once the rnoney was found to corrlrrleilce the institution, she sent three sisters to Paris to the HBpital de Notre Darrle de la Pitii., conducted by the Sisters of St. Tllorrlas of \'illano\-a.There the sisters Ivere sent to the differerlt departrrlerlts to gain a 1~-oadexperience. St. \'iilceilt's, Duhlin tvas opened in 1834, and rim by nurses tvith the only training a\-ailable at the time," offering medical support frorrl Dublin's best. St. \'incent's rrledical care tvas given by rrleil such as Joseph O'Farrell (1790-1877), one of the founders of, and keen contril~utorsto, the Dublin Pathological Society, forer~mnerto the Royal Xcaderny of Medicine, and O'Bryen Bellingharn (1800-1867), an Edinburgh-trained Protestant aristocrat tvho developed the "Duhlin hlethod" for aneurysrn surgery.":' The group that was sent to Sydney in 1838 included Sister Francis de Sales O'Brien, ~ v h ohad receit-ed her nursing ti-aiiliilg ill Paris, and Sister Jollil Baptist de Lac); tvho had trailled at St. \'incent's in Duhlin." It was also in 1834 that Dr. Polding, as the new vicar apostolic of New Hollaild and \'an Diernen's Land, approached nllotller Xilterlllead for Sisters of Charity for the Colony of New South Wales. The Sisters of Charity Ivere focused oil their sei-\-ice to the Irish pool; and they did not establish overseas rrlissioils as readily as did other cornrnunities. Hotve\-el-,Polding's tale of the plight of the Irish convicts in Australia rnoved

54

Chapter 5

Rlother Ailtenhead. In the first years of con\-ict settlerrlerlt Catholicisrn Ivas pi-osci-il>ed,and the Catholic cornrnunity had to rely on Irish convict priests (~vhoIvere flogged for perforrrlirlg their calling)." The convict Ivornen Ivere in a particularly vulileral>le position, at the rnercy of all, ~vith no pro\-ision for their care or guidance. Xilterlllead agreed to supply Poldiilg ~vitha group of fit-esisters for the rrlissiorl to "tvorlt a change in at least the ferrlale part of the con\-ictpopulation."""

Fiilcliilg a Place for the Sisters in Sydney As for so rnany other nineteenth-century ferrlale religious foundatioils, from Chile to Netvfoundland, the sisters endured rernarkal>lehardships. The death rate arrlorlg the Sydney sisters tvas high, and the srrlall cornrnunity Ivas stretched to the lirrlit of its hurnan and financial resources." The sisters taught children and adults, cared for orphans, and \-kited the sick. They rnoved from Parrarrlatta to Sydney at the bishop's cornrnand, Ivere shifted from house to house, and on one occasioil Ivere alrrlost dispossessed l>y hirn.'V\-ell though Poldiilg had begged Mary Xilterlllead to spare llirrl sorrle Sisters of Charit); ~vhornhe knew to l>esltilled nurses and teachers, he rrlade no effort to pro\-ide tllerrl tvith their o ~ v nschools or hospital. Instead he put thern to ~vorlttvalking all o\-erthe totvn to visit six scllools and the Sydney Infirrnar!; ~vhereno trailled nursing Ivas carried out and the nursing ~voi-k(such as it tvas) perforrrled l>y unsltilled ser\-ants.The sisters' lack of perrrlaileilt housing llarrlpered their ability to trail1 novices, hold religious ser\-ices, and sta1,ilize their religious and professiorlal lives."' Most important, Bishop Poldiilg and his vicar general, Father Gregor!; irlterfered tvith the rule of the sisters, appointing and disrrlissiilg leaders, accepting and rebjectiilgno\-ices,and so forth."" The acrirnony in relations bettveen the church hierarchy and the sisters is clear in the abusit-e tone of the letter extract belo~v. Tlle cllnrn~terof the Church 111 tills C oloil\ must Illdeed be \ e r \ loll 111 the s ~ l h e nthe conduct of I T S highest Clfficlal I S estllnatlon of some of ~ t tnelnbels, considered sllch that men nolnen deem l t the11 dut\ to sltbject ~t to ln\estlgatlon dls~lpllilenlleil those \\honl St. Paul sa\s Truh tills 1s n ile\\ Era 111 e~cleslnstl~nl ma\ not open the11 ~nollthsIn the C hllrch of God, teal lessl~ascend the TI lbunal of Jllstlce, undertal\e an office l n ~ o l \ l n g~ e s l ~ o n s ~ bfioln ~ h t \ ~ l h l c hMen of the h~qlleststaildlilg of the C 11ur~11 dlstlilgulslled b\ tllelr p e t \ and lenrnlnq sllrlrlh ~ slt In jlldgment upon the actlons of one t \ ~ t ha God-lns111reddlead, p r l ~ a t e lto t\l101n the\ a1 e bound b\ TOT+ to obe\

"

Sydney was a very small comrnlini t); ho~vever,and the trials of the Irish Sisters of Charity irrlposed by their Eilglisll bishop and vicar geileral did not go ~mnoticedl>ythe Catholic cornrnunity and frierlds of the sisters. In

At the Margins of the Empire

85

1833 the attorney general of Netv South \Vales, John Hubert Pluilltett, initiated a puhlic appeal to enable the Sisters of Charity to procure a perrrlarlerlt residence in Sydney. In an anonymous parnphlet entitled A B~-ipf~Sluilding.It tvas in a 1)eautiful spot oil a hill o\-erlooltingthe har1,or ~vithfloor to ceiling ~vindo~vs that allotved for rnaxirnurn veiltilatioil by sea 1~-eezes. Frierlds rapidly raised eight thousand pounds, tvhich left a debt of only ttvo thousand p o ~ m d s . Sir Charles, along with MI-.Plunkett, the treasurer; Father RlcEncroe, and Sister de Lacy tvere established as hospital trustees - one priest, one Catholic layrnan, one Protestailt man, and one Ivornan.l:' The hospital came almut through a cornrnuility effort that corrlbiiled ~vealthy philanthropy, Catholic support, and a broad subscriber base that included everyone from the governor of Netv South \Vales and Colonial Secretary Henry Parkes to Protestarlt rrliilisters and Jetvish shopkeepers. The sisters, flushed ~vithsuccess at having raised such a large arnount of rnone!; rrlarsllaled the 1~-oad cornrnunity behind the effort as subscribers, and attracted the leading rrledical rrlerl in Sydney to tvorlt (gratis) for the poor in their hospital, as honorary rrledical staff. It Ivas a rnutually belleficial.' u- ~angernent, -. as St. I'incent's also provided them tvith the first good a\-enuefor pri\-ate surgical and rrledical care in Sydney. The celebratioils tvere short-lit-ed.Dr. Poldiilg had beer1 absent during

"

At the Margins of the Empire

87

these developments. Tl'hen he returned to Sydney he did not take the nelvs tvell. He Ivas f~lrious,not only vietving the entire venture as a challenge to his authorit); but also because such a large charitable initiatit-e ~vouldtalte continuing resources to sustaiil. And despite the fact that so rnany of the fundraising corrlrrlittee and the subscribers to the hospital Ivere non-Catholic, Poldirlg insisted that the hospital tvould be a "drain" on the diocese." There were schools and orphanages to build, fallen Ivornen and children to protect. A11 this ~vork,as he satv it, tvould l>e significantly affected by a Catholic hospital. Other issues about the hospital also bothered Polding. He did not like the Protestarlt doctor, Dr. Rol>ertson,~ v h otvas the sisters' rrledical officer; he did not care for the fact that the governor and all the Protestarlt establisllrrlerlt had appeared on the subscription list. l' The archbishop's persolla1 dorlatioil of five p o ~ m d s published , in the first annual report, Ivas tvell eclipsed l>ythe ten-po~mddorlatiorls of a Protestarlt clergyman, Reverend Mblfre!; and RI. Sentis, the French consul. l'l In the years to corrle Poldiilg did not shift from the \-ie~v that the hospital tvas a thorn in his side and a "l>urden" to Sydney. On his return in 1837 Polding rnoved to reassert his authority over the Sisters of Charity. He derrloted and prorrloted sisters, trailsferred Ivornen from one house to another, and generally repaid them for their insolence. He established his otvn cornrn~mitythat year, the Good Sarrlaritail Sisters, to do diocesarl tvork. He insisted on a Charity nun, Sister Scholastics, l>ecorning their head and training the no\-ices.l w h t t e r s drew to a head in a Bible scandal. The Sisters of Charity had accepted a doilatioil of Protestarlt Bibles for the use of Protestailt patients. In 1839 a zealous chaplain, Father Kenyon, seized these texts and rerno\-ed thern. Irnrnediately all the Protestailt doctors and the treasurer resigned, and the rrlore ablebodied Protestarlt patients left too. After sorrletlliilg of a standoff the case tvas rnounted in legalistic terrrls to the bishop that subscriptions tvere raised on the basis that St. I'incent's tvelcorned patients of all religions. Should it be deterrrlirled that Protestant patients Ivere discrirniilated against, the rnoney rnight ha\-e to be repaid. I!' The bishop hacked dotvn and the Bibles tvere returned. The hospital continued as a l>attlegi-ouild.The authority to corrlrrlaild the institution tvas denied the Ivornan tvho had the experience to do so. In 1839 Sister de Lac!; along tvith a postulant, left the Sydney cornrnunity, and the chief rrledical consultant also resigned. Sister de Lacy returned to Dublin against the orders of Polding. By \-irtueof her \-o~v of pot-erty, de Lacy otvned rlotllirlg and Ivas forbidden by the archhishop to take anything (even her clothes) tvith her. Outrage at her treatrrleilt led to a puhlic f ~ m d~vith , o\-er 130 subscribers, set up to provide funds for Sydney's o ~ v n"Florence Nightingale" on her voyage h o ~ n eBoth . ~ ~ the Free-

"

58 Chapter 5 Tnatl's Journal and the S j d n e j ,\lortlitlg Herald larrleilted her parting. The latter proclairned: " T I P are not the less strongly attached to the distinguished prirlciples of Protestantisrn, because Ive cllerisll totyard these \-irtues [nursing] a feeling of the highest veneration, tvhethei- a Fry, a Niglltiilgale or a de Lacy."'I On her return to Ireland she was given the opportunity to explain herself to the Directress of the Sisters of Charity and Ivas sent as superior at Kilkenny." The matter, ho~vevei-,did not end there. Polding was deterrrlirled to ha\-e de Lacy returned or excornrnuilicated for disol>eyingher bishop. He [\.rote to Xrcllbisllop Cullen in Dublin derrlaildiilg that she l>e sent back to Sydney. Mean~vhileher supporters ill Sydney [\.rote to Rome derrlaildirlg that Poldiilg l>e prevented from persecuting the Sisters of Charity. Cullen ill Duhliil also referred the issue to Rorne. Cullen's eventual response to Poldirlg [\.as that Sister de Lacy [\.as "doing much good here in Duhlin, and l>esidesis rather ad\-ancedin age, ~vhenceit ~vouldl>e perhaps expedient to let her finish her days here in peace."":' Rome begail an investigation of Poldirlg in ~vhichhe [\.as called to account for his lack of respect for the rule and autonomy of the sisters. It Ivas an astonishing defeat, the rrlore so since it had l>eencompletely unexpected by Polding. He responded: "It Ivas extremely 1,itter to rrle to learil fi-orrl your eminence's letter that the rrlost illustrious and Rlost Re\-erendArchbishop of Duhlin is a promoter of Sister de Lacy's idle tale."" He felt crushed, the \-ictirn of an Irish conspiracy." It is the strength in cornrnlinity that shows up in this tale. For even though e\-ery individual sister tvho came out to Australia and struggled under Poldirlg had left or died, St. \'incent's, as a rrlissiorl and priority of the Sydney sisterhood, rerrlaiiled on track."] In fact, aside fi-om the difficulties ~viththe church hierarch!; the story is one of steady progress. The people of Sydney, of all religious persuasions, supported St. \'iilceilt's through the subscription system. Protestant rrliilisters shared the right ~vithCatholic priests to send poor patients to the hospital. The religious background of the patients [\.as published l>ySt. \'incent's in each annual report to disabuse the governrnent of any rlotioil that it [\.as a Catholic hospital for Catholics. The sisters insisted that they served the entire cornrnunit!; tvithout favor, and [yere thus entitled to go\-ernrnentsuhsidy, although they [yere singularly uilsuccessful in this car~lpaign."~ The lack of government assistance forced the sisters to rely on their corrlrrlercial talents. In 1870 the net\. exteilded hospital [\.asfinally opened. This hospital included a private tying. Here the sisters begail to gain g r o ~ m dSydney . had no private hospital facilities, 1101- [\.as there a cadre of experienced nurses a\-ailable to care for the [yell-off in their homes. Sydney had tvealthy (increasingly so) as !yell as poor residents; it also housed nurnerous embassy staff and Ivas a British na\-a1base and port of call for

At the Margins of the Empire

89

rnany foreigil \-essels, rnilitary and ci\-ilia~l."~ It was unthinkable that a persoil ~vitha rnodicurn of self-respect ~vouldbe cared for at the only other hospital in the colony, the Sydney Infirrnary, and thus St. \'incent's Ivas ill constant derrlaild as a pri\-ate hospital. It pro\-ided a clean and orderly en\-ironrnent,[yell-fitted pri\-ate suites, good pri\-ate surgeons and physicians, and !yell-educated and !yell-born nurses (described l>y the Nightingale nurses' champion, Henry Parltes, as "the cultured ladies of religious sisterhoods") ."" It was a successfill cornhination. Official antiCatholicisrn not[vithstanding, St. \'incent's had apuhlic [yard for the Royal Navy, ~vithofficers treated in private roorns. In fact, St. \'incent's became sorrletllirlg of a favorite for sailors, carirlg for 448 rrlercllailt sailors in 1862-82 and 187 rrlerl of the Royal Navy in 1872-75, as !yell as rrleil of the French and Gerrrlail navies. In 1881 Rear Xdrrliral Tyron, the seilior rrledical officer for the Royal Na\-y fleet, [\.as appointed to St. inc cent'^.(^" St. Vincent's and the Charities were also praised by rrlerrlhe1-s of the rrledical profession. In 1871, at the height of teilsioils l>et[veenthe Sydney Infirrnary nursing and rrledical staff, representatit-esof the rrledical professiorl corrlrrlerlted that the infection rate at St. \'incent's [\.as rnuch lo~verthan at the Sydney Infir~nai-y.(~~ A veiled corrlparisoil [\.as also made of the nursing ill the respectit-e hospitals. The corrlparisoil could not ha\-e cheered the errlhattled Nightingale incurnbent, bliss Osl>urn: "They (the Sisters of Charity) attend upon the sick ~vitha degree of care and ltirldrless ~vhichcould l>eexpected of no persoil ~ v h onurses for hire."']' There is no doubt that throughout the course of the nineteenth century the Sisters of Charity had a prickly relationship [vith diocesan clerg!; ~ v h ocontinually atterrlpted to interfere [vith their iilterrlal rnanagernent. Nonetheless, the trouhles of the sisters cannot sirnply l>eput dotvn to acrirnony bettveen thernselt-es and the Eilglisllrrlarl Poldiilg- bitter though that battle had l>een.The Irish clergy, too, !yere ner\-ousat the intirnacy of the Sisters of Charity [vith the Protestant cornrn~mity.They corlsidered it irrlproper for them to ~voi-kso closely [vith Protestarlt doctors and to take rnoney frorrl Protestarlt subscribers, but, [vorst of all, the sisters [yere even on friendly terrrls [vith visiting Protestarlt clergymen ~ v h osent patients to the hospital. The church [\.as sure that !vornen - as ~veak-rnindedcreatures -[yere in danger of falling ~ m d e the r influence of those rnen. This is despite the fact that the diocese had found the Sisters of Charity singularly irrlpossible to influence.

The struggles of the Sisters of Charit) did not pertain only to the place of nornen [\ithill the nineteenth-celltun Catholic Church. X secoild group

90

Chapter 5

of nursing tvornen, o\-el-this same period, also found themselves at the ceilter of a storrrl in colonial Sydney. These Ivere the Nightingale nurses ~ v h otvere sent from Britairl in 1868 to reforrrl the Sydney Infirrnary and establish professiorlal nursing in Australia. The scherne to bring a team of Florerlce Nightingale's nurses to New South M'ales tvas the result of the efforts of the exuberant Henry Parltes, colonial secretary for Netv South Wales, 1866-68. Parkes had been so rno\-edby Nightingale's achievements in the Crirrlea that he orcllestrated Australia's coiltributioil to the Nightingale Fund and tvas keen to invol\-e Netv South \Vales in the Niglltiilgale \-ision for the future of nursing. W l e n , a decade after the Crirnea, he inspected Sydney Infirrnary after receiving cornplaints, he ltnetv exactly ~vhatto do.":' Nightingale responded to 'lr. Parkes's pleas and prorrlised to send a cohort of sisters as sooil as possible, declaring that "I tvould fair1 repay rny heat-? debt to Australia accordiilg to rny p o ~ v e r s . " ' ~ ~ The Sydney Infirmary had begun as a convict hospital. Its inglorious hegirlrliilgs Ivere erlllarlced in 1816, tvhen rebuilding Ivas firlanced through the rurn rnoilopoly (tvhere1)y it 1)ecarne knotvn as the Rurn Hospital), and nurses continued to 1)e dra~vnfrom the raillts of con\-icts ~vellinto the ilirleteerltll There was no provision for private work and when a free settler's tvife tvas adrrlitted in obstructed labor doctors refused attendance as they Ivere not entitled to charge a fee. There tvas cornrnunity outrage tvheil the tvornan died.']']The vermin infestation at the hospital Ivas a coilsisteilt source of cornplaints. TVhen a young sailor died in 1866 at the Sydney Infirrnary after the rrlaster of his ship had found hirn in a "filthy state and s~varrning~vith\-errnin," St. \'incent's took over the care of rnerchant and Royal Na\-ysearrleil and officers.'li Lucy Oshurn arrived in Sydney with a group of five trained nurses in 1868. No sooner had they arrived than an Irisllrrlail atterrlpted to assassinate the \-isiting Prirlce Alfred, son of Queen \'ictoria. It tvas sorrle cornpensation for the sllarrle of the attack that Sydney Ivas able to offer the prirlce an Eilglisll Nightingale to nurse llirrl 1)aclt to reco\-ery. "Our fair Sisters of Charity," clarrlored the ne~vspapersand the grateful puhlic.'lx The attempted assassination of Prince Alfred stirred a hornet's nest of anti-Irish feeling. The assailant, O'Farrell, Ivas hanged follotving a confession in ~vhichhe allegedly clairrled to 1)e part of an Irisll Fenian organizatioil."" It was in this climate of passionate pro-British feeling that the Niglltiilgale nurses corrlrrlerlced their carrlpaigrl to reforrrl the Sydney Infirrnar); and to usher ill the netv age of nursing. Despite the rhetoric and the red carpet, the Niglltiilgale rrlissiorl tvas certainly not a runalvay success. TVhen Osburn led her tearrl of Nightingale sisters to the Sydney Infirrnary in 1868, she Ivas alvare that a challenge atvaited her. Her goal Ivas to trailsforrrl the colony's only puhlic

At the Margins of the Empire

91

hospital into a respectable, ordered en\-ironrnent ~vhere,accordiilg to the sailitariarl \-ie~vof the unit-erse espoused by bliss Nightingale, tlle patient ~vouldfind the resources to heal hirnself. Osburn quickly made an enerny of Dr. Alfred Roberts, the hospital superintendent and chief surgeon, ~ v h ohad l>een a prirrle rnover in tlle plan to introduce trained nurses. In Roberts's \-ie~vthe reforrrl of nursing did not ill\-olve the control of the hospital, tvhich rerrlairled firrnly in the hands of the rrledical superintendent."' The limit of Oshlirn's authority rested with her sex. She had no authority over male nurses, orderlies, ltitcllerl staff, and so forth. As a leading rrlerrlber of the colonial rrledical profession, Roberts ltept a close eye on de\-eloprnents in Britain. His pri\-ate tvar tvith Lucy Osburn kept pace ~viththe territorial struggles bettveeil trailled nurses and the ne~vlyernpotvered rrledical professiorl in Loildorl teaching hospitals, such as Rlr. Guy's (his o ~ v ntraiiliilg hospital) and King's C ~ l l e g e . ~ ~

Nightingale Sisters ant1 Irish Nllrses Notxvithstandingstardirg the somexvhat predictable opposition of the medical superintendent, ~vhatconfronted the Eilglisll sisters at the Sydney Infirrnary Ivas far Ivorse than they could have imagined. The prirrle difficulty Ivas not the filth and disorder of the institution but the caliber of the nurses. Accordiilg to Sister Mary Barker in her letter to Rliss Nightingale, 30 May 1868: "I think the sci-ubbers at St. Thornas's Hospital tvere a respectable class of Ivornen in corrlparisoil ~vith~vhatIve found as day nurses at the Sydney I n f i r r n a r y ' ~ . "Osburn ~~ describes them as "rough ratv nurses brought up ill huffer rnuffer Irish Ivays tvithout a clear or systemic idea in their h e a d ~ . " ~ : ~ X c c o r dtoi nSister g Miller, "the climate is llorrid and the people all Irish and l>ad."il The servants, the managerrlerlt of tvhorn is altvays ltey to r ~ m n i n gthe hospital, "are all Irish Rorrlail catholic^."^" Oshurn recolinted to Nightingale that she sought the immediate resignation of the ~vorstof the nurses. She corlfessed to great relief at the fact that she Ivas able to do so tvithout occasiorliilg violence. For the rerrlairlder of these rough Irish Ivornen, she irnrnediately ordered "fourposted iron bedsteads and looltirlg g l a s s e ~ . Once " ~ ~ these arrived, she instructed the Erlglisll sisters to teach the nurses to put up their hair." The Irish tvornen's unto\-ered heads ~vith"luxuriant hair fuzzy as oakharn" (rope), to use Mayhetv's description, tvere evidently Osburn's prirrle concei-11.~~ Thus the reform of Australian nursing xvas launched, not with traiiliilg or a recruitment drive, but tvith hairdressing lessoils and ttvicedaily prayers on the t~ai-ds.~" The paradox of nineteenth-cent~irynursing was that only wornen who did not need to tvorlt (i.e., they ~vorkedfrom \-ocationalfer\-or)tvere able

92

Chapter 5

to corrlrrlaild enough respect to reforrrl nursing into respecta1,le tvorlt - a profession. This is clear frorrl Osburn's experieilce ~vhenin 1873 she Ivas called l>efoi-ethe Corrlrrlissiorl of Inquiry to Illquire into a Report on the Mbrltiilgs and Rlarlagerrlerlt of the Public Charities. TVho and tvhat she Ivas seerrled to perplex the cornrnittee. Their questions re\-olved around not the hospital, but Rliss Osl>urn's backgrouild and status. "May I," irlterrogated the chairrrlan of the cornrnittee, "if it is not an irrlpertirlerlt question, ask you ~vhetheryour taltiilg such a position as you notv hold Ivas a necessity or did you corrle fi-orrl the love of the ~ v o r k ? " Osburn ~" goes on to explain the distiilctiorl bettveen sisters and nurses, how they live quite separately, and an entirely different standard of etiquette is expected of thern: "they [the sisters] are quiet steady people as tve car1 get. The nurses are of course a rnerry set, and like rnusic and dailciilg and that ltirld of thing; and that I could not allotv ~viththe sisters."81 Australian wornen, it appears, were altogether too much of a merry set for the speedy reforrrl of the Sydney Infirrnary. They tvere entirely lacking in the skills in personal groorrliilg and dorrlestic rrlailagerrleilt corlsidered necessary for professioilal nursing. This is hardly surprising. As Beverley Kii+ytorl notes, dorrlestic help tvas sorely lacltirlg in the colony and ladies Ivere poorly served corrlpared to their European co~ulterpai-ts."The general shortage of Ivornen in Australia, too, seerrled to militate against a good supply of nurses. Despite the errlblerrlatic sigilificailce of Florence Nightingale, fetv nurses came from the higher classes. The professionalizatiorl of nursing required the inculcation of these supposedly ferrliilirle rrliddle class virtues into corrlrrlorl tvornen. It Ivas not an easy task. The first register of nurses at the Sydney Infirrnary records Osl>urn's opiilioil of her recruits to nursiilg and follo~vstheir progress through life. The register opened ~vithArm Branagan, 23, in the colony t~voand a half years, in hospital first as servant and then as night nurse. Descril>ed by Osburn as "Sirnple. Rorrlarl Catholic," she corrlrrleilced at £26 per annurrl, and then Ivas rno\-edto be in charge of day tvard at £ 48. In 1876 she rrlarried Henry Macguire and they opened a srrlall hotel in Bourlte Street. In 1880 she came asltirlg for ~vorlt.In 1881 she tvas adrrlitted to the hospital after "a couple of nights driilltirlg and fighting ~vithh ~ s l > a n d . " ~ ~ The register is fill1 of such stories. "M'esleyan Irishxvoman" Jane Mol-row rnoved to Netvcastle Hospital in 1870 and then "took to the drink and neglect of the place." Elizabeth nllorror tvas invol\-ed in a latvsuit ~vitha hlaitlarld doctor al>out"sorrle dreadful scandal." A good rnany nurses, it seerns, "took to the drink" or "!vent rnad." X fetv revealed a religious \-ocation. One high church Ailglicail tvornan frorrl I'ictoria, Gertrude Rloule, erltered the Con\-ent of the Holy Trinity, Oxford tvheil she cornpleted her training. Another, Lucy Millard, died at the Institute for English Nurses in Paris in 1884.

At the Margins of the Empire

93

Englisl-1Sisters ant1 the "Colonial Air" Oshllrn's problems began with her nurses but soon moved to her sisters. Ttvelve rrloiltlls into their three-year contract, one rnarried. Mbrse still, there Ivere rurnors about the precipitous nature of the rrlarriage - rurrlors spread by other sisters. Osl>urn descril>edit to Nightingale as "Another vexation. Sister Haldarle is propagating, e\-en in rny presence, all through the establishment that Sister Bessie tvas coilfilled three rnonths after she left here . . . I ha\-e no rrleails of ascertaining if it is true or This was the same Sister Bessie Chant, who was caught making love ~vitha patient (she ltissed llirrl in the !yard and they after~vardexchanged letters) ."' Sister Annie Miller flirted with a resident physician years younger than herself and had to l>e rernoved frorrl hirn-lo\-e sick."' Sister Eliza Blundall flirted ~vithpatients and ~vardsrnen.Osl>urnbegan to \\.onder if there \Yere something in the air of the colony that led her sisters to beha\-e so outrageously. Her astorlisllrrleilt at the lack of propriety and decorurn of her otvn sisters caused her to douht herself. She opened her heart to an increasingly ~msyrnpatheticNightingale: Irllaglrle one of their1 [the nurses] telllrlg at tllelr dlilrler for the general anlusehen the stenald It nas a\\arm ment sotneth~ng~ \ h ~ she c h o ~ e r h e a ~ d ~ \\\altlngfol after dusk Bennett [the porter and nlessenger] -\tho IS rllarrled and e\ eillilg r~ild h male llres here \\1t11 111s 1\1feand ch~ldren-nas slttlng on the balconl ~ + l t the cooks and S~sterEhza, the lattel nas explalnlng ho\\ she could ma1 rl an\ motnent as she llad fi\ e or SIX beaux \\altlilg for her. "I belle\e ~ t , "sals Bennett \\ltll a slgll, "tor 1hale often ~\lshedm~selta bachelo~fol lolu sake " T h ~ prettl s speech \\as gl earl\ applaltded b~ the cool\s NOT+none of thetn \\el e as bad as this hen the\ came, nllat has altered tllein?" Xrnazinglj, despite such blatant husband-seeking and total lack of "nunlike" l>eha\ior arnong the there Jtas still something "Popish" about the English nurses that discoilcerted rnarn in S\dne\.

Battle Lines: Clerg) ITersusNightingales

The general perception that the Nightingale sisters uere crlpto-Catholic ma\ ha\e been due to the fac t that, clcc~i-dirlg to Osl>urn,Florerlce Nightingale \\as cornrnonl\ coilsidered a Catholic b\ people in Net\ South TZhles. In her letter to Nightingale of 16June 1869 Osburn iilforrrls her of this.

94

Chapter 5

Do \ o u knoll that both h e l e and In London almost e \ e l \ o n e thinks l o l l to be a Ronlail C a t h o l l ~and sorlletlirles the\ shut rlle u p h\ snllrlg polilt blank hllss Nlght~ngaleI S a Roman C athollc, 1s she not; 1 feel thele 1s a cel tam alnolunt of lrllpertlilerlce 111 sue\ [SIC]enqulrles. I get off al\ln\s no\\ h\ sa\lrlg - I l m e al\ln\s belle\ e d hllss N to he cll of Eilglnrld hut I sllould ile\ er tlllilli of r~~li~rlg.'"J

Apparently Nightingale was not so bemused, because four months later Lucy Osburn \\.rites: "In future I shall talte the liberty to corltradict rny friends \\.hen they assert so confidently that you belong to tllerrl hitherto I ha\-ejust raised rny eyel>ro~vs and said oh.""' But the whiffs of papism were not only confined to Nightingale. X series of tri\-ial e\-entsled to suspicions of Catholic conspiracies. To begirl ~viththere \\.ere difficulties tvith the terrrl "sister," and Osl>urn's official title. "Lady superintendent" Ivas unacceptable as this iiltirrlated the ~vife or partner of the male superintendent, Mr. Blacltstorle - not ail uncorrlrrloil arrailgerrleilt for institution rrlarlagerrlerlt in this period. "Lady Superior" \\.as too ecclesiastical for Sydney, and Osl>urn Ivas ad\-ised that "rnatron" had \-ery \-ulgar associatioils in the colony. Osl>urn's solutioil Ivas to sirnply call herself "the nurse frorrl During the inquiry the commissioners xvished, too, for clarification of the usage of the terrrl "sister." "Is it not on religious grouilds or from seiltirrlerltal feeling that you \\.ere called 'sisters'?" Osburn stroilgly denied the acc~sation.!':~ In fact, the controversy over the title of Osburn and her sisters had rrlajor rarrlificatioils for the hospital. Once Osburn had l>eendecreed by the hospital board to be "head nurse" and the sisters sirnply "nurse," prospective traillees \vithdre\v their applicatioils and the hospital Ivas unable to attract applicants for nursing training over the period 186873.91

As if to feed Catholic rumors and Protestant phobias, Osburn received a set of statuettes of Nightingale by Hilar y Bonharn-Carter. Osl>urn set them up on the ~valls.She thanked Nightingale, rerrlarltirlg how she "looks as if you Ivere pointing the \yay to the heat-enly kingdorn. The Rorrlarl Catllolics look upon it tvith great reverence, I suppose they think you ha\-e l>een canonised."!" Osburn even referred to her graduation from St. Thornas's as her "votvs," declaring: "I corrlpleted the six years I took rny votvs last 10 Septerrlher and I should \-alue \-ery much if it Ivere only an official staterrlent that I had l>een in coililectiorl tvith your scllool or any certificate the Council rrligllt ha\-e deerrled rrle to ha\-e deserved. "!"I Lucy Osburn, the lady superintendent, found every step of her path to reforrrl nursing and the hospital blocked l>ya coalition of rrledical rrleil and e\-angelical rrlerrlhers (male) of the governing body of the hospital.

At the Margins of the Empire

95

Rliss Osl>urntvas High Ailglicarl tvhile the Church of Erlglaild in Sydney Ivas very evangelical."i She was no novice to these difficulties; according to Freda RlcDo~vell,there is a possil>ly apocryphal story that Osburn's de\-outly evailgelical father turned her portrait to the tvall ~vhenshe disobeyed llirrl and corrlrrlerlced Like her father, these Sydney rrlerl tvere singularly ~ulirnpressed~vithOsburil's role and the entire idea of female nurses assurning respoilsil>ilityfor the rrlailagerrleilt of the hospital (laundry, kitchen, orderlies as ~vellas nurses). 111fact, they found the ~vholeenterprise deeply suspect. Aspects of Osburn's beha\-ior caused additional concern. Her custorn of atteildiilg early rrlorilirlg sei-\-iceattracted suspicion;"" she had demanded the title of "Lady Superior" and called her nurses "sisters"; she had even l>een spotted slipping into St. Rlary's (Catholic) Cathedral (apparently to listen to rnusic). Finally, Osburn did the unthinkable: ill her frustration o\-ernot 1)eing able to ha\-ethe hospital clearled (she Ivas ahvays th~vartedin her atterrlpts to have rrlerl do tvorlt for her), she ordered a pile of cocltroach-infested rul>l>ishburned, lulalvare that sornetvhere in the rul>l>ishIvas a pile of old Bil>les.The next thing she knew she Ivas in the eye of a storrn. Questioils Ivere raised in Parliarrlerlt and the press. In October 1870 the hospital go\-erning board undertook a forrrlal inquiry to exarrlirle allegatioils made in the Protestant Standard o\-el-the rrlarlagerrleilt of the institution and re\-iew accusatioils of sectarian bias relating to the conduct and suitability of the lady superintendent. At this stage, an exasperated Florerlce Niglltiilgale coilsidered the ~vholeeilterprise a failure, despite the fact Osburn tvas completely exoilerated by the co~r~rr~ittee.")~) A second inquiry by the Public Charities Commission in181i3, was another victory for Osburn. Here she argued her case tvith rrlore success. The corrlrrlissioilers recorrlrrleilded that full rrlailagerrleilt of the tvards, patients, nursing, and cooking and coiltrol of all tvorkers in these departrrlerlts should be under the corrlrrlarld of the lady superintendent. It Ivas recorrlrrlerlded that the title "sister" be reinstated; the corrlrrlittee observed that its change to "nurse" had l>een "illjudicious," as the title "gives the head nurse a rrloral p o t ~ e i - . "Finally, ~ ) ~ after a five-year war; the Niglltiilgale systern finally arrived at the Sydney Infirrnary.lOy Lucy Oshlirn was the victim of Protestant sectarianism. She bore the brunt of a po~verfulfaction in Sydney that tvas unhappy tvith Ivornen assurning a role in the ~vorld~vithoutthe direct super\-ision of rnen. X corrlhirlatiorl of rrledical reserltrrlerlt and e\-angelical suspicion ~vorked against her -despite her frieilds in high places (such as Henry Parltes and the go\-ernor). E\-angelicalSydney tvas unhappy al>outOsburn's lack of deference to male authority and outraged l>ythe recognizably Catholic trirrlrrlirlgs of the netv secular nurse.

96

Chapter 5

The Place of I b r n e n , Gotl's Men, ant1 Gootl Nursiilg

To implement reformed nursing sllccessfillly, virtllous and vocationally rnotit-ated Ivornen needed to uplift the nursing staff, rrlailage the tvards and departrrleilts of the hospital, and support rrledical practice. This rrlearlt strong ferrlale leadership, religious discipline, and rrledical cooperation. The sisterlloods excelled in this, especially tvhere, as in Sydney the hospitals belonged to the sisters. The secular nurses, oil the other hand, had to negotiate e\-eryinch of progress. Thus, in nineteenthcentury Sydney tve ha\-ea rrlicrocosrrl of the revolution that tvas occurring for Ivornen in the religious context and in ~vork,in the parallel stories of these ttvo cornrnunities of tvornen. Tl'hat tvas it almut the Sisters of Charity that rrlade thern so successful ill establisllirlg and conducting a rrloderil hospital? It certainly Ivas not the unqualified support of a !yell-endo~vedchurch, for the Church had little rnoney and resented every penny that !vent to the hospital. Despite this oppositioil and the great hurnan cost arrlorlg the sisters caused by opposition frorrl the bishop, the cornrnunity succeeded in creating a fine clinical institution tvith very high standard^.^)^ The sisters achieved an institution ~vithgood doctors, good facilities, and sltilled nurses. St. \'incent's Ivas the only respectable hospital in the entire country for sorrle decades. Sydney also laclted ally respectalde, reliable nurses for home care. Doctors had rnany private patients tvho Ivere rrlore than tvilling to pay to be in such a tvell-r~ulhospital. So there Ivas a need for the sisters' hospital and a rrlarket to pay for it. Yet the sisters laclted support from l>othchurch and state. To survi\-e,the sisters had to rnove beyond devotion to the poor and also pro\-idecare for those ~ v h ocould pay. This shift to sert-ice provision, as opposed to sirrlple charity, Ivas a trial for the sisters. They felt they required dispeilsatiorl from the pope to ol>tainirlcorrle frorrl their hospital tvorlt, tvhich they coilsidered contrary to their votv of p~\-ei-ty.~(" In overcoming these scrllples the sisters were then firmly in the cornrrlercial dornain. They had the best doctors, rrledical training, pri\-ate patients, and al~vaysa ~vaitinglist for the poor of the city. In order to gain support fi-orrl the govei-nrnent they constantly strove to highlight their achievements, their rloilsectariarl cornrnunity service, and their professionalisrn. By continuing to present thernselves as a high quality service to the Sydney cornrn~mity,they distarlced thernselves from Catholic politics and found sorrle protectiorl from episcopal interference.

At the Margins of the Empire

97

For instance, in 1884 Bishop \'aughan prorrlised ernployrnent to a Belgian (Catholic) doctor at St. \'incent's. The rrledical staff resigrled at the appoirltrrlerlt of one they coilsidered unqualified. The rectress did not "o1,ey"; she called her latvyers. St. \'incent's had received a srrlall grant of land for the hospital that tvas decreed for the use of a hospital solely conducted 1,y the Sisters of Charity. Diocesan interference challenged this autonorny and placed the doilatioil at risk. W l e n the archhishop backed dotvn, a hiring process tvas initiated. A11 rrledical positiorls had to be ad\-ertised and applicants intervietved by the rrledical staff. Recornrrlerldatioils tvere tllerl to 1,e made to the rectress. She retairled the right of veto, ~vhichshe did in fact e x e r c i ~ e . ~This ' " ~ control, astonishingly, even applied to teaching appoiiltrrleilts ~viththe Unit-ersity of S y d ~ l e y .It~TV ' ~as altvays the sisters' hospital, and this iildepeildeilt position tvas critical to their fillailcia1 security. As neither the state rlor the diocese corrlrrlitted support to the hospital, the sisters relied on their nettvorlt of supporters. This cornrnunity Ivas not the same as the "Catholic cornrnunity" and, in fact, included sorrle tvho despised the church. The sisters' \-owof service to the poor Ivas also subject to sorrle redefinition. There tvere poor in Netv South Wales, but this poverty could not cornpare tvith that in Europe. In fact, the piorleer pride of rnany citizens led tllerrl to insist on the right to pay for the education of their children, or for hospital care. It Ivas the errlergiilg respectable ~vorkingclass, rrlore than the poor, that the sisters served in Sydney. As they explained to Rorne, "in this country the poor are cornparatively few . . . and 1,ecause the people in this country, ill general, not lilting to appear poor, refuse gratuitous sei-\-ices,despise even those tvho offer thern, and often end by turning to Protestarlts and paying ther11."~)~ Finally, the mission of the sisters was always eclirnenical. One of the . features of Mary Ailtenhead's apostolate tvas outreach and cornat1'ical rnunity service. It had not been popular tvith the church frorrl the start. W l e n the rule of the cornrnunity Ivas ratified 1,y Rorne, its ecumenical flat-ortvas distinctly tvatered dotvn and the ~voi-d"Christian" tvas cllailged to "Catholic."lO!'The sisters were perfectly comfortable working with Protestarlt doctors, and tvith Protestant clergymen, ~ v h onot only referred patients but Ivere also ~velcorneto rrlirlister to tllerrl in the hospital. In 1867 the sisters refused to place an altar in the front 1-oorrlof the hospital, un~villingto clairrl it solely as a Catholic space. They coilsidered the altar in the chapel quite sufficient."" They accepted donations of Protestant Bi1,les1l1 and appeared not to exploit the opportunity that sickness pro\-ided to proselytize arrlorlg Protestant patients.ll' Pragmatism remained dominant. For instance, they did not consider clearling part of nursing training but a sirrlple issue of resources. W l e n one early student nurse offered to pay for a char~vornanto relie\-eher and

98 Chapter 5 her fellotv students of this tvorlt, the sisters agreed, and after this student had corrlpleted the course the sisters continued the practice l>ydernandirlg a subsidy from the student^.^:' The Nightingales also had a vision of a clean, efficient hospital. T'Vhat they laclted tvas polver. They had no authority o\-er the rrlale staff or domestic, maintenance, or kitchen staff until the Corrlrrlissioil of Inquiry recorrlrrlerlded that this be so. It tvas sirnply not possible for tllerrl to reforrrl the hospital under such coilstraiilts. Another great cllalleilge to Lucy Osl>uril tvas the quality of her nursing staff. TM7lether it tvas the Eilglisll Niglltiilgale sisters, the Irish nurses, or the iletv recruits, Osburil f o ~ m dit irnpossil>leto rnuster the ferrlirlirle rrloral authority fi-orrl nurses of less than desirable backgro~mds.She tvas forced into a carrlpaigil to "uplift" her nurses, to teach them to dress, to tvalk, and beha\-e in a Ivay that desexualized nursiilg and pro\-ided the Ivornen tvith authority over their tvorking class patients and shared administrative and clinical polver ~vithrrledical rne11.~~ But pious women's work had another difficlilty. The entire project was deeply suspect to evailgelical Christians. It ernpotvered Ivornen in an 1111seemly Ivay - l>yrrlirrlicltirlg the style and rrlaililer of nuns. For sections of the Sydney Protestarlt cornrnunit); includiilg rrlerrlhers of the Sydney Infirrnary hospital board, it represented a radical and un~velcornechallenge to the position of tvornen and to the authority of rnen. Frorrl rrledicirle and the churches, Lucy Osburil suffered coiltiiluous innuendo and slander. The differences l>et~veen the ttvo cornrnunities of Ivornen are perhaps less surprising than the similarities. Xrrlorlg the Sisters of Charity dissent and coilflict tvere the result of their precarious situation and the constant irlterfererlce of clergy. Hotvet-el; the rrlissiorl of the hospital succeeded ill overriding their prol>lerns. The estal>lishrnent of St. \'incent's Ivas the ~vornen'simpulse, their \-ocation,and it Ivas achiet-edin oppositiorl to the church hierarchy. Because the Sisters of Charity forrrled a cornrnunit!; they Ivere able to succeed e\-elltvhere indi\-idualsfailed. AS each tvornan left or tvas replaced, St. \'incent's rerrlairled at the core of the sisters' rnission, a legacy of the t~votrailled nurses tvho arrived to establish the Sisters of Charity in Australia. The Niglltiilgale systern too allotved for this chain of continuity in the secular ~vorld.Lucy Osl>urncarrle to Sydney in the spirit of a sacred \-ocation, ~villingto be Nightingale's instrument to the "ends of the tvorld." Osburn had lirrlited authority over an 1mdisciplined group of Ivornen. She left Sydney in 1884 after sixteen years, largely unretvarded - ill fact rel>uffedill not being offered the positioil of rrlatrorl at the rrlodel hospital opened in 1882. Nevertheless, her traiiliilg systern tvas estal>lished under Niglltiilgale principles. It did survive, and did produce graduates

At the Margins of the Empire

99

~ v h otvent on to trairl Australian nurses.l15 It was thus the implementation of a systern, not the ~voi-kof an individual, that succeeded. Resistance to the Nightingales indicated the extent to tvhich the very notior1 of pious tvorneil organizing thernsel\-es to pel-forrrl tvork in the ~vorldtvas a radical one. In corrlrrloil ~viththeir \-otved Catholic sisters, it Ivas only the utility of the Nightingale nurses that eventually broke through this resistance. But tvhat is shotvn here in 1~1thstories is the tvay in ~vhichcare of the sick by hospital nurses struggled and strairled against the lirrlitatioils of fernale influence and authority. On both sides of the corlfessiorlal divide, rrlerl in authority sensed a trailsgressioil- they tvere troubled by the directioils of such beha\-ior and struggled to reassert their authority o\-erit. Care of the sick by pious skilled tvornen tvas rnoving 1,eyond the sphere of influence of rrlale religious leaders, and over the course of the century, as delicate coalitiorls ~vithrrledicirle and government Ivere negotiated, Ivornen (secular or \-o~ved) ~ v h ocould run good hospitals became indispensable. Catholic piety rnay ha\-e led the nuns to estaldish the field, allotving for the entrance of tvornen into professiorlal practice, but they left the door open behind thern. The rrleil ~ v h oran the churches ill nineteenth-century Sydney tvere right to tvorry.

Chnptrr 6

Frontier: "The Means to Begin Are None"

TI hnd to s t ~ u g g l ecrgnritst fcrncrtrccrl P ~ o f e s f n n f z s mhe)?, crgnritst rritbelreJ ~ ~ I O / ~ I I I ~ )tot I ~ IIII si)/gl(' ~ I , )iot(/Ol(>C(/tJroIi( I I P I P to P I / ( O I L ~ n t 1 1 ~IT/, 1 , I I I L ~ I I P(11/d, nge 7~101lis of chn~rtj.

Despite the vast number of immigrants crowding into the industrial north of the United States, cllailgiilg forever the ethnic corrlpositiorl of the country, the Catholic sisterlloods did not restrict their efforts to the needy poor of the cities. Part of the extraordinary force that nineteenthcentury Xrrlerica exerted upoil the European irrlagirlatioil tvas the pull of the frontier. There tvere other frontiers, such as the ~vildpenal settlerrlerlts of ~vhattvas to becorrle Australia or Britain's dorrlirliorls of India and the Far East, tvhere Protestant and Catllolic missionary tvornen nursed and taught to extend the borders of the Cllristiarl ~vorld.South Xrnerica, tvith its pot-erty and tvealth, needed sisters too, and the turrnoil in Europe provided rnany refugee sisterhoods. Nonetheless, in the European irrlagiilatiorl the Xrrlericail froiltier stood alone, dauntingly full of danger, beauty, and possil>ility.' In this respect the sisters were no different from other American settlers, irrlrrligrailt or nati\-e born. The great drarrla of nineteenth-century exparlsiorlisrrl and nation lmilding provided the same irresistible urge to the Catholic Church and its sisters as it did to other travelers. The rislts and possil>le gains the open territories offered tvere seized ~vithboth hands. In the froiltier they found that alrrlost anything became possible. The role of \-o~ved tvorneil in this green field for pioileers Ivas shaped as they vent-by exigencies and adaptation. In corrlrrloil tvith other pioneers, the Catllolic Church Ivas stretched to the rnaxirnurn extent of its resources. The Protestant ascendancy that had proved such ail ol>stacle to Catholic acceptance in the East, and fostered the leadership style of

Frontier

101

rrlerl such as New Yorlt's Bishop John Hughes, Ivas not as rnuch in evidence out West. Not that there tvas an al>senceof opposition to the sisters or of anti-Catholic sentiment, far from it; simply the llardsllips of pioneering life rrlade it less possible to rrlaiiltaiil such di\-isions l>et!veen groups ~vithinthe c~rnrnunity.:~ Pioneers needed hospitals. Doctors needed hospitals. The companies that opened the tvest - railroad companies, logging mills, and rrliiliilg \-entures- needed hospitals, too. Bishops, for their part, Ivere keen for the sisters to corrle to their dioceses. Through the sisters the Church pro\-ided rnuch-needed sei-\-ices,and the sisters, tvith great labor and perhaps a l>enefactor or t~vo,tvere able to becorrle self-supporting. This Ivas essential. As in the east, there tvas no rnoney for the sisters. They Ivere invited, pleas tvere rrlade for thern to corne, but once they diserrlbarlted from ship, ri\-erboat,stagecoach, or trairl they Ivere expected to support themselves and to esta1)lish and nurture an expaildiilg foundatioil of social and educational iilstitutioils for the church. As nllotller Saint Pierre Cinquin so aptly put it, for the sisters arri\-ing!vest to build their foundations, "the rrlearls to begirl are none."

Two Cornrnnnities at the Frontier In this chapter we examine the hospital foundation work of two very differerlt cornrnunities of sisters in the !vest. In Sarl Antonio, Texas Ive find the extraordinary development of the Sisters of the Incarnate Mbrd. Here a \-icarious rrlissiorl for an erlclosed cornrn~mityin Lyons, France, Ivas estal>lishedto recruit Ivorneil for nursing tvorlt in Texas. The Sisters of the Incarnate Mbrd ernhody the iilterilatiorlal nature of this rnissionary tvork for Catholic Ivornen - a French rnission, realized priilcipally through Irisll and Gerrrlail Ivornen, Ivas acted out in the landscape of the Arrlericarl !vest. The secoild is the Frerlcll Canadian missionary cornrnunit!; the Sisters of Providence, pioneers of the Pacific northtvest in Xlaslta, British Colurnhia, and the north~veststates of the United States. These t~vocornrnunities ha\-e l>een selected from the dozens of possibilities 1)ecause they ernhody a nurnher of characteristics irrlportailt to this discussion of \-otved tvornen, hospital fo~mdation,and frontier. The Sisters of the Iilcarrlate Mbrd personify rrlore clearly than any other cornrnunity of tvornen the particular coilflueilce of iilterilatiorlal Catholic forces that led tvornen to tvorlt in hospitals in the Xrrlericail !vest. This group tvas founded specifically for this endeavor, and it used French traditions for female religious life and Irish and Gerrrlail (and finally, Mexican) tvornanpotver to car\-e itself a place in the history of the TIPst. The Sisters of the Incarnate Word are also of interest 1)ecause they emerged from an ellclosed cornrnunity. The religious traditions they errlhodied

102

Chapter 6

Ivere therefore distinct frorrl those of the I'incentian rnovernent for Ivornen that taltes up such a large part of this story so far. Although a separate cornrnunity frorrl the French Daughters, the Sisters of Providence studied the Corlfererlces of ITincentde Paul, practiced his spiritual exercises, and llorlored Rlonsieur I'iilceilt along tvith their otvn foundress, the I'enerable Errlilie Garnelin, a nllorltreal tvidotv ~ v h o died of cholera ~vhilenursing during an epiderrlic in 1851.' In this sense the Sisters of Providence perfectly ernbody the tradition of religious vocation that illspired Ivornen to enter nursing and hospital tvorlt in the rlarrle of God. But this cornrnunity is atypical in other Ivays. The Sisters of Pro\-ideilce attracted fetv Irish Ivornen (or daughters of Irish irnrnigrants) for their Arrlericarl rrlissioil in the iliileteerltll century. It tvas not sirnply a case of language (as ~viththe Gerrrlarl cornrnunities), for rnany French cornrnunities tvere overtvhelrned by Irish tvornen - the Sisters of the Incarilate M'ord for one. It tvas the fact that the Sisters of Pro\-idence in the northtvest tvere a missionary l>ranchof a nllorltreal cornrnunity. Nurtured by their rnotherhouse ill nllorltreal and sustained l>yplentiful vocatioils arrloilg Quebec Ivornen, the cornrnunity Ivas able to rrlaiiltaiil its FrenchCarladial1 identity until ~vellinto the ttventieth

Sisters of the Irlcarrlate \/\ord

n ~ i d~ ~ J C ~ I , I O cr~id I!\ tltnt 70!11 rr!nlr(>!t po\r!bl~forjorr to IITJP I ) ! beji ftritg the tzflejorr hnzv of 5;Dorrse of the Incn) note T l b ~ d . . . 7 ~ orr~sel-cles to Hrin. beloitgto orr~sel-cres,7 1 hn-clegr-cleit

II ~ ~ ! I I I ! I ! P I 1 770 ~

10)7ge)

The Sisters of the Incarnate M'ord were formed as a missionary branch of the French cornrnunit!; the Order of the Iilcarilate TVord and Blessed Sacrarnent. The rnother cornrnunity tvas founded ill 1627, at Lyons, France, by Jeanne Chezard de nllatel as an erlclosed cornrnunity of tvornen \-otved to "the rninistry of Christian education." Follotviilg their suppression l>y the Re\-olution,the Order of the Incarnate M'ord and Blessed Sacrarrlerlt Ivas restored in Lyons in 1832. In 1866 the French-l>ornbishop of Texas, Claude Duhuis, Ivas able to convince Lyons to send llirrl sisters to nurse epiderrlic victirns in Gal\-eston and Sarl Antonio. This group of Ivornen Ivere forrrled as "Hospitallers" of the Irlcarrlate TVord and l>ecarneltno~vn as the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Mbrd." In Texas the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate T'Vord were slistained by irrlrrligrarlt recruits. In fact, it Ivas not until 1972 that the general chapter elected its first American-born superior, Sister Elearlor Cohen.!' For the first fifty years French-born Ivornen dorrlirlated the leadership of the corn-

Frontier

103

rnunity (tvith the exception of one Prussian), and in 1918 the first of five successit-eIrish leaders Ivas elected.1° Over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the ethnic corrlpositioil of the entrants changed, reflectirlg cllailgirlg irrlrrligratioil pattei-rls and European politics. The rnotherhouse in Lyons Ivas closed and the sisters expelled to Stvitzerland by the Third Repuhlic ill 1906. Mbrld M'ar I and then Tl'orld M'ar I1 affected irrlrrligratiorl frorrl Europe; and Irish irrlrrligratiorl continued to clirrlb through this period. Ties ~vithRlexico streilgtheiled, too, ~vithincreasing nurnbers of Rlexicail fouildations and During the nineteenth century, hoxvever, the Sisters of Charity of the Iilcarilate Tl'ord retained their French identity and strong ties to Lyons. Although the cornrnunity Ivas diocesail and Bishop Duhuis is recogrlized by the sisters as the founder of their Sail Xrltoilio foundation, the links to Lyons Ivere \-ital in the spiritual de\-eloprneilt of the cornrnunity and in sustaining their clear sense of an Xrrlericail apostolate. For instance, the one non-French leader in the nineteenth century, Prussian Sister Ignatius Saar, tvho led the cornrnunity from 1884 to 1897, had been trailled in Sail Antonio. Hotvet-el; as part of her preparatiorl for leadership, she had rrlade three trips to Europe over the years to spend time in the Lyons monastery in order, accordirlg to Sister nlladeleirle Chollet, to "irnl>il>efrom our saintly rnothers of Lyons rnuch of her ltno~vledgeof the spirit that should ailirrlate the daughters of the Incarnate Mbrd."lTThis "spirit" Ivas g r o ~ m d e din hospital tvorlt.

"We H a ~ Nothing e But That M7licl-1Is the Result of 0111- Intlnstr)" The impetlis for the formation of the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate TVord of San Antonio was the pleas to Bishop Dubliis fi-om San Antonio's Dl-. Ferdinand von Herff and civic leaders for sisters to establish a hospita1.l: Lyons responded, sending Jtornen for both the Galveston and San Antonio foundations. The San Antonio group, comprising the illiterate Mother Madeleine Chollet, the charismatic Sister Saint Pierre, and Sister Agnes Bliisson, arrived to open the citj's first hospital -open to all, doctors and patients, private and public alike." The sisters announced their nen institution, the Santa Rosa Hospital, in 1869, in the local neJtspaper in the follo~ting~lnarnhig~lolis terms: No regular pll\sl~larlIS e x ~ l u d e dfroin our ~ n s t ~ t u t ~ oE\er\ i l s . one has a rlgllt to r be pa\lng or c11a11t\ patlents He t\111 h a ~ e send In 111s patients, ~ + h e t h ethe\ l to entlre control o\er tlleirl 111 the llospltal, and 111s prescrlptloils \ \ ~ t lregard food, ilurslilg, and nledlclnes, \+111be str~ctl\follo\+ed. \ \ e beg l e a ~ eto remark, h o ~ + e \ ethat ~ , the nlunbel of c h a ~ ~patlents t\ mllst be proport~onedto the rlurllher of pallrlg patlents, or else \+eshould he ln a state of

104

Chapter 6

b,lilliruptc\ at the \ e r \ beglilnlng; slilLe n e hn\e ilo re\enue, ilo resources, ilo other Income, but that ~ \ h ~ 1s c the h result of 0111 lndustl \.I5

The Remark Book of the Santa Rosa Hospital records the wonderfill mix of evangelistic bllsiness and clinical concerns that dominated the day-to-da) life of the hospital. Tllursda\ 20 Jnnuarl 1898. Operatloll on Mrs. Soplne Bulter the colored lad\, b\ Dl X Herff ass~stedb~ Dl Oldhaln and the slstel s The\ remm ed a la1 ge tllmol froirl her bonels. -Dr. Razor neilt llorlle oil the 9.30 nrll tram. Mrs. Varilell's dallghter a1 I Ired t o d a ~She 1\111 relnaln 1\1thhe1 mot he^ tor some tllne 111 R H B~lllngslearecened 111sFlrst Hall C:ommllnlon this mol mng In ollr chapel PIOfessor T27l1tellousegn\ e nrlotller lessoil oil irlnssnge [to the s~sters] . Mr. Hubbnrd left t h ~ lnol s mng tor Talnl~lco,\Iex~co Re\ \lother \tent to Boerne Snturdal 5 Februarl 1898. LIr Llornn's slster left todnl -George Hainel the Xransas Pass Englneer dled this eTemng about S 30 IIln 1\1th spasms caused fioln neuralg~aof the stolnach or ~helunat~stn P a d Theodllr & Inen G a ~ ea note to Mr. S. TV. Jollnsorl for $800.00 nlth Interest at 4% for one \ear. George Hainel's relnalns nele r e m o ~ e d~ m m e d ~ a t to el~ the office of Sloan & Shelle\ the undertaker He dled a fi ee mason "'

Demand for the sisters as "nllrses-for-hire" Jtas high. In 1883 theyxvere contracted to staff the Missollri Pacific Railroad Hospital at Fort TVorth, Texas. This particular contract had been pressed on the sisters by Bishop Dllhllis and the company doctors. Mother Saint Pierre needed persuading that the mission Jtas worth the spiritual risk for the sisters. Not e\en the prospect of a regular rnonthlyincorne fi-om the sisters' salar) ($13 per sister, $20 for the superior) cominced her. It was onl) the realization that the sisters xvollld he able to engage in missionary ~ t o r kas they cared for the i~ijllredand dying railroad xvorkers, man) of thorn were Irish and lapsed Catholics, that clinched the deal.li This Jtas the heart of their American mission. As Mother Saint Pierre boasted to L ~ o n in s 1884: In the hospital [Santa Rosa] \\e d ~ good d T ~ OI\I ~ l l t h souls this Tear I think that's \\h\ the de\ll torirleilts us so nlu~11111 our norlis, lle 1s loslilg soirle fine fish under the roof of the Incarnate \\ord. Ire hn\e llad se\eral comerslons, bnptlsrll llas regenerated Inan\ a good thlet ~ l h ohas gone stlalght to h e a ~ e nafter h a ~ l n g r e ~ e ~ \ the e d grace of re~onclllat~on."

In 1887, ten years after the Santa Rosa Hospital opened, the first county hospital of Sail Ailtoilio \\.as corrlpleted and the sisters agreed to rrlailage it. So for a ~vhilethe Sisters of the Incarnate Mbrd ran both the Catholic and the c o ~ m t yhospitals in Sarl A n t ~ n i o . ~In! ' addition to dominating hospital pro\-ision in Sarl Antonio, the sisters extended their operatioils in railroad hospitals, ~vhichpro\-ided them tvith an entry to new regioils

Frontier

105

and new opportunities."" Typically these hospitals were established in respoilse to persistent pleas from rrledical practitioners in totvns tvithout a hospital, through railroad company offers and invitations from 1)ishops." By the time of their silverjlihilee in 1894, membership of the Sisters of the Iilcarilate Tl'ord, Sail Ailtorlio had illcreased frorrl 3 to 197. They otvned and operated ttvo hospitals, Sailta Rosa, Sarl Xrltoilio and St. Joseph's, Fort Mbrth, and they operated set-en railroad hospitals across four states - Palestine and Tyler, Texas; Las \'egas, New 'lexico; Fort Rladison, Iotva; and St. Louis, Sedalia, and Kansas City, Missouri. They ran more than a dozen schools in the United States and Rlexico, t~vo orpllailages in Sarl Antonio, and a llorrle for the aged in Rlonterre!; Rlexico." Splirred on 11y increasing demand for their hospitals and improverrlerlts in rrlediciile and nursing training, the Sailta Rosa Hospital begail its Training School for Nurses ill 1903. Their irrlrrlediate priority tvas the professiorlal training of their otvn rnernhers, and the first cohort of thirteen students tvas rrlade up entirely of Sisters of the Incarnate Tl'ord.":'

This rapid expansion required sisters. In 1878 Mother Saint Pierre returned to Frarlce and \-isited Gerrnany to find recruits for the Sarl Antorlio rnission. She brought l>aclt tell Ivornen. In 1881 she included Ireland on her recruitrnent tour and returned ~vithfour tvornen frorrl the Corltirlerlt and fifteen Irish Ivornen. In 1895 a recruitrnent tour yielded t~venty-onecandidates fi-orrl Ireland, set-enteenfrorrl Gerrnan!; and three from France. In 1900 the touring sisters brought l>aclt six frorrl France, nventy frorrl German); and forty fi-orrl I i - e l a r l ~ i . ~ ~ Mother Saint Pierre made moves to establish a house in Ellrope to prepare Ivornen for the Texan rnissioil." The recruitment holise was to gain English-spealting recruits frorrl the "Island of Saints," as they could not l>eattracted in the United States. Second, it tvas to pret-ent the possibility of tvornen using the novitiate to escape from their horneland. Rlother Saint Pierre corrlplairled that they had "to pay the travelling expenses of close to forty postulants . . . set-era1of these creatures came under false pretext and Ive had to send tllerrl horne.""l In order to avoid these difficulties, she negotiated tvith a Preserltatiorl house ill Irelarld to f o ~ m da receit-ing enter.^ Her correspondence with Lyons plished for this initiative and requested Lyons's l>lessing. Ho~vever,the receiving house idea did not corrle to fruition ill Rlother Saint Pierre's lifetime, and her successors rrlet ol>staclesin Gerrnany and France ~vhenatterrlptiilg to establish recruitrnent houses." The problem of recruitrnent and preparatio11 of suital>le caildidates for the Texas rrlissioil continued to occupy their energies ~vellinto the t~ventiethcentury.

106

Chapter 6

Sisters of Pro\itlence: Missionar~Nlu-ses Another French-speaking comrnllnit) (this time French Canadian) that responded to the call for missionaries to the western United States Jtas the Sisters of Providence in Montreal, Quebec. Follo~tinggold strikes in the Pacific northwest, European settlement expanded rapidly This part of the United States was the home of man) Native American commllnities, and French missionar) priests of the Societ) of Jesus had long been in\olved with this fill--trading society The Sisters of Providence shared the Jesuits' Francophone mission and moved Jtest not onl) to s e n e European settlers, hut to work among and bring into the church the Nati\e American communities of the north~test.In 1836 Mother Joseph of the Sacred Heart (Esther Pariseall, 1823-1902) led four Jtomen from Montreal to Fort \7anco~lver,in the TVashington Territor). These women Jtere pioneers and missionaries. Later, in response to repeated pleas h) Chief Seltice of the C:oeur d'hlenes people for tornen en blackrobes" to come to care for and teach their girls, they became the first white women to cross the Bitterroot Mountains into M ~ n t a n a . ~ " These French C h a d i a n women embraced the challenges of fi-ontier life under the leadership of Mother Joseph to build a remarkable network of thirty charitable institutions (hospitals, orphanages, academies, and Indian schools) b e t ~ t e e n18.76 and 1902 (see Table 2). $(' For this group of women the term "bllild" held literal meaning. Mother Joseph was a carpenter, builder, and architect; she is today recognized as one of the first architects in the northxvest and h) the TVest Coast Lumbermen's Association as the first artist to work in the medium of ~ t o o d In . 1980 a statue of Mother Joseph was installed in the National Statllar) Hall in TVashington, D.C. as a pioneer leader in TVashington State. TVhen she first entered the motherhouse in Montreal her father told Mother Gamelin, follndress of the cornmunit\: I b ~ l n g\ o u n n dallghte~Esther, ~ + h~o\ l s h e sto d e d ~ c a t eh e ~ s e l to t the r e l ~ g ~ o u s l falnll\ for 11fe. Slle 1s t\\ent\ \ears old, nrld for solrle tlrlle she llns p r a \ e d \ \ ~ t lher enl~ghtenlnent It 1s a g ~ e a sacrifice t tor me to pal t 1\1th Esther, but ~f~ o \\111 u accept ller Illto tlle S~stersof P r o \ ~ d e n c e \, o u \+111find ller able to gl\e \ o u \nluable nsslstnnce. She has had \\hat e d u c a t ~ o nhe1 noth her and I collld glre her at home a n d at s ~ l l o o l Slle . Lail rend a i d \+rite a i d figure a c ~ u r n t e l \Slle . call cook a i d sell nrld splrl nrld d o all Inailner of llouse\\ork as \\ell. Slle llns leariled Lnrpeiltrl from lrle and can handle tools as \\ell as I can LIoreo\er she Lnrl plan a i d super\lse the \+orli of otllers, a i d I assure \ o u hladnnl, slle \\11l sonleda\ rnnlie a \ e r \ good superlor.

On arri\al in Fort \7ancoll\er, Mother Joseph knocked together the altar for their cal>in. O n 7 June 1858 she opened an exteilsioil of the

Frontier T ~ B L2 E . SI\TER\ OF PRO\IDENC E IP\\TIT~JTIOP\\ E\TXBLI\HED ~ LE~ E R S H I POF MOTHERJOSEPH

107

L D E T RH E

PI o ~ ~ d e n Acadenn, ce \ ancornel, \ \ a s h ~ n g t o n St Joseph Hosp~tal,\ ancornel, \\ ashlngton St.Joseph S ~ h o o lStellacoonl, , \\'asll~ngton St. \'111~entXcndein\, \\'nlln \\'nlln, TZhslllilgtoil Holl Faln~llHosp~tal,St Ignatllls, Montana Olu Ladl of S e ~ e nDolors School, Tulahp, \ l a s h ~ n g t o n S n ~ r e dHeart School, Col\ille, TVash~ngton St. Pntr~cliHosp~tal,Ll~ssoula,hloiltnna St James Res~dence,Lancolner, \ l a s h ~ n g t o n St Joseph Xcadelnl, IJa'al\~lna, \lashlngton St. \'111~entHosp~tal,Portland, Oregon O u r Lad\ of the S n ~ r e dHeart Scllool, Co\\lltz, TZkslllngton P ~ o ~ ~ d e Hosp~tal, nce Seattle, \ l a s h ~ n g t o n PI o ~ ~ d e n \la1 c e 1 Ilnmaclllate School, DeSlnrt, Idaho St. Marl Hosp~tal,\\'alla Thlln, \\'aslllngton St. LInrl Hosp~tal,Astorla, TZhslllilgtoil St \I~chaelSchool, O l ~ m p ~\lashlngton a, St \la1 tln School, F ~ e n c h t o ~ +Montana n, , Llontailn S n ~ r e dHeart X ~ n d e i n l Lllssouln, S n ~ r e dHeart Hosp~tal,Spol\nne, \\'asll~ngton St C:la~eHosp~tal,Fort Benton, \Iontana St Joseph Xcadelnl, Sprague, \ \ a s h ~ n g t o n St. Peter Hosp~tnl,Ol\nlpla, \\'asll~ngton St.Jollil Hosp~tal,Port To\\ilseild, \\'nsh~ilgtoll St Eugene School, hootenal, B11tls11C:ollunbla PI o ~ ~ d e n Hosp~tal, ce \\ allace, Idaho St. El~znbetllHosp~tnl,Ynlilnla, \\'nsh~ilgtoil C olurllhus Hospital, GLeat Falls, Llontailn St Ignatllls Hosp~tal,C olfax, \lashlngton St G e n e \ ~ e \ eOrphanage, Nev \\estm~nster,Br~tlshColurnbla

laundry and bakery building with a few adjustments as St. Joseph Hospital, Fort \'ancou~er.:~:~ Throlighout her life she worked as both leadel- and property rrlailager for the Sisters of Pro\-idence. Her corresporlderlce appears to deal, in equal rneasure, tvith spiritual concerns and ~vithreno\-ations. It is peppered tvith quotes frorrl l>uilders, corrlplirrlerlts on an altar she built, or requests for her opiilioil on building repairs or elemtor The sisters' first foundation was in Fort \7ancollver; but, according to the Cllroilicles and correspondence, they Ivere desperate for an opening that ~vouldallow tllerrl to extend their operations into Seattle. They had to ~vaitfrom 1836 until 1877 for this opportunity. As is so often the case in the annals of religious tvornen, the irltercessioil of a saint caused a re\-ersal of circumstances for the cornrnunity. 111 this case, a

108

Chapter 6

special de\otion to St. Joseph produced an in\itation to appl\ for the contract to care for c o ~ m t patients \ in Seattle. $'

Hospital Fomltlation The first patient register for Pro\-idence Hospital, Seattle, rrlakes clear the sisters' prirnary goal in their hospital ~voi-k.The conversions and l>aptisrns are recorded as a great honor: " T I P adrrlitted a pi-egilailt rnothei-. W l e n the baby Ivas delivered it already had beer1 dead several days. T I P tvere grie\-ed to not be able to baptize the child, as that Ivas our purpose in receit-ing the rnother. She, ho~vever,returned to the sacrarrlerlts 1,efoi-e leaving us.""" In fact it appears to ha\-e been irrlpossible for a rrlerrlher of the local Native Xrrlericail tri1,es to die in their hospitals outside the Catholic fold. For instance, in the first register of St.Joseph's Hospital, Fort ITancower, in 1838, the six "Iildiail" patients Ivere all clairrled as converts (four died)."' As each death tvas an opportunity for redemption, the sisters tried hard tvith everyone - regretfully declariilg Freerrlasorls the rrlost unconvertible of all."8 This is not to say, ho~vever,that the sisters' spiritual goals of hospital ~voi-kcontra\-ened their clinical airns. The sisters not only Ivere pleased by their rnany conversions and secret l>aptisrns, and the \-arious forrrls of subterfuge they inveilti\-elyused to 1~-ing prodigal souls back to God, they Ivere also \-eryproud of their nursing and of the regard and affectioil of their patients. They tvere extraordinarily alvare of the potver of their ~voi-k to irrlpress the unhelie\-el-and the o p p o r t ~ m enature of pending death to turn e\-en the llarderled sinner back to God. As Mother Joseph put it ill her "begging" letters to the faithful back in Quebec: T h e S ~ s t seof ~ P r o ~ l d e n c riel e e h a l ~ pto~I e s l ~ o n dto the 1nTItatlon of the Blshop of Nesqunll, to come to 111sasslstailw, nitd tofollour hzm rit the @osfoIcrfe o f c h n ~ z frcthrch, ) 271 the ejes of 0111 sef)n)crted D)efh)en, holds so much fxestrge nnd nccon/f~lrshesso innnj ( e m l ~ h a s added) ~s "' co~!i~c~rr!o~ir.

The evangelistic nature of their ~voi-ktvas something the sisters Ivere fer\-ent and open almut. The deathhed conversions in particular Ivere clairrled by the sisters to "excite our a r d ~ r . " ~ The " Chronicler of Pro\-ideilce Hospital, Seattle records: N o r e temporal prospent\ blessed t h ~ Tear s than f o lnell\, ~ but the s a l ~ a t ~ oof n souls IS st111o u r rnost Inlportailt blessing. In Lorlllrlg to us seel\lilg cure of the bod\, our pntwiltfiusuall\ also find cure of the soul. To n ~ h ~ etlus \ e \ \ e spare ilo rnenrls to let olu IIatlents see the11 illness as a bless~ng- a mark of the l o ~ of e God, t \ h o \\ants to 11111 tllelr souls.41

Frontier

109

Figure 3. Fllnd raising, St. Ellgene blission, Kotena7; British Columbia, 1880s. T h e Sisters of Provideilce conducted rugged begging tours to the rllirlirlg cairlps of eastern Oregon, Idallo, and hloiltana, \\.here tile!, collected thousailds of dollars in gold and coin. Reprinted \\.it11 ~ ~ e r l n i s s i oofn the Sisters of Providence Archives, Seattle, TZksllington.

In fact, the object of a good death for all led thern to consider only those ~ v h odied ~vithoutgrace as failures- "lost." It tvas a failure that caused thern to 1-eproacllthernsel\-es.They took to heart ITincentde Paul's adrnoilitioil to the origirlal Daughters of Charity that they tvere responsil>lefor souls ~ v h odied ~vithoutGod's grace.'Barbra Mann T'Vall argues that closeiless to death tvas the real interest for the sisters in nursing. It Ivas an e\-angelical opportunity that beloilged to thern alone, and as such the sisters tvere able to participate in "rnan's tvork" of sat-ing souls ~vithout overstepping their place. To the sisters, the conversion of patients to Chtholicisrn was evidence of the continued irltercessioil of the saints. X firrrl belief in the rniraculous Ivas a sustaining and enal>lingforce and guided their lit-esand their ~voi-k. They interpreted all events as e\-idence of the hand of God and His saints - particularly property deals, the subject of much prayer. Burying rrledals of St. Joseph in the lots acljoining the hospital tvas a fa\-ored approach to property investment. St. Joseph Ivas "appointed" the spiritual presiderlt and financial patroil of the sisters' corporatioil at incor-

110

Chapter 6

Figure 6. Sisters of Provideilce Sister Jollil of God and Sister Jeanne d e C:llailtal \\.it11 Chief Corlo and his coml~anions,St. Ignatius blission, Flathead Indian Reserati ion (Jocko Resenation), Montana, late 1880s. Reprinted ~ i i t hpermission of the Sisters of Providence Archives, Seattle, TZksllington.

poratiorl in 1859. In the Articles of Iilcorporatiorl found in the Corporation Ledger hook St.Joseph's role is formalized: St Josel111 chosen to be the protector of the S~stersof Challtl, \Ialch 19, 1839 Tlle Corporntloil of the Slsters of Cllarlt\ of the House of P r o \ l d e i l ~ e111 the Te111torl of \\ashlngton ~+1s111ng to testlfl I T S confidence In the ~ ~ l o t e c t l oofn St Josepll irlost huinbl\ request lllrll to be the proteLtor and quardlnn of all the \\orl\s, propert\ nrld affnlrs ~ o i l r l e ~ t e\\ltll d ~ t and , declare that ~tholds lllrll as ~ t s good Fathel and I T S sl~lr~tllal Presldent blade a n d passed at the House of Pro\lderlce at Vai1~ou\er011 the 19th of h l a r ~ h1839, Slster Blnndlile, Secretarl, Slster Josepll of the S n ~ r e dHeart, Presldent. ' I

As a consequence, St. Joseph \\.as actively invol\-ed in all property decisions. For instance. St.Joseph chose the 111 opertl on 111sfeast dal as \ \ e had asked 111mto. It had been lrllposslble to get ~t before \\ltllout pa\lng n huge prlce; ? \ e n tllerl the o\\iler \\auld not sell. Then, n fen dnls later, Llr. Llnssel just declded to sell. Llotller PI axedes a n d Slstel Joseph came and folund the place so beaut~filland so a d ~ a n tageous that the\ bought ~ t . ~ '

Frontier

111

Figure 7. Sisters of P r o \ i d e i l ~ edressed to go begging, hloiltreal, 1900. Reprinted \\it11 permission of the Sisters of P r o ~ i d e n c eA r c h i ~ e sSeattle, , \\ashington.

St. Joseph Jtas also relied on - sometimes impatientl) -to put food on the table. At one stage, ill 1878, the Pro\idence Hospital \\as in debt for $1,452 and there I\ as onl\ t\\ ent\-fit e cents in the house. In extreme d~fficlllt\one uses extreme measures After h a ~ ~ knelt n g b e f o ~ ethe Lord nlan\ tlnles, first ashlilg 111s lo\ e and tlleil nloile\, and seenllngl\ gettlrlg n o irloilel and seelrlg our need so great, the Econoinze \tent rlgllt to the tabernacle do01 a n d knocked three tllnes and c o n t ~ n l l e dto knock \\hen she got n o ans\\er "I brlilg ~ o in\ u purse n ~ t hthe t\\ent\-fi\e Lents 111 ~ t , "she sald. "I arll lea\~ilg ~t here uiltll tonlorroll." Tlle next e\erllrlg she !lent to get her purse, sure that God had heal d her Then the next d a t~~ l oprnate patlents a r r n e d , one b r ~ n g ~ n g $123 a n d the other $84 . . . a s u f f i ~ ~ e isuirl l t to sat~sf\our ~ r e d ~ t o r s . ~ "

This faith in the miraculous and belief in the real presence of saints was essential for the sisters to sustain their courage and their coilfideilce that they could rise to fulfill God's dernands. It also placed their tvork outside the realm of the ordinary or the indi\-idual,and reinforced the vie\\. that it \\.as God tvho Ivas to be lloilored in their successes. The sisters Ivere only His instruments and rerrlaiiled un~vorthyof praise or recognition. In fact, Rlother Joseph Ivas gently criticized, ill a pastoral letter from Callor1 X1-

112

Chapter 6

fred Xrcharnheault, their confessor, for n o t "fostering a calrrl and perfect corlfiderlce i n Divine Pro\-idence" i n her houses. Carloll Xrcharnheault had obsei-\-ed rnuch coilcei-11 tvith terrlporal problems, and insufficient faith and corlfiderlce arrlorlg her sistei-s.li He blamed Mother Joseph for this tvorldly preoccupation and excessit-e coilceril ~ v i t hdebt. Total faith, t h e n , tvas clearly something t o ~vorlto n , to perfect i n oneself. Its successful inculcation resulted i n a freedorrl f r o m ~vorldlyconcerns that endotved Ivornen tvith t h e courage and coilfideilce to succeed ill t h e rnate1-ial tvorlci.

Skillet1 Nurses For t h e early sisters, hospital work was central to their mission. The Trcrifc: dldmentnire de mafibre mddirale~vaspublished ill 1869 as a rrledical guide for t h e Sisters o f Pro\-idence. Trarlslated i n 1889 t o 1,ecorne t h e Lllaferin,\ledirn and edited by Sister Peter Cia\-el; t h e text came tvith glo~vingtestirrloilials frorrl t h e rrledical faculty o f nllcGil1 University i n Rlontreal. Sister Peter Cia\-el- traveled f r o m hospital to hospital throughout t h e ilorthtvest, establisllirlg t h e dispeilsaries and training t h e sisters and nurses.lX T h e text provided an exteilded pharmacy sectiorl (plus herbs o f North Xrnerica); it included anatomy and syrnptornatolog!; pathology and disease; there tvas a sectiorl o n insanity that included rnania, rnonornania, dernentia, and idiocy tvith t h e nursing treatrrlerlt listed as "rest o f rnind, attend t o f ~ ~ n c t i o n adei-ange~nerlt."~!' l It also included an "Advice to nurses" sectiorl that detailed obsert-ation o f \-entilation, light, cleanliness, noise, temperature and tvarrnth, sleep, and diet. It decreed that a nurse should ha\-e knotvledge o f dressings, poultices, fornentatioils, leeches, cupping, enernas, hypodermic injections, suppositories, gargles, nasal l,ougies, nasal douches, inhalations, and baths. T h e r e tvas also a n extensive dictionary."' In all, it was a sophisticated and cornprehensive m o d e r n text that provided the sisters ~ v i t hiilforrrlatiorl o n treatrrlerlt regirrles equal to any a\-ailable to nurses at t h e tirne. T h e sisters understood the value o f sltill and dedicatiorl i n care o f t h e sick. T h e Chronicles o f Providence Hospital cite t h e time that n o n e had any rest for four ~ v e e ktvhile s nursing ttvo patients, a typhoid and a sa~vrnill accident victim, " n o t leaving t h e m for five rninutes alone. T h e odor fi-orrl t h e ~ v o u n d e dpatient tvas very bad.""' Both rnen s~lrvived.In 1885 t h e same Cllroilicles regretfully declared that "after eight years o f existence, Ive lost our first case o f typhoid fe\-er --and that after only a ~ v e e k ' sillless."^ At St. Joseph's, Vancouver, Washington, Sister Mary Faith was said t o ha\-e "exhausted her strength carirlg for Rlrs. Pulski, tvho had cancer o f t h e stornach. She tvas ~ v i t hus for six rnonths. She derrlarlded

Frontier

113

constant care and later, to~vardsthe end, she Ivas delirious day and llight," " 3 This is not to overstate the "clinical" dimension to the sisters' nursing. Rather, the point is that there tvas no di\-ision for the sisters l>et~veen de\-otedand attentit-e nursing and e\-angelical ~vork. These tvei-e one and the same. It tvas actually througl~good nursing that hearts tvere opened to God and souls oil the tvay to hell tvere rescued. The Catholic sisters did not avoid direct patient care, and the Sisters of Pro\-idence did full "body ~voi-k"tvhen required. For instance, the Cllroilicles of Pro\-idence Hospital tell of "one paralytic rrlarl suffering for tell years . . . [~vho]l>ecarne horril>ly afflicted, full of sores so that no nurse ~vouldtalte care of him. Sister Eugene and Sister Xnn~mciationtook full care of llirrl then. Their charity touched llirrl and he aslted for instruction and baptism.""' In the irlterests of propriety, ho~vever,the sisters did ernploy male nurses for the irltirrlate care of male patients in "so corrupt a country" -as tvas usual practice in all hospitals at this tirne."" Thus through their practice and determination sisters became skilled nurses, ~voi-ltedclosely ~vithdoctors, and Ivere extremely sensitive to antiCatholic criticisrrl of their hospitals and their nurses. They tvere openly competitive ~vithother hospitals, county or private Protestant institutions, ~vhichthey coilsidered very irlferior to their otvn. They relished the opportunit); tvhen it arose, of carirlg for sorrleorle ~ v h ohad opposed thern and proudly cllroilicled rnany tales of the trarlsforrrlatioil of forrrler foes into firrrl friends (~vithor ~vithoutconversion) ."" There were, then, stroilg rnotit-ations for them to succeed as nurses, to run efficient hospitals, to ~voi-k~velltvith good doctors, and to show a tvorld that ~vouldhave deligllted in their failure that they Ivere the best possible nurse^.^ For their part, the sisters too delighted in the failure of oppoileilts and Ivere not abo\-e rrlalice - such as ~vherlin 1900 the Cllroilicles of Pro\-idence Hospital accused the deacorlesses at the corrlpetiilg Rletllodist Hospital of "going l>acltto the fleshpots of Egypt" at the slightest opportunity!'" The community's reputation for hospital foundation grew through success. In 1897 Sister Blarldirle of the Holy Angels tvrote to Rlother Joseph of the Sacred Heart, putting the case for hospital tvorlt \-ery pragmatically: hosl~~tals are ~ l h a shollld t be most deal to ol11 heal ts, slnce t h ~ 1 ss ~ + h en~e ecan carr\ out all the norlis of nlercl, \\lletller splr~tualor corporeal. For Ine, tlus seelrls to be the 11setul efort, from all standpo~ntsIt 1s tlue that t\e tnust act t\~sell Hone\ er, ~f\ \ e do not aLLept tll~s,others 11111step ln ahead of us, and there 11111he ilotlllny left for us. I r e are short of sublects 11110 are falnlllar \ \ ~ t lEnyl~sh l for our ~ each Tear enollgh members ~ + hale o Schools, and 0111 no~itiate~ e g l l l a r ladmits \tilling to norli ill llospitals. This is the ProIiderlce for our Irestern Llissions and

114

Chapter 6

the best approach to the bar\ est n l l ~ ~ l l lbefore ~ e s us. Other \\orl\s are de~reaslrlg ~ da\ "' b ~b\ t b ~ tbut , hosp~talsare g ~ o n l n gd a b~

The best approach to reap the "harvest" that lay before thern, the sisters decided, tvas through prayer, determination, and a realistic appraisal of hotv best to utilize their irlcreasiilg recruits (vocations). In a rernarltal>le document, the %gistre des t ~ / i s s i o ~dima~?ddes ?s r j In PTOUZ'I?CP (111 Sacre Coeur, the sisters faithfully recorded all invitations to tvorlt and their acceptance or ref~lsal.Although they resporlded positively to rnany, rrlost requests tvere signed off tvith the phrase: "rernercii, faute de sujets" (refused due to a lack of sisters). Requests for schools, hospitals, orphanages, and Iildiail schools Ivere repeatedly refused for this reason.(l0 The invitations were presented in both religiolis and entrepreneurial terrns. For instance, on 3 nllarcll 1884 a Jesuit, Father A. Parodi, tvrote to the sisters from Ellensburg, Washingtoil. His letter tvas follotved shortly by a secoild fi-orrl another Jesuit, Father Kusters. The priests outlined an attractit-epropositioil for the sisters to set up a hospital at a logging camp at nearl>y Roslyn. The propositiorl detailed hotv the coal cornpany dispute had resol\-ed that the rrleil ~vouldtalte care of their o ~ v nsiclt and injured and sought to ernploy "sorne Sisters of Charity" to talte care of their hospital. Single rrlerl ~vouldpay $1.00 per rnonth and rrlarried rrlerl $13 0 . They ~vouldalso undertake to pro\-ide the sisters ~vitha scllool for 200 children, plus additioilal land. They requested fit-esisters, t~vofor the hospital and three for the school. As an added incentive it Ivas rrleiltiorled that there tvere "rnany rrlore logging carrlps and sa~vrnills~vith~vhornthe same rnonthly agreerrlerlt or else ticket system could l>e rnade." The sisters had to decline.'ll Another request carne in Decernber 1896 frorn Father Tl'illiarn Judge (anotherJesuit) in Datvson City, North~vestTerritories. He tvanted the sisters to corrle and open a hospital for rniners. He urged tllerrl to corrle and to rrlalte sure they brought printed tickets (as there tvere no pi-iiltiilg presses in Datvson City). His plea tvas strengthened l>ythe irlforrrlatioil that during the pre\-ious surnrner Episcopaliails had purchased the supplies to establish a hospital, but had been unal>le to organize delivery - so the sisters still had a cllailce to get in first! They declined.(?onusplus pay for co~mtysick, and citizens had prorrlised to also gi\-e a bonus to the sisters. They ac~epted.(~:' Having so fexv sisters rnade it necessary to pick and choose. Persisterlce on the part of the priest, good relationships, and the poten-

Frontier

115

tial for grotvth !yere the ltey indices for the sisters' decisions. They chose !yell, too; their hospitals lasted. The sisters' [yell-thought-out sense of their place in the "marketplace" also led tllerrl to take a professional appi-oacll to nursing training, something they irrlplerrleilted "for the renotvn and the grotvth of the hospit a l . " ' ~In~ 1890 bliss Theresa Cox, a graduate of the training program at Bellevue Hospital, New Yorlt, 1,egan instructing the sisters at St. \'incent Hospital, Portland, Oregon in new ilursing procedures and surgical techniques. She used her first edition textlmok of Clara TlPeks along ~viththe sisters' otvn il.laterin ,\ledirn, tvhile rrledical staff taught the sisters in their specialty area~.(~"At the end of twelve months the sisters completed examinations, but no diplorrlas !yere atyarded as Cox coilsidered tllerrl unnecessary for sisters.'l'l Sister Andrew was then sent to the Presbyterian Hospital, New Yorlt to ol>serve teaching and practice there. She recalled the ~varrnthand ltiildrless sho~vilto her there and returned to establish St. \'incent Hospital's o~vntrairliilg school in Portland, Oregorl in 1892. Sister Xndretv also apparently disagreed tvith Cox's view on diplorrlas for sisters and rrlade sure she [\.as atyarded her diplorrla !\.hen she becarne superintendent of nurses in 1890. The success of the sisters' fo~mdations[\.as liillted to their nursing abilities and their preparedness to rno\-etvith the increasing professioilal derrlailds of hospital adrrliilistratiorl and nursing traiiliilg. Ho~vever,this is only part of the story. These Ivornen in the remote north and south~vest required not only administrative ability, nursing sltill, and piety, but an ad\-enturousand entrepreneurial spirit.

Beggars and Business~vomen:Adventures in the Wilds I l e sat 11111 1g11tIn the [tagon, ~ + ~rosall t h beads In hand; fi ~ g h t e n e dat the h o ~ + h n g of the colotes, \\ol\es a n d panthers, a n d b\ rlolses of \armus lilnds, real or Inlagl~ T Jesus, alone, n a s fearless, and ~ + o l l l d nal T , that tended to exclte teal S ~ s t e\la1 men lallgh at 0111 al1plehens1ons After tllng the 1101ses to the nagon, she ~ + o l l l d spread h e r blarlkets oil the ground, tllerl sa\ h e r il~glltpralers, take out h e r e her, at a conTenlent d~stance,she ~ ~ ~ s t oand l s ,p l a c ~ n go n e of theln at each s ~ d of ~ \ o u l dhe d o ~ \ nand s l e e l ~as l~eacefi~lll as ~fshe [\ere In he^ bed 'I'

The T'Vild T'Vest was larger than life. Somehow the sisters' communities all seem to have found cllaractei-s to fill the 1,oots of !vestel-n legends. In Rlirlrlesota a six-foot, 200-pouild Sister Xrrlata Rlacltett toured the co~vboy carrlps and lurnberjaclt rrlills by train, handcart, ox, or sno~vshoeto raise revenue for St. Mary's Hospital, conducted by the Beiledictiile Sisters of St.Joseph.'l%ister Blandina Segale, Sister of Charity of Cincinnati, heroine of the Sarlta Fe Trail, [\.as protected by the outlaw Billy the Kid for the

116

Chapter 6

care she gave his ~voundedrneil. The Sisters of Charity of the Iilcarilate Mbrd played their otvn part in the larger-than-life legends of the \Vest ~vithSister Rlary ofJesus Noirr!; one of the fo~mdinggroup frorrl Lyons, ~ v h o!vent out into the ~vilds,arrrled tvith a 1)race of pistols, dressed in an oversize rnan's coat, boots, and stratv hat (to disguise her habit). She begged rnone!; pro\-isions, and hay for her horses on 1)egging rrlissiorls lasting fit-e or six t~eelts.(~" For her part, Mother Joseph of the Sacred Heart, Sister of Pro\-idence, tvas an accorrlplislled sales~vornenand intrepid beggar ~ v h ofaced ~volves,bears, and Iildiarls in the mountains of the north~vest. It is difficult not to rorrlailticize such ad\-entures;ho~vevei-,Sister Catherine Mallon, tvho accorrlpailied Sister Blaildiila and tvrote a journal in order to assist Blandina's recollections, recalled the llardsllips sornetvhat bitterly.;" She admitted many years later that she found it hard to bear the lack of appreciation from netv sisters of the difficulties that had beer1 faced 1)y their cornrnunity's piolleers.'l Nevertheless, aclventlire or lonely drudger!; begging Ivas a particular feature of froiltier missions. Begging Ivas degradirlg and humbling, a traditional religious practice of rnortificatioil since at least the time of St. Francis of Assisi. It Ivas thus perfect as a spiritual practice to induce humility. The sisters tvere able to turn a traditional practice, to erase pride and self, into an effective rrleails to raise funds for their tvorlt. There tvas rnuch opportunity for self-abasement, such as the time Sister Stephen fi-orrl Sarl Antonio, after 1)eing spat upon, persisted, "Thank-you sir, that tvas for rne. Now tvould you give rrle sornething for the orphans. "" In 1880 one begging mission of the Sisters of Providence even went to Chile (tvhere a sister foundation existed). Despite the trip's difficulties, the sisters returned to the northtvest ~vith$lO,OOO.':i In the two cornmuilities under exarrliilatioil here, 1)egging in\-olved long trips into the ~vilderness, arrloilg ~vorkingrrlerl in carnps, to cat-alry outposts and isolated settlements, searching for the "kind generous Irisll heart."i1 The Sisters of Providence sent begging rrlissioils o\-el-the rno~mtainsto the rrliiles of Idaho, Rlontana, and the Caribou Country in British Colurnhia. The carrlps Ivere often a tvonderful source of revenue. nllotller Joseph cornrrlerlted that she found the rrlirlers especially generous: The\ [the slstel s] t\ el e la1 gel\ 1 enal d e d b\ the excellent 1 eceptlon the\ encoluntered from the nllners, \tho \\ere \ e r \ respe~tfulat all tlnles, and rllore generous than one t\ould h a \ e expected of people t \ h o slll~jectthelnsel\es to sllch hard lab01 and prnatlons to eal n a small fol tune."

Over the decades of her work in the northwest Mother Joseph personally crossed the northern states rnany times, living hard and fearless. As in

Frontier

117

Texas, begging rrlissioils required toughened frontier tvornen. Sisters of Pro\-idence journeys invol\-ed riding sorrle 400 rrliles on horseback in infamously [vet c o ~ i l t r y . ~Special " waterproof riding habits were made, and ~vatchingthe tra\-elersundergoing their ridiilg and "sleeping rough" traiiliilg tvas the cause of rnuch arnuserneilt for those staying at h o r ~ l e . ~ ~ Mother Joseph, always the intrepid leader on these dangerous exclli-sions, recorded one l>rushtvith an Irldiarl Ivar party: As \ \ e \\ere preparlilg to d e ~ a l n p n, e heard the tralnpllilg of llorses and salt a t~o o p of Indians In the t\ar paint slu I o u n d olu cara\an \ t h e n the\ recogmzed 0111 pectoral c~osses, the\ ~ m m e d ~ a t egaTe l \ a slgn of fi ~ e n d s h ~ and p I espect, 0111 fears !+ere dispelled. TVe treated tllerll to a nleal, hut crlilged at tllelr scalplilg k m ~ e ts\ h ~ c hthe\ I\ept read\ to carr\ off scall~sof t \ h a t e \ e ~Amencans the\ t\ollld I T\+ele to see theln d e p a ~t ~ ~ e a c e a b lGod \ be pralsed encountel Hot\ I I ~ ~ I ~\+e

''

Business Initiatives The move fi-om begging to the ticket (billet) system, where for two, five, or tell dollars per year the ~voi-lters1)ought the right to care at the sisters' hospitals, Ivas an irrlportarlt shift in the corrlrrlercial relationship l>et~veen the sisters, their patients, medicine, and business. As Ive have seen, the sisters Ivere on occasiorl directly corltracted l>y corrlparlies to run srrlall camp hospitals or hospitals in the cities to care for ~vorlters.In 1885 a Seattle doctor, Dr. Carrnel, set up a srrlall hospital, "luxuriously furnished ~vithTurltish carpets," furniture tvith rnarl>letops, and so forth, in cornpetitioil ~viththe sisters at Providence Hospital. This doctor's agents began selling adrrlissioil ticltets for $5 or $10 a year as a forrrl of insurance \-ouchel-to indi\-idual ~vorkei-sat the rnany rrlirlirlg and logging carrlps in the region. These ticltets "authorized the purchaser, ill case of illness, to corrle to the hospital free and receive the ordinary and extraordinary care of doctors and nurses, get 1)oard and so forth, ~vithoutany further cost."'!' It was a move that caused the sisters great consternation. O u r opponfllt 1s lrleetlilg \ \ ~ t l success l \ \ ~ t l the l ~+orklneil. I r e regretfull\ see o l l ~ s e l ~loslng es this class of t\orklnen, \+I10 a l e ~ l s u a l l11001 ~ e\en In t h ~ colunt~ s t\here \+agesare h ~ g hIt 1s this class of people t \ h o are ollr b~cad and butter \ \ h a t to do? The\ f o r ~ e dus to send out t~cl\etstoo . . . [hut] our opponent llas beell ln folu months '" the field f o ~

In an effort to hold onto their custom from these sites, the sisters too begail to sell tickets that entitled l>earersto free care in the hospital t\ it11 a choice of their ot\ n doc tor. The\ \\ere surprised at their ot\ n success, able to corrlpete uith the doc tor e \ e n in areas \\here his custom !\as firrnl\

118

Chapter 6

established. By 1887 Dr. Carrnel's hospital Ivas l>anltrupt and the sisters' revenue from tickets Ivas $3,700.X1 In T'Vashington the company whose workers took so many of these ticltets tvas the Port Blaltely Rlill. This po~verfulcornpaily rail the largest rrlillirlg operation in the tvorld during this period." Logging, of course, Ivas dangerous ~vork,and it Ivas not possible for rrlerl to look after thernselves tvhen alvay frorrl horne and farnily. Under the ticltet scheme, the only cost incurred by the cornpaily for the health and tvelfare of its ~vorlters Ivas the adrninistrati\-eburden of pay deductions. So useful tvas the role of ticltets in health care that it apparently became custornai-y for corrlparlies to deduct the payrnent from the rnen's pay ~vithor ~vithout their perrrlissiorl- sorrletllirlg that put casual ~vorkei-sat a disadvantage. In fact, patients tvere at tirrles adrrlitted from the logging carrlps concerrled about payrnent for hospitalization, only to disco\-er that they had been paying health insurance all There is no evidence that the sisters colluded ~viththe company rrlailagers and pay officers to deduct payment tvithout perrrlissioil for hospital insurance. Ho~vever,as the uni\-ersalhealth pro\-iderfor such an enorrnous and high-risk employer, the beileficiaries of this "cornpulsory" cot-erage tvere clearly the sisters and their acute hospital^.^' A filrther element of significance to the billet system was the provision in the coiltract for choice of rrledical practitioner, tvhich prorrloted the de\-eloprnentof private rrledical practice tvithin the sisters' hospitals tvithout any necessity for rrlediciile to de\-elopor support the institutioil. Here again the sisters' efforts to stat-e off financial ruin supported the developrrlerlt and extension of pri\-ate rrledical practice in their hospitals. The tight l>usinessrrlarlagerrleilt practices of the Sisters of Providence (and the fact that they iilcorporated as sooil as they possibly could) are e\-identin the records of transactions, property lists, and "Delil>erations of the Corporations." A11 property decisioils Ivere carefully rninuted and acco~mtingrecords maintained. Board rrleetirlgs Ivere conducted, as derrlailded l>y the by-latvs, and the pro\-incial superior Ivas presiderlt of the corporation - only Sisters of Pro\-idence Ivere rrlerrlbers of the l>oai-d. Accounting records distinguished l>et~veenbnlatlce etl caisie (rnoiley in hand) and billets nbon~?ements(agreements). The latter terrrl included all contracts for patients, ~vhethertvith logging carnps, sa~vrnills,railroads, or counties, and specificatiorls Ivere listed such as ~vhetherthe agreerrleilt included cost of physicians (salnire et honornire) ."' The well-maintained records, fostered by the need to report all their dealings to Rlontreal, exteilded to property registers."TThe best illustration of this tradition call be found in the book of architectural dra~vings and land sur\-eydocuments, I1?71etltairesdes i ~ n ~ n e ~ i bdel ela s Pro-c~itlced u Sacre

Frontier

119

C o e l r This ~ ~ ~ docllment was metic~llo~lsly executed 11y Sister hnatolie (evidently a talented drafts~vornan)in 1919 tvhen she tvas sent from nllorltreal to undertalte ail inveiltory of all properties. But despite this let-el of corporate pragrnatisrn, ~vhatdeterrrlirled the tvay the sisters lived and ~voi-lted, their relatior1 to the surrounding society and the coililectioils bet~veen their various houses Ivas their rnotherhouse, their training, and their rule.

T h e Sisters' Bill of Rights: T h e Rule

The Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word were established as a tertiary or third order cornrnunity of the Order of the Irlcarrlate Tl'ord and Blessed Sacrament. Their rule, ~vhatMary Etvens has referred to as a sisterhood's "Bill of Rights,"xxwas within the Augustinian tradition and Ivas a rrlodified forrrl of the rnotherhouse's rule to accorrlrrlodate sisters living an uncloistered life of active ~vorlt,in regular contact tvith the laity. This rule had beer1 sorrletllirlg of a generic rule for nursing cornrnuilities since the time of the Hospitallers frorrl the Crusades. Tl'heil the first group of sisters arrived in Gal\-eston,ho~vever,there had barely been time to prepare them for the rnission: they had resporlded stviftly to the yellow fe\-er epiderrlic then raging and arrived ~vithoutany tvritten In fact, the three tvornen in the first party had only receit-edsix days preparation in Lyons. This defect tvas rerrledied in the secoild group sent to Galveston, in 1866. These Ivornen had been rigorously prepared and given strict instructions to rrlalte sure the foundation tvas conducted according to the rule of the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Tl'ord. It appeared that the concern of the superior in Lyons, nllotller Xng6lique, that the sisters tvere insufficiently prepared to establish a religious cornrnunity so far frorrl the rnotherhouse, Ivas tvarranted. Tl'hen the second party arri\-ed in Gal\-eston they found the Sisters of the Incarnate Tl'ord ~vearingfour variations of habit or dress.!"' The simple rule of 1869 referred to the sisters as hospitalers. It made clear pro\-isions for their conduct as religious ill the company of the siclt, extolling the sisters to "keep a continual tvatch over t h e ~ n s e l \ - e s .The "~~ "great \-igilance" required also for1)ade tllerrl from 1)eing "ernployed" nursing in the horne. They Ivere, hotvet-er,allo~vedto \-isitthe siclt in their hornes. This rule pro\-ided a detailed schedule for prayer and exhortation from first thoughts on risiilg to invocations to say if a~vakenedin the rrliddle of the night."" A second, more developed rule, devised 11y Bishop Dubuis in 1872,

120

Chapter 6

specified spiritual exercises, specifically rrleiltiorled the \-otvs of chastity and obedience, and discussed rnodest!; elections, and the "life, dress and lodging of the sisters."!':' This rule incllided issues of dowry (not a requirernent) , fasting (not allo~ved) , tra\-el by sisters, and detailed instructions for the care of sick and behavior of nurses (they Ivere never to jolte ~vithpatients of "a different sex," never to "farniliarize thernsel\-es ~vith doctors") ."I Dllhliis falls hack on the words of \'incent de Paul, "postponing God for God," in his description of their tvorlt and the sisters' relationship to their ~vork,affirrrlirlg that care of the sick had priority over their daily regimen."" Insight into the spiritual formation of Sisters of the Incarnate T'Vord is offered through the extensive ~vritiilgsof Mother Sairlt Pierre, cornrnunity leader from 1872 to 1891. Attelltioil to the rule and to each sister's spiritual forrrlatiorl tvas a coilstarlt therne in her tvritings. Rlotller Sairlt Pierre's atvareness of her role as pastoral guide to her foundations and her strong liillts ~viththe French rnotherhouse illurnillate her letters to both her superiors ill Lyons and her "children" in Texas. Correspondence l>et~veen Lyons and Sarl Xiltorlio rerrlaiiled affectionate and close. The Ivornen in Lyons shared the trials and sufferings of the sisters and gave tllerrl heart. W l e n Rlother Saint Pierre felt overtvhelrned by the ~vork,the foreignness, and the responsil>ilit!; she tvould tvrite to Lyons "hotv tve should like to ha\-e you ~vithus in these sufferings and struggles,"!XI The rnotherhouse in France was her confidante and spiritual ad\-isor, and for the ellclosed Lyons cornrnunity the Irish, French, and Gerrrlail Ivornen of the Sail Xrltoilio fo~mdationprovided a vicarious rrlissiorl in the ~vorld. One such struggle occurred ~vhenthe sisters had agreed to supply a group of sisters to help forrrl a cornrn~mityin Chicago. Rlotller Saint Pierre de\-eloped secoild thoughts at the Ivay the party tvas 1)eing organized. The Polish priest from Chicago had talterl a high-handed approach to the endea\-or, overruling nllotller Saint Pierre's selection of Ivornen and then ~vhirnsicallycllailgiilg arrangements, derrlaildiilg sisters of Polish extraction. It Ivas the rule of the sisters that ernpotvered Rlotller Saint Pierre to take a drarrlatic stand against this priest, tvithdra~vingthe tvornen until her terrrls Ivere met. She described her turrnoil and difficulty in frank cori-espoildeilce l>aclt to Lyons. Rlotller Sairlt Pierre Ivas alvay in Eagle Pass and tvas telegraphed that the priest had arrived and had cllailged his rrlirld again al>out~vhichsisters he did and did not tvant. So 111a~ing and asking God to help me, 1 set out in spite of the danger in case Sr. Assistant rlligllt \ield to the entreaties and so lose our right to judge \llli~11

Frontier

121

S~stersare su~tableto do the \\ark of God. Tlle tram left at 7.40 plrl and I tra\ elled all n ~ g h t111a\lng, prallng I a1 I Ired holne at 6 30 aln The cal I lages \+ere there to take the S~sters,Sr. Xsslstailt llad thought ~t best to \ ~ e l dto tlus good father \tho preferred to take oil11 three slsters rather tllarl four slrlce the fourth !+as not to 111sl ~ k ~ nHga ~ ~ comprehended ng this sl111~t In\ h1othe1's heal t s ~ f f ed e ~fi oln the liljustlce done to some of ln\ clllldrerl [S~sters]and 1111 autllor~t\as Superlor e dLaprlce. Then and guardla11 of the splrlt of our conlnlun~t\!+asbelrlg s a c r ~ f i ~ to I \\as clearl~strengthened b\ the thollght that ~t \+as b e t t e ~not to allov the beglrlillilg of a llouse of the Incarnate T k r d tllarl to allon ~tto be begun Loiltrarl to the prnmple of uil~\ersalcllar~t\of HIS adorable heart. Not belny able to consult all our slstels and let theln knov In\ leasons-fo~ the carnages \\ere there - I ~ a l l e dall the slsters ln the house and the prlest and said to 111111111 tllelr presence, "Father I arll ailgr\ that \ o u lla\e come so far for our S~stersbut, as n e d 1011 \+anted Slste~sof the Incarnate Itold but Inunde~stoodand b e l ~ e ~ ethat stead ~tIS 'sucll and su~11a persoil' \ o u \\ant, n e cannot Lorltlrlue \ \ ~ t l!+hat l ne pronnw'd \ou. Our slsters 11111not go." Tlle struggl~rlgand the \\railgllilg nould take too milch to relate here I \\as as calm as calmness ~tselfand l t \+asextlaordlilar\. I allo\\ed n o excuse, n o reasoning. "The\ are all equall\ llulnail," I told 111~11.. . . The good p~lest then lost 111seqlnhb~luln; 1le began to cr\ l ~ k ea c h ~ l dTo In\ 01\11 great aston~shnlent, the good God susta~iledme so strong11 that I ~+asil't ?\en , lle \\as \\roilg and asked for rllercl. . . . The storm ~ n o \ e d. . . then lle \ ~ e l d e dsaid \\as great, m\ good mot he^, and the struggle 11alnful but 1 nll~stsa\ that grace surpasw'd the paln. I felt lmself erll~gllterledand urged on b\ a surprlslng firm\ to the hol\ n111 ness to \ ~ e l dto rlotlllilg 111nllat seelrled to rlle so e \ ~ d e n t lLontrarl of God and to the sl111~t of the Inca1 nate It01d 'Ir

For even though the rule of the Sisters of the Incarnate T'Vord of San Xrltoilio had been developed in part by Bishop Duhuis, it had been approved by Lyons, and the sense of coililectioil and continuity ~viththe spiritual traditiorl of the Order of the Iilcarilate Word and the Blessed Sacrarrleilt tvas \-ital to the identity of the order in Xrnerica. O\-er the years, the sisters voted to retairl their experieilced French leaders, despite the dorrlirlarlce of Irish recruits. 111 fact, the election of the first Irish superior ill 1918 spelled the decline of the French connection. The electiorl result Ivas coil\-eyed to the rnotherhouse ill a reassuring toile, and Lyons Ivas corlsoled almut the new superior: ''Re\-. nllotller Mary John is really a true daughter of the Incarnate Mbrd from Lyons. She loves you \-eryrnuch. . . . I arrl sure she tvill altvays rerrlairl suhrnissi\-eand affectionate to~vardsyou. "!'" Pills X granted papal approbation for formal separation from Lyons in 1910."" With this the work of both foundresses, Mother Madeleine and 'lother Saint Pierre, Ivas completed. They had led the new fo~uldation from France to the United States, shaping it to the derrlailds of Texas and the southtvest, and shaping recruits frorrl rnany nations, through strict adllererlce to their iililer life sustained by their rule.

122

Chapter 6

The rule lvas the lifeblood of the Sisters of Pro\-idence,too. Nonetheless, the sisters appear to ha\-e been @\-ensorrle latitude to accorrlrrlodate the needs of a new country. For illstance, Rlother Joseph dispeilsed tvith the rule of silence at meal tirnes, arguing that froiltier life lvas grirrl and lonely and the sisters needed to socialize and sustain each other. Rlontreal reirlforced this change in traditioil and urged the sisters to use the norrnally silent rrleal tirrles to practice English.looEmphasis was also placed on net-er rrlissirlg rrleals - to keep their llealtll and spirits strong. Prollibitioils on the care of tvornen in lal>oi-,too, lvere sornetvhat relaxed for rnissionary hospitals.lolAs a self-conscious missionary cornrnlinit); the Sisters of Pro\-idence tvere sustained in their isolatioil l>ythe forrrlal connection that their rule rrlairltairled tvith their rnotherhouse llorrle in Rlontreal.lo2Their Chronicles express great joy at observing their folindress's day (23 Septernher) in the alvareness that all their houses, from nllorltreal to Chile, lvere united in this observance. The mio on of prayer and ritual reillforced their special identity as Sisters of Providence and sustained thern in their cllallerlges as foreigilers in an anti-Catholic p 1 a ~ e . l ~ ' : ~ On a less profound but equally poxverfill level, their vow of obedience to rule and superiors gat-e the sisters a line of corrlrrlaild irldeperlderlt of local clergy. At the same tirne, nllorltreal appeared to actit-ely adrrlirlister the rnissionary outpost, ~vithfrequent \-isitsfrorrl their superior general, a steady supply of netv recruits, and visits l>acltto Rloiltreal l>yrrlerrlhers of the cornrnunity. This coililectiorl tvith Rlontreal, ho~vever,could be in\-olted or not as circurnstailces dictated. The superior appears to ha\-e had a great level of discretionary potver. For instance, tvhen the offer to talte county patients in Seattle first came to the sisters, they declared it irnpossil>le to rrlalte a hasty decision as the invitation ~vouldha\-e to be corlsidered l>yRlontreal. Furthermore, their irrlrrlediate superior, Father Prefontaine, lvas alvay, so the issue sirnply could not be resolved under these circumstances. Noiletheless, rather than forsalte the offer, the sisters agreed to the deal. Their reasoning justified this iildepeildeilt action thus: hlother PI axedes, L Ical, had 111a\ers upon pral el s s a d [to extend t11e11 m ~ s s ~ o n ] Tlleil one dal she placed at tlle feet of St. Joseph's statue a letter pressurlilg 111111 to make kno\\il tlle 11111 of God. Tlle next da\, Februarl 1877, n e r e ~ e ~ \ ethe d tollot\~ngt e l e g ~am. "Do \ o u \ \ ~ s lto l take tlle count\ pat~ents?Respond ~ n l n l e d ~ a t e l \Father ." Kauteil Tins unexpected request of tlle asslstailt prlest put us 111 a quaildar\, for \ \ e l ~ the pastor, t \ h o n a s aria\ But, n e thollght, t h ~ absence s teal e d the d ~ s a lo~~l a~of ~n so d~fficultail olcasloil \\as a true aLt of P r o \ ~ d e i l ~ e . " ' ~

Frontier

123

The corrlbiilatiorl of ol>edience to their rule and utter faith that they Ivere instruments of God's ~villIvas capable, o n occasion, of ernpo~vering these tvornen to use their initiatit-eand exercise theirjudgrneilt. Paradoxically, these actions occurred ~vhollytvithiil a frarne~vorkof suhrnission, ol>edience,and indifference.

Mother Saint Pierre: "Rernain Hitltlen" The paradox of potver and suhrnission uilderscoi-es the tension bettveen terrlporal achievements and the spiritual forrrlatiorl of the sisters as \-o~ved rrlerrlhers of a religious cornrnunity. 'lother Saint Pierre counseled Sister Xlphonse in February 1889: Relna~nh ~ d d e nAll~honse , 1 cannot ~ecolnmendt h ~ as s milch as I t\ould l ~ k eto, and beg \ o u to gne tins splrlt to our slsters. It 1s better that people take us for llnbec~les,In no mattel t\hat, than to c o n s ~ d e11~s c l e ~ eand ~ ~ntelhgent,agreeable dl~ lo' to pol~ular01~ l o ~ l oplnlon

In the nineteenth centlir) the promotion of self was considered anathema in religious life. As members of a religious cornrnlinit) the sisters considered that the idea of the "self" belonged to the temporal ~ t o r l d and was to he "eradicated" through religiolis practice, s~lhrnission,and obedience. Thus the desire to a\oid "singularit)," or distinction, h) women religious was integral to their religious identit) and their efforts to achie\e spiritual perfection. Despite this emphasis on modest); hlirnilit); and slihmission, God's work, especially on the frontier, demanded courage, initiati\e, and resolircefiilness. It was never the sisters' intention to build an empire for the themselves; the) Jtere agents of God's empire. But despite their need to shun the limelight, God's work deser\ed illumination. Their institutions were a beacon for Catholicism and they Jtere prolid that God had allo~tedso much to he accomplished through them.

Fourldatiorls at the Frontier In the west the great hardship was that of poverty The Catholic businesses of successful irrlrrligrailts in the east and rnidtvest tvere fetv and far bettveen, and out !vest the sisters' tvorlt ernbraced a rnotley cornrnunity of rniners, irrlrrligrarlt tvorlters in carnps, Nati\-eXrnericans, and freed slaves. The opportunities for a tvell-endo~vedcornrnunity Ivere scarce. In the new totvns only the local business people and pious corlgregatiorl rnernbers could l>eappi-oaclled for alrns; tllerefore the sisters tvere sooil forced

124

Chapter 6

to look fui-ther afield. Gi\-en that railroad ~voi-ktearrls and rrliilei-s had rnoney and, not infrequentl!; the need for acute hospital care and nursing, the sisters de\-ised an entrepreneurial solutioil for their cash need. First, they rode arrlorlg the rnen, in railroad, rnining, and logging carnps, begging from the tvorlters. Then they rnoved to collaboratioil tvith industry to pro\-idecare for tvorlters. In this tvay the sisters ~vorkedin a contractual relatior1 tvith rrlirliilg and railroad cornpanies, setting up hospitals ~vithbeds allocated to pri\-ate cornpanies, and also setting up rno1,ile hospitals at the campsites. Eventually the sisters tvorlted the carrlps to sell \-ouchel-s/tickets/billets, ~vhatIve could today call insurance vouchers. Buried in the pious language of l>eggars,the sigilificailce of this step fi-orrl begging doilatiorls to purchasing possil>le sei-\-icescall easily be overlooked. Nonetheless, their entrepreneurial actit-ities, their need to seize anything that tvorlted to lteep their foundations ah\-eand grotving, rrlearlt that in a thoroughly coiltiilgerlt rrlarlrler the sisters tvorlted to establish a system tvhere the support of a pri\-ate hospital (e\-ensupport of the rnajor provider of health care sei-\-icesfor an entire city or region) came through iilsurailce subscriptions. The ttvo cornrnunities under discussion ill this chapter, the Sisters of the Incarnate Tl'ord of Sarl Ailtoilio and the Sisters of Pro\-idence,Ivere both motivated by missionary zeal to ~voi-kin the tvest of the United States. As foreigil tvornen tvho relied on rrlaterial and rrloral support from their far alvay rnotherhouses, they also provided a rrleails for Ivornen 1)aclt llorrle to participate \-icariously ~vithtvornen at both locations, sllariilg prayers and offerings, sllarirlg successes and failures at conversion. On the frontier the sisters drew courage frorrl the derrlaild for their nursing sltills to rno\-e further and further into the corrlrrlercial realrrl of cornpany hospitals, nursing contracts, and insurance schernes. These efforts funded their rnission, 1~-oughttllerrl close to lapsed Catholic souls, and gave them the opportunity to illspire Protestarlts ~viththeir piety and selfsacrifice. The sisters ltnetv that their nursing ~voi-kIvas the potent 1~-etv that could "accornplish so rnany conversions." At the same tirne, hotvet-el; the sisters had detractors. Against these detractors there Ivas only one defense- the sisters' hospitals had to be better than any others. This rrleailt they had to facilitate rrloderil rnedicine and pro\-ide sltilled ilursing. It tvas the corrlbiilatioil of these factors: e\-angelisrn, fillailcia1 difficulties, developments in rrledical and nursing training, and anti-Catholic forces, that led the sisters continually to irnpi-o\-e their sltills, their services, and their institutions to be leaders in their field. At the sarrle time their religious training rrlade thern eschetv, in principle, the rlotioil of profession or business~vornan. In 1~1ththe Sisters of the Incarnate Tl'ord and the Sisters of Providence

Frontier

125

Ive find frontier Ivornen - intrepid and entrepreneurial. But these classic llallrrlarlts of indi\-idualisrn tvere achieved through a corrlplex religious shaping that eradicated self and extolled simplicity and group identity. Thus, through an ancient path of religious perfection acted out at the frontier of a foreigrl land, these Ivornen mot-ed tvith coilfideilce and competence, building institutioils and creating health senices 1~1thfor themselves and for their sisters 1)aclt home.

Chnptrr 7

Crossing the Confessional Divide Grrman Catlzolic and Pr-otrstnnt LVursrs

Immigration is a tale of the movement not only of peoples, but of social practices. Religious ilursing could be understood as one such social practice, one that rnany Gerrrlarl peoples sought to reestaldish in the New Mbrld. The Gerrrlail experience 1,riilgs together a nurnher of critical thernes to this study of nursing ~vorltby pious Ivornen in the nineteenthcentury Protestailt English-spealting ~vorld.First, there is the revival of Catholicism in Catholic regions of Gerrnany in the mid-nineteenth century. Central to the Gerrrlarl experierlce tvas the establisllrrlerlt of Daughter of Charity rnotherhouses, and the proliferatioil of netv cornrnunities of vo~vedtvorneil dedicated to tvork arrloilg the increasingly desperate poor. This plleilorrleiloil corresporlded closely tvith the Irisll and French experience, tvhere a rnultitude of religious cornrnuilities and lay societies Ivere generated in the flotvering of Ultrarrloiltaile Catho1icisrn.l A second theme is the entry of Protestant wornen into this territory of actit-e, public tvork in the cornrn~mity.The Gerrrlail story is critical here because Pastor Theodur Fliedner's Kaisers~verthdeacorlesses tvere the first non-Catholic attempt to harness the evangelical energy of ~vornenin a public role. The deacorless rno\-ernentIvas created by Fliediler (18001864) in 1836, as a re\-ival of the l>il>licalfemale diacoilate outlined ill Rorrlarls 1 6 1 , 2.' The deaconesses thus are of immense significance to the opening out of ilursing ~vorltto Lutheran tvorneil, then to \-arious e\-angelical and Rletllodist groups, and finally to secular Ivorneil. The deacorlesses are also irrlportarlt for the attention they receit-ed from the Protestarlt ~vorldoutside Gerrnaily. The rrlodel not only spread through Scandinavia, but interested great nurnhers of British tvornen (including Elizabeth Fry and Florerlce Nightingale) and pastors ~ v h osubsequently introduced deacorlesses to their parishes. But equally significant is the fact that deacoilesses Ivere irrlported directly to the United States by Pastor Fliediler himself in 1849, trarlsplailtiilg the Gerrrlail Lutheran rrlodel for a ~vorkingferrlale diacoilate directly into the Gerrrlarl cornrnunity of mid-century Pittsburgh. It is these multiple strands, Protestant,

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

127

Catholic, Gerrnan, and Scandina\-ian, as they iiltercept tvith both the ITincentianDaughters of Charity and the Nightingale reforrrlers that this chapter sets out to explore. Finally, this chapter discusses particular elerrlerlts of religious cornrnunities of nursing tvorneil. Both the Catholic and Protestant Gerrrlail exarrlples appear to share certaiil cllaracteristics less e\-ident in 11011Gerrrlail cornrnunities. The role of the pastor is highlighted for Gerrrlail cornrnunities, and the iildepeildeilce of the Ivornen, perhaps in line tvith the position of Gerrrlarl tvornen rrlore generally, appears cii-curnscribed. X further issue that pro\-idesa coilsisterlt undercurrent to the ~voi-ltof these Ivornen in the United States is the tension l>et~veen assirrlilatiorlist rno\-es to iiltegrate irrlrrligrailt institutions illto rrlairlstrearrl Xrrlericarl societ); and the potverf~llforces that pulled Gerrrlail cornrnunities to~vardcultural and linguistic distinctiveiless.

Religions Revival i l l Niileteeiltl-1-Cer1tlu.j German) One of the great errors in the everyday understanding of religiolis nlirsirlg is the notion that Catholic nursing represents an unchanging t~vothousand-year tradition. The potver of such rhetoric is ob\-ious,starrlpiilg nursing, charity, and care as Catholic practice. But such a view underplays the achievements and inno\-ations of the nineteenth-century Catholic nurses, and disguises the fact the \-ital and inno\-ative nursing cornrnunities, tvhich it has l>een argued had such an irrlpact on the rnodernizatiorl and secularization of nursing, Ivere for the rrlost part forrrled in the ilirleteerltll c e n t ~ r y . : ~ German C:atholicism had been severely battered 11y the Reformation and its ensuing tvars, the suhsequeilt decline of the Holy Rorrlail Ernpire, the Napoleonic Wars and French occupation, lil>eratioil and the Treaty of I'ienna (1813) (tvhich brolte up Catholic states into rninority regions in new Protestant states),' and, finally revolution (1848) and the rise of socialisrrl and liberalism. The net result of this turrnoil and de\-astationin the first half of the ilirleteerltll century tvas a rise in illegitimacy rates, secularism, and anticlericalisrn. In the netv Gerrnan); l>ourgeoisCatllolics joined Rlasoilic lodges and read lil>eraland left-tvingpapers, and tvorlting class Catllolics filled the tat-erns on Sundays. Those tvho did corrle to church cornrnoilly forrrled "tobacco collegia and con\-ersation circles" during the serrnon. There tvere even corrlplaiilts of coilgregatioil rnernbers clirrlhirlg the rafters fi-orrl the clloir gallery or rnounting the orgarl to rrlock the priest - even assaults oil priests Ivere reported." The revival of Catholicism over the two decades 1850-70 was energized by S~vissand Alsatian priests tvho, through rnassit-e rrlissioil gatherings,

128

Chapter 7

actit-ated a resurgence of pilgrirrlages and lay societies or sodalities." This resurgence resulted ill a drarrlatic shift in the social and derrlograpllic profile of Rhenish and M'estphalian Catholics, so that by 1870 late marriage, low illegitirnac!; and high lifetime celibacy rates l>ecarnethe distinguishing features of a generally churchgoing and sober population. But the successes of Catllolic re\-ival tvere to becorrle the cause of its trials under Cllailcellor Bisrnarck. Coupled tvith the increase in clerical authority over the lit-esof Catllolic Gerrrlails Ivas an irlcrease in the political influence of the pulpit - ever the enerny of l>othPrussian rrlilitarisrrl and liberal forces. The disserltirlg role of the Catllolic Church, and its spectacular ability to rrlobilize rrlasses of Catholics against the Prussian go\-ernrnent,resulted in the declaration of open Ivar bettveen church and state under the political prograrrl ltno~vnas K~lturltarnpf.~ As relations bettveen church and state deteriorated, Catholic clergy Ivere expelled, church property seized, and Catholic religious cornrnunities persecuted. It tvas, then, a politically experierlced and effectit-elyorganized forrrl of Catholicisrn that tra\-eled in the forrrl of one rrlilliorl irrlrrligrailts to the United States during the peak decade of Gerrrlarl irnrnigration, 1870-80. These irrlrrligrailts brought ~vithtllerrl a deep suspicion of secular goverilrnent, a cllerislled sense of the glory of Gerrrlarl Catholicism, and a hard~vroughtdeterrrlirlatioil to lteep that flarrle alive."

The Sisters of St. Mar,: "We Feel Irlclirletl to Cross the Ocean" Dear Mr. TVeginail The present state of attall s ~ + ~regal t h d to rehg~olls,and conTents espec~all\,1s so dis~ouraglrlgthat \+efeel lrlcliiled to Lross the w e a n , therefore I \\auld ask \ o u to tr\ to make the aLquaiiltarlce of sorne prlests, Jesults or Frarlclscarls ~fpossible r not ~t t\ollld be a d ~ ~ s a b tor l e f i ~ eslstels t\ho and Inqlllle of them ~ + h e t h eor de\ote tlleinsel\es to the Lare of the sick to come to Xnlerica. TVe do not \+antto tra\ el \\ltllout kilo\+iilgour destl~l~~tlorl r~ild, tllerefore, \\auld ask the guidail~eof some r e l ~ g ~ o ua su t h o r ~ t ~ etos hose gludance T+et\ould glad11 sllbln~t,~ + ~ t h o l l t , hone\ er, expeltiilg an\ irlaterlal aid froirl tllein. (Llotller Odllla, 1872)"

This chapter on German nurses begins with the story of the Sisters of St. Mary of St. Louis. Like rrlilliorls of irrlrrligrarlts before her (and rnillions rrlore to corne), nllotller Odilia Berger ~vi-otein desperatioil to a sympathetic contact and, recei\-ing an encouraging response, headed off to the Netv Mbrld. It tvas unusual for Gerrrlarl tvornen to go to the United States unchaperoned by l~rotheror father (religious or farnilial) . Throughout the century Irish Ivornen irrlrrligrated in larger nurnbers than their l~rothers,but for Gerrrlails the re\-ersetvas the case.1° Gerrnan Ivornen, too, had the added 1)arrier of language, and for this group as

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

129

ol>viousreligious tvorneil there tvas the additional risk of sectarian harassrnent. It is tvorth examining, then, tvhat led Rlother Odilia to o\-ercorne such obstacles and take a desperate step into the unltno~vn. Gusts\-e TIPgrnail, a Gerrrlarl irrlrrligrarlt to St. Louis, presurnal>ly resporlded to this plea for assistance, because ill 1872 Odilia and her four corrlpailioils arrived in the United States. These tvornen Ivere refugees of the Kulturltarnpf. But Mother Odilia had been a refugee on rnany occasioils before this rrlost recent and severe spate of persecution, and her peripatetic atterrlpts to establish a cornrnunity of tvornen are illustrative of l>oth the difficulties of the time and the opportunities for deterrrlirled tvornen on God's rrlissioil in the nineteenth century. nllotller Odilia Berger, founder of the Servants of the Sacred Heart and subsequently of the Sisters of St. Rlary of St. Louis, begail her religious life ~vhenshe joined the ne~vlyestal>lishedCoilgregatioil of the Poor Franciscans in 1857 in Pirrnasenz, Gerrnany. It tvas an irnpo\-erishedcornrnunity. After years of suppression under Napoleoil and religious and political upheat-al follotviilg liberatioil, the Catholic Church had neither tvealth nor cornrn~mitysupport as the potverf~llrno\-ernents of lil>eralisrn and socialisrrl seerrled to be rnoving Gerrnany totvard corrlplete secularism." In these desperate times, Mother Odilia's novitiate had consisted entirely of begging for her religious cornrnuility. 111 pursuit of f ~ m d sshe found herself in Paris in 1864, tvhere she came under the influence of the Gerrnan-spealting pastor of the area, I'incentian Father I'ictor Braun. At his urging she established a llorrle for poor Gerrrlail factory tvornen. Unable to do this tvork under the l>lessingof her rnotherhouse in Pirrnasenz, she ol>tained a disperlsatiorl to quit the cornrn~mityand begail a netv cornrnunity in Paris, the Servants of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.'?Xppar= ently these tvornen tvore a uniforrn dress and called thernselt-es "sister," but retairled their baptisrrlal na~nes.~:' Father Braun wrote the rule for the group, but after ttvo years he accused Mother Odilia of "atternpting to destroy the filial respect ~vhichthe sisters otved to hirn as their fo~mder" and the cornrnunity split.ll Slipported by Monseignellr George Darbo); archhishop of Paris, Mother Odilia rerrlairled in Paris pro\-iding shelter for the ~vorkinggirls.'" Ho~vever,the outbreak of hostilities between France and Gerrnany in 1871 rrlearlt that all Gerrrlarls had to lea\-e the area, and Mother Odilia and a corrlpailioil returned to Ell>erfeld,in the Gerrrlail Rhineland, tvhere they had to talte tvorlt in a garrrleilt factory in order to sur\-it-eas itinerant religious tvornan. The tval; of course, brought casualties, and the Ivornen, notv ltno~vnas sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, soor1 begail to tvork as nurses to Prussian soldiers at the city Society Hospital in Elberfeld. Follotving the Ivar, their expanding group ilursed srrlallpox \-ictirns in their hornes.l'l

130

Chapter 7

Once Gerrnany had l>een declared victor over France, Bisrrlarck rnoved to corlsolidate his polver dornestically tvith Kulturltarnpf. Although Bisrnarck's expulsion order specifically excluded ilursing cornrnuilities, Rlother Odilia's nurses tvere rrlerrlbers of a new order and tvere therefore l>anned.Their only possibility for a future as tvornen religious Ivas through emigration. nllotller Odilia, then, Ivas an experienced, corrlrrlitted tvornan ~vith rnany years of actit-e tvorlt and religious life l>ehind her, tvith experierlce in founding cornrnunities and dealing ~vithpastors and l>ishops.She had, hotvet-el-,no forrrlal affiliation or religious training and Ivas tllerefore not a "religious." Her goals for Xrrlerica tvei-e to forrrlalize the estal>lishrnent and regulation of a religious life for tvornen tvho nursed the sick. She tvas tvelcorned in Rlissouri, the horne of rnany Catholic and Protestant Gerrnans. The cornrn~mityIvas quickly set up, as the Sisters of St. Rlary, under a sympathetic Gerrrlarl bishop, Rloilsigrlor Henry Rleuhlsiepen, \-icar geileral for the Gerrnan-spealting people of St. Louis, and a Gerrrlail pastor, Father M'illiarn Faerl>er.For the rest of her life Rlother Odilia ensured that all further developments of this cornrnunity occurred ~viththe Gerrrlail parish boundaries, and so rerrlairled under the jurisdiction of Gerrrlail clergy she trusted.

IVithin the first year of their foundation the sisters worked again as srnallpox nurses, and thereafter they nursed duriilg cllolera outl>realts. In 1878 they tvere arrlorlg those ~ v h oresporlded to an appeal for nurses to assist victirns of yellotv fe\-er in Rlernphis.li The srnall cornrnlinity sent thirteen of its thirty-one sisters to tend the \-ictirns.A11 the sisters becarrle infected; fit-e died.lx T'Vhen the entire group of sisters contracted yellow fe\-el; they tvere instructed l>ySister Mary nlleclltildis to have their habits ~vithinreach and to put tllerrl on ~vhenthey felt death approaching, for there ~vouldl>eno one to prepare them for l>urial.l!'It was both a tragic and a glorious puhlic begiililiilg to their ~voi-kin the United States. Gerrnan-,'lrnerican tvornen joined the cornrnunity, and Rlotller Odilia chose to pattern her order on the rule of Frarlciscarl cornrnunities she had l>een part of in Gerrnan!; stri\-ing, lilte all foundresses, to rrlalte the novitiate a solid fo~mdationto religious life. Sisters Ivere sent to Cincinnati to a Frarlciscarl cornrnunity to ~uldergotrainiilg, and they returned to establish further no\-itiatesalong this model.") Mother Odilia personally held coilfererlces (religious training sessions) for her sisters in addition to those given by Father Faerber and nllorlsigrlor R ~ l e ~ ~ h l s i e p e i ~ . ~ ~

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

131

Hospital Fomltlation The Sisters of St. Mary were a nursing community and the need for a llospital Ivas obvious to thern from their extensit-e horne nursing tvork. Nursing the sick poor in unsanitary llorrles tvithout Ivater, food, or rnedical help Ivas becorrliilg increasingly uilsatisfactoi-y.""In 1877 they p u p chased a property that Ivas to 1,ecorne St. Mary's Infirrnar!; St. Louis. The llospital patient lists of the 1890s are dorrliilated by Xrnerican-born patients, follo~vedby Irish- and then Gerrnan-l>orn.Overall, charity patients represeilted approximately 30 pel-cent of patients at St. Mai-y'~.':~ T'Vhen the smallpox epidemic of 1883 broke out, the city forced patients to use the quarantine hospital. They handed the rrlarlagerrlerlt of this llospital over to the sisters, ~ v h onursed 1400-1300 patients there that 'u-.2 In 1886 the sisters again nursed at the quarantine hospital, this time during a diphtheria epidemic. In addition to the quarantine tvork, in 1884 the sisters Ivere called on by the chief surgeon of the Rlissouri Pacific Railroad, Gerrrlail countryman Dr. M'. B. Outten, to take charge of a large railroad hospital. In 1885 they Ivere invited 1,y the same cornpany to run its llospital in Sedalia. Follo~vingtheir success in rrlailagirlg their otvn institutions, St. Rlary's in St. Louis (1877), St.Joseph's in St. Cllarles (1887), St. Rlary's in Chillicothe (1888), the Q~larantineHospital in St. Louis, and railroad hospitals in St. Louis and Sedalia (all in Missouri), the Sisters of St. Mary tvere invited to replace Frailciscall sisters from Illiilois and take o\-ernursing at the Gerrrlail Hospital in Kansas City Rlissouri." This hospital was nonsectarian, tvith strict decrees on the role of rrliilisters and priests. Nonetheless, the 1,oai-d's inability to secure skilled and useful secular nurses led tllerrl to contract tvith the Catholic Sisters of St. Mary until 1900. Xt this time the board felt corlfiderlt that it ~vouldbe possible to staff the llospital tvith trained nurses and conduct a ti-airliilg school. The sisters Ivere then persuaded to open their o~vnllospital in Kansas City, Rlissoui-i."] The Sisters of St. Mary continlled to operate hospitals, independently and under contract. Rlerrlbers of this cornrnunity de\-elopedtheir skills in a \-arietyof hospital contexts. For instance, Sister Clara Harbers tvas superior of the rnotherhouse, St. Mary's Convent, St. Louis, 1876-77; superior at St. Rlary's Infirmary, St. Louis, 1877-78, 1880-82; superior at Quarantine Hospital, St. Louis, 1883-85; superior at Rlissouri Kansas, Texas Railroad Hospital at Sedalia; superior at St. Joseph's Hospital, St. Charles, 1890-94; and superior at St. Mary's Horne, St. Over the last decade of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, new de\-eloprnents in llospital rnanagernent, cllailges in the role of medicine, and the professionalizatior1 of nursing Ivere shaping hospitals

132

Chapter 7

throughout the United States. As tvas the ilorrrl for Catholic hospitals, the Sisters of St. Rlary conducted their hospital business as an in-house affair, and the sisters Ivere sigrlatories of their origirlal articles of incorporation.'TThe Sisters comprised the total membership of their hospital boards, and the role of rrledicirle tvas that of tvelcorne \-isitor. Nonetheless, the irrlpressiorl @\-enby the annual reports, anniversary puhlications, and parrlplllets errlpllasized the role of rrledical practitioilers tvithin the hospital and the "guiding haild" they gat-e to the sisters to assist thern to adapt to the cllailgiilg derrlarlds of the Xrrlericail health care system."" In fact, it was not until the period follo~vingWorld T'Var I, in anticipation of the hospital standards rno\-ernent,that a rrlore professiorlal approacll to administration, patient records, and forrrlal collatioil of patient histories and revietv of rrledical staff qualifications l>ecarneusual practice.:)" Througholit the first decades of the twentieth century, the Sisters of St. Mary Ivere sustained by recruits from Gerrnany. The arnount of English spolterl ~vithinthe cornrn~mitytvas lirnited; e\-idenceof a coilcerted effort to l>ecorneArrlericarl and to speak English, as occurred ~viththe Sisters of Pro\-idence in Tl'ashington and the Sisters of the Iilcarilate Mbrd in Sail Antonio, does not appear until the 1920s, ~vhenthe prayer book Ivas translated into Eilglisll and the 11011-Arnerican sisters naturalized.:)l In fact the efforts to improve the English of new recruits seem paltry - one netv tvord a day tvas a goal for sisters in 1903.:'" Second, the general level of education for C'~ermarlwornen was sornething of a lirrlitatiorl for a cornrnunity needing to professionalize its qualifications. In 1909 the State Licensure Board Corrlrrlittee contacted the superior of St. Rlary's, Kansas City, Missouri, Sister Rlary Eulalia SteinItruegel; and aslted her to ol>tainregistratioil papers for her sister nurses.:':' They commenced intensive training with the hospital doctors, and eventually four sisters receit-ed diplomas, ~vhileothers !vent to St. Louis to attend the Sisters of St. Rlary trairliilg school.:" The registration movement and the professionalizatior~of nursing pi-o\-eda challenge for the Sisters of St. Mary in those first decades of the t~ventiethcentury. The nurse-sisters at St. Rlary's Hospital, St. Louis had been undertaking a course of lectures from rrledical staff and studying nursing textboolts ill English since 1900, but this did not translate to diplorrlas or licensure. The first forrrlal sister training scllool opened in 1907, but the sister diplorrlates tvere not a~vardedliceilsure until 1917. The rninirnurn of one year of high scllool derrlarlded by the Missouri State Board tvas sirnply too high for the Gerrrlail tvornen, tvho frequently laclted any high school education and ~vhosereligious cornrnunity's "poverty rrlade it irrlpossible to pay salaries for instructors and l>y the same token prevented the sisters from taltirlg adequate time for study.":'" Until 1917 the sisters Ivere forced to ol>tainlicensure circuitously - sisters regis-

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

133

tered in M'isconsin, a less arduous proposition, then gained Rlissouri licensure through reciprocal recogilitioil agreements.

Mother Odilia died in 1880, soon after ecclesiastical approval for the cornrnunity had l>een received and she tvas finally able to rrlake her \-o~vs.:'~ The priest Mother Odilia trlisted so rnlich, Father Faerher; had enorrnous input ill the forrrlatiorl of this cornrnunit!; its title, and the de\-eloprnent of its rule, and corlsidered llirrlself their founder, giving llirrlself this title on all their corresporlderlce. It Ivas through llirrl that the Irnrnaculate \'irgin aslted the cornrnunity to adopt the title "Sisters of St. Mar!;" and through hirn that Odilia, on her deathbed, appointed a successor, and no vote tvas taken to elect a superior to replace her (as the rule dictated) . : $ H e rchoice was unpopular; twenty-nine-yearold nllotller Serapllia Schlocterneyer tvas coilsidered tyrannical and 1111predictable, disrrlissiilg sisters "right and left.":"' In her leadership of the cornrnunity she relied heavily on the ad\-ice of the Father Faei-l>ei-,~ v h o continually rrlodified the rule to prepare it for papal approbation, apparently little corlceriled ~vithrrlairltairliilg its Frailciscall nature. lo In fact, after nllotller Odilia's death Father Faerber begail to call llirrlself "Superior and rector of the Order."ll In 1897 Mother Seraphia went to Gel-rnany to recruit tvorneil. She returned ~viththirty Ivornen and irnrnediately reordered the cornrnunity in a tvay that pri\-ileged Gerrrlarl over Xrnerican-l>orn Ivornen. This Ivas the cause of great unhappiness to the individuals ~ v h oIvere notv deposed as novice rrlistress and frorrl other responsil>le posts in the cornrnunity. X group of Xrnerican-Gel-rnarl and Xrnerican-Irish Ivornen left the Sisters of St. Rlary and, tvith approval from their bishop, non-Gerrnan Bishop Burke, established themselves as the Sisters of St. Francis.'"

Sisters of St. Francis: In Search of the "Free Spirit of Franciscanism" Sister Xligustine Giesen assumed the direction of this new comrnlinit); ~vhichdedicated itself to the Franciscan directioil of their foundress, Rlother Odilia. The rebel sisters felt that this Frarlciscarl spiritual orieiltatiorl had suffered in the Sisters of St. Rlary 1mder the new superior, and under the "undue influeilce and coiltrol l>y spiritual director Father Faerbei-," had lost "the free spirit of Franciscanisrn." They accepted an invitation to teach in Rlaryville, Missouri. This pi-o\-eda cllalleilge for a group of nurses, and they Ivere assisted l>ya better educated and experienced Beiledictirle sister until they could organize teacher training for

134

Chapter 7

a netv recruit.ll Hoxuever; nursing remained their central mission and sltill. Sister Xugustine had spent nine years as the surgery nurse at Sisters of St. Mary hospitals, including ttvo years as superior of the Missouri Pacific Hospital in Sedalia, and Sister Salesia had been superior at St. Rlary's Hospital, Chillicothe.'" Bringing their previolls experience to hear; they Ivere successful in securing rrlore railroad hospital contracts. The Sisters of St. Francis embraced English from the outset.'; In contrast to the reticerlce of the Sisters of St. Mary in trairliilg and nursing professiorlalizatior1, the Sisters of St. Frarlcis begail a nursing scllool at St. Anthony's, Oklallorrla City. Opened for 1~1thsisters and lay tvornen in 1908, in 1912 it 1)ecarne the first school of nursing to be accredited 1)y the State of Oklahoma. l8 For the German community in North America, the nursing work of such sisterhoods Ivas valued across sectariarl lines, ~viththe surprising plleilorrleiloil of Catholic sisters nursing ill non-Catholic Gerrrlarl hospitals, as at the Kansas City Gerrrlarl Hospital. The Gerrrlails tvere the rrlost nurnerous 11011-English-speakiilgirnrnigrant group, and ~vhereasPolisll and Italian irrlrrligrarlts Ivere virtually all Catholic, and the Scandina\-iansall Lutheran (or at least Protestant), the Gerrrlail cornrnunity tvas distiilcti\-ein that it included 1~1thCatholics and Protestants. Rlost notably, the Gerrrlail cornrnunity Ivas also distincti\-e in that it had developed a Protestarlt equi\-alent to the Catholic sisterhoods. These tvornen, the deaconesses, tvere to ha\-e a rrlajor impact upon the de\-eloprnentof nursing and hospitals in the United States, and on the secularization and professioilalizatioi1 of nursing as a ~vhole.

"'

Kaiserswei-tl-1:The Irrlpetus Bel-lint1the Deacorless Mo\ errlerlt The circumstances in Germany that stimulated the development and revitalization of Catholic cornrnunities of Ivornen to tvorlt arrlorlg the needy also stirred the Protestarlt Gerrrlarl cornrnunity. The con\-entional story is that the Kaisers~verthdeacoilesses, forrrled in 1836, sprang frorrl the olxervations of tvar of Pastor Fliedrler during his tra\-els. Sorrle thirty years before the Crirrleail War, Fliedrler Ivas struck 1)y the lack of a Protestant equi\-alent to the Sisters of Charit!; and he tvas rnoved 1)y the spontaneous tvorlt of \-illage Ivornen to help the injured follo~viilgbattle."' It is irlterestirlg this frequently quoted backgro~uldto the establishment of Kaiserstverth conspicuously a\-oids the key impetus."' This area of Germany tvas, as tve have seen, to 1)e the site of the Catholic rel>irth in the 1830s. Under the French, the Daughters of Charity rrlodel Ivas introduced to Gerrnail!; and sisters estal>lisheda rnotherhouse and a hospital in Strasl>ourg in Xlsace.'l According to Prelinger, the "spirit that sustained the Protestarlt female diacorlate Ivas . . . designed to contain the

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

135

Catholic rerlascerlce in the Rllirle Pro\-ince.""Irn fact, the Sisters of Charity revit-a1so corlcerrled Fliediler that he corrlplairled to the Eilglisll philanthropist, Elizabeth Fry, that the Sisters of Charity "flood every~vhere. . . in Protestailt co~mtriesand hospitals . . . ~vhei-ethey endeavor artfully to place their church ill the best possil>lelight to rrlalte proselytes of the sick and poor."":' It was at this time that the notion of a social apostolate became an infllieiltial reforrrl rnovernent tvithin Lutheranism. The "Inner Rlission" rno\-ernent, ~ m d e rthe leadership of Johann Herlricll Tl'inchern (1808-81), addressed the rrloral and social responsil>ilities of Protestarlts to prevent the "dechristianization" of Gerrnany. The Derlkscllrift staterrlerlt of 1849, in response to the Cornrnunist Manifesto, Ivas a call for evangelism and social action in the cities and to~vnsof Gerrnany.'l The deaconess movement Ivas one response to this call. It forrrled part of a corlcerted prograrrl of social reforrrl arrloilg Lutherans that countered socialist and liberal criticisrrls of Cllristiarl apathy. It rrlatclled the energies of e\-angelical Christiails in Britain and Ireland, Nortll Xrnerica, and Australia tvho ill the ilirleteerltll century tvorlted tirelessly in philanthropy and social reforrn. Theodur Fliedrler Ivas an irrlpassiorled \-isionary.He re-jected ~vhathe corlsidered to l>ethe intellectualism and secularity of established Lutheranisrn. As an evangelical he sought to affirrrl the spirit and sense of God's irnrnediacy in Christian life. He sought a sirnplicity and a potverf~llsense of service and cornpassion. His little parish at Kaiserstverth tvas a Protestant outpost ill a Catholic part of Gerrnany. Tl'hen he took up this irnpoverished parisll as a yo1111g rnan, he had only thirty farrlilies to care for. But he became corrlrrlitted to the parish, subsequently declirliilg rrlore prosperous appoiiltrneilts. Early in his rninistry it appeared that the parish tvould fail through lack of funds. Fliedrler tra\-eled Protestarlt German!; S~vitzerland,the Netherlands, and Britain, successfully raisiilg arnple resources for its rescue. 0 1 1 these travels he obsei-\-ed rnany social reforrrl rno\-ernents (including Xnal>aptist deacoilesses in the Netherlands) ; he Ivas deterrrliiled to irrlplerrleilt these prograrrls in Kaiserstverth and to trust ill Providence that they tvould succeed. Fliedner's prisoil ~vorlt,influenced l>yQuaker Elizabeth Fry's ~voi-ltin England, Ivas the first prisorl visiting rrlissiorl in Gerrnany. Fliediler persuaded the local priest also to \-isit the prisorl and conduct sei-\-icesfor Catholic prisoners, tvhile Fliedrler conducted the services for Lutherails." In fact, in rnany areas his social mission drove hirn to ecumenical acts. For instance, the first doctor tvhose charitable services he ol>tained for the Kaiserstverth hospital tvas a Catholic. Coupled ~vithhis radical scllerrle to forrrl religious cornrnunities of deaconesses, it is perhaps unsurprising that Fliedner's opporlerlts accused hirn of cllarrlpioiliilg Catholicisrn instead of Lutheranism.""

136

Chapter 7

There tvere certainly elerrlerlts of the deacorless rrlodel that Ivere recognizable as Catholic in origin. The term "sister" Ivas used for the deaconesses, and it rerrlairled the generic Gerrrlarl title for nurse into the t~ventiethcentury. The deacorless institute revel\-ed around its rnotherhouse (,\lutterhalis), tvhere all recruitment and training of Ivornen took place. The rnotherhouse rrlodel continued to 1)e a highly efficient rrleails to regulate recruits, respoild to dernands, and coordirlate operations. Rloreo\-el-,Fliediler understood that if tvornen tvere to forgo rrlarriage and farnily they needed a supportive cornrnuility. Even rrlore pragrnaticall!; the tvornen needed to 1)e looked after once they 1)ecarne too old to ~voi-k.The rnotherhouse achiet-ed these goals for Catholic sisters: training, orgailizatiorlal efficiency security, and cornpanionship; they Ivere no less essential for deaconesses. The rnotherhouse Ivas under the directioil of the pastor, Fliedner, and the sister superior (Frau Oberitl). The no\-ice rrlistress or training sister Ivas the Probemeisteri~?.Under her guidance new deacorlesses receit-ed t~vel\-e rnonths traiiliilg in Scripture, theolog!; and nursing. After this year of study the title of sister Ivas corlferred and the distincti\-e deacoiless dress assurned. After several years of probatiorl a corlsecratiorl sert-ice to the calling of deacorless took place." Not surprisingl!; Pastor Fliedrler tvas conscious to distailce his deacoilesses from nuns. The links ~viththe ITincentianrrlodel Ivere carefully dotvilplayed and the sisters adopted the dress and derrleailor of Protestant ~vido~vs of the Rhineland. Fliedrler 1)anned the use of black, preferrirlg a nonecclesiastical blue dress for d e a c o n e ~ s e s . ~ ~ It is important to ackno~vledgethat Fliedner was not the only one to call for Protestarlt Sisters of Charity. In fact, there had beer1 several influential rno\-es in this direction, again largely stirnulated 1)y the success of the French Daughters of Charity and their rnany Catholic imitators."' Xrnalie Sieveking, founder of the Female Association for the Care of the Poor and the Sick, produced arlotller tvay to llarrless Gerrrlarl ferrlale energies in a social apostolate. In fact, Sieveking re-jected Fliedner's in\-itatiorl to lead the first cornrn~mityof ~vornenat Kaiserstverth. She dislilted both the Catholic frarnetvork of the deacoilesses and Fliedner's superinteildence.(10But it was Fliedner who, like Vincent de Paul, possessed the abundant energy and sirrlple faith that Ivere able to o\-ercorneresistance to the idea, and tvho finally succeeded in ha\-ing the female diacoilate forrnally recogrlized by the Lutheran Synod and adopted by the different brailclles of L ~ t h e r a n i s r n .He ' ~ ~was also successfill in gaining the royal farnily as enthusiastic spoilsors of the deaconesses, and Kaiser Friedrich M'ilhelrn IIToperledthe Bethany Institute ill Berlin."TTh official patronage Ivas critical in the rapid development of the rno\-ernentin Gerrnany. The rest of Protestailt Europe ~vatchedclosely. In Scandina\-iaLutherailisrrl Ivas the official religion, and the deacorless rrlodel tvas able to

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

137

f~lnctionon a path parallel to that of the Catholic sisterhoods in Catholic countries. For illstance, the official eildorserrlerlt of the deacorless sisterhood allotved for the successful reforrrl of public institutions that tvere dorrliilated 1)y Lutheran board rnernbers. The figures are quite staggering. By 1884 there tvere deacoiless houses in Gerrnan!; France, Stvitzerland, and Scandina\-ia.Fifty years after the fo~mdationof Kaisers~verth,1)y 1884, there tvere 60 houses ~vitha total of nearly 6000 deaconesses.(i:' Throligholit Lutheran Europe, hospitals run by deaconesses became organized and respectalde institutions. They tvere places tvhere rrledicirle Ivas safely practiced and all care gi\-enby trained tvornen. The Kaisei-s~verthexperirrleilt erlcorrlpassed the Protestant social apostolate arrlorlg the sick, elderly, those in prison, and so forth, ~vithproven successful rrletllods for training and organizing tvornen.'ll T'Vithin the space of a few decades, the deacoiless rrlodel had spread throughout Gerrnany and Protestailt Europe, rrlatclliilg the rapidity and energy that cllaracterized the errlergerlce of secular nursiilg ill Britain, North Xrnerica, and Australia. Moreot-el; the irrlpact of the rrlodel tvas not corlfirled to Europe. For the Gerrrlarl and Scandina\-ian irrlrrligrarlts to the United States, this experierlce of deacoilesses tvas of prirrle irrlportailce tvhen these corrlrnunities carrle to estaldish hospitals in the Netv Tl'orld.

Qrresfzon 3: Tl%crt cr~esoi,le ofthe necessn~jcondrtrons fo) eittozng Dencoitess TT'o~lr, of snhlcrfzoit, good f~h\szcnl health, i t o ~1770l nitd L 4 i t ~ ~ ~,Ij eclecr) ) : elif~e~reitce lr~crltlij~ ~ i t ~ l l / g ( >t~h/ cn~cc: q i r ~ ~ \ crlfo~i(>'r ~ ~ / c ~p n ~ ( > ~cr~/d i t \ t1r~fi1 1r/ IJ(?(>I I ~ / I I / ( ~ P \ P ~ I ~ / I P \ P~ IJ P I J to I ~ tlro I/OOIP c(rl111ig." t / o ~to i g / i O~I / ~

The first deaconesses in the United States were imported by Pastor T'Villiar11 Passavant to Pittsburgh. Follo~vinga tour of Gerrnan); Pastor Passa\-ant tvas illspired by the \-isionary ~voi-kof Pastor Fliedner. Passavant could irnrnediately see the great need for deacorless hospitals in the industrial cities of Xrnerica. He appealed directly to Fliednel; ~ v h ofinally respoilded in 1849 1)y personally accompanying four deacorlesses to the United States. The deacorless traditioil in the United States thus directly connects tvith the Gerrrlarl traditioil and Fliediler hirnself. But, this first attempt to estaldish the traditiorl in North Xrrlerica Ivas not a great success. For, although the hospital Ivas provided for the deacorlesses in its entirety, by 1854 three-quarters of the Gerrrlail recruits had left to settle in Xrrlerica or returned horne to Gerrnany. E\-en rrlore critically, their ilurnbei-s Ivere not sustained 1)y Xrrlericarl recruits. 111 the thirty-five years bettveen 1849 and 1884 there Ivere only sixteen caildidates.'l'l

138

Chapter 7

Sorrle decades later, in the 1870s, the 1,oai-d of the Gerrrlarl Hospital, Philadelphia, ~vhichtvas corrlprised of Gerrrlarl citizens, including three Lutheran pastors, supported its presideilt Jollil Lankenau ill his attempt again to establish deacorlesses in the United States. Lankenau appealed directly to a group of deacoilesses unconnected tvith Fliediler and Kaiserstverth, and in 1884 secured set-en deacorlesses ~ m d e the r direction of Oberirl Sister Marie Kruger, from Tl'e~tphalia."~ Established in one of the ltey ceilters of Arrlericail Lutheranism and stoutly supported by the ~vealthiestGerrrlail in Philadelphia, the Plliladelpllia rnotherhouse Ivas able to coilsolidate its position and finally establish an Arrlericarl deaconess ~ n o v e r n e n t . ( ~ ~ The deaconess model had enthusiastic proponents in nearly all brailclles of Protestantism. In Pi-otestarlt Europe, Eilglaild, Australia, and North Arnerica, Anglican, Rlethodist, and \-ariousevailgelical groupings set up deacoiless rnovernents. Tl'ithin the deacorless rrlodel there Ivere and are many variations, and nursing Ivas not the rrlairl activity of all deacorless groups. Lutheran deacorlesses in the nineteenth century tvere called "sister" and tvere coilseci-ated to ~voi-kuntil marriage. This freedorrl to rnarry tvas the key distirlctioil bettveen deacorlesses and Catholic and Xrlglicail (Episcopalian) sisters."" English-speaking Methodist deaconesses did not use the term "sister" (tvhile Gerrrlail Rletllodists did), and by the ttventieth century Ivere able to rnarry and continue their role as d e a c o n e s s e ~ .In ~ 'the United States it appears that nursing was the core actit-ity of rrlost nineteenth-century deaconesses, and rrlost deacorless traiiliilg invol\-ed sorrle degree of practical nursing traiiling.'l

Philatlelphia: The Center of the Xrrlericarl Deacorless Movernent The Lutheran deaconesses in Philadelphia had been imported to the United States to assume control of the German Hospital. This entailed a difficult transition for the existing staff-particularly the medical staff. It is clear fi-om the statements made by Lankenall to the hospital board that the deaconesses experienced marked difficulties in the hando\er of the hospital to their care, difficlilties that stemmed fi-om a lack of cooperation from medical staff. Lankenau rno\ed to consolidate the position of the deaconesses, arguing strongl) to the hoard that i t ~ t a the s deaconesses xvho Jtere the experts. Both Lankenall and German cons111 and felloxv hoard member C:harles H. 1Cle)er placed papers before the board to resol\e the matter form all^.'^ According to M e ~ e r , The\ [the den~oilesses]did not coirle to learn froin us the best rllodes of go\el ning a hospital, ..but the\ came to 11s as TEACHERS, to gi\e 11s the benefit of

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

139

their experience. To L E X m , of course, our language and custonls, ill order to adapt theil kno~\ledgeto Xlnel ican circulnstances. (elnl~hasisin original)

'"

Lanltenau, for his part, rno\ e d to ha\ e the authorit\ of the Ol>erin (superior of the rnotherhouse) confirmed ti thin the administratile structures of the hospital, and he formalized her role as hospital head. The slstem of resident medical officers Jtas abolished, and t u o resident phjsicians subordinate to the Oberin uere appointed. This radical change, Meler argued, effecti\el) "put 11s in condition to dispense entire11 uith the Medical Board of Visiting Ph~sicians,if these gentlemen collld not he brought to gile their consent to the changes p r o p ~ s e d . " 'The ~ Oberirl \\as to "be looked upon as execllti\e head of the hospital and household. A11 admissions and discharges of patients, or permits for temporan ahsence must pass through her hands." Yet despite this strong support fi-om the board the deaconesses did not hale hoard representation, nor did the1 ha\? an1 public face for those outside the hospital. In fact, the 1893 Annual Report of the German Hospital does not mention the deaconesses until page t~tentl-nine,and then onl) for one paragraph." The puhlic face of the hospital deernphasized the role and importance of the deaconesses, and focllsed instead on the largesse of Lankenau and the board p r e ~ t i g e . " ~ The subordinate position of the deacorlesses uitlliil their ov n organizational structllre \\as ~lnderlinedb) the fact that the formal agreement h e t ~ t e e nthe German Hospital of Philadelphia and the Mar) Drexel Home and Philadelphia Motherhouse of Deaconesses, in March 1899,Jtas signed 117 John Lankenall as president of the German Hospital and Lankenau again as president of the Mar) Drexel Home and motherhouse." Frederick Tl'ischan and Hugo Grahn !\ere cosignatories as secretaries of the respecti\e institutions; no deaconess signatures Jtere r ~ q l l i r e d . ' ~ Tl'ith the estahlishrnent of the rnotherhouse in the United States, nev recruits uere e\entllall1 forthcoming from the local population. Moreo\er, the rnotherhouse ser\ed as a critical center for the training of nonGerman Lutheran \\omen to establish deaconess molernents uithin the S~tedish,Nor~tegian,and Danish comrnllnities. H o ~ t e l e rnumbers , Jtere still sustained h1 German imports, and the attrition rate to marriage remained high. Pastor TVilhelm L o ~ t eu, h o had sllpplied German deaconesses to Mil~taukeein the 189Os, e\entuall~refilsed an) filrther requests, claiming that he Jtas "tired of proliding ui\es for American pastors!""' The Gerrrlail character of the Philadelphia rnotherhouse !\as rrlairltairled in all training, correspondence, and administration. It \\as not until the first decade of the tuentieth centur) that debate ensued oler uhether the German identit1 of the rnotherhouse interfered uith the success

140

Chapter 7

Figure 8. The original seven Lutllerail deacorlesses to Plliladelphia: Sister hlarie h u e g e r (1828-Si), first directing sister (OO(>r.i~i); Sister Frederike \l'llrzler (1846-87); Sister Marianna IG-aetzer (1850-1924); Sister Xlirla I(o1llnlanil (1859-92); Sister Pauline Loesclllrlarl (1861-?); Sister hlagdalerle von Bracllt (1850-1911); Sister \\'ilhelmine Dittlnan (1819-19"). Reprinted ~\.ithpermission of the Deaconess C:onlnlunit); Evallgelical Lutheran C:llurcll of Xnlerica, Glad\\.>,ne,Penils>,lvailia.

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

141

of the Xrrlericarl rnission. The hospital changed its ilarrle from the Gerrrlail Hospital to the Lanltenau Hospital in 1917, but it Ivas not until 1919 that rnotherhouse rrleetiilg rninutes began to appear in E n g l i ~ h . ~ "

Gerrrlail Methotlist Deacoilesses The Methodist revivals of the late nineteenth century "saved" many throughout the country. In the Rlidtvest, so rnany Gerrrlails Ivere saved that they estal>lishedtheir o ~ v ntradition ~vithinMethodism, creatirlg parishes and institutions for Gerrrlarl irrlrrligrailts and their children, rnountirlg ot-erseas missions, and even evangelizing back to Germany." The corrlplex history of Xrrlericail nlletllodisrrl led to divisions bettveen the English-spealting (~vhite)church, the Xfi-ican-American church, and the Gerrnan-spealting c h ~ i - c h . ~1873 I ~ i Methodists proposed the openirlg of deacoiless institutes at their Coilfererlce in Scaffenhausen, S~vitzerIn 1887 Isabella Thoburn, sister of Bishop Thoburn of Chicago, begail Rletllodist deacoiless ~vorltin the United States. One influential deacorless rnovernent in the Methodist traditioil Ivas ceiltered in Cincinnati." 1111888 the Elizabeth Gamble Deaconess Home Associatioil and Christ Hospital tvere established in Cirlcirlrlati by English- and Gerrnan-speaking deaconesses. In 1896 brother and sister Christian and Louise Golder founded the rnotherhouse of the Central Gerrrlail Conference, and Christian's ~vife,Ida Golder, corrlrrlerlced the Bethesda Society ~vhichbegan the Betllesda Hospital. The Cirlcirlrlati Rletllodist deacorlesses Ivere irrlrrligrailt Ivornen or daughters of irnrnigrants. The applications for adrrlissioil tvere for the rrlost part in Gerrnan, and the fetv English-spealting inquiries requested irlforrrlatioil on the let-el of Gerrrlail literacy necessary for deacorless These were common, working wornen, converted during re\-it-alrrleetirlgs and filled ~vithet-angelical conviction. The application process required the Ivornen to express their call from God and their experience of salt-ation. As tvorlting Ivornen, dorrlestic servants, searnstresses, and so forth, becorrliilg "set apart" as a deacorless allo~vedthem the fillailcia1freedorn and security to perforrrl good tvork."] For instance, in her application Rliss Bay larnents, Deal S ~ s t e Golder r I feel Jesus llas ~ a l l e dirle to d o tlus nark for I lo\e to care for the sick. I \\as c o i l ~ e r t e dlast O ~ t o b e rI, sen froirl 7 to slr e \ e r \ da\ ( n o tiirle for parlsll \\orl\). I am a Gel lnan but all the I\no~+ledgeof the language 1 ha\e learned at Slunda~ S ~ l l o orl~ i l d Church. I long to be able to d o God's \\orl\."

It Jtas on11 in the German Methodist comrnunit1 that the motherhouse structure !\as est'thlished. Christian Golder concurred uith Fliedner, 'tr-

142

Chapter 7

guing that the airrl of the rnotherhouse Ivas to provide education, training, protection, a horne, and care in sickness and old age. Fliediler satv that rleitller Church Board 1101- high salaries ~vouldsatisfy a tvornan's loilgirlg and need for a protecting horne and its fello~vship.The rnotherhouse, ill large rneasure, replaced the parental home in the life of a ~Ieacorless.~~ Clearly for German Protestants the risk of the "cloister" was less than that of fernale autonomy. Despite the very high profile of bliss Goldel; the deacorlesses at the Bethesda Hospital in Ciilcirlrlati held tvhat appears to ha\-e been a relatit-ely rrliilor role in hospital rrlarlagerrleilt ~vithvery little potver of adrrlissioil and re\-ie~v. Pastors tvere directors of key cornrnittees, including the deacoiless ruling cornrnittee.") The C h r t e r des Mutterhauses (13April 1896) and Articles of Irlcorporatioil Ivere signed by eleven rrlerrlhers of the founding l>oard,all men.!"' Moreover; hospital rnanagerrlerlt roles tvere carved out clearly l>ettveenthe l>oardand rrledical staff.!)' In this model, the deaconesses slipplied an effective, respectable, and trailled tvorltforce of hurnble Ivornen for the Gerrrlail cornrn~mitv.

The limits of a German movement on American soil were evident in the nurnbers of recruits. By 1962 the Lutheran Church had produced 515 deaconesses, of tvhorn 108 had left the sisterhood and 223 had died in service."YXmerican wornen ohviollsly had a great many more options than their European counterparts, not the least of these the greater nurnber of Gerrrlail male than fernale settlers in the New Tl'orld. Gi\-ell the corrlrrlitrrlerlt to the sanctity of rrlarriage that is ceiltral to Lutheranism, it is not surprising that the critical rrlass of Ivornen Ivas sirnply not a\-ailablein the Gerrnan-,'lrnerican cornrnunity. Xddressiilg the low nurnbers of deacorless recruits, the Lutheran coilfereilce decided that Xrnerica tvas not fertile soil for this calling. With clearlleaded regret, the conference reported that, aside frorrl an Xrrlericarl desire for independence, the lure of rrlarriage (particularly to a pastor), and the risiilg status of nursing generally, Xrrlericail Lutheran Ivornen (and their parents) tvere sirnply not dratvn to the unpaid ~vorltiilglife of a haugrau that Ivas the core of deacorless ~voi-k.!':~

As immigration patterns shifted 11y the late century different newcomers begail to outnurnher the Irish Catholic irrlrrligrarlts of the pre\-ious decades. Nor~vegian,S~vedish,and Danish Lutheran cornrnuilities all estal>lished deacoiless houses and hospitals, ser\-ingtheir cornrnunities ill

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

143

their otvn language. There tvas an interplay of trairliilg and expertise as deacorlesses Ivere sent to the Plliladelpllia rnotherhouse for training, then perhaps l>aclacktvater of Kaiserst~erth.!'~ Inspired by the Swedish deaconess Elsa Borg's mission at Hvita Bergen, Fogelstrorrl founded the Irnrnanuel Deaconess Institute, in the belief that the ferrlale diacorlate represerlted God's anstver to Xrrlericarl corruption, selfishness, and profanity.!" The Immanuel Deaconess Institute at Orrlalla l>egan l>ysending one Ivornan to the Philadelphia rnotherhouse for training, follotved by ttvo years of training in S~vedenat Sigtuna, the llorrle of the Stvedish diaconate.!"l In 1889 four more wornen were sent to Pennsyl\-aniafor training; they returned in 1890 to open the new Irnrnanuel Hospital."' The hoard of trustees was made lip of American and Stvedish rnen, but there tvas conflict. Finally, in 1894, in an effort to bolster the support of the Stvedish cornrnunity for the hospital, a netv board tvas established corrlprised fully of Stvedes, including t~voIvornen Sister Botllilda and Rlrs. Helin.!'" Fogelstrorn was concerned that the Chtholics monopolized charitable institutions - ~vherehe corrlplairled that he tvas unable to \-isithis parishioilers or even, on occasion, to get them adrnitted. But of rrlore serious concern to Fogelstrorrl tvas the Ivay Catholics had effectit-elygrasped the e\-angelicalopportunities afforded by acts of rnercy and left Protestailts so far l>ehind.Note Fogelstrorn's adrrliratiorl for the econorny of the sisters in the follotving passage: Tlle C a t h o l l ~ sare s\steinat~call\dolrlg great norL among the nlasses. In tllelr lnstltutlons Inonel goes tar a n d does so milch good b~ I eason of the11 personal s a ~ r ~ fof i ~labor e ln coilrlectlorl \ \ ~ t ltllelr l e\peild~tureof inonel. Tlle C a t h o l ~ ~ slsters tram the ~ l l l l d r e i land the \oung, the\ nurse and care for the SILLand do~ng all the\ can, but t \ e f e a ~~f , the\ o n l ~ untortlunate I l e d o not blame theln f o ~ are to d o tlus \\orl\, there 1s ilotlllrlg that call pre\erlt tins great r e p u b l ~ cfroin e\ eiltuall\ Loirllrlg inore r ~ i l d inore under the lrlfluerlce of Ronle. t t\ork But t\hat are the Protestants d o ~ n g ;The\ a l e d o ~ n ga g ~ e a nllsslonarT both lloirle and abroad. The\ spend large suirls of nloile\ ln bulldlilg all Llrlds of s rnercl a n d c l l a r ~ t \Great . efforts are made to r e l ~ e \ e state ~ i l s t ~ t u t ~ oofi lso-called the slck, the poor a n d the sllfferlng, but T ~ T Ihttle thorollghl\ 01g a n ~ z e dand selfs a ~ r ~ f i ~ l\\orl\ r l g 11Le that of the C atllol~cs1s d o n e b\ the Protestarlts 111Xrller~caper11,1ps 111tllthe exceptloll of the Sal\atloil Xrnl\." '

To Fogelstrorn it was the conflation of evangelical self-sacrifice and the econorny and efficiency of adrrlirlistratioil of the sisterlloods that tvas such ail effective agent of Catholicisrn. Boards of good rrlerl and ~vealthy

144

Chapter 7

pllilarltllropists sirnply could not deliver the sarrle returns as a group of determined, efficient, and altruistic Ivornen. It tvas this possibility that he opened up to S~vedishLutheran Ivornen, and he Ivas convinced it tvould bring salvation to Xrrlerica and sat-e the Christian cause. Fogelstrorrl is distincti\-e in that his ideas on the d u e of deacoilesses hinge on their e\-angelisticpotver. Although Fliedrler ol>ser\-edthat this Ivas a feature of the Sisters of Charit!; and hence that Protestarlts needed to rrlatcll the efforts as they Ivere rrlaltirlg "proselytes of the sick," his deaconesses' role Ivas less e\-angeli~tic.")~) He argued that it was important for a Christian society to do this tvorlt, and tvho 1)etter to do it than tvornen. The Ivornen ~vorkedarrlorlg the sick, took care of orphans, assisted the pastor tvith parish ~voi-kand prison ~voi-k.But it tvas altvays an adjunct role - bearing ~vitnessand ser\-ing God.lol Fogelstrom, on the other hand, expressed \-ie~vsfar rrlore in line ~vithITincentde Paul's original rrlissioil for the Daughters of Charity. For l>oth ITincentde Paul and Fogelstrorn, the Ivornen tvere a rernedy for a social and spiritual rnalaise. By ans~vering God's call their tvorlt tvas in itself sorrletllirlg that 1~-oughtGod to the hearts of those they cared for.10y

The conservatism of both Catholic and Lutheran Germans in response to grotving lil>eralisrn, socialisrn, and secularism in Gerrnany Ivas the backdrop for the errlergeilce of sisterhoods-Protestailt and Catholic. In Xrnerica, the ties of language and cornrnunity and the dri\-efor preservation and continuity tvere equally strong oil both sides of the coilfessioilal di\-ide.X shared corrlrrlitrrleilt to Gerrrlail religious traditiorls and social orgailizatiorls rrlade the corlfessiorlal issues to sorrle extent subordinate to cultural issues. The forces that resulted in 3.4 rrlillioil Gerrrlails settling in the United States in the rliileteeiltll century are corrlplex and \-aried. For instance, the Missouri Synod, the center of Lutheran orthodoxy in the United States, Ivas established ~vhena group of High Lutheran clerg!; appalled at ~vhatthey deerrled to be increasing heresy and liberalisrrl in Gerrnan!; set forth in 1839 to estaldish a llorrle for the true faith.l0::Founded in 1847, i t Ivas the spiritual and cultural llorrle of rrlillioils of Gerrrlail Lutheran settlers in the rnid- and far [vest. For these de\-out irrlrrligrailts their cultural and linguistic identity tvas inextricably linked tvith their religious expression. Luther's diviilely inspired ~vritingsIvere in Gerrnan; these, it Ivas felt, could not be translated. Theirs tvas a Gerrrlail religion, their prayers, liturgy, and, of course, serrrloils tvere all in Gerrnan. It tvas a close ltrlit though geographically dispersed cornrnunity. Iilteractioil tvith outsiders, even other Gerrrlarl Lutherans, tvas actit-elydiscouraged. Not until

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

145

~vellinto the t~ventiethcentury did this group begirl the slotv process of trarlslatiilg their religiorl into English.lol The Missoliri Synod did not promote the role of deaconesses or slipport large public institutions such as hospitals to any great extent in the ilirleteerltll century. Theirs Ivas a religion of the patriarchal horne, and Christian rrlarriage the goal for t ~ o r n e n . lMoreover; (~ the hlissollri Synod predated [vide acceptance in Gerrnany of the female diacoilate and Pastor Fliedner's inno\-ationsin Kaiserstverth.")('So for this group of Lutherails the ~vornan'srole in the care of the sick Ivas an exteilsioil of her dorrlestic and cornrnunity role, and something to be undertaken inforrnally. Moreot-er, for rural Lutherans, the epiderrlics and public health disasters that stirnulated the rise of religious and public philanthropy Ivere less significant. Nonetheless, the Rlissouri Syilod did eventually ernbrace the deacoiless rnovernent, and Ivornen Ivere @\-enan active and outtvard role in their cornrnunity in 1919.1"i The Missoliri Synod Lutherans exernplif7. the distinctiveness of the Gerrrlail irrlrrligratiorl experience. 111 one sense they represerlted a quintessential Xrrlericarl irnpulse - the pursuit of religious freedom and cornrnunity autonorny -yet at the same time their linguistic distinctiveiless and their hard ~vonsense of separateness placed them as outsiders to Xrrlericarl society. This sense of cornrnunity, interestingly, 1)rought them into coalition ~vithCatholic Gerrrlails to fight state proposals to l>anforeign language school^.^"" A sense of cultllral homogeneity among German immigrants can also be illustrated l>y the story of the North and South Daltota Gerrnans, Catholic and Protestant, ~ v h ocarrle frorrl the Odessa regiorl of Russia. This cornrnunity has an extraordinary history of dislocation. Displaced by Napoleon's arrrlies at the l>eginningof the iliileteerltll century, entire \-illages rno\-ed intact as colorlists to the Russian territories around the Black Sea. Language and religiorl rerrlaiiled stable and ceiltral to their lives as they prospered in their trarlsplarlted Gerrrlail cornrnunities. In the 1870s, tvhen the Russian Xrrny began to conscript their rnen, tvhole cornrnunities begail the process of trarlsplarltirlg their \-illagesto the tvild plains of Dakota, Kansas, Nebraslta, and For over a century these Gerrrlails had l>een anchored by the solidity of culture and language. As rural cornrn~ulitiesthey had ileitller the financial resources rlor the surplus labor that allo~vedfor institution l>uilding (such as hospital formation) during the nineteenth century. But again by the early tIventietll century it Ivas Gerrrlail rrlodels of health care that they turned to ~vhenthe need became appai-erlt and hospital building 1>egail.llo But, of course, for the many millions of Germans who flooded into the United States it tvas a case not of trailsplailtatiorl but of displacement. The instability of Gerrnany and the European ~vai-sand blockades rrlearlt

146

Chapter 7

disaster for the Gerrrlail econorny, especially manufacturing. In addition to the rrligratioils of rural Gerrrlails to the Arrlericail heartlands, Germany's sltilled ~vorkei-sand url>anpoor also rnoved to the industrial ilorth of the United States, ~vorkingin rrlills and factories, rrlakiilg Gerrrlail totvns in Arrlericail cities. In the 1870s, tvhen Bismarck's Kulturltarnpf Ivas declared, Catholic clergy Ivere expelled, church property seized, and Catholic religious cornrnunities persecuted. Arrlerica offered the hope of religious freedom. But for Gerrrlarl Catholics this religious freedorn Ivas inextrical>ly linked to the freedorrl to celebrate the Gerrrlail character of their liturgy."' In St. Louis, Missollri, side 11y side with the Lutheran Missoliri Synod, a rnovernent begail arrlorlg Gerrrlarl Catholics that fought for religious equality tvithiil the Xrrlericarl Church. The local Gerrrlail priests Ivere arlgered by the fact that Gerrrlail Catholic parishes "did not enjoy the same rights and pri\-ileges as English-language parishes, ~vhichIvere \-irtually all Irish." This anger tvas fueled l>y the paper Pastoral-Elatt, edited l>y the pastor of the Sisters of St. Mar!; Father Faerber."%errnan 1-eserltrrlerltled to a petition to Rorrle in 1884 l>y eighty-t~vopriests, ~ v h o requested equal rights ~viththe English-language Xrrlericail Catholics. This rno\-ernent, coined l>yXrcllbisllop John Irelaild as "Cahenslyisrn," after the Gerrrlail layrnan tvho appealed to the \'atican in 1891 to support Gerrrlail Catholicism, created a furor that lasted tvell into the t~ventieth century. Jay P. Dolail expl,~lins: '

On the o n e s ~ d e. . . \$ere a host of blsllops \ t h o \$anted C atllol~cInllnlgrailts to ; t a ~ o r e dthe Xmencamzat~onof the t o r e ~ g n - b o n ~a n d become X l n e ~ ~ c a nthe\ t i l a t ~ o i l a l ~ s ~among n" dnerse groups of llrlrlllgrarlts 111 abhorred an\ . . . " s p l r ~ of the chllrch O n the other s ~ d ne e r e the Gel lnan c l e r g ~a n d people, t \ h o n a n t e d r enem\ recogmtlon of t h e ~ rneeds a n d eqllal rights In the c h l l ~ c ht, h e ~ common \\as the Irlsh, nllolrl the\ feared " ~ ~ o u l d X r ~ ~ e r ~e c\ earr\ t~l ~l ~ziel g . " ~ ~ '

Nor was it only the clerm who adhered to German traditions, valuing their distinctive religious tradition. Catholic tvornen 1)rought to Xrrlerica their love of the Frarlciscarl tradition.ll1In addition to the notable asceticisrrl of St. Francis, his love of the poor and his preference for the "sirnple" provided a potverf~llrnoti\-e for Ivornen to enter a life of self-denial and good ~vorlts."" The Sisters of St. Mary continued this ascetic tradition. nllotller Odilia slept on stratv and practiced long \-igilsto the Blessed Sacrament, and during the long train journey fi-orrl St. Louis to Kansas City the sisters exhausted themselves trying to sit straight ~vithoutleaning back to Religious traditions most closely identified with nursing, such as the Augustinian or \'incentian traditions, expressly foi-l>adeextra ascetic practices, derrlaildirlg that the sisters eat !yell, rest tvell, and conserve their strength and energy for their ~voi-k.lliNonetheless, the Ger-

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

147

rrlail cornrnunities of Ivornen in these early years tvere distinguished l>y their nursing tvorlt, tvhich offered rrlore spiritual and ascetic opportunities than teaching. Second, Gerrrlarl Ivornen tvere often relatit-ely ~ m e d u cated, so despite the derrlaild for Gerrrlail teachers, their ability to function as teachers in a society ~vithquite high levels of literacy, such as the United States, Ivas lirnited.ll" Thus, frorn patriarchal cornrnlinities of the Lutheran Missollri Synod, to the Catholic and Protestant Gerrrlail llarrllets of the Daltota plains, to the Catholic parishes of the Gerrnan-Arnericai1 church ill St. Louis, irnported religious traditions flourished in conservati\-e cornrnunities of Gerrrlail settlers, ~vithGerrrlarl identity and Gerrrlail religious expressiorl inextrical>ly liillted. The deacoiless traditioil took sorrle decades to reach the rural settlerrlerlts of the Rlissouri Syilod and the Daltotas, but there, too, Ivornen Ivere called for service to the sick of their cornrnunities, and the deacoiless rrlodel successfully pro\-ided that avenue for Ivornen ~vithout threatening the authority of the farnily patriarch or de\-aluing the irrlportarlce of Cllristiail marriage. Catholic ~vornen'ssert-iceIvas not coilfilled to the Gerrrlail cornrnunity. The financial self-reliance prerequisite for all Catholic cornrnunities of Ivornen rrlearlt that, e\-en in St. Louis, the sisterhoods tvere irldeperlderlt fillailcia1 and legal entities. To l>e financially vial>le and to e\-angelize arrloilg non-Catholics (or lapsed Catholics), the sisters had to overcorne both their language difficulties and Gerrrlarl cultural expectations of Ivornen, to iilteract directly tvith the tvider cornrnunity of patients, doctors, railroad companies, state licensure boards, and so forth. E\-enin the rrlost restricti\-e of en\-ironrnents,tvhere few tvorneil spoke English, the doctors tvere rnainly Gerrnan, and the pastor Ivas extrernely inter\-entioilist, it Ivas still a bigger role in the tvorld than their non-Catholic counterparts tvere offered.

Role of the Pastor LYee/lle\r to rn!, tli!, rlr~tcli hcrr )tot b w ~ i~ ~ t i t t/ I~! )~ !J / I / I !I/~i~dcrtio~! oj tli~ 01 l i t elllog) o f f h e r , crchrez~emeitts Theie crie merit) Pelrgrous S z s t e ) ~7~10111, ' 0 i d e ) s nitd Congiegcrfzoits ofineit nitd 7~1orneit, rohose o)rgrits ~ L U S rnoie humbl(: cr~!dr t n ~t rr/otP ~ l ? f f j ( i ~701io\~ l t ; /rcr~d\li!l)\~ O P I P ~ ~ (PI I/ !I ~oO\tcrcI~\ ~ P I , IILOIP t ) ) ritg rc~hosepiogiess rons mo)e ~ n f ~ z crnd d , iesulfs ino)e szg itzjiccritt, rozfh nctr7~zfzes1 7 1 0 ) ~7~vdesf1iend,critd srrccess mo~eg1o)zoz~s.

At the annitersar) of the Sisters of St. Mart, the faint praise of Father Keuenhof (!tho sates his glo~tingtestimonial for Pastor Faerber, self-

148

Chapter 7

proclairrled founder of the cornrnunity) , re\-eals a sigilificailt elerrlent in the experierlce of Gerrrlarl religious nurses. The cornrnunities that ha\-e been exarrliiled here - the Sisters of St. 'lar!; the deacoilesses of Kaiserstverth, the Philadelphia E\-angelical Lutheran Deacoilesses, the Gerrrlail Rlethodist deacorlesses of Cincinnati, the deacorlesses of Pittsl>urgh, and the Ornaha deacoilesses - all possessed fortllrigllt and corrlrrlaildirlg male leadership. They tvere estal>lished in the context of their ethnic/ religious/cultural cornrnunity largely due to the deterrrliiled efforts of a pastor tvho believed firmly in their contribution to the social apostolate. Rarely is it possil>leto hear the \-oicesof these Ivornen. Tl'ithin the hospital they rnay have ruled, but the puhlic face of the institution, its l>oardand cornrnittees, and its annual reports rrleiltiorl tllerrl alrrlost in passing.12' Louise Golder, sister of the prominent Gerrnan Methodist pastor Christian Golder and an author ill her o~vnright, is sorrletllirlg of an exception to this ghostly pi-esence.'" But the fact is the organization of deaconesses in Ciilcirlrlati offered even less scope and authority for deacorlesses than the Plliladelpllia rrlodel - no Cirlciililati deacoilesses tvere ever proclairrled as "teachers" to rrledical rrleil on rrlatters of efficient hospital administration. For their part, the Sisters of St. Frarlcis had to rno\-e beyond the Gerrrlail clergy to achieve the religious life that they sought and tvhich they belie\-edtheir Frailciscall rule derrlailded of thern.

The efforts of the Catholic sisterhoods and deaconesses in the nineteenthcentury United States Ivere rerrlarkable tvhen one corlsiders that Germany had produced no counterpart for the "tvidespread collal>orationof Ivornen in Cllristiarl charity in the eighteenth and rliileteeiltll centuries, "122 Catherine Prelinger argues that the breakthrough for Gerrnan Ivornen into the puhlic sphere of Christian philanthropy Ivas the direct result of the erosioil of the nineteenth-century farnily structure, producing large nurnhers of displaced rural Ivorneil of peasant and artisan l>ackg r o ~ m dalong , ~vithidle tvornen frorrl the ruling classes.'":' This was the context for the Gerrrlail recruits for the Catholic sisterhoods. But rrlost significantl!; this corrlhirlatioil of displaced Ivornen and Catholic 1-es11rgerlce also ernpotvered Fliedrler to reverse a 300-year Lutheran traditioil and pro\-ide a rrleails to irlcorporate tvornen into a puhlic philanthropic role. Interestingly, tvhile the centrality of rrlarriage in the Lutheran consciousness pi-eveilted Ivornen from rno\-ingl>eyondthe patriarcllal horne, Fliedner's innovation Ivas to trarlspose that rrlarital and parerltal hierarchy at the core of Lutheranism into the structure for the deacoiless institutes.'" Unlike the Catholic convent where virgins are consecrated as "brides of Christ" to lit-e in a female dorrlairl under an earthly rrlotller

Crossing the C:onfessional Divide

149

superior, the deacorlesses Ivere virgin daughters ~ v h olit-edin a patriarchal farnily horne ~vitha rrlotller (the pastor's ~vife)and father (pastor). Of course Catholic convent discourse is also rife ~vithrrlotllers and fathers heat-enlyand temporal. The dorrlestic discourse of the deacoiless rnotherhouse, hotvet-er, lal>oriously reasserted the centrality of the Protestailt farnily. The o\-er~vhelrningrrlale represerltatioil in docurnents of incorporation, deeds of trustees, and so forth in deacorless institutes, too, reasserts the prorrlirlerlce of the father, or pastor, central to Protestailtisrrlparticularly Gerrrlarl Protestantism. Nineteenth-cerlt~~i-y Gerrrlarl tvornen did not have ci\-il rights under Prussian latv. This rrlearlt that Ivornen Ivere not perrrlitted to sign legal docurnents or enter into contracts tvithout their father or husl>and's consent, regardless of their age.lZ In the United States deacorlesses operated hospitals otvned by the Gerrrlarl cornrnunit!; or their church.lalThis was not how Catholic women (American, Gerrnan, Irish, French, or Q~li.l>ecoises)did l>usiness ill the New Mbrld. Even under the firrrl patriarchal hand of ortllodox Gerrrlail Catholicisrn in St. Louis, the tvorneil Ivere signatories on their o ~ v ncontracts, trustees of their otvn hospitals. This iildepeildeilce protected the diocese and the tvider church from legal and financial responsil>ilityit tvas in the end a lirrlited paternalisrn. Catholic sisterhoods took their otvn risks. The slo~v,reactive progress of the Sisters of St. Mary into the professional realrrl of nursing traiiliilg and licensure should not be seen as a reflectiorl on all Gerrrlarl sisterhoods. After all, one of the rrlost farnous ceilters of clinical excelleilce in the United States, St. Mary's, Rochestel; Rlinnesota, Ivas the result of a progressi\-e partnership l>et~veen a cornrnunity of Gerrrlarl tvornen (a differerlt group of Sisters of St. Francis) and Dr. M'illiarn M'orrall Rlayo - a partilership initiated by Rlother Rlary Alfred ' 1 0 e s . ~ ~Hat-ever, Rochester; Minnesota was not the heart of conservati\-e Gerrrlarl Catholicisrn, as Ivas St. Louis, nor Ivere the sisters under the pastoral direction of the rrleil ~ v h oled the Gerrnan-spealting Catholic Church's attempt to achieve separation and irldeperlderlce of adrninistratiorl in the United States. For the St. Louis Gerrrlarl Catholic hierarchy, Gerrrlarl identity tvas a product of their liturgical and spiritual heritage. In Philadelphia, too, the rnonopoly of Gerrnan-born (or descent) deacorlesses o\-erthe Gerrrlarl Hospital Ivas a cause of celebratioil 1-ather than concern. E\-en in the ttventieth centur); at least sorrle deaconesses refused, or Ivere unable, to recognize that linguistic and cultural distincti\-enessinhil>itedr e c i - ~ ~ i t r r l e i l t . ~ ~ ~ Yet despite the long arrn of clerm protection, in the United States Gel-rrlail tvornen successfully entered the puhlic dorrlaiil as cllarrlpioils of philanthropy and social service. Not~vithstandingthe relatively coilstrairled

130

Chapter 7

role of the nineteenth-century deacoilesses and Gerrrlail Catholic sisterhoods in corrlparisorl tvith orgarlizatioils such as the Daughters of Charity or the Sisters of Providence, the call to nurse ill God's sei-\-icebroke through the patriarcllal farnily's coiltrol of its daughters. For Catholic Ivornen, the free eilterprise nature of Xrrlericail society rrleailt that the sisters had to function as l>usinesstvornei1and corporate directors, ~vhate\-erthe lirrlitatioils of language and experience. For Lutheran and Rlethodist Ivornen, the role of deacorless rnay have begun as a circurnscribed and tentative role tvithin the church; ho~vever,as the t~ventiethcentury ~voi-eon, recogrlitiorl of the ferrlale apostolate in Protestailtisrrl gained acceptance and potver. Deaconesses o\-er~vhelrningly abarldoiled nursing in the ttventieth century, choosing instead to create for thernselt-es a role in rninistry and not allow "the devotion of Rlary to l>e put aside for the service of Rlartha. "Iy!' Nursing, therefore, was a stepping stone to a share in Christian rninistry for Protestarlt tvornen. It also trairled and pro\-ided experience to generations of Gerrrlail Ivornen, Catholic and Protestant, in the ne~vly errlergiilg professioil of nursing. Their ~voi-kgat-e the role respectabilit) and ci-ederlce in the Gerrrlail cornrnunity, but, rrlost irnportailt, it educated that same cornrnunity oil the talents and corrlpeterlce of Ivornen ~vorkingin the tvorld.

Chnptrr 8

The Twentieth Century ' E U P Day Y ~ L f r Got Smnllrr"

IVhen Elizabeth Ann Seton, follndress of the American Sisters of Charit); struggled ~vithher call fi-orrl God during the first decade of the nineteenth century, she could scarcely ha\-e drearrled that l>y the century's end Catholic Ivornen tvould ha\-e built the largest health care nettvorlt in the country. By 1917 their hospitals accounted for half the Xrrlericail health care systerr1.l But a century after Seton, Catholic sisters were not the only tvornen to perforrrl nursing tvorlt ~vithdignity and diligence. The stage Ivas by then crotvded ~vithProtestarlt religious nurses - the Xnglicall nuns and the Lutheran and Rlethodist deaconesses, and great nurnbers of secular nurses, led by educated, articulate, and political tvornen. Of this final group a great deal is ltno~vn,and their story has successfully ol>scured that of the religious nurses. A11 earlier versions of nursing Ivere to fall under the shadow of Florerlce Nightingale and l>edisrrlissed - the religious nurses as unprofessioilal and the nonreligious nurses (the poor Sarah Garnps) as l>eneath contempt." But how important were the religious nurses- Catholic sister-nurses, Xrlglicarl sisterhoods, and Rletllodist and Lutheran deacoilesses - to the shaping of rrloderil nursing? To anslver that question it l>ecornes necessary to move l>eyond the nursing legends and enter the gerldered religious dorrlaiil of Christian charity and the n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t ~European diaspora. The first nurses outside Catholic Europe tvere the tvornen of eighteenth-cent~11-yNetv France-Jeanne nllailce and Marguerite D'Yowille Ivere the piorleers of nursing in the Netv Mbrld.:' In the Xnglophone ~vorldit Ivas the Irish nuns - Sisters of Rlercy and Sisters of Charity. There Ivere also 11011-Irish n ~ m ssuch as Elizabeth Seton, the Xrrlericarl convert ~ v h ofounded the Xrrlericail Sisters of Charity- but rnany of her nuns tvere Irish too. The efforts of these tvornen are conspicuously absent from accounts of nursing history and the history of tvornen and ~voi-k.By ignoring these Ivornen tve are ignoring the tvay rrloderrl care of the siclt carrle into being. M'e are displacing it fi-orrl its place ~vithina broad pastoral rrlissioil arrloilg the poor of the nineteenth century. Care of the sick Ivas l>oth a skilled

132

Chapter 8

practice and an evangelizing opportuility. The nursing nuns tvei-e a hybrid forrrl - pragrrlatic and ~vorldl!; \-ocation-drivenand deeply religious at the sarrle tirne. It Ivas this hyl>rid forrrl of life, pious ilursing, that crossed such a sigilificailt boundary, the bo~mdarybettveen the secular and the religious dornains, and coloilized netv territory - gerldered professional territory. This book has talterl up the hyl>ridpositioilirlg of ilirleteenth-century nursing to exarrliile the relatioilsllip bettveen \-ocational ethos and the errlergeilce of a role for Ivornen as part of a professiorlal ~voi-kforce. This aspect of nursing history has receit-ed \-ery little attention from either ~vornen'sstudies scholars or ferrliilist historians. But hotv did tvornen begirl to develop professioilal lit-esin the rliileteeiltll century -tvhat shift in "rnentalit6" occurred? Hotv irrlportarlt Ivas care of the siclt in l>ridging this distance l>et~veen the llorrle as the ~vornen'ssphere and the hospital or home of the sick? How irrlportarlt Ivere the nursing nuns in opening up this space for tvornen?Tl'hat is at issue here is the errlergerlce of a rrlass professiorl for tvornen and the social/ethical cllallerlges that this role trarlsforrrlatioil occasioned. The persolla of the professiorlal Ivornan tvas a neio creation, and for Ivornen to l>eabroad in the tvorld as autonornous agents they required protectioil- if not of the \-eil, at least of its equi\-alent ill decorurn and \-ocational l>earing.It is in this area of professional/vocatioilal shaping that the influence of the nursing iluns is so critical, and the continuities in training and ethical shaping from the cloister to the nurses' horne becorrle intelligil>le. The persolla of the new nurse emerged from this hyl>rid pious and pragrrlatic space corrlplete ~viththe e\-angelical and corporeal duties of the nursing 1 1 ~ 1 1 Nursing's . carirlg ethic tvas ernbedded in gerldered religious practices. That said, these gerldered religious practices also built the health systems tvithin ~vhichnurses still ~vorlt.Even today for nurses the derrlailds and arnhiguities of l>eiilg,as Susan Re\-erby put it, "ordered to care in a society that does not d u e caring," rerrlairl overtvhelrning. This book has been an attempt to move beyond the separation of religious and secular history and to integrate the tvorlt of religious tvornen, principally Catholic vo~vedIvorneil, into the history of the rise of professional nursing. The rliileteeiltll century begail ~vitha couple of solitary beacons, Elizabeth Setoil in the United States and Mary Xilterlllead ill Ireland. Both tvornen Ivere rnoved l>ythe plight of the poor, filled ~vitha sense of social apostolate, and dri\-en l>y the con\-iction that God required tllerrl to act in His narne. To follow this call Setoil and Xilterlllead converted fi-orrl Protestarltisrrl to Catholicisrn. Both Ivornen tvere encouraged and fostered by influential men. Elizabeth Setoil Ivas supported l>y Bishop Carroll of Maryland, the rrlail largely responsil>lefor the esta1,lish-

The Twentieth Century

133

rrlerlt of the Arrlericarl Catholic Church. Mary Ailtenhead's rrlerltor Ivas Bishop Murray of Duhlin - arlotller l>uilder.Murray led the church during its reestal>lishrnentin Ireland follotving the repeal of the penal codes. Both established cornrnunities of ~vornen,the Arrlericail Sisters of Charity and the Irish Sisters of Charity ~vhicho~vedstrong (but iilforrnal) allegiance to the (French) Daughters of Charity of St. \'incent de Paul, and both cornrnunities trairled Ivornen as hospital l>uilders and nurses par excellence. For l>oth cornrnunities of tvornen, too, their hospital tvork provided a rrlearls for the church to iiltegrate itself into a society that had forrnerly excluded Catholics. In the United States, epidemics, rrledical support, and state and county funds enal>ledthe sisters (in the rlarrle of the Church) to pro\-ide an essential sei-\-iceto all Arrlericarls - regardless of religion. In Irelaild the sisters' nursing ability gave the Church the rrleails to seize back corltrol of services from the Protestant ascendancy. Epiderrlics pro\-ided a "foot in the door" to the ~vorkhouseiilfirrrlaries for the sisterhoods, and tvhen tvorlthouse iilfirrrlaries finally e\-olvedinto puhlic hospitals, the sisters stayed in charge.' As the utility of these cornrnunities of religiolis wornen became evident, the chord Ivas struck arrloilg Protestailts tvho struggled to find a sirrlilar path for their otvn rnoti\-ated and energized Ivornen. The rrlost successful and extensit-e prograrrl of religious life for Protestarlt Ivornen Ivas that established l>y Theodur Fliediler in the Gerrrlail Rlliilelarld in 1836. The revival of the ferrlale diacoilate provided the estal>lished Lutheran Church ~vitha forrrlal rrlecllailisrrl to de\-elopits social prograrrl in the Lutheran coilfessiorlal states of Nortllerrl Europe. Sailctiorled l>ythe official church, tvith the blessing of the crotvn and the aristocracy, the deacorlesses became the rrleails for the reforrrl of hospitals and nursing ill these co~mtries. The story of Lutheranism in North Arrlerica tvas sorne~vhatdifferent. M7lile it tvas not the estal>lished church, it did ha\-e generous pri\-ate benefactors such as John Lanltenau of Philadelphia. Nonetheless, the deacorless rno\-ernentrerrlaiiled rrlargiilal to the Lutheran rrlissioil in the United States. After all, Arrlericarl Ivornen had plenty of other options, and the deacoiless rno\-ernent tvas caught bet~veenrrlaiiltaiiliilg the Lutheran Church's corrlrrlitrrlerlt to Christian rrlarriage and \-aluinga sailctified life of celibacy for Ivornen. The deacoilesses Ivere irrlportarlt in the United States, though, because they provided a rrleails for the de\-eloprrleilt of health care services that tvere distinctively Gerrnan, Nortvegian, S~vedish,and Danish. Hotvet-el; these sei-\-icesfailed to l>esustained by Xrrlericail deaconesses, relying instead upon the irrlport of foreigil Ivornen. They therefore functioned as a trailsitioilal sert-ice for these irrlrrligrarlt cornrnunities.

134

Chapter 8

For non-Lutheran deacoilesses the issues Ivere different again. The Rletllodist re\-ivalof the late nineteenth century con\-erted rnany a girl including Gerrrlail tvornen. These Ivornen Ivere rnoved to God's ~vorltbut also cornrnonly 1,ound to earn their lteep. Louise Golder's files in Cincinnati re\-eal a class of tvornan tvho ~vorkedas servants or seamstresses, Ivornen ~ v h otvei-e lteerl to trade that life for one in God's glor!; God's security, and God's respecta1,ility. To 1,e a deacoiless at that time rrlearlt to be a nurse, but the role 1,egan to extend 1,eyond hospital ~vorltand into the cornrnunity, as had in fact 1,een Fliedner's intention. This parish ~voi-k Ivas not for sirrlple serving girls but for corrlpeteilt Ivornen tvho could support the ~vorltof the minister. As resistance to such ~voi-kby tvorneil 1,egan to lessen, the nursing aspect of their role lesselled too, and the deaconesses rnoved gradually into an apostolic role tvithin their churches. The nurnbers of Xrlglicail or Episcopalian sisters also pealted early in the ttventieth century. This group of tvornen had rnany rrlore difficulties than the deacorlesses because they tvere under suspicioil of 1,eing cryptoCatholic. Nonetheless, in rnid-nir~eteent11-ce11t~1ry Britaiil the Ailglicarl sisterhoods tvere of great irrlportarlce in de\-eloping the ground for trailled secular nurses. As Anile Surnrners's tvorlt has rrlade clear, these Ivornen Ivere significant in esta1,lishing the need for trailled nurses, upgrading the level of nursing sltills expected in hospitals and at the pri\-ate bedside, and derrloilsti-atirlg the corrlhirlatiorl of clinical excellence and ethical deportrrlerlt that Ivas so \-italto the gerltrificatioil of nursing." This gentrification allo~vedfor educated, ambitious tvornen to choose leadership in nursing as their career path, to becorrle the reforrrlers of nursing and the founders of its professioilal associatioils and training and accreditatioil processes. But for 1,oth the Protestant sisterhoods and the deaconesses, the efforts of the tvornen tvere lirrlited 1,y the lack of consensus surrounding their clloserl life and its place ~vithintheir respective churches. It tvas in this regard that Catholic religious (nuns, priests, and brothers) Ivere so ad\-antaged. Catholic farnilies faithfully produced children tvho 1,ecarne dedicated rrlerrlhei-s of the church. The Catholic cornrnunity consensus revered the religious and coilsidered their ~voi-kto be God's otvn. Furtherrnore, the Church's iilstitutioils tvere structured to produce successive generations of strong Catholics. The tight scllool systern and intense parish structure tvere highly successful ill keeping the nurnbers of Ivornen prepared to \-o~v thernselt-es to God's service \-ery high until the rnid-t~ventiethcentury. In addition to the local cornrnunity structures that privileged a "call" to God by any individual, the Catholic Church releiltlessly exploited its Old Tl'orld coililectiorls and pro\-ided opportunities for irrlrrligrarlt girls

The Twentieth Centliry

133

to corrle to the New Tl'orld as iluns or novices. Extensive recruitrneilt drives in Irelaild supported the English-spealtiilg Catholic Church ~vell into the t~ventiethcentui-y.; Irish seeking employment commonly expected to go to Erlglaild or further. Opportunities at home Ivere scarce until 1950 the rrlajor occupation for Irish Ivornen tvas still dorrlestic ser\-ice.91ich a big step to the New World was perhaps not such a leap for Irish tvornen, ~vho,unlike other Ivornen, had l>een rrlakiilg the journey alone in great nurnbers throughout the nineteenth century. 111 fact, I1-eland still boasted the highest level of fernale rrligratioil in Europe for the period 1943-GO.!' Finally, to become a member of a religiolis comrnlinity in Irelaild required a dotvry. This could l>e a goodly surn - in the nineteenth century do~vriesIvere bettveen 300 and 500 p o ~ m d s .Hotvet-el; \-olunteering to join an o\-erseas rnission, such as in the United States or Australia, geilerally rrlearlt that the do~vryrequirerneilt tvas tvaived. Gerrrlail tvornen, too, provided fresh recruits for the Gerrrlail sisterhoods, and recruitment drives l>acltto Catholic Gerrnany Ivere an irnportarlt rrlearls of sustaining the Gerrrlarl identity of sorrle of the cornrnuilities under study in previous chapters. French tvornen did not migrate to the English-spealting ~vorldin \-ery great nurnbers, but tvhere they did their education and experience often irlcliiled tllerrl to the teaching of elite girls, rather than hospital tvorlt. The latter rerrlaiiled \-eryrnuch the dorrlaiil of Irish and Gerrrlail irrlrrligrarlt tvornen or children of irnrnigrants. The Sisters of the Iilcarrlate Mbrd and the Sisters of the Holy Cross are good exarrlples of the phenomenon of a Frerlcll cornrnunity gradually becorrliilg an Irish French Canadians were something of an exception to this rule. They felt called to proselytize both the Native Xrrlericarl peoples and the godless Xrrlericails ~ v h o[vent !vest ~viththe opening of the corltirleilt to miners, traders, and settlers. The Calladial1 Ivornen tvere clearly missionaries. B o ~ m dto llorrle and sustained by fresh recruits, they rerrlaiiled rrlissioilaries until tvell into the t~ventiethcentury. They had a very different consciousness from that of the French or Gerrrlail Ivornen tvho Ivere driven fi-orrl their homelands l>ypolitical coilflict and persecution, or the pragrrlatic Iris11 tvornen ~ v h ofilled the raillts of Xrrlericarl cornrnunities - building an Irish errlpire in the Netv Tl'orld.

Ferrlale Religions Life In the first half of the nineteenth centlirl it had been simp11 impossible for I\ ornen t\ ithout \ eil and to rno\ e ctl>roadarrloilg the poor and !\retched aild pi-o\ide for their care. As n e hate seen, e\en for those set apart as religious norneil, the Protestailt norlds of North Xrrlerica, Xustralia, Britain, aild German\ I\ ere extrernel\ hostile to the sisters' t\orh.

136

Chapter 8

E\-enin Catholic cornrnunities the lit-esof \-otvedtvornen Ivere frequently trials of persecution and harassment l>y clergy. The nineteenth-century bishop, literal prince of the church, coilsidered it rrlere ferrlale irnpudeilce on the part of sisters to struggle to rrlaiiltaiil their irldeperlderlce in order to follotv the exarrlple of their holy fo~mdressand the rule they had \-o~ved to serve. The status of tvornen in the church Ivas complicated. During the first half of the ilirleteerltll century the extent to ~vhichthe often high-born sisters felt ol>ligedto obey the (male) clergy Ivas rrlediated by social class. In Sydney tvell-born Sisters of Charity tvere rrlost reluctant to be bullied l>y ignorant Irishrnen tvho Ivere far from their social equals. For the French Carladial1 Daughters of Providence and the French Sisters of the Incarnate Word, the issue of ol>ediencetvas personally resol\-edin the light of the sister's individual interpretation of God's ~vill.Thus in Seattle the Sisters of Providence acted ~vithoutappro\-a1on the ratioilale that if God had ~vantedtllerrl to talte the pastor's ad\-ice,he tvould not have sent tllerrl this opport~mitytvhen the pastor tvas so far atvay. Similarly, in Sarl Xntonio, Rlother Saint Pierre loolted into her heart, to her rule, and to the spirit of her \-otvs to gi\-e her the strength to rebuke a l>ullying Polish priest. Thus through persolla1 and spiritual ilegotiatioil the sisters o\-ercarne the ol>staclesand restrictiorls placed in the Ivay of their vocation and the destiny they felt God had called their holy cornrnunity to fulfill. The rnodus operaildi of religious professioil that made all things possible tvas "first things first and trust the rest to Divine Pro\-idence."" T'Vhat worked in the sisters' favor Ivas the lack of clarity frorrl Rorrle and the !vide discrepancy in vietvpoint on the role of religious cornrnunities, their relationship ~viththeir pastor and ~viththe diocese. For l>ishopsin need of a ~vorkforcethe solution to difficult cornrn~ulitiesof irldeperlderlt tvornen Ivas to set up their o~vn,tvith rules that served the needs of the diocese. The plethora of netv nineteenth-century cornrnunities tvas the result of pious tvornen anstvering these local needs. Under pressure from l>ishops to rrlake cornrnunities of religious tvornen diocesan, large and centrally organized cornrn~ulitiesof Ivornen (such as the Daughters of Charit!; or the Irish Sisters of Charity) becarrle increasingly difficult to establishalrrlost irnpossil>le by the ttventieth century. Ho~vever,the field tvas already ~vellsupplied tvith such cornrnunities, ~vhich,as a result of the Herculean efforts of the early tvornen, had acquired a suhstailtial asset base and extensive experience in the field of health care. It Ivas certainly no disadvantage to the position of the Catholic Church in North Xrrlerica and Australia that it could boast such rrlajor public institutions, all firmly ~vithinthe bosorrl of the Catholic cornrnunitv.

The Twentieth Century

137

Ho~tever,caught u p in the impetus to bring the Catholic flock under the umbrella of Catholic institutions, sisters, too, found themsel\es b) the turn of the century increasingl) governed. At the beginning of the twentieth century the L7atican decreed that active communities of religious women needed to embrace the cloister as a defining characteristic of religiolls life. Folloxving the gradual increase of restrictions on Ttornen religiolls that began ~ t i t hthe papal decrees of 1900 and 1901, the green fields of the nineteenth-centllr) landscape of the New TVorld began to disappear. Active communities became k n o ~ t nas apostolic communities, to emphasize their missionary importance. They were also formally redefined as "religiolls" and sul~jectto many of the same prohibitions and limitations as cloistered nuns. As one sister put it, "every day life got smaller. Religious life had become the celebration of the tri\ial."lLIncrementall) hut inexorably the cloister "doors" closed, until Vatican I1 blew them off their hinges in 1962 and religiolls women once more carne face to face ~ t i t hthe ~vor1d.l

The uncertainties that had surrounded the precise position of active cornrnunities of Ivornen for rrlore than ttvo hundred years Ivere starltly defined \\.hen carlor1 la\\. \\.as finally codified and promulgated ill 1917.' The church determined that the lives of sisters needed to he sharply defined l>yexterilalized structures: set tirrles for prayers and daily Eucharist begail to be irnposed. The irrlpositiorl of these traditioilal rrlarkirlgs of religious life in the cloister reaffirrrled the \-iewfrom Rorrle that religious life taltes place in the con\-ent,as opposed to the streets, hospital [yards, and llorrles of the poor.'" Travel restrictions carne into place and the sisters Ivere forl>idden to stay in hotels - a rrlajor issue that restricted travel. They \\.ere also forl>iddento go out alone. In rrlakiilg these decrees the I'atican Ivas respoildirlg to a century of urging by l>ishops that sisterhoods should be under diocesan control. The slow but relentless grinding of the L'atican l>ui-eaucracy rrlearlt that the nineteenth-century dynarnic outpouring of female pious energy \\.as steered to~vardratiorlalizatiorl and adrninistrati\-e control. Tl'ith this shift opportunities for extraordinary ~vork,for full participatiorl in policy and plaililirlg roles l>ecarneset-erelycurtailed as rrlore and more of the sisters' authority devolt-ed to priests acting in their stead. As prohil>itions o n rno\-ernent increased, the piorleerirlg achiet-ernents of the nineteenth century becarrle less and less possil>le to repeat.ltl

138

Chapter 8

The Arrlericail Catholic Church lost its missionary status in 1908. Notv the largest religious body in the United States, and forrnally ~ m d e direct r I'atican administration, the Church's piorleerirlg days faded into a period of consolidation. Rleantvhile the "Catholic ~vorld"created l>y the plethora of Catholic institutions coiltiilued to grotv. Carlor1 law expressly forbade Catholics from attending non-Catholic schools. Tl'ith this ruling, pro\-idingthe parochial scllool system ~vithteachers becarrle the prirnary task of religious tvornen. By 1966 63 perceilt of all Catholic sisters Ivere invol\-ed in teaching or teaching adrnini~tration.~' Large numbers of Ivornen continued to join the raillts of the sisterlloods to support this effort, and social and rrlaterial opportunities erlllarlced the spiritual re~vardson offer for rrlerrlhers of religious cornrnuilities. As Helen Ebaugh argued, "For Catholic girls, nuns provided the role rnodel, and Catholic orders the vehicle, for up~vardrnobility both out of the ~vorkingclass and from the restrictiorls and low status of the traditiorlal ~vife-rnotherrole!"I8 As the twentieth century progressed and power within the church centralized, the I'atican l>eganto take a closer irlterest in the daily actit-itiesof the sisters. E\-eryfit-eyears cornrnunities tvere required to report on their conformity to the new codes. With this process the ernphasis of religious life turned frorrl responsit-eness and initiative to ol>edienceto the "letter of the la~v."~!'Xccording to Patricia Byrne, the archives "abolind" with evideilce of surveillance follotving the in\-ocationof carlor1 latv. For instance, one letter from the diocese to the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth in 1922 corrlplaiiled of "\-iolationof Carloll 607 of the new code, tvhich requires a corrlparliorl for sisters outside their houses." Apparently, "priests and others" had seer1 "sisters of the differerlt cornrnunities alone in the rrlost cro~vdedstreets of the city . . . in office l>uildingsand departrrlerlt stores, going frorrl roorrl to roorrl and c o ~ m t e to r counter ~ulescorted."") For working sisters this new set of expectations constituted an onerous burden. In additioil to their derrlaildiilg ~vorltschedules, the netvly irnposed regirrleil of prayer, chant, and rrleditatiorl constituted hours of extra tvorlt in an already o\-erextended day. Travel restrictioils irrlpeded the perforrrlarlce of the sisters' duties and their ability to ~ m d e r g ofurther traiiliilg and qualifications. These restrictioils carrle into force at the same time that the ~vidercornrnunity tvas increasing its expectations of professiorlal ~vorkers.The sisters tvere ~ m d e pressure r to gi\-eprirnary focus to their religious life, and their professioilal obligations notv needed to fit into their religious schedule. The call for regular prayers led the sisters alvay from the ~vards,~vhilethe need for daily Eucharist ltept tllerrl close to the chapel. The net result of these cllailges Ivas that, for the first tirne, the sisters' professioilal life l>ecarne sorrletlliilg of a corrlprorrlise ~viththeir religious life.'l

The Twentieth Centliry

139

X further outcome of these cllailges tvas the absorptioil of the Catholic hospital firrnly into the Catllolic ~vorld,trailsforrrlirlg the sisters' hospitals into Catllolic monoliths." The ecumenical position nineteenth-cent~iry sisters had frequently fouild for thernsel\-es,tvith Protestant doctors, Protestant supporters and fundraisers, and Protestarlt tvornen in charge of traiiliilg schools, tvas difficult to rrlairltairl in the ttventieth-cent~~ry climate of Catllolic totality. By mid-century the Catllolic identity of the hospitals and their nursing scllools tvas reaffirrrled at e\-ery opportunity. For instance, nurses' graduatioil cererrlorlies increasingly took on the appearance of a first holy cornrnunion cerernoil!; corrlplete ~vithgraduation rnass. The Catholicity of their hospitals tvas constantly affirrrled by the incorporation of Catllolic rituals ill the traiiliilg of nurses, and the scrutiny of the nurses' l>ehaviortvas carried out as a Catholic pastoral responsibility. Rloreo\-el-the nursing practice of the sisters ~vithinthe hospital now required clearjustificatioil. In corrlrrloil tvith all trailled nurses of the tirne, the super\-isory role of the nursing sister (or registered nurse) freed religious nurses from the necessity for direct patient care. This Ivas conveilierlt ~vhere,in the \'atican's vietv, such care corrlprorrlised their rnodesty. Rules of nursing cornrn~ulitiestook an explicit character; for instance, the 1928 Customary of the Daughters of Providence required that as "a general rule the sister ~villrrlalte use of students to catheterize tvorneil."':$ This recornrnendation was follo~ved11y the recurrent caveat that "discretion illspired l>ycharity tvill altvays trace out the line to be follo~vedby the super\-isor ill such delicate circurn~tances."'~ T'Vhether the sisters took to heart the stringency of carloll law and its enforcers, or rnerely satisfied their scrutinizers that their nursing practice Ivas appropriate and defensible, the net result of these pressures tvas the accorrlrrlodatiorl of papal concerns into rules and custornaries and the dotvnplaying of the sisters' contril>ution to clinical practice. Effectively, l>y the rnid-ttventieth century, the autonornous and separate realrrl that typified the hospital ~vorld run by Catllolic religious Ivornen of the rliileteeiltll century had ceased to exist.""

Hospital Organization The nineteenth centliry xvitnessed the rise of scientific rnedicine and the rrlodei-11hospital. It Ivas a period of rapid ad\-ancernentin technology and sltill. The religious cornrnuilities that had l>een rrlailagirlg hospitals (or net~vorksof hospitals) for alrrlost the length of the century had presided over medicine's entry to the hospital. The ad\-ent of germ theory and irnprovernents in anesthesia resulted in the trarlsforrrlatioil of the hospi-

160

Chapter 8

tal into a surgical iilstitution - corrlplete ~vithall the cllailges in operatirlg theater technology and practice and post-surgical nursiilg care this entailed. They presided o\-er hospitals ~vherepatient observations tvere trarlsforrrled frorrl corrlplex and individualized measures of the physician to standardized technologically based regimens. Patient charts and rnedical records ordered both patient and practitioner (physician and nurse), ~vhileX-ray and pathology technology re\-olutionized diagilosis and treatrnent. The sirrlple ~vardsof the 1830s tvere light years atvay from the postoperati\-e tvards of the 1890s. The care of patients had becorrle cornplex, and to rerrlaiil financially \-iable the sisters had to derrlorlstrate that their institutions ~velcornedthe best doctors in the field and 1)oasted the best care. As the nursing professioil emerged and trairliilg became routine, the sisters presided o\-el-a fui-ther re\-olution- the revolution ill nursiilg. W l e n the sisters first began estal>lishinghospitals they did all the tvorlt themselves. The hierarchical structure of their cornrnunities provided for the derrlarcatioil of responsibility and delegatioil of rnanual lal>oi-.X1though there are plentiful arlecdotes that refer to the rrlotller superior ~vorkingin the laundry or scruhbiilg the entry halls of the hospital, in general these taslts Ivere left to no\-ices and postulants."N~onetheless, cornrnunities Ivere altvays short of tvorlters, and the \-irtue in llard ~vorlt that tvas at the core of religious training for sisters certainly had arrlple opportunity for derrloilstratiorl in hospital tvorlt. A11 these changes required suhstailtial organizatioilal reforrrl and increased capital. For a hospital to rerrlaiil financially \-iable, then as not\., it needed to keep abreast of changes and adapt to netv dernandsderrlailds of patients, funders, and the professions. To meet this challenge, Charles Moulinier, a Jesuit, established the Catholic Hospitals Xssociation (CHA) in 1913. Rloulinier Ivas deterrrliiled that North Xrnerica's large net~vorkof Catholic hospitals, ~vhichaccounted for 50 percent of all hospitals in the United States and Canada at that tirne, should l>e positioned to take advantage of the accreditatiorl rnovernent to build puhlic coilfideilce in Catholic hospitals, silence their critics, and dorniilate health care sert-iceprovision. In the first decades of the ttventieth century there Ivas great variation in the staildards of nursing care and hospital organization. This tvas the case for Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals alike. The Xrrlericarl College of Surgeons (XCS) initiated the standardization rnovernent tvith the de\-eloprnent of rninirnurn staildards for hospital practice. The four ltey elerrleilts to these stai~dardstvere 1. operating privileges restricted to surgical staff ~vllowere trained and approved;

2.regular staffmeetings;

The Twentieth Century

161

3. efficient record slstein; 4. laborator1 and X-Ia\ facilities and staff.>'

X good many Catholic hospitals already met these standards- the Buffalo Hospital of the Daughters of Charit) had been the site of a major s h o ~ t d o ~ between tn the sisters and medical practitioners over these \ e r ) issues during the last decade of the nineteenth centllr).LHoxve\er,for other cornrnllnities, conformit) ~ t i t hseclllar standards for hospital rnanagernent, such as the requirement that nursing sisters Jtear a xvashable white habit, precipitated a crisis.''' Moulinier anticipated the emergent standards movement and cooperated with the XCS to promote the standards and build support for them in the Catholic hospital system. Molllinier ~ t a n t e dthe CHA to he a sisters' organization uith a sister president. But conser\ati\e lieus uithin the church prelailed. Under the impetus of the standardization rno\ement in the 1920s the CHA uorked uith medical leaders and c l e r g to form policj and set gllidelines for Catholic hospitals, and much of the leadership role in this rnolement e\ol\ed aua1 fi-om \\omen. In response to these initiatiles the relati\? indifference of the diocese touard the rnanagernent of hospitals conducted h1 \\omen religiolls ti thin the diocese \\as replaced h1 keen interest."' In fact, Kauffman reports hou the CHA in its earl) )ears became l e t another means to control the sisters-concerned ~ t i t hlimiting sisters' contact ~ t i t hnon-Catholics and male patients, controlling their rno\ement, and reinforcing canon l a ~ t . The church also became embroiled in controlers) o\er the tjpe of ser, \ices pro\ided b1 Catholic hospitals. From the Church's point of \ i e ~ tthe care of torne en in labor had long been problematic for nursing nunstheir practice Jtas formall) prohibited in this field (although loose11 policed in the nineteenth centur)) . ' I In 1901 a ne\\ set of norms \\as draun up b1 the Sacred Chgregation of Bishops and regulars (in Rorne) uhich prohibited approla1 for institutes of sisters engaged in the care of "infants in the cradle" or Jtornen in childbirth. These norms Jtere reaffirmed in 1921, as such care \\as considered "~lnhecomingfor lirgins consecrated to God and tearing a religious habit."" This trend Jtas final11 re\ersed in 1936, then micl~tiferltraining for those in missionar) countries Jtas formal11 sanctioned h1 Rorne. $ $ Furthermore, as Kate Jolce has pointed out, the ethical issues sllrrollnding g~r~ecological sllrger) that reslllted in female sterilization Jtere immense11 contro\ersial in the earl) tuentieth centllrl, foreshado~tinglater pro-choice/pro-life-ofdebates. One po~terfillcamp uithin the CXLIuas comprised of clerics u h o ol~jected,in principle, to standards for Catholic hospitals set b1 medical men. $ l Nonetheless, h1 1929 oler half of all Catholic hospitals had met minimum standards as compared to onl) a quarter of non-Catholic hospitals. $'

162

Chapter 8

Rleantvhile, professioilal expectatioils of the sisters as rrlajor health care pro\-iders Ivere rising just as the ITaticantvas llarderliilg its attitude to~vard Ivornen religious ill "active" roles. One rnoti\-ation of Moulinier in founding the CHX tvas to provide the sisters tvith a safe forurn to irnpro\-etheir nursing and rrlarlagerrlerlt skills in a climate of increased resti-icti~n.:~'~ And despite the difficulties, a good many communities had no intention of losing professioilal or corporate ground. In 1890, tvhen there tvere only thirty-five training scllools in the United States, the Sisters Hospital, Buffalo, the Rlercy in Chicago, and Saint Rlary's, Brooklyn had opened traiiliilg schools for nurses.:fi Doyle's 1929 survey of state nursing associations, reported in her series of articles on religious nurses in the Ame~ican Journal of Slrrsincg; found that all ttventy-one state associatioils that resporlded to her survey reported invol\-ernent by religious nurses in state professiorlal association^.:'^ Large nursing communities such as the Sisters of Providence and the Daughters of Charity had e\-encreated a designated role for a sister-nurse supervisor tvhose responsibility it tvas to conduct additiorlal educational prograrrls for graduate sister-ilurses.:"' Doyle reported the invol\-ernent of nursing sisterhoods in pushing through nursing registratioil legislatioil in states such as Xla1,arna and Utah."' Sisters were also active as members of state hoards of examiners and as traiiliilg school inspectors. l1 The "dual engagement in professional life" of the sisters rrleailt 1,y mid-century that, despite the onerous regirrlerl of canon latv, the derrlailds of their institutional roles, their lotv public and professiorlal profile, the sisters tvere arrlorlg the best-educated collorts of Ivornen in the country and highly active in their professions.

Rleantvhile, as the sisters rno\-edout of the professiorlal limelight, forced out 1,y carloll latv, the 11011-votvedIvornen tvho follotved them continued to operate in their place. Negotiating the sarrle space of ~vork,male bodies, and respectal,ilit!; ordinary Ivornen mobilized the sarrle arsenal of gender and \-ocation.The fact that this territory had been coloilized decades before by religious Ivornen laboriilg tvithin particular corlstraiilts and possibilities in turn defined and bounded the rrlode of professioilal evolution for other tvornen ~ v h ocarne, to~vardthe end of the ilirleteerltll century, to join and trarlsforrrl nursing. Frorrl the irlceptioil of nursing reforrn, the rrloral attributes of the nurse tvere corlsidered to far outtveigh ally clinical corrlpeterlce or experi-

The Twentieth Century

163

eilce she rrligllt possess. As Rafferty points out, "Character ratllei- than theory or intellectual talents became the touchstone of nursing sltill and qualifications." In the early nineteenth century nursing was only respectal>le~vhenconducted by nuns. Tl'orneil ~ v h oIvere lilte nuns (such as Xrlglicarl Ivornen and deaconesses) found a Ivay to do this ~vorlttoo ~vithout loss of status. Nightingale's achiet-ernentIvas to find a rrlearls to generalize this forrrl - nursing as rrloral tvorlt - to a tvider, ilorlsectai-iail group of tvornen. This rnovernent intersected tvith the rapid rise of hospitals and rrloderil rrledicirle and, by the end of the century, nursing sltills fouild a ready rrlarltet as hospitals rnot-ed from the care of the poor to the rrliddle class. Ho~vever,the t-ocational underpinning of nursing - an indisputable legacy of the religious nurses - continued to corrlplicate the professional agenda of t~ventieth-centurynurses. As Barl>ara nllelosh has argued, ill the first decades of the ttventieth centur); the "rninistry" of nursing llirldered the recogilitioil and respect for nursing sltill derrlailded l>y the rrlore progressive sections of the nursing leadership. l 1 This much is understood and ackno~vledgedby historians. But such an acco~mtlacks depth and specificity as to the irrlportarlce of the sisterhoods. It irrlplies a "natural" progressiorl frorrl the religious to the secular ~vorldthat undercuts the achievements of religious Ivornen and their role, not as precursors, but as collal>oratorsin the regulation and professioilalizatioil of nursing. It also erases frorrl t-ie~vthe fact that religious Ivornen Ivere cofounders of the Xrrlericail health care systern. X final irrlportarlt feature of nursing in North Xrrlerica and Australia tvas the teilsioil that existed l>ettveeilreligious hospitals and their nursing sisters and corrlpetiilg hospitals and nonreligious nurses. This tension tvas a positit-e and productit-e force that made both groups of nurses acutely alvare of the criticisrrls of their oppoileilts and deterrrlirled to dernonstrate their cornpetitit-e edge and clinical competence. The story of nursing is not one of parallel paths requiring ttvo histories. It tvas the relationship l>et~veenthese t~voirrlportarlt groups of tvornen, the deterrrliiled and corrlpeteilt votved tvornen (Catholic and Protestant) on one side, and the equally deterrrliiled and arnhitious 11011-t-otved Ivornen on the other, that created rrloderil nursing ill North Xrrlerica and Australia. For just as it is irnpossil>le to understand nursiilg, its history or its present, tvithout a tvorlting ~ulderstaildingof gender, the prerrlise of this book has been that it is equally implausible to ornit religiorl frorrl the frarne. Nearly t~vohundred years after Elizabeth Setorl and Mary Ailtenhead, nursing rerrlaiils a rrloral practice - people trust nurses. It is equally true that as a ferrlale professiorl it is underpaid and ~mdervalued.Tl'ithout the religious vocatioilal frarrliilg of the ilirleteerltll century or the patriotic and civic irnperatit-esof the first half of the t~ventiethcentury, it is difficult

164

Chapter 8

today to express ~vhynursiilg is important. Yet the derrlailds of the health reforrrl agenda rrlake it rrlore irrlportailt than e\-el-before to argue the case for nursing, and to persuade rrleil and tvornen that it is a good thing to be a nurse. To do this successfully tve need to ~mderstandhow ilursing is geildered - ~vhydoes it appeal to so few rneil? But equally irrlportarlt Ive need to understand the vocational irnperatit-es that still attract so rnany Ivornen to nurse, that rrlalte tllerrl endure poor coilditioils and hard tvorlt, and that leave them full of guilt and inadequacy ~vhenthey have not rrlailaged the unrnanageal>le,or achieved the unachievable at the end of a shift. For better or tvorse, these are the legacies of the religious nurses. It Ivas they ~vhoturned care of the sick into an uplifting task for good Ivornen. They Ivere the con\-incingproof that good nurses tvere ~vorth~vhile and Ivornen had a great deal to offer. But rrlost irrlportailt of all, they pioneered the path for tvornen through the rrloral coiltagioil of sickness. They shotved hotv to ~vorltarrloilg rrlale bodies and the sick poor ~vithout loss of status-in fact tvith illcreased status. They left the cloister and led tvornen into the ~vorld.Once in the tvorld they shotved that tvornen could do l>usiness,and tvornen could take charge. Catholic sisters did not suffer the same trials as other nurses; the contests tvith rrlediciile featured in European hospitals Ivere not such an issue in the New TVorld. In the Netv TVorld the Catholic sisters o~vnedtheir hospitals and rrledical rrleil had to learn their place - a few ~vei-eslo~v.But the occasioilal skirrrlisll ~vithrrledical rrleil pales into iilsigrlificarlce ~vhencorrlpared to the real danger - rrlale clergy. But in their struggles to achieve so\-ereigntyo\-er their cornrnunities, to live accordirlg to their rule and act out their rnission, the sisters leariled a great deal. They acquired political skill, business acumen, and a corporate understanding tvithout equal arrloilg their sex. Catholic tvornen needed these skills ~vhenthe I'atican crackdo~vnof the ttventieth century cornrnenced. Nursing needs to look beyond the \-eiland see that its progerlitors Ivere not the meek and ol>edientslat-esto rrledicirle that Florerlce Nightingale and Dorothy Dix ~vouldha\-e us believe. The religious nurses Ivere leaders, they tvere professioilal pioneers, and they created entire health care net~vorksotvned and conducted l>ytvorneil. Nursing tvould not be tvhat it is today tvithout thern.

Abbreviations

DOCX Lnw

A l c h l ~ e sof the Deaconess C otnmunlt\ of the E\angehcal LIItllerail C llurcll 111Xnlerlca, Glad\\\ ile, Peilrls\l\ arlla , hnA l c h l ~ e s ,Slstels of the Inca1 nate \ \ o r d , \ I o t h e r h o ~ ~ s eSan tonlo, Texas Brltlsll Llhrarl C:lnclnnat~ Hlstollcal S o c l e t ~ ,Nlppel t C:ollect~on of Geltnan 01110 Lletllodlsnl, C 111~1rlilat1, Center for the Stud\ of Nurslng Hlstorl, Ui11\erslt\ of Peilrls\l\ama, P h ~ l a d e l l ~ h l a , Ne\\ 170rl\. Daugllters of C llarlt\ X r ~ h n e sXlhain, Letters of Llotller Salilt Plerre C~ilquln,trails. Slster Katllleeil Gal \ e\ ( 1 9 7 i ) ,X\11\1 Llotller Joseph of the S a ~ r e dHeart Personal Papers Colle~tlon, SPA S~stersof PI o ~ l d e n c eAI c h l ~ e s ,Sac1 e d Heart P r o ~ l n c e ,Seattle, TZkslllngton

This page intentionally left blank

Notes

1 The sacled \o\\s of po\el t\, chast~t\,and obedience ha\e defined lellglolls 11fe slrlce the dn\s of the earl\ Chrlstlail cllur~11.But there are degrees of \o\\ solelrlil and slnlple, prnnte nrld p u b l l ~ ,and \arletles of rellglous rules under \\ll~cll rllerl and \+orllerlcould 11\ e full\ erlclosed \\ltlllrl n oil\ eilt (ne\ er to lea\ e) , or 11\e tenlpornrll\ tllerelil, or 11\e under n rllodlfied for111 of the rule, or 11\e p1ous1\ ln the \+orld. LI\ use of the terlrl "\o\+ed\+onlen" 111 the n~neteenthceiltur\ context reflects nrld acl,no\\ledges these ailLleilt \nrlatlons. 2. "C;o\el nment" In the sense de~elopedb\ hllchel Foucault, \+hlchrefel I ed to mecl~amsmsof state for the management and dlsc~pllneof the polxllace Foll~t 0 , G O ~ J P ~ I I I I Led P I !GI ~ a/I~!~~, cault, "C;o\e~nmentaht\," In T l r ~ F o c c c n c c l t E ~\trrd!~, ham Bllrchell, Chlln Go1 don, and Peter \11lle1 (C:hlcago L n ~el\ s ~ t of \ C h~cago PI ess, 1991),87-104 See the a l ~ l ~ h c a t ~ofothese n Ideas In N~LolasRose, G O ~ J P ~ I O I ! ~ ~ ( /(London t~ Routledge, 1990) and \I~tchellDean, tlip J O I L I T l r ~\ l i c r l , i ~ i g ( I f P ~ i ~Llf> The Coi/strtz~fzoi/ ofPo7jei f ) To7~1cr)ds n Genecrlog) ofLrbe,nl Gozlo ncrnce (Lolldon. Routledge, 1994). 3. "Snl llttle, do n l u ~ h "llas heen assoclnted \+ltll\'111~entde Paul as n llile from Iincenf, d l r e ~ t e db\ h l a u r l ~ e the popular 1948 X~ndelmA\+nrd film I\.loi/~ze~~i Cloche. It e\olies the splrlt of de Paul, tllougll ~tIS uill~liel\that he e\er used tllese \\ ords. 4 Seclllar 1s used In the sense "of the 1101Id" as o l ~ l ~ o s etod "of rehg~on" This 1s the sense used In the n~neteenth-centllr\seclllal lsln m o ~ e m e n-\\111ch t \+OI Led to sepalate chllrc11 and state In e\el\ aspect of soclet\ I use the term "seclllal nluses" to refel to nurses \ \ h o \\ere not members of a rellglous comml~nlt\or formall\ affihated \+1t11 an\ rellglous glollp As \+1t11 the \\ord TOT\, seculal has historically layered meanings. Technically in Catholicistn, seclllar means religious lrleil and Ivonlen living outside the cloister. Secular priests (and bishops) are those \vho live "ill the ~vorld,"as opposed to living in nlonasteries. The! live relntn el\ ~ndepeildeiltl\ln parlslles and onrl propert\. 5. h l a r \ ~ i O'Coilnell, l "Tlle Ronlail Catholl~Tradltlon S l i l ~ e1545," ln Cniritg Tindrtrons, ed. Ronald L. nitd C u ~ z n g Hecrlth crnd Jfedrcri/e 277 the Tlste,i/ Relzgzoz~~ Nunlbers and Dnrrel I\: Xlnuildsen (Nen 170rl,.Lln~lnlllnn,1986), 108-45, 137.

168

Notes to Pages 11-13

1 S B hlansell, E~iglirlr \!,terlioodr A I ! AIJ~IP\S L)PI/TJPIP I ~ I ~t 1 1 R ~ ~ ' - O ~ I P I(/)id !/I!~ Squcr~e,5 Jlcr) 1863 (London. Joseph AlasEeitedrcfzon o f S t Pete) s Hoine, B~on/;Dfon ters, Aldergate Street, 1863). 2 N a n c ~F C ott, TI/(>B o ~ i d ,of ITb~rin~iliood"II'orl~cr~!\111iprp ! I ! LYe(i~ EI!~I/II!/J, 1780-1 835 (Ne\\ Ha\en, C onil.. 17 J ~ ! ~ ) P II( I I Io( P~ ~ ~ (UI > ~ bana. ~ ~ ~ >L~nlr ! t el s ~ t \of Ilhno~sPress, ttcr cr~!dtlip AIILPII(III! 1986), 73-77. ' the irlost popular 6. IVesterl\anlp obser\es that " 'd~sturbersof the p e a ~ e are sltbjects," I T ~ I ~ ! P( II ! I ! ~Rel!g!o~i/ I ! E n ~ l Al I I L ( > I204 I~~, t these \\oirleil \$ere 7. I use the tern1 "\o\\ed \toinell" to eirlpllas~zethe f a ~that slinpl\ \\ oirleil 11\lrlg under a \ oluiltar\ o\$ to a particular rule. In tlus \$a\ Xngllcan s~ste~hoods can be ~nclltdedIn this categol lzatlon 8. Margaret Susan Thonlpsoil, "IVonlen, Fein~il~snl, and the Ne\\ Rellg~ousHIStor\. C a t h o l ~ S~sters ~ as a Case Stud\," ln Eelzefnitd Behnzlro) Esscr)s rit theA\ezo Pel/gtoctr H!,torl, ed P1111111R Landerhlee~and Robe1 t P Sn~erenga(Nev BI llns\\lcL, N.J.. Rutgers Ui11\ erst\ Press, 1991), 137. Tllorllpsoil dls~ussesd ~ f f i ~ u l111tl1 t \ data 011 11~11s. The\ \$erenot ~ourltedln the same \ \ a \ as prlests, and the h~storlailnlust re11 on colnlnumt\ figures \ \ h ~ c hare not In consistent format 1f the\ ellst at all Aggregate figures, therefore, are ilotor~ousl\d ~ f f i ~ utol tdeterinlile. 9. 11ar1a Ludd\, Ilbnleit nnd Phzlnitth~ofi rit A\ritefeenfh-Ceittu,) helnitd (Canlbrldge C:amb~~ d g eU m ~ e r s PI ~ tess, ~ 1993), "3 Lllddl's \\rltlng I e ~ e a l dlscomfo~ s t \ \ ~ t l the l rellglous lailguage of h u i n ~ l ~ and t \ \oLatlon, see 26-27. Thonlpsoil, "IVonlen, Fenl~n~sin, and the Ne\$ Rel~g~ous H~storl,"141, argues that ~tIS posslble to read t111 ough the code and the ~hetorlcof I ehg~olls\\rltlngs to galn a~lsefill source on the \\oineil's 11)es. Ludd\'s \le\\ sllarpll contrasts n ~ t lthe l rllore recent ~ Pozoe~o f f h e Srrits Ilbmeit, Relz\\orl\ of Mar\ Peclillarll Alagra\, T h e T ) n i t s f o nlritg g t o ~ ! ,n ~ ! dC irltrrrnl Clicr~!g(> ( 1 , I ~ ( > l n ~ !1750-1 d, 900 ( N ~ M York Clxfo~d U m ~ e r s ~ t l Press, 1998), nllose detalled anal\s~sof the norli and Loininuillt\ of Catllol~c \\oir1ei1 111 ~ l ~ ~ l e t e e ~ l t h - Ireland ~ e ~ l t ~sllo~is ~ r \ the inassne s o ~ l a lirlpact l of Irlsll \\omen on the soc~al,econolnlc, and r e l ~ g ~ o landscape us of 11lsh socletl 10. There ha\? been soirle rather llero~cefforts to argue that the C a t h o l ~ and ~ X n g l ~ ~ as~sterlloods il \$ere to some extent pursulilg a feirllrl~stageilda. See Helen Rose Fllchs Ebaugh, " P a t r ~ achal ~ Barga~nsand Latent ;l\enues of Soc~al\ I o b ~ l ~ t \ . Nulls ln the Rorllarl C atllol~cC llur~11,"Geitde) rind Socref) 7, 3 (Septenlber 1993). 400-414 and hlagral, T h e T~crnsfo)inzngPozoe) of the ,\il)ls 011 the Catllol~csisterhoods; Susan \Ilunln, \ t o l ~ ~Dnctglrt~r ! 5 , T7!rgo!J l o t 1 1 ~ 1A~igl!ccr~i , J I ~ ~ P I I I O O II )J! ~ IT/(-

Notes to Pages 13-15

169

toricr~!Britno! (London. Lelcester U m ~ e r s l t \Press, 1999); a n d J u d ~ t h\loole, A Zeolfo) Resf~onsrbrlzf)The S f , rrgglefoi P~ofesszoi/nlA\rr~sri/gri/ Iicfoirni/ Eitglnitd, 18681883 (Xtlleils. Ui11\ e r s t \ of Georgln Press, 1988) o n the Xrlgll~nrlsisterhoods. 11 The1 e 1s of cow se 11lentlful e ~ l d e n c ethat the slstel s d ~ not d bl eak tles \\1t11 fainll\, retained tllelr olirl ~deiltltles,and pursued tllelr Interests 1i1th rlotlllilg resembling lndlf el ence --but the Ideal of rehg~olls11fe shollld not be confused \\ltll ~ t rse n l ~ t \ . 12 This desexllal~zat~on had ~ t 11n11ts s \\ 1t11the C athollc resurgence In the f i l st half of the illileteerltll Lerlturl ln Brltnlil nrld the Uillted States, the G o t l l l ~1111ng1natlon of the tllne ~ntensel\sexual~zedconTent hfe a n d the nlln \la1 la Monk and her 11l, spoilsored n purltnrl p o r n o g r a p h nrouild the toplc. Hone\ er, the tltlllntlon ~ e s t e dIn the nun's obedience to the c l e ~ g ~ l n ahe1 n , o\\n fall the result of 111s \ \ ~ ~ l i e d n e shsl.u ~ l llas l been \\rltteil oil tlus snlaclous t o p l ~J.e n m Franchot, Roods T / r ~ i l ~ ! t ~ bI ~~ IP~ot~st(r)i I Iir t E ~ i ( o c ot ic ~U J I ~ J C(rtlioli(i~~r~ I ( B e r k e l e ~L. mT ersltT of to ROIILP C nllforrlln Press, 1994) 1s o n e of the best o n the genre. 1 3 See \la1 T Denls hlaher, To B I I !1'1, ~ t/r~TTbrr~!dr Cntliolit 5 1 r t ~X1i r r r ~ /,I ! t l i ~1' 5 Czz111TIni (Neli Yorli. Green\\ood Press, 1989). 1 4 Xlnong the 2,113,813 elnplo\ed W s In the Umted States 1111996, an estlinated 113,683 \\ere nlen, 5.4 perLent of the total, n substnrltlnl Increase o\ er 1992 (79,337 of 1,833,024, 4 3 11elcent) Notes fioln the Natlonal Salnl~leSUIre\ of Registered Nurses, Llnrch 1996, Henltll R e s o u r ~ e snrld S e r \ l ~ eX d i n ~ n ~ s t r n t ~ o i l , Bllleau of Health P~ofess~onals, Department of Health a n d Hllman S e r ~ l c e s , \\'nsh~ilgtoil, D.C . (\\\\\\.llrsn.dhlls.go\/bllpr/dil/dil.lltin). 13 It 1s dlfficult to generalize, but In man\ Instances the slsters Tiere keen to promote the profess1oilnl1znt1oi1of nurslng. the\ liere fornard tlllrlhlilg 011 the reglstl atlon question, lnelnbel s of state hcenslng boards, a n d so forth See Suz\ X Farreil, ,i Cnll to C n ~ eThe Tlbn7eit T I ho Eurlt CnfholrcHenlthcnie 277 L4ine)rco(St. Louls. C athollc Hosl~ltalsAssoclat~on,1996) nrld the Ne\\ Rellglous Hlstor\," 137. 16. Tlloinpson, "\\'onlen, Fein~il~snl, 17 \la1 T Eltens, Tlr(>R o k of t l i ~LY1ll((,i / I ! LYo!ptpp~itlr-Cp~!tco I AIILPII(II (Nev York. t slsterlloods Xrrlo Press, 1978), o n e of the first scllolnrl\ attempts at the s u b j e ~of In Amenca, examlnes t11e11rep1 esentatlon In htel atllre 18. LInr\ln O'C onilell, "The Roirlnrl C ntllollc Trndltloil Slrlce 1545," ln Co7zng O I ! C ~ c o i ~ i gH(~rltlic r ~ i ~ L lI I c > d ! ~/oI !! ~t 1 1 T~T F s ~ ( > I I R~ligoctr ! Trnd!t!o~is,e d Ronald L Numbers and Dnrrel I\: Xinuildsen (Nen 170rl,.Lln~inlllnn,1986), 136. 19 HIS t ~ e a t m e n tof the sl111t of the Xlnellcan Dallghters a n d the NeTi York slsters ~ e r t a l n l \reads as n fight bet\\een inell. George C. Steltart, Jr., Jloi-c~elsof C / r n ~ ! hH!,tor I O ~ ~ ~ I ~ I P I ! C5(oI tI ~! r r(11id~Yc~10ir (H1111t1llgtotl,I n d . C)ur Sundal \ 1s1to1, 1994), 97-99. 20 J o Ann h a \ hlcNamara, 5!,t~rr/ I ! AI 1r15 Cntliolit sir^!, Tliroccglr T7oo I I I / l l p ~ i ~ i ! n (Cainbrldge, Mass. Hnr\ ard Un11ersm Press, 1996). 21 \Iagra\, TIM T ~ n ~ ! f11~o!gPo7op, or ~ftlic>~Ycocc,ir 22. Susan O'Brleil, "Freil~11Nulls 111 N~ileteeiltllCerlturl Ellgland," Post nnd P I P ~ P134 I ! ~(1997). 142-80 23. Carol K. C o b u r n nrld hlartlla Sinltll, S@rirtedLzzles HozoSrri/s Shn@ed Cnfholrc Cirltco(>n ~ i d~ ~ I ~ I P I ! C (LI iI p! , 1836-1920 (C:hapel H111 Unlrel s ~ t \of North Chrollna Press, 1999). Also Coburn nrld Snl~tll," 'Pra\ for Your TZkilderers'. TZhrllerl Re11g1ouso n the Colorado \11nlng F l o n t ~ e l1877-1917," , F I ~ I ! ~13, ! P 3I ~(1993). 52. 24 Sllellen HOT,"The Journe\ C)ut. T h e Reel lntlnent a n d Elnlglatlon of Ills11

"-

170

Notes to Pages 16-17

R e l ~ g ~ o l\\omen ls to the L m t e d States, 1812-1914," J o ( o ~ i c r l o f T T i ) t r~H~ ~I S~ i~ O6I, I1 (1993). 64-98. on the PI ofessed. T h e Case of 23 El~zabethSnn t11, "PI o f e s s ~ o n a l ~ z a t ~Among Ronlail C a t h o l l ~TVonlen Rellglous," ln ChnIlei/gii/gP~ofrsszons Hzsfo~rccrlnitd Cont e i n f ~ o ~ c rPe~s;Decfzz~es )) on Tloinen s P~ofrssroncrl T l b ~ l i ed. , Ellzaheth Snl\tll, Snrldrn Xcker, Sandra Boulne, and Ahson P r e n t ~ c e(Toronto. Unlrels~t\ of Toronto Press, 1999), 234-54. 26. C o b u r n and Snllth, S f ~ i ~ r t Li-cres. ed Tllelr hook's e\nnllnatlon of rlurslilg takes on11 fourteen pages Xirlorlg the Professed." 27. Sin\ th, "Profess~oilnl~zat~orl 28. Joan L\ ilnugll, T h e Coninizlnrtj H o s f ~ z f n lofs Elnnscrs Citj, J l i s s o u ) ~ 1870-1 , 915 ( N e ~Yo1 l I\. Garland PI ess, 1989);Jean R~chardson,"C a t h o l ~ Rehg~olls c \\omen as Irlst~tut~oilnl Illno\ ators. Tlle Slsters of Chnrlt\ and the &se of the hloderrl Urbnrl Hospltnl111 Buffalo, N.17., 1848-1900," dlssertatlon, State Unl\erslt\ of Ne\\ York at Buffalo, 1996; Bernadette hIcC:aule\, " 'Subhlne Xnolnahes'. \\omen Rehg~olls and Rorllnrl C a t h o l l ~Hospltnls ln Ne\\ York Clt\, 1850-1920," Jou) itnl of t h e H i s f o ~ j S (Jul\, 1997). 289-309. ofl\.ledzcz~ie cr)idL1llzed S C Z P I I C ~52 29 hathleen hI J o ~ c e "Science , and the Salnts Amencan C:athohcs a n d Health Care, 1880-1930," dlssertatlon, P r ~ i l ~ e t oUill\erslt\, rl 1993, Bnrbrn 11nnil \\'all, "Unl~kel\Entrepreneurs. Nuns, Nurslilg, nrld Hospltal De\ eloprllerlt 111 the \Vest and \Ild\\est, 1863-1913," dlssertatlon, U m ~ e r s l t \of Notre Dame, 2000 30. hlartlla V I L I ~ ~ U Ii/de@e)idei/t S, Tlomen Tlb~linitd Coninizlnrtj f o ~Siitgle Tlbmeit, 1850-1 920 (Chicago. Un11ersm of C l l l ~ n g oPress, 1983), Susan P. C nsteras, "\'lrgln \o\\s," In Rel!g!o~i/ I ! t l i ~L!ile\ o f E ~ i g l ! , l iT T ~ I ~ ~ P I1760-1930, !, e d Gall hlallngreen (Lolldon. Crooirl Helnl, 1986),nrld 11unlnl, Stolen Dnrrgllte)s, I i ~ g i i Jt f o t h e ~ s . 31. hloore, Zenlfo) Pes;Doi/~zbzlitjIS r ~ ie\Leptloil l to tlus as she f o ~ u s e oil s rlurslrlg s~sterhoods 32. Catherlile 11. Prellilger 1s n notable exception here, see "Tlle NlileteeiltllC e l l t u n Den~onessate111 German\. T h e Efficn~\of a Fnnlll\ 1Iode1," ln Ge,inni/ T T ~ I I L P I ! 0 ) t l i ~Eiglitcic)~!tlicr~idLY/~i(>t(~(>~!tli C?~!t(oi(>r il \0(1(11 cr~!dL I ~ P I ~hot I I Ior^, e d Rutll-Ellen B. Joeres nrld hlar\ Jo hla\iles (Blooin~ilgtoil.Iildlnna Uill\erslt\ Press, 1986), 213-30, &nln Lurllrl Schultz, "Tkinnn's TVork nrld TZhinnn's C nlllilg C:hlcago, 1880-1989," In El~!,topnlT T ~ I I L P I ! GPIIIJPI, J~IIIIn the E111scol1al C 11111~11. tz~crlzf),critd Coininzfinei/t l i t nit Ainorccri/ Jlcrznlri/e Dei/oinzncrtroi/, ed. C ntllerlrle hl. Prellrlger (Neil 170rk.Oxford Un11erslt\ Press, 1992), 19-71. 33 hIar\ Enens, "The L e a d e ~ s h ~ofl ~Nuns In I l n m ~ g r a n tC:athoI~c~sln,"In Tlbnieit nnd Pelrgioi/ [ i t ,ime,zcn, 101. 1, T h e ,\ii/eteei/th Ceittu,), ed. Rosenlar\ Radford Ruether and Roserllnr\ Sklrliler &Her (Snn Frnnc~sco.Harper and Ro\\, 1981), 103 t \ nrld d ~ not d 34. Tlle Irlsll Slsters of C llarlt\ nssuined a n Xustrnllnrl ~ d e n t ~earl\ t\ b\ 11nrl AILreLrult froirl Ireland. Hone\er, the Xustrnllnrl ~ o n l i n u i l ~founded hlllop \\as most notab11 not 111s11,Tet ~t artlacred 111sh\\omen In gleat nulnbels See Jaillce Trailter, "Tlle Irlsll Dlirleilslorl of a n Austral~ailRellglous Sisterhood. T h e Slsters of St. Josepll," ln T h e hrsh TIo11d T I zde, 101. 3, Relzgzoi~critd Ideittitj, ed. Patnck C)'Sull~~an ( L o n d o n Lelcestel L nlr el s1t1 Press, 1996), 231-33 In the Uillted States, the Slsters of the Ii1~arilnte\Vord are o n e of the best exainples of the Irlsll and Gernlail ~ n f l u e i l ~oen n Frerlcll coinnlunlt\. See Slster hlargaret ~ r of C h c r ~ i tof~ t h I~!ccrr ~ ~!nt~ Patrlce S l a t t e r ~ P, r o t ~ u , ~tor k'(>$)A H i r t o ~I of t h Jirtc~~ ed., 2 \ols. (Sail Antoillo. Slsters of the Irlcnrilnte TVord, 1998). T l b ~ d2nd , 33. "Secular" souetles \$ere corllprlsed of ordlilnr\ Lltlzens as opposed to 111 lests 01 nuns T h e d ~ ~ ~\ \oetr re not lnelnbel s of an\ I ellglolls colnlnumtT but "la\

Notes to Pages 18-22

171

Ilelsons," that IS,oldlnarl comlnlumcants In the C athollc C:hllrch It \\as both a inale a i d feinale in01 eirleilt cllaracterlzed b\ the pious de\ otlorls of \\ealtll\ fanlilies See Ehzabeth Raplel, TI/(>Dhotp, TT'OIILPI! (11!d Clri~t~li 0) \ P T J P I ! ~ P P I ! ~ / ~ - C P I ! ~ ~ L ~ ~ F~crnce(Llontreal. hIcGlll Uili\erslt\ Press, 1993). 017d ,\il)szng l i t Ai/crei/ Pegrine 36. Coliil Jones, The Chn~rtcrbleI1n$e)ntr71eHosf~zfnls I FI(II!CP ( L o n d o n Routledge, 1989) n ~ i dR~r~olrrt!o~!n~ 37. Ibld., 93. 38. Fernale groups such as tlle Begulnes becarne nidespread prior to the Reformarlon These groups of nolnen c o m l n o n l ~took cal e of the slck but d ~ not d T+OIl\ ln hospitals. In inedie\al tlrlles a i d durlrlg the Reilaissail~etertiaries !+ere einplo\ed ilurslng ln llospltals. These nurses !+ere ~ o n l i n o i l l \~ + i d o \ \asi d l n e d de\ o u t modest h ~ e attached s to pal tlclllal lnstltutlons lundel the Augllstlnlan rule 39. O \ \ e n Hufton a n d Frank Tallet, "Coinnlunlties of TZhineil, the Religious Llfe, a n d Public S e r \ l ~ e111 Se\enteenth Centurl F r a i l ~ e , "ln Connecfzng Sf~he~es T T ~ ) I I L P I ! 0 ) t l i ~TTht~t~iTTh~ld,1500 to tlr~Ptpw~it,e d hlarll\n H Boxel and Jean H Quatraert (Nel+170rl\.Oxford U n n ersit\ Press, 1987), 75-83. 40. \'iil~entd e Paul, 111 Raplel, TheDe7lofes,86 II~!~P, 11 Jones, Clint!tcrOlpI I I L ~ I ( > I116 42. Ibld., 101. 43. Ibld., 147. 1 4 Dora B \\emel, T l r ~C I ~ I Z P I ~ - P0( )/ R ~P I PTIJ!O~I I L ~ ! O ( I II !! I~IIIL~I)P~I(II III P O I I S(Baltlnlore. Jollils Hopklrls rill\e r s t \ Press, 1993), 110. 43. Dora B. TVeiiler, "The F r e i l ~ lRe\olutlon, l Napoleon, a n d the Nursiilg Professlon," B ~ t l l p trlft11~H1rto11 ~~i ojL11(~~11(11i~~16, 3 (1972).271-305 46. Claude Lailglois, LP Ccrfholzcz~~~e nu fe~nri/zu Les coi/pegnfzons f)cri/~crrses( I srrpe~ze~~~egei~e~crle nu XI& srecle (Paris. Editlorls d u Cerf, 1984), 307-13. t a n t ~ c l e r ~ c a l ~~s l+nl tthe h TI111 d R e p ~ b l ~the c , state "\\as 17 E ~ e nat the h e ~ g h of not l e t prepared to pro\lde tlle parainedical ser\lLes, p a r t l ~ u l a r hilursiilg . . . closed do\\il s ~ l l o o l s. . . \\auld st111 call oil rellglous orders to pro\lde rlursiilg staff Cnt/rol!o,t~~, 1789-1914 for h o s l ~ ~ t a"l sRalllh G ~ b s o n ,A \on01 H!,totj ojFt~1it11 (London. Routledge, 1989), 109. In 1911 "tlle la\ persorlilel necessarl to replace ln quailtit\ a i d qualit\ the )elzgzez1sescurrenth enlplo\ed does not exlst." 18 Shelldan G l l l e ~calls ~t "The I r ~ s helnplre b e l o n d the seas"; see "The Roirlarl C a t h o l l ~C 11ur~11a n d tlle Niileteeiltll Cerlturl Iris11 Dlaspora," Jou)i/nl of Ecclesrnstrccrl Hzsto)) 33, 2 (1984). 188. , C ~ ~ l t iI~I tPj I ~ I(Dublin I!~ G111 a n d hlac19 C h t r o n a Clear, L Y i ~ ~11i! LY~~i(>t(~(>~!tli inillail, 1897), 37. 50. Hal, "The Jourrlel Out," 77, 79. So nlan\ probabll Larlle to Australla because h l o t h e ~ hl~chael,the founder, a S~stelof hlercl, n a s cousin to Patnck hlorail, archbisllop of S\dile\. O n e sodalit\ 111 Dubliil, George's H111, sent out ilearl\ 60 \\oirleil to tlle U.S. Texas Loininuilit\ Slsters of tlle Incarnate T h r d a i d ~ ~ r o d l l c eseTen d supel lors of the ordel fi oln o n e pal 1sh1 51. Catherme hI. Prellnger, Chcr~zf), Chnllenge, crnd Chcri/ge PelrgrorrsDri~~ei/sroi ofls the I\.lrd-A\i~7~t~~i~tI~-C~~7fr~~j Tlomen s I\.lozl~inei/t277 Gel 177crnj (Nen 170rl\. Greeil~+ood Press, 1987) 52. F l o r e i l ~ eNiglltlrlgale to H. E. Llaniliilg, 1832, BL Add Llss 9093/10. 53. Tllere llad been success11e atteirlpts througllout tlle ceilturles b\ norllerl to estabhsh a I ellglolls path that l n ~ o l ~ good e d T+OIl\s In the ~ \ o r l dEach moTement failed as the church ~ o n t l n u a l l \lrllposed tlle clolster rule oil feinale coinnlunlties a i d refused to allol+ the111 a role ln the norld. See Jones, The Chn)rtcrbleIn7$onfzzle, 97-99

172

Notes to Pages 22-25

34. For d e t a ~ on l the InnoTatlons of the L IncentIan model, see Sloban Nelson, "Enterlilg the Profess~oilalDolnaln ln Se\enteenth Cerlturl France," AYrr~sritg H z s t o ) ~Pezlrezo 7 (1999): 171-88. 33. \Iagra\, TIIPT~n~!\fofor I I L ! I ! ~ P Ooftlip ~ O PLYlt~ois, I 36-37. 56. E\\ens, "Tlle L e a d e r s h ~ pof Nuns," 103. 37. hl. R. hlcGlnle\, A L ) I I ! ( ~ I ~(IfHo1)~: II( I ~ ! \ t ~ t i OJTT~IIILPI! ~t~s R~l!g!octs11i Altst~crl~cr (S\drle\: Crosslrlg Press, 1996), 70 38. These texts \ \ e r e also read b\ Nlght~ngaleand \ \ e l e the slthject of c o ~ ~ e s u o i l d e i l ~ ebet\\eerl llerself and hlotller h l a n hloore of the Berrlloildse\ S~sters of \1e1 c\, ~ + haccolnpamed o Nlght~ngaleto the C:rllnea and \ \ h o remalned someSee Liar\ C . tlllilg of a splr~tual~oilfessorto Nlghtlilgale 111 the \ears follo\+~ilg. S l l l l ~ ~ aTli(>Fr!~1!d\11!1) n, ofFlor~~!c~~Y!glit!~!g/~l~ I I I ! 111/111 ~ C l c 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 o( P o 1h~~ l a d e l ~ ~ h ~ a . Ui11\ e r s t \ of Penils\ 1\ ailla Press, 1999). 39 Jones, T l i ~Clrn~!tcrblc> I I I I ~ ) P I ( I ~106-8 I T J P , f o ~a ~ I S C I I S S I O I I of the conference S\ stem. 60 T h e c o n f e ~ences entered the I ehg~ollsh t e ~ atllre \+1t11texts such as the Irnrtc~tzoCh)rstz as standard fare 111 r e l ~ g ~ o tralnlng. us The\ \+erepartl~ularl\useful for nu1 slng comlnlumtles 61. LIagra\, The T~critsfo~ mritg Pozoe) of the rrits, 119, offers examples of tlle lengths sisters \lent to h a \ e t h e i ~o\\n choice of p~iest appointed. 62. Cited ill ihid., 118. 63. This \\as a long legal plocess that i n ~ o l ~ esc~llplllolls d docllmentation in Latln. It \\as al\+a\sa great lrlolrleilt for a Lolnlnuillt\ \\hell tins \\as granted. 64 T h e C:omlnlurnt\ of the Slste~sof St Joseph \+erea n o t h e ~colnlnumt\ \+1t11a lrlotllerllouse structure, Llotller Setoil's S~stersof C h a r ~ t \ ,too, had a ~notllerhollse structure fi oln the b e g ~ n m n g\ l hen the\ lnel ged \+1t11the FI ench Daughters of Charlt\ ln 1850 the\ of Lourse assulrled tlle o r ~ g l n alrlodel l of St. \'111~ent. T h e 11~ s hS~stersof C:hal 1t1 ha\e a ~ n o t h e r l ~ o l ~tnodel, se as d o the French C anadlail Daughters of P r o \ ~ d e i l ~ e . 63 See h l a g ~a\, TIIPT r n ~ i r f IoI~L ! I ! ~ P Oo~f tOJ rP~I~ Y i o !107-30; \, C:oburn a n d Smith, " 'Pra\ for 170ur IVailderers"', Eneils, Tlle Leaderslup of Nuns," 128-37, and Thompson, "\\omen, F e m ~ n ~ s lann, d the Ne\+ R e l ~ g ~ o lH l s~ s t \," o ~ 142, 117 f o ~a A \

67 FOI Instance, C obllrn a n d Slnlth relate the extlaoldlnarll\ complex busliless deallrlgs and ilegotlatloils that p r e ~ e d e dtlle no\ e of tlle S~stersof St.Joseph C a1 ondelet Into C:olo~a d o The\ ensured that, u n l ~ k eother slste~hoods, the11 propert\ \+auld he seLure fro111the notorlous blsllop, \ t h o al\+a\sd ~ ilegotlatlons d \\lth l a \ \ ~ eslIn to\+ See C:oburn a n d Slnlth, " 'Pral for Your \landel el s "' 68. See Stenart, Jlc~)zlelsofChn)zt),97-99. 69 C:ather~nePI ehnqer's T+OII\ 1s one of the fell schola~I\ sources a ~ a l l a b l eIn Eilgllsll o n tins perlod o n \+onlenand rellgloil ln Gernlan\. See Chn~rtj,Chnlleitge, n ~ u Clrn~ig[>, l 10 e d El~zahetllF r \ ' s prlsorl \\orl\, tlle nurs70. Fl~ediler\\as orlylilall\ ~ i l f l u e i l ~ h\ lng s ~ d eof the opelatlon, h o \ + e \ e ~dolnlnated , from the earl\ d a ~ sXbdel Ross IVentz, Flzedite~ the Fc~rthful(Plllladelphla. Board of Puhl~catlonsof tlle U i l ~ t e d Lutheran C hllrc11 In X l n e ~lca, 1936), 3 1 71. Casteras, "Vlrglil \'o\\s," 129-60. 72 Ehzabetl~Fr\'s group, called the Slste~sof hlercl, n e l e s ~ m p nolnen l~ \\ho

Notes to Pages 27-32

173

u n d e ~took nursing d u t ~ e saftel some t~alnlng; the\ had I eferences from the11 ir11n1ster. ( I I I ~ Jt1r~Xirrr111g Lr>g(~c~ ( L o n d o n C:room 73 \Iomca E Ball, Flo~(~~~~(~~Y/glrt~~~g~~.lll(~ Helin, 1986). 74. Ibld., 1-4. 73 I b ~ d, 3 1 76. hloilica E. Ball, "The Niglltlrlgale Nurses. Tlle l I \ t l l a n d tlle Reallt\," ln u)sri/g H r s t o ~ j The Sfnfe of the f , ed. Cllristopller hlaggs (Lolldoll. C roo111 Helm, 1987), 33-39 77. For a n anal\sls of this re\isioilisnl see Slobail Nelson, "Readiilg Nursiilg Hlstorl," Srr1sri/gI)7qrrz))4, 4 (1997). 229-36. 78 Anne Summers, " h l ~ m s t e r ~ nAngels," g Histo,\ T o d n ~39 ( F e b r l l a ~ l1989). 31-37. 79. Anile Suinnlers,Judith hloore, a n d Carol Helirlstadter ha\ e ~ o r l t r i b u t e dto our ~ m p r o ~ ealtareness d of the llnpoltance of the St John's House muses In gaiiliilg ~ r e d e i l ~for e tlle ilotioil of tralned ilurslng. See Xilrle Sunlnlers, "The Cost a n d Benefits of Cariilg. Nurslng Cllarlties, c 1830-1860," ln I\.1edz~z~7eo17d C1in11hB(@IPtli~TTFlf(/~(> \ t n t ~ ,e d Jonathan B a r n a n d C ohn Jones (London. Routledge, 1991), 133-48 a n d Xilrle Suinnlers, "Fraine\\orl\s or Stralgacl\ets? Secular a i d Rellglous Models 111 tlle Historlograph\ of Nurslng," 111 Post Is P,esei/t The C1IHLY/ACHLY&I ~iot(> P I ( > S ~ I I ~ (1988/ ~ I ~1996, I I ~ , e d S h e ~ l Ja Ranl\~nZen (L ancomer. Cailadiail Xsso~iatlonfor tlle Hlstorl of Nursing, 1997), 31-37, Moore, Zeolfo) Resf~onsrbrlzf).See also Carol Helinstadter, "Robert Berltlel Todd, Salnt John's House, a n d the O r ~ g l n sof the \Iodern Tralned Nluse," B l t l l p t ~of~ ~t l i ~ 3 (1993). 282-319. H z s f o ~ofl\.1edzcz)7e67, j 80. F. B. Snlith, Flo~enceA\zghtri/gole Pef~rrtotroi/nnd Pozoe~ (London. Crooirl Helm, 1982), 27 81. Suininers, "Fraine\\orl\s o r Straitjacl\ets?" 219. 82. See Sunliners, "The Cost a n d Benefits of C ariilg" a n d Helnlstadter, "Robert B e n t l e ~Todd " 83. Colleen Adele Hobbs, Flo~ei~ce~\igl~fzngnlP (Ne\\ Yorli: T\ia\ ne, 1997), 12-13, 26. 8 4 S m ~ t hR(prtcrtio~~ , cr11dP o u ~ ~23-68 r, 85. lIagra\, The T ~ n i t s f rnri/gP07~1~) o~ of the ,\ilns, 77-78. 86. Alaller, To Bznd [P the Tlbrritds. 87 h a t n n Sch~llthe~ss, " 'La Lentable ~ n e d ~ c des ~ n efelnmes'. Anna H a m ~ l t o n a i d tlle Polltics of Nurslng Reforirl ln Bordeaux, 1900-1914," F ~ e n c hHzsfo~rcol Studres 19, 1 (Sprlng 1995). c e S ~ s t seof ~ the Inca1 nate \ \ o r d both d e h ~ e r e d 88 T h e S~stersof P r o ~ ~ d e n and bables \ \ h e n need arose. 111 Buffalo the Daugllters of C llarlt\ rail the nlaternlt\ A \

hospital. 89 C:lea~,LYlt~~r I I I L Y ~ ~ ~ ~ t c .Cc ~ . ~~~i ttrl riIr rj ~ l n ~91, ~ d 127 , 90. 111 in\ olirl rlurslrlg experleilw, \illell I \\orl\ed at a irlajor (ilon-C atllolic) teachiilg llospltal ill .Australia ln tlle 1980s all inale preoperati\ e s h e s a i d e\ ell c a t h e t e r ~ z a t ~ oliere n s 1 x 1 formed bl male "dressel s "

1. Tlle Board that "sail~tioiled"bulldlng o r ~oilslderablerepair \ins inade u p of the slstel s e n a n t as P ~ e s l d e n ta n d t ~ i oother Dallghters of C h a r ~ t las secre-

174

Notes to Pages 32-35

tar\ a n d treasurer D a u g h t e ~s of C h a r ~ XI t ~ c h l ~ e s hlbanl , (he1 eafter DOC:X), 11-33-01, '1-1. 2. Tins figure does not 111~ludellospltals nlailaged b\ the slsters but olirled b\ the colunt~01 d ~ o c e s e See George C: S t e n a ~t, J I , L11/~t7~~!r of Clr(/)it\ H o t o t l oj r, .AllpenL4ine)rcoi/Srsfe~soitd *\uns (Huilt~ilgtoil,Iild.. O u r Suilda\ V ~ s ~ t o1994), d ~ Cx , 3 1 3 f o ~a colnplete hst of these hosp~tals 3. There h a \ e been French, Frerlcll Cailad~ail,and Gerrllarl colnnlunltles of \\omen Inslxled b\ the Dallghte~sof C : h a ~ ~ th\ l o t h e ~Seton n a s the first In \\hat \\as to b e ~ o r l l ea n Irlsll, Eilgllsll, Xnler~can,a n d Xustral~arlflood of Englishs p e a k ~ n gcolnlnumtles to folio\\ this path, from \la1 T A k e n h e a d a decade late1 In Cra~l ~ u t t a . Ireland to Llotller Teresa 111 t n e n t ~ e t h - ~ e n t u 1 B\ 1890 Amencan C athol~csconst~tlltedthe la1 gest d e n o m ~ n a t ~ oInn the couiltrl, \ \ ~ t lol \ e r se\eil lrllll~orlnlenlbers, or 12 percent of the population. See C harles hlorns, \ni~it,n ~ i l l\/~i~iCvr( N ~ 1'M 01 k. Tllnes Books, 1 9 9 i ) , 81-83 Hrsfo~rcolL4ccorri/t of the 5. See Thnthrop S. Hudson, Pelrgron rit L4ine~rco 's, 1981) f o ~a dlscllss~on D P T J P ~ O ~OI ~~~)~) II~I!PP II II C~R( ~I Il !i g o i oL l f >( N e ~1'l01 k. SC~IIIIICI of the Great ,1\$nlienlng ln e~ghteeiltll-ceiltur\Ne\$ England, especlall\ exelnpllfied b~ the r e ~ l r a l sled b\ George I l h ~ t e f i e l d(1711-i0), and the decades of the Second Great .A\\al,eil~ilgln the earl\ illileteeiltll Lenturl. These lrleetlrlgs Lert a l n l ~stlrred cotnmltlnent to the forces of Ref01 lnatlon a n d ennut\ to\\ard C:at h o l ~ ~ l s nPreacher l. L\nlail B e e ~ l l e rdelnered anti-Cathol~c. serrlloils to the Boston c r o ~ t d s ,dais before a mob b l u n e d a conTent to the ground See Steltart, Jfn)7~elsof C h n ~ r t j84. , 6 Ibld ,94-93 7. Marla Llonl,, TheLi7~lfrrlDrsclosu~es of,\.fn~rn Jfonk, 07 the Seoefs o f n Srrit s Lzfr 277 n Co1!7~p1!tE~porc'cI (18%; Ye\\ York. D hl Bennett, 1878) 8. See J e n m Francllot, Roods to Roine The L4i/t~belluin P)otestoi/t Encorritto 702th ( B e ~ k e l e \L. m ~ e r s of ~ tC:allfornla ~ Press, 1993) for a d~scllss~on of t h ~ s Cntliol~o,~r! fi~t~on." i l ~ i l e t e e n t h - ~ e n t u"pulp r\ 9 C h r ~ s t o l ~ hJe r hauftman, JIo!irtrj n ~ ! ddI~>cr~io!g A H i r t o ~of~ Cntliol~cH ( ~ ~ l t l r C n ~ 277 e the itzfed Sfntes (Ne\\ 170rl,.Crossroad, 1995), 80. 10 SeeJoseph G hlannard, "C o m e l ts In C onTents. P ~ o t e s t a nIlolnen t a n d the S o ~ l a Appeal l of C a t h o l ~Rel~glous ~ L ~ f eln Xiltebellurll X l n e r ~ ~ aPeco~ds ," of the A I ~ ! P I I C C( I/Il !t l i o l ~Hotot1~(11 ~ \ O ( I P ~ \ ofPliil(/d~~1111(1 104, 1-4 (1993). 79-90 It \ \ o l ~ l d appear that 111 ailtebelluln Xrller~cathe teaclung slsters \$ere \ e r \ suc~essful111 " t u r n ~ n g "some of the11 n a l d s tonald the C hllrch and attracting r e c r l u t s f o ~the11 o\\11CoII1I11Ullltles. 11 See Franchot, Rocrd, to R O I ~f !oP~an exan11lnat1on of PI otestalnt rep1 esentaln n~neteeiltll-ceilturlX l n e r l ~ a . tlorls of C atllol~c~srll 12 \ I a n n a ~ d ,"C:on~ertslnC h n ~ e n t s , "i 9 13. See Sloban Nelson, "Eilterlng the Profess~oilalDorllalil ln 17th Ceiltur\ France," L Y ~ ~ t , ~ ~ ! g HR ~P ,TtJoI t7P~~(1999). ~J 171-88 14. Tins persolla1 recollect~orlfrom the author of a Illstor\ of the Trol Hospital. Hand\\ntten, c 1891 DOC:X, 11-23-01; 12-2/10W2a 15. Ste\\art, J f n 7lels ~ o f C h n ~ r t j99. , 16 T h e Sull~lclansnereaFrench cotnmunlt\ of p n e s t s ~ $ h estabhshed o the first selrllilar\ 111 the U r l ~ t e dStates and a ~ t e das splr~tualdirectors of the Elnnlltsburg m o t h e ~ h o ~ l fs eo ~a 1 x 1 ~ o d 17. IblCl. 18 Be1 nadette hlcC:aule\, " ' S u b l ~ m eA n o m a l ~ e s 'Ilolnen Rehg~ollsand Ro-

Notes to Pages 37-40

175

man C:athohc H o s l ~ ~ t aIn l s Ne\\ 1b1L C:lt\ 1330-1920," J o c o ~ ~ nofl t 1 1 H15torj ~ of Jfedrcri/e nitd Allred Sczences 52 (Jul\ 1997). 60. 19 T h e f i ~ ecolnmunltles, In a d d ~ t ~ oton the Dallghte~s11nlfied \+1t11France, \ \ e r e the S~stersof C l l a r ~ t \of St. \ 7 ~ i 1 ~ edi let Paul, Ne\+ Yorli, S~stersof Charlt\ of S~stersof C llr1rlt\ of St. St. \'111~entd e Paul, Hallfax, S~stersof C l l a r ~ t \C, 111~1nilat1, El~zabeth,C:on~entStat~on;S~stersof C : h a ~ ~ of t \ Seton H111,G r e e n b u ~ gSee Stel+art, Jlcr~7lels of Chcr~zf), 103. 20. Margaret Susan Thonlpsoil, To Se17le the Peojle of God A\znefeenfh Ceittu,) C entel I l o Ling ~ Papers sel 13, 2 Jist~15(111dt 1 1 C~ I P ( / ~ I of11 O I I R ~ l i g o i oL$>, C 11s11~+a (South Bend, Iild.. Cushna Center for the Stud\ of Xnler~cailC a t h o l l ~ ~ s nUn1l, \ e r s t \ of Notre Danle,1987). 21 In the case of the S ~ s t se of ~ St Joseph, the11 I eol ganlzatlon fi oln d~ocesan C O I I ~ I ~ ~ U I to ~ I ~ I~~eSn t r a l ~ z e struLture d 111 1860 placed the hlsllop of St. LOUIS, i l authorlt\ o \ e r all tllelr Xnler~cailhouses. Blsllop Kenrl~li,111 the p o s ~ t ~ o of Bishops fi oln se\ el al d~oceses,sllch as Butt alo, refused permlsslon f o ~the11 S ~ s t se ~ of St.Josepll e\ ell to attend the irleetlilg to discuss the proposed cllailges 111 tllelr coilst~tut~oil. Tlle resultlilg s p l ~\+as t de\astatlilg to the coinnlunlt\. See C arol I(. C oburn a n d hlartha S m ~ t h ,5p111tc~l L I T I P SH O U Xio15 J \li(/pc>oPd C / I ~ / I O ICIcCl l t i ~ r(IIICJ ~ L4ine)rccri/Lrfe, 1186-1920 (Chapel H111. Ui11\ e r s t \ of North Carollila Press, 1999), 56-60. 2 2 S t e ~ + at a1 1 gues that the tenslon \+asalso the I esult of French men, S l l l l ~ ~ c ~ a n Ste\+art, and \'111~ent1anprlests, and Irlsll nlen, hlsllops and s e ~ u l a ~ r l e r g \ See . Jfn)7~elsof C h n ~ r t j128. , 23 S t e n a ~t, thollgh a c h a m l ~ ~ oofn the slsters, appeals to fall Into t h ~ ts ~ a pH e \\rites as ~fthe dl\ ~ s ~ oofi lthe Xrller~carlS~stersof C l l a r ~ t \\as \ a ~ l a s lbet\\eerl l inell and the slsters \ \ e r e sl~ghtl\dazed \ ~ ~ t ~ n l s . 24 In Ireland there \+asutter d~sbehef( a n d f u r \ ) among the episcopate \\hen rl \+onfrom Rome lrldepeildeil~efroin ~ l e r l ~~nterference. al the C l l r ~ s t ~ aBrothers Tlle hlsllops declared that the Brothers \\auld be banned from d~ocesesforthn Elnlnet L a ~ L l n ,Tlip R O I I L ~Cntliolit ~II Chcotlr cr~idt l i ~ \ \ ~ t h - ~dt ~ not d h a l ~ l ~ eSee C~entronof the I ~ z s hStcrfe (Phlladelphla. Xnler~cailPllllosopll~calSouet\, 1975), 1011. A ~ m ~ g e "The r, H ~ s t o ~ofr the Hosp~tal\loll\ of the ~ 23 S ~ s t eBernadette \ St. Vlnceilt d e Paul ln the Eastern Pro\lrlce of the U r l ~ t e d Daughters of C l l a r ~ t of States, 1823-1860" (Master of Sc~erlce111 Nurslilg Educatloil tlles~s,C a t h o l ~ ~ L nlr el s ~ t of \ X l n e ~Ica, 1 9 1 i ) , 106 26. Cllarles E. Rosenherg, The Cholon I'en~s The itzfed Sfntes 177 1832, 1849, nnd 1866 (C 111~ago. Un11erslt\ of C imago Press, 1962). 27 See S ~ s t eh~l a r ~G a b ~ ~ H e le n m n g e ~ ,\15t~r\ of \t dlorj n11d T I I P IH~( > n l o ~ g ,\.IZSSZOII(St. L o u ~ sS~sters . of St. h l a n of the Tlllrd Order of St. F r a i l ~ ~1979), s, 1, I ~tins ~ ~ proLess \ \ ~ t lthe l Gerrllarl S~stersof St. Mar\, and Gerald A. for a ~ I S L U S S of hell\, Tlrp L i p of JIotli~r H I P I O I I I I(Rocheste~, ~IO N Y . C h r ~ s t o l ~ l ~Press, er 1900) (DOCX, 11-33, 19-5/14 #1 5a, 2) for tlus proLess 111tllthe Daughters of C l l a r ~ t 111 \ the Nortlleast. 28 hell\, Tlrp Llf? ofdlotli~rH / ( > I o II ~I ~I 3O , 29. See Peter Bronn, T h e Bod) nnd Socref) Jlen, Tloinen, nnd Sexrrnl Rei/rri/crntr0)7 277 E n ~ l Ch)rsfzcrnrtj ) (London. Faher and Faber, 1990). 30 R o s e n b e ~g, Tlip C/rol(~rnE > n ~ s139, , cltes corl esl~ondencefor R ~ c h a r dHen1 Dana to Mrs. Dana, 11 .A~~gust 1848, Dana Papers, hlassachusetts H l s t o r ~ ~ Soal clet\. "111 splte of all \ o u sa\, I b e l ~ e \ ethat ~fail\hod\ goes to hea\en from Boston ~ C:hal ~ t and \ the Roman C a t h o l ~ celerg\ " ~t\\111 be the S ~ s t se of

176

Notes to Pages 40-43

31 It Tias a strategl that fa~ledIn Australla Fl~st,the long sea roTage to S ~ d n e ~ functloiled as a ilatural quararltlrle and epldelrl~cs\\ere ne\er as se\ere ~n ,111sqlute rude11 decl~nedan\ otters t ~ a h aas else\\he~eSecond, the state allthor~t~es fro111tlle slsters lillerl the oLLasloil d ~ arlse. d The\ liere lrlost coil~errledthat the\ \\auld not be able to renlo\e tllerll after\\ard. But ln the Url~tedStates tlle epldeln~cs\\ere of sllch a seTele natlue that an\ assistance at all Tias ~ l n l ~ o s s ~to ble refuse. 32. Da\ld TVard, Crtres crndIi,li,lzg~nntsLA Geog~@h)of Chnnge 217 ,\iiteteeitth-Ceitt~,) ~ ~ I ~ I P I(Yell I C ~ I York. Oxford L m r e r s ~ P~ess, t~ 1978), 33 l ~ ~ abouild. See Kauffnlail, Jfznrst~) nnd Jlenit33. Eulog~esfor the e p ~ d e r lnurses zng, 30-63 for the storl of cholera ilurslng. 34 T~lnonto Rer LOUIS Delllol, 10Xp11l1849, c ~ t e d~nJean R~chardson,"C atho l ~ cRellglous TZhlrleil as Irlst~tut~oilal Iilno\ators. The S~stersof C llar~t\and the fise of the Modern Urban Hospltal 111 Buffalo, NX7, 1848-1900" (PhD dlssertal 1b1kat Buffalo, 1996), 117-18 tlon, State U n ~ r e ~ sof~ tNe\\ 33. BrrffnloJledzcnl[orr~nnl, quoted b\ ficllardsoil. 36. I b ~ d . 37 Robert \I T Huntel, E d ~ t o r ~ aTTirrlr~~igto~/ l, \(>~/to/pl, 9 Augllst 1833, c ~ t e db~ Xrnl~ger,"Tlle Hlstorl of the Hospltal TVorli," 83. 38. Xrlnlger, "The H~stor\of tlle Hospltal TZhrl\," 86. 39 Ibld 40. The Tlrlloil corresporlderlce 111~ludesa letter from Tlladdeus A n a t to T~nloil,26 Februarl 1844,lilll~hdiscusses the proposal to put forliard a petltloil to the leglslatlu e at N e ~ Orleans i to ask f o ~a 1101tlon of the land that 1s to be glren to tlle S~stersof Charltl, to lil~ludese\en aLres for a serlllilarl b e ~ a u s ethe slsters \\111need ~onfessors.He sa\s, "The legislature appears that all are generalll lie11 dlsposed to help us, pal t~cllla~ll f o ~the norltlate for the slstels " L~ncent~ans C ollectloil, IV3-Nl, Xrclll\es of the Ui11\erslt\ of Notre Dr1lrle. 41. Altogether th~rt\-fi\erlllll~orlEuropean llrllrllgrarlts entered the Uil~ted States In 1830-1980 In the peak Tear of 1834, 427,838 llnlnlgrants e n t e ~ e dof , \\honl 213,000 liere Gernlail and 102,000 Irlsh, see Ph111p Tallor, The Dzstnnf Jfngitet Eu~of~enn Emrpntron to the I T S L i(London. E\re 8s Spott~s\\oode,1971), 62-63 The Ir~shsent bl fa1 the la1 gest proportion of t h e ~ elmgrants r to h l n e ~ Ica (about fi\e nllll~on).TVlth tlle Great Falnlne, poor C a t h o l ~peasants ~ \astl\ outilulnbered the slillled Protestants \tho llad pre\~ousl\represented tlle Inajorlt\ of 11~ s h1mn11g1 ants See Patr~ckBless~ng,"11~ s hEln~grat~on to the Umted States, 1800-1920. An O\er\~eli,"ln The I~zshr i t ,imozcn Emrpntroit, LAssri,lzlntro~7,nnd Irn;Dnct,ed. P. J. Drud\ (Neli Yorli. C arllbrldge Uill\ers~t\Press, 1983). AIIL(>II(~I/ Plrrrcrhrr~~, Brrf/llo, ,Y(>~J Yorlr, 182512 Darld Gel ber, Tlr~dI/~lro/gofcr~/ 60 (Urbaila. Uill\ers~t\of Illlrlo~sPress, 1989), 31 1-13. 43. Ib~d.,182-84. 14 Jean R~chardson,"A Tale of T ~ i oN~neteenthC e n t l l l ~Hosl~~tals. Bufalo Hospltal of the S~stersof Charltl and Buffalo General Hospltal," 111JledzcnlHzsfo~) 217 Ez~jnlo,Collected Essnqs, ed. Lll11 Steiltz (Buffalo. Scllool of Nurslilg and Blomed~calSciences, State L nlr el s ~ oft Ye\\ ~ York at Butt alo, 1996), 47-60 43. I b ~ d .Tlle Annual Report for 1856 sllolis tlle Inlportai1Le of llrlrlllgrarlt funding. of 487 patleilts, 216 are from Ireland, 144 fro111 Gerlnain, and oil11 63 Sem~-~lnnllal Report to from the Lmted States House Surgeon and Phls~c~an's the Board of Pl1\s1clarls and Suryeons, and staff of the Buffalo Hospltal of tlle r 1835-Xprll 1, 1856. EzIffnloJledzcnl[orr1i~nl12(June S~stersof Cllar~t\,O ~ t o b e 1, 1836): 62.

Notes to Pages 43-47

177

1b R ~ c h dson, a ~ "Cathol~cRel~g~olls Ilolnen," 101 funds into h o s p ~ t ~o\\iled ~ l s h\ the slsters nns 47. The d~shurseirleiltof pub11~ not a lnoTe \\elcolned br all S~stersIn Butt a10 I ecelred their fiunds ~lnchallenged n ailtl-C ntllol~ccoiltro\ers\, but the\ \$ere ln 1849. Tllelr 1850 a p p l ~ ~ a t l ostlrred funded ln 1851. See ficllardsoil, "C ntllol~cRellqlous IVoineil," 109-10. 111 fact, this parment rlas the slll~jectof restllctlre leg~slat~on In Tarlolls states Nonetheless, e\ en nllere leglslntloil d ~ edu s t p r o l l ~ h ~ t ~tnxpnrers' ilg fuilds from qo~ilgto a C ntllol~cfoundatloll, ~td ~ 111 d f n ~ocLur. t Tlle practlLe \$as e\en to sur\l\e n 1920 court challenge lunde~the Fnst Ilnendlnent See Rosemarr S t e ~ e n sI,I ! \iclr~!(>,, Ceittz~))(Neil Yorli. BASILBooks, and 277 Tlecrlth Aineirccrn Hos;Drtcrls rit the T7~~~)7tzeth 1989), 313-16, and Kathleen 11.Jo\ce, "Sc~erlceand the Snlilts. Xnler~cailCathoe~ P ~ ~ n c e t oUnm ~ e r s ~ t1993), r, 11csand Health Care, 1880-1930" (PhD d ~ s s tatlon, 76-116. 48. fichnrdsoil, " C a t h o l ~R~e l ~ g ~ oIVonlen, us ' 112. 1 9 I b ~ d, 113 50. DOCX, 11-23-01, 12-2/10 #2a. 51. Xrinlqer, "The H ~ s t o r of \ the Hospltnl TZork, 78. H ! ~ I O I ! \ I I 3; L Osee , also IIm ~ g e 'The ~ , H ~ s t ro of ~ the 52 hellr, T l r ~L i p ofJIot11~1 Hospltnl TZork, 88. 53. Gall Fnrr Cnsterl~ne," ' T n ~ c eas Irish'. Hlstorr of St. Joseph's Hospltal, P h ~ l a d e l l ~ hPLI, ~ a , 1849-1900" (paper, Amencan \Ied~calH ~ s t r, o ~U n l r e ~ s ~ of tr Penils\l\ailla, 1982), 22. DOCX 11-34, 1-2/2 #1. See also Gall Fnrr C nsterllile, "St. Joseph s and St. Llnrr s. Tlle Or~glrlsof C a t h o l ~ Hospltnls ~ 111 Plllladelphla," PeititI cr~iclBiog~c/plr\ 108, 3 (1984). 291-311 ,\h~cr~!!n d I / l g c / z ! ~rlfHisto1 !~ 54. Ihld., 94. -3 3 . S~ster Celeste C uinnl~ilgs," H ~ s t o r \of the Hospltal IVorli and the De\ elopment of the Schools of N u ~ s ~ nofg the S ~ s t e of ~ sC h a r ~ t rIn the Eastel n P r o r ~ n c e (1860-1900) ' (Master of Sc~erlceln Nurslilg Education thes~s,C a t h o l ~Uilner~ s ~ t rof X i n e r ~ ~1948), n, 17. 5b Ibld 57. Ihld., 20. 58. Ih~d.,lP. 59 Steltart, L11/~t7~~Is ofCli/lt!tl, 76 ~ ,the slsters felt ~t 60. The role of the res~deiltnled~calofficer \\as p r o b l e i n a t ~as \\as lrllposslhle for tlleirl to star at the llospltnl\~~tll a \ ounq inail. 61 FOI a d~scllss~on of ma1 ~ n hosl~~tals, e see John Jensen, "Befo~e the Surgeon General. Llnrlile Hospitals 111 h11d-19th Cerlturr Xnler~cn, Prrblrc Health P e f ~ o ~ t s (No\enlber-De~enlher1997). 112, 323-27. 62TThe lned~calstudents \\el e also a so111ce of Income for the slsters See 125th Anill\ ersar\ of S~stersHospltal, DOCX, 11-27-04, 7-2/3X #14, 6. See also slqn~ficant dates for the Buffalo Hospltal of the S~stersof C llarltr, DOCX, 11-27-00, 1-11 #l a us ' 222, 223-29. 63. fichnrdsoil, " C a t h o l ~R~e l ~ g ~ oIVonlen, 64. I h ~ d .233-34. , 63 1b1d ,2Sb-38 66. I h ~ d .238-39. , 67. C l l a r ~ t ~ eBuffalo s Annual Report, 1903, DOCX, 11-27-00, 1-11 #3, lrlcorlle from count1 patients $12,000, from p~Irate patlents $39,000 68. Casterllne, "St. Joseph's and St. hIar\'s," 303. , 69. I h ~ d .297-98. 70 I b ~ d, 3 0 3

178

Notes to Pages 47-50

71 St Joseph's Hosp~tal,49th Annual Repol t, 1897, 36, DC)C:X 11-31-00;1-1/2 #4. 72 Report of the Tra~mngSchool, St Josel~h'sP h ~ l a d e l l ~ h1897, ~ a , 37, DOCA 11-34-00,1-1/ 2 #3. 73. LInr\ E\\ens, The Role of the ,El77 277 A\ri/efeenfh-Cei/tu,) ,ime,zcn (Ne\\ 170rk. XI no Press, 1978), 230-31 74. R. Llnrtln, "Tile\ Ser\ed the SILL,ln Nortll and Soutll," Jlrlzfn)) Jfedrcri/e (Juh 1961). 575, for n table of all irl~l~tnr\ llospltnls ser\ed b\ the Daughters dlu ~ n the g \tar 73. Kauffnlail, Jfznrst)) nitd Jlecri/zng, 83, LInr\ Derl~shlaher, To Bznd I'l, the Tlbunds Cntholrc Srsfe~,\il,ses 277 the I T S Cr71z1 I l k ) (Neil Yorli. Greeilnood Press, 1989) 76. Hone\er, for others llospltnl rlurslrlg opened up ile\\ posslblllt~es,nrld orders for \tho111 rlurslrlg llad not beer1 a prlinnr\ focus, such as the S~stersof the Hall C:ross, became enthlls~ast~c 11osl11tal muses See Barbra \Iann Ilall, of Irlsll C a t h o l ~S~ster ~ "Rel~g~on, Ethn~~~ and t \ ,Nurslng. Tlle Xirler~~nrl~znt~oil Nurses," 111 P~oceedri/gsof the C O I I ~ ~ I P077I I the C PH z s f o ) ) of Tloineit Relzgzol~~, Lolola L nlr el s ~ tC:hlcago, ~, Jlune 1998 (C:h~cago,1998) 77. Dorotln DIXnns not a supporter of the iluils. The\ \$ere not under her autllor~t\nrld llnd an untroubled relat~onsll~p \ \ ~ t lthe l irl~l~tnr\ that irlust lla\e he^ See Eltens, T I I P ~ Y I 0L ,I L! Y / ~ i ( ~ t ( ~ ( ~ ~ ! t l i~- C ~ I( ~~ ~~iPt 221-10; rI( l!l c ( I , Jane E ~llfll~lated S~llultz,"Tlle Irlllosp~tableHospltnl. Gender nrld Profess~onal~snl 111 C1\11 TVnr hled~clne,"Srgns (Thnter 1992). 367. Tlle cllnrges of prosell t~sirlappear to ha\ e foundat~on,but ~t 1s d ~ f f i c ~to l t knov \ \ h ~ c hslstels responded In t h ~ sna\ It 1s poss'ble that \toinell irlore used to ilurslilg n irllx of C ntllol~csand Protestants \\auld be irlore sensltl\ e to the seLtnrlai1 Issues and just do tllelr job. Tlle accounts o f n a ~nursing do not asslst In cla~lf\lngt h ~ question s 78. E\\ens, Tl!e,\i~n 277 A\znefeenfh-Cenfrr,4 Aine~rccr,221. 79. Grnrlt llnd expressed a prefererlce for n ilurslng slster to perform the lloilor as he felt the11 \\ark had not been propel I\ I ecogn~zed, and 111spersonal t~ aln \\as dlspnt~lledfor Llotller Josephlile, \eternrl of the Battle of Perrl~llle,Kentuck\. See Stenart, J f n )71ek of C h n ~ r t j183. , 80 For Instance, see the elllog~esf o ~S ~ s t eHleron~lno ~ Cl'B~lenof St Marl's, Ro~hester.H~eron\irlo\$assoirletll~ilgof a ~llnrllp~oil and hero for the tllousailds of sold~ersshe nursed. Slle salt tlleirl through n snlnllpox e p ~ d e i nllnd ~ ~ ,an officer d~slnlssedf o ~to1 tw lng the Inen, and I efilsed to allo~lgual ds to be laced on sold~ersln her llospltal. See Kell\, The L2fr o f J l o t h o Hre~onjmo. 81. Ursula Steps~snrld Dolores Llptak, eds., Pzoi~ee)Hecrle~s The H z s f o ) )of Tlbineit ( ~I~!l tCl r ~ I(Ye\\ P York. C:rossroad, 1989), 287 R[>l!g!octr / I ! A I I L P I IH( O 3 June 1861, c ~ t e d111 Cuinin~ilgs,"Hlstor\ of the 82. Dnzl) ,\irfzoi/nI I~~feIlrgei/ce~, Hospltnl TZhrli," 1. 83 TT?r\ho!gto~!E 7 ~ 1 ! i 1 i\to), g 29Jllne 1861, quoted In ~ b ,~3 d 84. Ib~d.,3. LIoreo\er, \\hen Congress declded to build n contaglous llospltal, the slsters offered the land nrld ln return \$ere gnen the Lolltract to inailage the lnstltutlon See TTirrhi~igto~! Port, 26 September 1899, quoted In ~ b ~7d In , 1901 the\ recen ed a further $50,000 froin C orlgress for an extensloll. 83. Kell\, The Lrfe o f J f o t h e ~H Z P ) O I I ) I )3.I O , o 86 The rate f o ~these patlents \\as $1 30 1 x 1 \\eel\ S ~ s t eH~ ~ e r o n ~ mkept i appll~atlonsfor funding. s~rupulousrecordsto b n ~ lher 87. S~sterLInr\ Edinuild, "Br~efH~stor\of St. LInr\'s Hospltnl Rochester," s St h l a r ~'s, Rochester, 3 DC)C A, 11-33-00,2-2/ 1 #2g 1979 XI c h l ~ e of

Notes to Pages 30-36

179

88 hell\, Tlrp Llf? ofdlotli~rH / ( > I O~rlo, I I I 10 89. Cltl Hospltal opened ln 1864 but \$as too srllall to take nlan\ soldlers. See Slster Dell1111ne Steele, Hlstol leal sketch, St h l a n ' s , Rocheste~,DOC:X, 11-33 2-21 #3, 12. 90. Ibld. See also the reglster of CII 11TZkr soldlers at St. Marl 's, Ro~llester,1864, DC)C:X, 11-33-00; %2/2 #la; Edlnund, "Bnef Hlstol 1 of St hlarl's Hosp~talRochester," 4, DOCX, 11-33-00,2-21/#2g. 91. Ibld., 15. 92EEhzabeth Black~$ella n d E m ~ l lBlacl\\\ell, L I I ( ~ d i ( (15 i ~ ~(I ~P>I O P \ \ I O I I T~T O ~ ) ~J ~ I P I I (Neil Yorli. 1V.H. T~ilsoil,1860), 11-12, quoted ln Alanilard, "Coil\ erts ln Coillents," 81. 9 3 Lndated comlnlumcatlon fi oln Emm~tsbllrgto St h l a n ' s Rochester DOC A 11-33-00, 2-2, #2b. 94. Correspoildeil~e,St. Alarl's R o ~ l l e s t e rEinin~tsburg,12 Jailuar\ 1873, DC)C:X, 11-27-02; 6-1/ 1 #3 93. See inlilutes of St. Alarl's Rochester d l r e ~ t o r s nleetlilgs, ' 1837-1949. gas s t o ~ lpi u r ~ l l a s e 25 , Ma\ 1889, authorize preslderlt (slster s e n a n t ) to pa\ off floatlng debt, 1 hral 1890 DOCA 11-33-01;B o x h 1 #17 d . for 96. Slsters Hospltal at Buffalo \$as also \ e r l profess~oilall\~ o n d u ~ t eSee, Instance, the nlaterlal o n Slsters Hospltal at Buffalo, Bond of C orporatloil, slgrled t slgned bl Slster bl Slster Ann Loll~se,DC)C:X, 11-27-02; 2-8 #la; a l c h ~ t e ccontract Alberta, 5 June 1861, 11-27-02,2-9#la, irlortgage docuineilts, 11-27-01, 4-9 #2. 97. Slster Arcailla, "This IS the ground nllere the slsters h a l e beell bur\lilg medals for leals-so the\ seem to be glonlng " St \Incent's h n l u l n , 28 hlal 1884. DOCX, 11-43-00, 1-3/1 # l . 98. See Slster AIarl Gabriel Heilnlnger, Szsfe~sof Snznf J l n i j nnd Thez, Henlritg d I i r \ i o ~(St ~ Louis S~stels of St h l a r ~of the T111rd C)I der of Salnt Franc~s,1979), i l letters to St. Joseph a n d to the Blessed Vlrglil froirl 362-64, for a ~ o l l e ~ t l oof hlotller Odllla of the Slsters of St. Frail~ls. 99 AI mlger, "The Hlstol 1 of the Hosp~tal\\ark," 82 100. 123th Xiln11 ersarl of Slster Hospltal, DOCX, 11-27-04, 7-2 5X #14, 10-1 1. 101. Xrnllger, "Tlle Hlstorl of the Hospltal IVorli," 75. 102 PI o ~ l d e n c eHosl~ltal,Detl olt, Arc111r es, c ~ t e dIn C ~lmlnlngs,"Hlstol 1 of the Hospltal IVorli," 34. See also Xrinlger, "The H ~ s t o r \of the Hospltal TZhrL," 72-74. a l \Iannlng, e 183" cclted In S e ~ m e rA, G P I I P I ~ I H I \ ~ ~ ~ I 103 Flolence N ~ g l ~ t ~ n gto ofSrrisri/g (London. Faber a n d Faber, 1932), 80. 104. For Instance, Slster Hleroil\rllo O'Brleil saled the leg of a irlarl she nursed In Bufalo H I Sgl atltude n a s lifelong H e loaned he1 $1200 fol the ne\\ 11osl11tal bulldlilg, sent her a horse and a co\\, a n d Larlle do\\il froirl Buffalo \$eelill to cut \ \ o o d and tld\ the llospltal grouilds. See Eielll, The L2fr of Jlofhe, Hreionjmo, 7.

1. C olleeil Adele Hobbs, F1o)ence AYzghtri/gnle(Ne\\ Yorli: TI\a\ ile, 1997), ~111. 2. X fact a ~ L n o \ \ l e d g e db\ hlstorlails s u ~ las l A l o n l ~ aBall a n d Anile Sunliners, \\hose \\ark emphas~zesthe contelnpolaneolls mo\etnents that g r a d u a l l ~Increased 111 inoineiltunl and resulted 111 the fornlal reforrll of ilurslilg a n d the establ~sllineiltof ilurslilg tralnlng ln the final quarter of the rllrleteeiltll ceiltur\. See hlonlca E. Ball, FIOIPIICP L Y ~ g l i t ~ ~ ~ng~(i/(llttl r ~Xirrro~gL ~ > ~ I (London: ICI CI ooln

180

Notes to Pages 56-59

Helm, 1986); Anne Sllmlne~s,"The hhstenolls D e m ~ s eof S a ~ a hLamp. T h e D o n l l ~ l l ~ a rNurse \ and H e r Detrn~tors," licto~zcrnStudzes 32 (1989). 363-86, Anne Sl~mmers," h l ~ m s t Ing e ~ Angels," H~\tor\ Todo\ 39 ( F e b llall ~ 1989). 31-37 3. Tlle next ilurslng fouildntloil nns that of El~zabethFrl, establlslled 111 1840, see Anile Suinnlers, "The Cost and Benefits of C nrlilg. Nurslilg Chnrlt~es,L 1830J ~ eCli(/rlt\ ~ ~ ~ ~ BclfOr~t11~ T T ~ > ~ ~ ( /\tot(>, I P e d Jonathan B a r n and C ohn 1860," In L I 1 c > ~(111d Jones (London. Routledge, 1991), 133-48. 4. Tlle S~stersof h l e r ~ \\$ere establlslled 111 Dub1111 oil 12 Deceirlber 1831, H / I I T J PoflIlc>rcj, \~ C h n ~ e n tof hlercl, Bermondsel (London. \ \ ~ n c h e s t e rP ~ e s s , 1l.d.). 5. In 1830, nrllld great Loiltro\ers\, the c l l u r ~ l h1ernr~11\ l nns fornlall\ reestnbC h r d ~ n aH l E \l lselnan See Shendan G ~ l l e "Protestant ~, London, l ~ s h e dunder , No-Poperl and the Irlsll Poor, 1830-1860," R P C Z LHrsfo~j S ~ ~ I 10, ~ ~4 (1969).210-30. 6. For a d ~ s ~ u s s ~ofo iIreland l under the Peilnl Code, see Ednnrd Brlilnn, The I I I t l i ( ~ A g c ~ o f C n t l r o l ~ c E ~ r ~(Ye\\ n ~ ~ cYork. ~ l ~ ( ~Galland, t ~ o ~ ~ 1982) Chrrrcli oflr~lcr~id 1570-1 850 (London. Dnrtoil, 7 . See Jollil Boss\, The Englzsh CcrfholzcCon~n~z~nrtj, Lollginan, nrld Todd, 1976), 293-390, o r Sller~dnrlGlllel's nbuildnnt \\orl\ oil Engl~shC ~ a t h o l ~ c ~ sllch s m , as "The Roman C a t h o l ~ c\11ss1on to the I r ~ s hIn Lon~ ~ 3t o(1969). ~j 123-45 o r "Protestailt Lolldoll." don," R e c z ~ ~ c r ~ t t H10, 8. Ultrainoiltnn~sinreasserted the "Roine" ln Roinail C a t h o l l ~ ~ s i Tlus n . eins prominent 1111asls\\as of pal tlclllar Importance In B11ta1n~ l ~ ~t th~ncreaslngll Anglo-C ntllol~ctradltloil. 9. I i l f n l l ~ b ~ l ~oft \ Lours?, , r~lso~ ~ l l p l ~n epolltl~nl d and s o ~ l a \le\l l of the \\orld. T h e declarat~onof papal ~ n f a l l ~ b l hht le ~ g h t e n e dtenslons b e t ~ \ e e nC:athohc cons e n at11 e and l~bernl,so~lnllstnrld ilntloilnllst nlo\ eirleilts 111Europe. Tllese npparentll tailgentla1 e\ eilts \ \ e r e Leeill\ obser) e d and gl\ ell lle~gllterledineaillilg 111 the sectal Ian context of England Unl~kellas ~tma\ seem, tenslons erupted In the so-~nlledGnrlbald~f i o t s bet\\een Irlsll pro-Vnt~cailirlobs nrld llberal irlobs of ilntloilnllst Garlbnldl supporters. See Sller~dailGllle\, "The Garlbnldl f i o t s of 1862," H1\tor1ccrlJoco11nl16, 4 (1973).697-732 10. See Susan P. C nsterns, "\'~rg~ilVo\ls," ln Relzgzo~l211 the Lr-cresofEng1zsh TIomen, 1760-1930, ed. Gall hlalnlgreen (Lolldoll. Crooirl Helnl, 1986), 129-60, for a d~scllss~on of the pone1 of the conTent on the Enghsh soclal llnaglnatlon 11. F l o r e i l ~ eN~gllt~rlgnle to H . E. hlailnlng, I>?Jull 1852, BL Add hlss 9093/ 10, photolop\ TVellcoine Iilst~tute,London. 12 J o h n Hen1 T Y e ~ l t n a nn a s a major figure In the Oxfold tnoTement, a n d 111s l einblenlat~c.of Cathosplr~tual jourile\ from Oxford d o n to C a t h o l ~ a~r d l i l n\\as 11c prlde and the Loil\lLtlorl that I ~ tlirle S llnd come 111 Brltaln. See H u g h L l ~ L e o d , Rc>l~g~o~i n11d \oo~t\ I I I E~igln~id, 1850-1 914 (Ye\\ York. St \la1 tln's Press, 1996), 39 l s Ireland u n d e r the Peilnl Codes 111 the e~gllteerltllLerlturl 13. C o i l d ~ t ~ o rln \\ere extreinell se\ ere, see Brlilnn, The Chrr~chofI1e1nnd. 14 See Grahaln D a ~ l so n the "111gh s l ~ ~ r ~rt ee ~d e l r ~assoc~ated " \\1t11111~11 rellg~ousust to ins, ln D a \ ~ s ,The I~rsh211 B~zfnzn,1815-1914 (Dublln. Glll and L1n~inlllnn, 1991), 127. B ~ ~ u Lirtli~r J ~ ~ OI II I ~Thlt(/l)~ il LY(>(i~ T'IPUJ of t11~ 13 Jean Delluneall, Cntliol~c~r~r~ Corritto-Pefo~nlcrfzoit,trans. Jollil Boss\ (London. Burns nrld Oates, 1977), 4-16. ls the restoratloll of the nloil16. 111 Frnrlce the rlurllber of \ o ~ n t ~ o ifollo\\lng l s France, m e n f o ~ arcln \\as 1111enolnenal In 1878 the^ e \\el e 133,000 I e l ~ g ~ o lIn See Ralph G~bsoil,,i SocrnIHrsfo~jofF~eitchCnfhole\ e r \ tllousaild F r e i l ~ lnonlen. l Z C Z S I ~ 1789-1 , 914 (Lolldoll. Routledge, 1989),109. 17 There 1s debate oTer the natlu e of 111s11C a t h o l ~ c ~ sand m I T S measlu e Those

Notes to Pages 59-60

181

\\ho \ \ o ~ l d call themsel\es C:athohc as opposed to those \ \ h o 111actlce 1sjust o n e Inlportailt d ~ s t ~ i l ~ t See ~ o nGerard . Coilnoll\, "Irlsll C a t h o l l ~11\th or Realltl? l C:athohc PI ofesslonal Among C:athohcs Xnot11e1 Sort of 111s11and the R e n e ~ t a of ln Ellgland, 1791-1918," 111 The I ~ r s hrit the licfo~rnitCrtj, ed. Roger Snlft a n d Sllerldail Glllel (Lolldoll. Crooirl Helin, 1985), 223-54 for a dlscusslon of the measure of C:athohc~sm 18. Those \ t h o ino\ed to Brltaln before 1861 tended to be irlore custonlarl 111 tllelr pract1Le r l ~ ~ o r dto~ Dr1\ls, ~ l g The I7zsh rit B~rtcrrit,132. 19 FI led1 1c11Engels, Tlip C O I I ~ I ~o fI tOl iI~TT'or1r111g I Clcn, I I I E I I ~ (1844; ~ ~ I Oxford. I ~ Bla~k\\ell,1971), 104. 20. T h e Irlsll population ln England and TZkles \$as291,000 ln 1841,520,000 111 1831, and 602,000 In 1861 ( 3 percent of the total p o p u l a t ~ o n3, pelcent of Lon. S ~ o t l a i l dthe figures \$ere 128,000 111 1841 and don, 23 perLent of L ~ \ e r p o o l )In 207,000 111 1831 ( 7 percent of the total populatloil,l8 percent of Duildee). See She1ldan Gllle~,"Irish C:athohc~smIn BI ltaln," In R P ~ I ~ I 5tcrtr: O I I , cr11dEt1111lc Grocll~r, ed. Dona1 A. Kerr (Aldershot. Dartirloutll P u b l ~ s h ~ i l 1992), g, 229. It 1s lirlportarlt to note that Irlsll Inlinlgratlon \$as not nunler~call\,rellglousl\, e ~ o n o i n ~ c a l lor \, soelall\ homogeneolls See Da\ld F ~ t z l ~ a t r ~"A c kC, ~ I lolls I h11ddle Place T h e 111s11 ln Brltalil, 1871-1920," 111 The I ~ r s hrit B,rtcrzn, 1815-1939, ed. Roger S \ \ ~ fat n d Sllerldail Gallel (SaIage, 11d.. Barnes and Noble, 1989), 14. , " I S eTer\ Enghsh \\orklngman a l n a ~ sto e a r n an Ills11 21 T h e T I I I L Pasked, fainll\ o n 111s slloulders?" Da\ls, TheI7zsh rit B~rtcrrit,154. i l sailltatlon 22. See Sllerldail Glllel, "Protestailt London," for a d ~ s ~ u s s ~ofo the Issues and refel ence to offic~alrepol ts on samtatlon, cholera, a n d the Irish, 223; also Da\ls, The I7zsh rit B~rtcrrit,154. 23. See Da\ls, T h e I ~ r s h277 B~zfnrit,109 for a dlscusslon of the 1838J. P. Ka\ report to the Board of Health ~ / i t E77glcrnd, 1880-1939 24. See SteIeil Fleldlng, Clcrss crndEfhit2czf) I I I SCcrtholzc~ (Bucklngllain. O p e n rill\erslt\ Press, 1993), 5- 18 for a d ~ s ~ u s s ~ofo irll i l t ~ - I r ~ ~ l l att~tltdes \ 23. See 11. A. G. O'Tuatllra~gh, "The Irlsll ln N l n e t e e n t h - C e ~ ~ t u rBrltalil, t Gllle\, 13-36. Probleirls of Iiltegratloil," ln The I ~ r s h277 B~zfnrit,ed. S n ~ fand 26 Plc11t1r\\as fill1 ofjllst sllc11 cal toons L P Chlrtls, J r , A~iglo-\cr.to~irn11d Cdt, LA Stud) of LAittr-I~rshP7qrrdzce rit licto7zcrn Eitglnitd (Brldgeport, Coiln. Unl\erslt\ of Brldgeport Conference oil Brltlsll Studles, 1968) and 4 1 e s critd ,ingels The II ( I l a s h ~ n g t o nD , C: . S l n ~ t l ~ s o n ~Instltut~on an Pless, I I I , ~ I I LI I I~ T~' II ~I ~ O I I ~Cnrlcntrrr~ 1971) studies tlus Issue, Noel Ignatle\, Hozo the I I I S Beccrine ~ TI7lzfe (Ne\\ York. Routledge, 1993) deals \ \ ~ t lthese l Issues 111 the inucll rllore ra~lallzedX i r l e r ~ ~ a r l context 27. There \$ereonl\ fi\ e Irlsll speakers ainoilg the tnent\-one Irlsh-born prlests 141. Irlsh-speak~ng ln Lolldoll ln 1842. See Glllel, "Roinail Catllollc hl~ss~oil," congregations sllch as B e r m o n d s e ~b e r e the subject of e n t h l l s ~ a s t ~~c~ r o s e l ~ t ~ s t n froin Irlsh-speaking Protestants, see Alan Bartlett, "Fronl Strerlgtll to Strengtll. Ronlail Catllol~c~sin ln Berinondse\ up to 1939," ln The C h u ~ c hcritd the Peojle I I I Brltno~c , 1880-1939 ( I l a r \ \ ~ c l \C:entle . fol the Stud\ Cntliol~crn ~ i / Tl l r ~ ~Clrrrrcli r of Soclal Hlstorl, Ui11\ e r s t \ of I \ ' a r \ \ ~ ~ k 1988), , 30. 28. 111 1851 40 percent of the seats 111 Loildorl C atllollc ~ l l u r ~ l l\$ere e s p a d for b\ pel\ lents a n d not flee to l n e l n b e ~ sof the congregation D a ~ l s ,Tlip Ills11 I I I B,zfnzn, 148. 29. For Instance, Belglarl Joseph Buggerloirls " d e d l ~ a t e dlllirlself to the Irlsll In London," Bartlett,, 138 Often, h o \ \ e ~ e r the , Ir1s11 ~ n s ~ s t eodn Ir1s11 pnests,

182

Notes to Page 60

freqllentl\ colnlng Into confl~ct~ $ ~others th T h e Belg~an-ledRedelnpto~lsts orgaillzed s p e ~ t a ~ u l a rsu~cessful l\ retreats ~ o i l d u c t e d111 the East End b\ Redeinptorlsts brought froirl L l i n e r l ~ kfor the ollasloil, see Glllel, "Ronlan C a t h o l ~ h l~~ s s o n , " 141 30. T h e appolrltirleilt of prelates \$astr~cli\.Rorne appeared to fa\ o r soirle klild of r a t ~ o n a l ~ z a t ~ofo nthe colnplex 11~ s hand BI 1t1s11h ~ e r a r c h l~~; o ~ $ e ~ the11 e r , suggestloil that the\ appolrlt a i l u n c ~ ofor Eilglarld \ t h o ~ ~ o ube l d111~ l l a r g of e Ireland \\as shollted dorm In rare lumson b\ the 111~11 bishops Rome of collrse n a s antlre\olut~oilar\and \ e r \ s u s p ~ ~ ~ of o uIrlsll s n a t ~ o n a l ~ s nSee l . Erllrllet Larklil, The R o t ~ ~ c Cntlrol/c r~i Clr rr rclr cr~idt l r ~C r ~ n t i o ~ofi t 1 1L\Io~J~r ~ I / I ) / \ / I \tot(: 1878-1 886 (Phlladelpll~a.Xnler~cailPllllosopll~calSollet\, 1973). See also Glllel, "Irlsll C atllollclsm In B n t a ~ n , "240 31. There had long beell ail Irlsll ~ o n l i n u i l ~at t \ Berinoildse\. X ~ ~ o r d l i to lg Bartlett, " F ~ o l nS t ~ e n g t hto Strength," SO, one s l t b d l s t ~ ~ reached ct 13 percent Ir~sll-bornln 1831. S L X \leal al~ostohcn a s a blshop appointed b~ the C:ongregat~oPropaganda Flde (Coilgregat~oilfor the Propagatloll of the Faltll) 111 Roirle to ail area not \ e t created as a t e r r ~ t o ~ l da ~ l o c e s e1 am gratefill to Rosa \IacG~nle\ f o ~e x p l a ~ m n g tins to ine. 33 Cork n a s thollght to be a lnol e d l s c ~eet slte for sllch celeb^ ated ~~ostlllants h l ~ sAgile\\ s \$asthe rllele of Slr Andre\\ Xgrle\$ and the autllor of a popular threepal t I ehg~ollsn o ~ e called l G(~rnMi~ic: cr Tcrk oj' C O I / W P I I(( P l ~ ~ l a d e l l ~E h C~luna inlskel, 1819), see Deil~sG. hlurpln, T e i ~ nIncogitzfn 07 the Conzleitts of the itzfed Ko/g/Jolr/ (Lolldoll. L011glnalls, 187:3), 163 These allstocratlc conTerts n e r e a major ~ o u for p the nenl\ establlslled ~ h u r c h the\ . p r o \ ~ d e da l l ~ g l profile l n~th excessne l n e d ~ ac o el~ aqe, the\ oftel e d a coluntel to the lqnol ant Ins11 P a d d ~ lrllage of C a t h o l ~ ~ ~ sarid i n , the\ g a \ e a great deal of inone; to the Church. See hIar\ LX~lst~n Carroll, RShI, L P ( I T J P \ ~tJr~il1/1//11s OJ~/ oft//(>J i s t ~ ) rlfllIri~c\, \ : i ~ o l s . , \ o l 2, . Coitcoitzng Sketches of the Oide) 277 Eitglnitd, Cirinen, Scotlnitd, L4rrsfinlrn, nnd AYerc~ (Nev 1'01 k: C:athohc Pltbhcat~onS o c ~ e t1883), ~, 27. Zc>crln~/d 34. It \\as a n appreheilsl\ e tlrlle for the slsters. As hlotller hlcXule\ \$rote, "nine masses to be offered for 11s tomorro\\, thank God! Father O'Hanlon 1s a l a ~lned at the angr\ tlllilgs said ln the Erlgllsll papers." The\ tra\eled as uilobtrus~\el\as ~ ~ o s s ~ bRl e ~; eel n d \1othe1 n a s addl essed as "fi lend C atherlne" f o ~the jolu ne\ Carroll, Lenzlesfio~nfheL4ititnls,2. 33. 33 Pugln's \\ark 1 x 1 sonlfied the Gothlc a n d I olnantlc obsess~onsof the p e r ~ o d hlotller hlcXule\ \$as unino\ed, d e ~ l a r l n g~t not to her taste. " I d o not llke hlr Pugln's taste, thollgh so c e l e b ~ a t e d H e \\as determined n e shollld not look out of the \\lndons- the\ are ln the ~elllilg."hlotller lI~,Xule\,letter froirl Berm o n d s e ~to C : h a ~ l e ~ ~ l26 l e , December 1839 X ~ c h ~ of ~ ethe s S ~ s t e ~ofs h l e ~ c ~ , Berrlloildse\. 36. 11oo1e 1s a good exalnl~leof the ~ m l ~ r e s s l exlIellence re a \ o u n g a n d able \toinail ~ o u l build d up o\ er a short perlod of nine. She jollied the S~stersof h l e r ~ \ as Georglana 11oo1e at the age of seTenteen and \\as filll~111 ofessed at just u n d e ~ illileteen; she \\as often coilsulted b\ hlotller lI~,Xule\\\hell ~orllplllilgthe Hal\ Rule; at about t\\ent\-one she \\as sent as local supel lor to the first b~anch 11ollse at Klilgston near Dubllil, at t\$eilt\-fourshe set up the ile\$ establlshrlle~lt111 Cork. At t\\ent\-SIXshe a c c o m l ~ a n ~ etrio d English slstels she had t ~ a ~ n back e d to England for t\\el\ e rlloiltlls to o\ ersee the establ~sllineiltof a on\ erlt ln Eilglarld and g o ~ e r n e dthat hollse for t h ~ r t \ - t he e~ leal s. See L ~ f eof hIot11e1 11a1 Clare 11oo1e,

Notes to Pages 60-62

183

Annals of the Conrent of 0111 Ladl of \Ierc\, Be1 l n o n d s e ~ 216-20, , A ~ c h l r e sof the S~stersof h l e r ~ \Bernlondse\. , 37. Carroll, Lecr71esf)oin fheLi)7)7(rls,62-63. 38. O n e of the \\omen entellng the colnlnumt\ n a s Ladl Barbara E \ I c , daughter of tlle earl of Nenburgh. "Tlle Coil\eilt of h l e r ~ \ Bernloildse\," , Soufhrc!n)k e s the S ~ s t e of ~ s \ I e ~ c \ ,Be1 mondse\. XcR ~ c o r dJ, a n u a r ~1932, 13-19. A ~ c h ~ r of cordlrlg to the ,inncrls, "se\eral blsllops a n d about fort\ prlests \ \ e r e . . . ln all tlle richest I obes. T h e chlu ch \\as gal \\1t11 the cow t-dl ess of the ladles . . . [and] forelgrl anlbassadors." At tlle breakfast follo\\lng tlle long Lereinonl the fire llad to be r e k ~ n d l e da n d Lord Ll~lgllstlls F~tzclarence,son of \\ llllam I \ , lns~stedon irlalililg tlle fire for the slsters. Carroll, Lecr71esf)oin theLi)7)7cr1s,62, 66. 39. Carroll, L(wimf)o)r/t l / ~ A ~ o i ( /63. l\, 40. I b ~ d . ,57. "Tllat Lon\ent [Bernloildse\] llas ile\er been \ \ ~ t l l o upersoils t under Instructlon f o ~reception Into the C 11111ch 111 the e a I\~ dais the\ came b~ hundreds." 41 In 1840 the s~sters'f i ~ s "1nart\ln t fell ~1ct1n1 to a "lnahgnant ferer " 42. See C arroll, Lenzles j o m the ,inncrIs, 5. But the Alerc~es\$ere not the oil11 colnlnumt\ to establish conTents In England In fact conrents p r o l ~ f ated e ~ to sllch ail extent that b\ 1900 tllere \$ere 600 con\erlts 111England and \\'ales \\1tll8,00010,000 nuns hlcLeod, R c > ~ I n~ ~I /~5oc1~t1 dI / 1 1 , E~iglcr~id, 166 43. 111 Lolldoll the \arlous establ~sllineiltsof tlle S~stersof h l e r ~ norlied \ llard among the poor, T I S I T I I I ~~$01k11011ses a n d h o s l ~ ~ t aalns d carlng for the ~ n d ~ g e nBT t tllelr onrl aLcouilt the\ \$erenarnll\ reLen ed ln these ~ i l s t ~ t u t ~ oCarroll, ils. Lecr71es j501r/ t l / A~ ~ o i ( / l \ ,288 The\ opened a mght ~ e f i l g eIn 1860 (296); the House of h l e r ~ 111 \ Blandford Square for lloirleless glrls n ~ t ha ~ r e ~ lfor l e tlle lilfarlts of the \ \ o r k ~ n gpoor n a s opened In 1873 (285-87) 44. Xc~ordlilgto C arroll, the nuns o n ocLaslorl \ \ e r e suirlirlorled to tlle deatllbed of a benefacto~,p e r h a l ~ sat the I equest of a blshop (83) 45. Tlle stor\ of N~ylltlnyale111 tlle Crlrllea has beell told a n d retold froin inan\ 1 x 1 spectlr es Important to t h ~ narratlre s are the accounts b~ the S~stersof h l e ~c~ of tllelr norli ln Crlnlea, 11111~11 are ~ r l t l ~of a lN~glltlngale,see E\el\il Bolster, The J I S ~ P I OS ~ ~ ~ 1I1 ) Ct l ~/ C ~C~ I I I L PTITIi Il r/ ( C o r k h l e ~ c ~ Press, er 1964) and more ~ e c e n t l \ the excellent nark of AIarl Ellen Doona, "S~sterhlar\ Joseph Crolie. Xilotller \ o ~ c efi oln the C Illnean \\ar, 1831-1836," L Y l \ ' c o ~ ~ ~ i gI HR~P~~t oJ~3I P (1993). ~ O :i-ll, \ \ h ~ c lbrlilgs l to l ~ g l l ttlle ~ l l n l ~ coirlpeterlce al of the iluils as a consequence of their experience and discipline. 46. Carroll, Lecr71esf)oin fheLi)7)7cr1s,89. 47. In 1840 three sisters died of t~l111llsaftel caling f o ~an afflicted fatnil\. T h e letter of ~ o r l d o l e i l ~froin e Blsllop Gr~ffitllsdenlollstrates the l l e r o ~ approach ~ to sllch deaths. "Deal Rererend \ I o t h e ~ I. selze the f i st ~ opportunlt\ to congl atulate \ \ ~ t l\lo u a n d all tlle dear slsters o n tlus first inart\r of c l l a r ~ t offered \ to Xlnl~ght\ God " I b ~ d, 73 48. I b ~ d .84. , 49 C a1 loll \\rites d e l ~ c a t e lof~ the s t ~ a n g eb e l ~ a r ~ato B ~ e r m o n d s e ~\ \ h e n the cement \\as under tlle l e a d e r s h ~ pof S ~ s t e rClare Agile\\, author of Ge)nIdri/e. T h e i ~s u p e r i o ~required theln to be of the same height, distressed at t h e i ~une\en appearance ill ~ h u r c h To . sol\e this dileirlirla slle ordered padding to be \torn under the habits of certain sisters to make theln taller. She also implelnented a seatlilg arrailgeineilt o\ er rlleals that a\ olded e\ e contact bet\\eerl \\oirleil- slle had them seated back-to-back. I b ~ d .87-88. ,

184

Notes to Pages 62-65

30 Lad\ Bal b a a~ El r e jolned \ + ~ tahfill1 \+a1drobe of garments As her hlun111t\ , de\ eloped she graduall\ ga\ e anal all her possessions. I b ~ d .78-79. 31 In 1840, In a d d ~ t ~ oton the arlstoclatlc connection, nev lecllnts lnclllded h11ss Loulsa Blrch, the grailddaugllter of Zepllarllall Holnell, go\ernor of Calcutta of B l a ~ kHole of C a l ~ u t t af a n e , L11ss Celeste Beste \\as the daughter of a PI otestant mlmster I b ~ d, 67 52. See Bolster, T h e Srsfe~so f J l e ~ c rit ) the C~rinennIlk), 14. the Eilgllsll C a t h o l ~ ~ 53. Rome took the Irlsll part ln tins drama, cllast~s~ilg 's IT\; h ~ a1ecln ~ f o ~allo\\lng \lother \loo1 e to be under \11ss N ~ g h t ~ n g a l eallt1101 see Bolster, The S z ~ t eof) ~,\.fe)c) 277 the C~zmenitT l n ~21. , 54. Tlle goal of the Irlsll coiltlilgeilt \\as not to irlake a p u b l relations ~~ coup for C a t h o l ~ ctolerance In B n t a ~ n but , to S I ~ I ~ I Ot I the one-t1111dof the B11tls11Arm\ \ t h o !+ere Irlsll. TV~senlail~ l a l n l e d111 1863 that a quarter of the a r n n 111the Crlrllea See Nlcholas P a t r l ~ kStephen C ardlnal had beell C a t h o l a~n~d \ \ ~ t l l o u~haplalils. t \l Iseman, addl ess to the C:athohc C ongl ess of hlal~nes,Belgluln, 21 Augllst 1864, nitd Socznl Posrtron of Cntholzcs rit Eitglnitd (Dubl~il.Jaines Duff\, ln The Relzgzoz~~ 1864), 183. 33 See \\alter L X r n s t e ~ nP, r o t ~ r t n ~1$>1\rr\ it Cntliol~t0 , JI!d-l'~cto~~cr~i E ~ ! g l n ~ J! dI I r~ 1982). A\erctfegnfe nitd the,\ilns (Coluinbla. Ui11\ e r s t \ of h l ~ s s o u Press, 56. Carroll, Len7le~f~ointheLi)7)7nls,133. 37 As C a1 d ~ n a \\ l lselnan d e c l a ~e d In 111s speech to the C:athohc C ongl ess of hlalliles, 1864, "slrlce tllerl n e h a \ ? llad ilo irlore atteirlpts to lilterfere \ \ ~ t lladles l \ t h o h a \ ? p r o \ e d tllenlsel\es as patrlotlc as the\ are \1rtuous,"l83 . 38 See Lolus \la1 reall, T l r ~Ho\l~!tcrloj'5t Joli~icr~!d\t El~arO~tli ( L o n d o n Hos111tal of St.Jollil and St. El~zabetll,1992), 3. l the llospltal a n d 59. 111 fact, after TV~senland ~ e dLlanillilg assuined ~ o r l t r oof t ~ ~ to e dreplace the S~stersof \Ielc\ \ \ ~ t hFrench S~stersof Charlt\ N~ghtlngale \\as lil~erlsedand a p p l ~ e dall the d ~ r e c at n d lrldlrect pressure she could to lla\e their1 keep the hosp~tal.111the e n d the\ kept the llospltal but tllelr slster 111~ l l a r g e left the Instltlltlon See h l a n C: S l l l h ~ a n T, I I P F I I P I ! ~ \ojFIo~~~~t~~Y~glrt~~ig~~.lll( II!~) cr~!d J f n )) C l n ~ Je l o o ~ e(Plllladelpll~a.Ui11\ erslt\ of Peilils\ 11ailla Press, 1999), 149-51. 60. Tllelr nark ainoilg lloirleless \toinell and ~ l l l l d r e i l\\as sorlletll~rlgthe\ u n d e ~took \ \ ~ t hspecla1 enthlls~asmSee Carroll, L P I I T J P S ~~O~ III PI A I I I283-301 I~II~, 61. Susan hlurllirl ~ l a l n l sthe\ d ~ not d n e a r tllelr l l a b ~ t111 p u b l ~ but ~ , tlus 1s inlsleadlng. Llunlnl, Stolen Dnrrgllfe)s, li7gzn J f o f h e ~ s,ingIzcnn Szste)hoods 277 l i c \ 1999), 78 T h e earl\ t r a ~ e l sof tor~cr~! Brttcro! ( L o n d o n Lelcester L nlr e~s ~ t Press, the S~stersof LIerc\ \\ere not ln l l a b ~but t Incogillto (1840s). B\ the tlirle of the Crlinea (1834) the\ \ \ e r e \\earlilg llab~tsabroad. See Failn\ hI. Tallor e t al., E n r t ~I! ~Ho\p~t/rlrcr~illE~!ghrliXirrr(>\ T l r ~ ~ \ i r ~ ~ c or tj T! i7lo~~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ I oE'C~()PI!PI!CP 1!tlir 0 )t l i ~ Hos;Drtnls of khulnlr nitd Scrrtn~z,2 01s. (Lolldoll. Hurst and Blackett, 1856), 316. 62. T. Bol+nlailStephellsoil, Coitce)itzng Szste)hoods (London. C.H. Kell\, 1890), 78 63. There \\as coilstant confusion arlloilg Protestants o \ e r the naines of Catho11c r e l ~ g ~ o Lonlinuilltles. us E\ e n Nlghtlilgale, norinall\ !+ell lrlforirled about such matters, thollght the S~stersof \Ierc\ ran St L ~ n c e n t ' sHosp~talIn Dubhn, \\hereas ~t \\as the S~stersof Charlt\. T h e F r e i l ~ l lSoeurs d e CllarltG ~ o n l i n o i l l \ referred to, actual11 the Fllles d e CllarltG (Daughters), llad n o coilrlectlorl \ \ ~ t l l the I r ~ s hcomtnlumt\ 64. Tins p o p u l a r ~ t \of \ ' ~ i l ~ e ndte Paul 1s discussed 111 Glllel, " H e r e t ~ cLondon, (1971). 72. Hol\ Po\ert\, a n d the Irlsll Poor," Do7~lnsrdeRez11e~~l89 63 FOI a dlscuss~onof the L ~ c t o ~ ~Intelsectlon an of the moral a n d 11h\s1cal

Notes to Pages 65-68

185

~ \ o r l d ssee , R ~ c h a r dHelmstadte~and Paul T Ph~lhps,eds , R ~ l ! g ! o(~1 , !l'ictoricr~! 50t\ of Xnler~ca,1983), cref) LA Soz~)ceboo/~ ofDocun7eitts (Lailllain, Lld.. U i l ~ \ e r s ~Press the \ l o ~ l \ ~ nClasses," g 211-63; and F h ProIn p a r t ~ c l l l a P ~ ,h ~ l l ~ l"C:on~ert~ng ~s, chnskn, "Bod\ a i d Soul. Blble Nurses a i d the Poor 111\'~ctorlailLondon," Hzsfo)r~ ~ I R e s e c r ~60, c h 143 (1987). 336-34. 66 P l l s e ~and 111sToung d a l l g h t e r - ~ l h o lunfortllnatel~dled at fifteen b e f o ~ e 111 1841f ~ ~ l f i l l ~tllelr i l g jolilt \\lsll that she estnbllsll n s ~ s t e r l l o o d - \ ~ s ~ t Ireland ed 42. See ThonlasJn\ TVllllnnlson, Pirscrlln Sellon, theRestoiei LAffe)Th,ee Ceittu)resofthe Rel!g!octr I f i o ! t l r ~ A ~ ! g h cClirrrth n ~ ! ( L o n d o n SPC:h, 1930), 11, 12 67. Hobbs, Flo~eitceA\zghtritgcr1e, 12. 68. Xima Jaineson's p u b l ~ cl e ~ t u r eIS r l l u ~ l lu t e d s e ~ u l a rcorllrllerlt o n tins Intel nal debate See AnnaJalneson, \ ! , t ~ r ,rlfClinr!h, Cnthoht n ~ i d P r o t ~ r t n ~Abrocrd it, nnd n f Home (London. Longnlnns, 1853). See nlso J. Master, "A Fell TZhrds to Sorne of the TZhirleil of the C llurcll of God" (London, 1850, reprlilted 111 Dale A. Johnson, T T ~ ) I I L P I ! / I ! E~!ghrliR ~ h g o ~1700-1925 !, ( N e ~ York l E d n ~ nhlellen, 1983), 17-23. ustus ed., Thoughts on Ez~crngelrccrlSzste)hoods (Lon69. T V ~ l l ~ n n l ~ l ~ ~ gLluhleilberg, don. S \\ Part1 ~ d g ae n d C o, 1872), 3 70. John H e m \ Ne\lnlnn, 41ologrn Pio l i t 0 Srrn (1864, Ne\\ Yorli. Pengum, 1994), 50. 71 Pete1 FI e d e ~ c l h\ n s o n , TIM Cnll of t h C ~ l o i r t ~ ~R ~ h g o c t rCo~rr~rrio!iti~\ ( I I ! ~ Elritdied Bodres 277 the ,ingIrccrn Coininrritzon (Lolldoll. SPCK, 1935) rerllnlils one of the best general texts oil tlus s u b j e ~ t See . nlso A. hI. Xll~llln.The Srlenf PebeI1101t (London. SC \I, 1938) A ~ ! g l ! c nR~~! l i g o i r ,C o ~ r ~ ~ r r ~ o1845-1900 !~ti~r, 72. Cllr~stopllerTZhrds\\ortll, Blsllop of L~ncolil,O n Srsfeihoods critd lbrc~s,i letfe) to the l'rn 51, GeoigeP,o-closf (London. Fhlngtons, 1879), 20. -' i.1 T h e hfe of the deaconessnas ne\el as 11ol1ular as that of the slstel, althollgh tins astounded inan\ (nlnle) ~ h u r c hleaders. hluirlirl estlrnntes that there \ \ e r e 3000 to 4000 irleirlbers of s ~ x t X \ n g l ~ ~ as~sterlloods il 111 1900. Den~orlessfigures are h a ~ d e rto d e t e ~lnlne and of course extend b e ~ o n dXnghcan~stn;h o ~ l e \ e ~ , l that there \ \ e r e far fe\\er den~orlesses coiltempornr\ sources agree \ \ ~ t lLlunlnl tllnrl slsters. See Re\. Lelglltoil Colenlnn, "Erlgllsll S~sterlloodsnrld Deacoilesses," Chrrrcli JI(rg/~.lra~i(> (1886). 423; a n d hlllmm, \ t o l ~ ~Dnirglit(>~,, ! T ' I I ~ I ! dlotli~rr,132 74. See C oleinail, "Engl~shS~sterlloodsnrld Den~onesses,"429-30 a i d Sean G111, Tlbn7eit critd the Chrrich ofEitglnitd F ~ o i nthe Ezghteeitth Ceittu)) to the Piesent ( L o n d o n SPC h, 1991), 165 73. G111, Tlbineit critd the Chu,ch ofEitglnitd, 166. 76. Tlus coinnlunlt\, llo\\e\er, sllpped steadlh tonard Xilglo-Cathol~~~sin, nrld r \lother S l l p e n o ~I b ~ d, 163 In 1887 the Head S ~ s t ebecame 77. North Loildorl Deacoiless Inst~tute,The Secoitd ,innucrl P e j o ~ nnd f Ecrlnitce Sheet of fheA\oi fh Londoit Decrconess Iitsfzfrrte(Lolldoll. Printed b\ Vart\,1863), 6. 78 Ibld , 8 79. It adds that those \ t h o "possess except~oilnlsplrltunl a i d nlental force" \\111 not be excluded. P r o s p e ~ t u of s the Inst~tute,publlslled 111 Stephellsoil, Coitco nritg 95O I J \ , ~IS~PI~IO 80. Steplleilsoil, Conce)nritg Srsto hoods, 426. 81. Ednnrd B o u \ e r ~ Pusel e ln Blsllop Lldden's L+ofPuse), u t e d l n LUL\fidgel\ Histo) I ofLYcori~!g ( N e ~1'l01 l\. \ l a c ~ n 1 l l a n , l 9 373 ~, Selnler, A G(>~!pr(rl 82. Steplleilsoil, Conce)nritg Srsto hoods, 48 clalnls that Sellorl llad carpet lnld for her as she nnlked u p h e r s p ~ r astnlrLase l a i d then pulled up - se\ era1 tlrlles n da\. 83 I b ~ d

186

Notes to Pages 68-73

84 \Ilunln does not glre details as to ~ i h olilote the rule or ~ i h oacted as coilfessor. 83 The O r d e ~of the H o l ~Chss \\as founded b~ Puse\ In 1843 St John's House \tr1s rlilotller 11l~lle~ l l ~ t ~ ~111 l t l1848. \ e Once these earl\ foundations created tlle pre~edeilt,tlle \\oirleil \\ere qulte capable of dolrlg ~ton tllelr olin. D / I I L ~ ~ TI' I~I ~ PI I II LlIotli~~r5, ~, 137-63 The f l l n d ~ tof~ the Angh86 \Illmln, \to1(>11 111 tlle illileteerltll Lerlturl irllrrors that of tlle C atllol~c s~sterlloods call s~sterlloods ln the first felt decades of tlle ceiltur\. As a ne\\ and gro\\lng pllerloirleilorl the t ~ Rome ~fthe\ s~sterhoodsliere able to take amantage of the lack of c l a r ~ fioln s ethe\ 11ere Xilgl~cails. \\ere C atllol~c,froirl tlle d ~ o ~ e~f 87. Neale appareiltl\ tllougllt of tlle Loininuillt\ as "h~s."He ~lalnls111 a letter of 1 F e b ~ual T 1833 that "nn httle cub \\as beglnn~ngto take good p~opertles; the next tlllilg !ins to feed hlin. Just then carne the scutter busliless, on tlus I took courage and \\rote to e\er\orle ln our part of the d~ocese.. . . I llad not a slilgle o ~ ~ ed dallghter \la1 T Sack\~lle delnlu er to the schelne," Lptt(~r5ofJO1i11l l I / ~ r LYw~l(>, La\\sorl (London. Longnlans, 1920), 235. , 88. See hlunlin, Stoleit Dnrrgllte)s, Ii7gzn J f o f h e ~ s186. 89 G111,T T ~ ) I ~ I P (111d I I t l i ~Cli(o(l/r l f E ~ ~ g l n81 ~~d, 90. Ellen Shell, "Nurses Under Attad\. The Lelies f i o t and tlle Souet\ of St. hlargaret," ,\i17szng Pesen~ch41, 1 (1992). 33-38 and Aluinnl, Sfoleit Dnughfe~s, T ' I ~ ~ I JIotli~rr, II 186 glre fill1 details of the scandal and the fiune~al11ot 91. Alunlnl, Stolen Dnughfe~s,I i ~ g / iJ/l o f h e , ~82-83. , 92. Ib~d.,21. 93 hlllmm follnd Instructlons so deta~ledthat she argued that the ~ i e l l - b n o~ ilo\ILes 11lust ha\? been e x ~ e e d ~ n glgilorarlt l\ of p r a ~ t ~matters ~al such as "sllut \\lndoli \\hen ~trams." Ibld., 24. 94 Ibld , 2 0 95. hlunlin's data ~ l a l nthat l 34 perLent of \\oirleil nllo left Lorllirluilltles d ~ so d to becorne Catholl~s.Ibld., 223. 96 The Gorhaln jlldglnent on Infant bapt~smcaused great controTelsT -the de~lsloil!ins that noilbapt~zed~nfailtsliere ~oildeirliledto llell. Ib~d.,143. N~gllt43-46. lrlgale \\as appalled, see Hobbs, Flo~ei~ce~\ighfzngnle, 97 The actual length of tlalnlng \\as \allable, from a fell ~ieeksto some inoiltlls. Ladles \\ere ~ o i l s ~ d e r etodrequlre less tralnlng. 98. hlunlin, Stolen Dnughtos, Ii7gzn Jlothos, 114, Carol Helnlstadter, "Old Nllrses and Ne\\. Nllrs~ngIn the London Teaching Hosl~~tals Before andhfter the hl~d-N~ileteeiltll-C elltun Refornls," ,\i17szng H l s t o ~ jPe71ze70 1 (1993). 43-70, 58, Helinstadter, "Robert Beiltlel Todd, St. Jollil's House, and tlle Or~glrlsof the ~ ofLII(~di(i~i(> 67 (1993). 282-319, hlode~n TI a ~ n e dNllrses," B i r l l ~ t oof~ t h H15torj 319, and Sunlnlers, "The Cost and Benefits of C arlilg" agree oil tins polilt. 99. Suininers, "Tlle Cost and Benefits of Caring." 100 Hellnstadte~dlscllsses 111sI eforms of med~calteach~ngat hlng's; see "Robert Beiltle\ Todd," 286-90. 101.J u d ~ t hhloore, A Zenlfo) Resf~oi/s/bzlzf)The S f , rrgglefo~P)ofessroi/nlA\ rr~sritgzn T ' I ~ ~ O I I ~EI I I I ~ ~ 1868-1883 ~ I I ~ , (Athens L m r e r s ~ of t~Geo~ gla Press, 1988), 7 102. B\ 1873 the\ had reje~tedfi\e other llospltals. I b ~ d . 103. S~sterAIarl Jones, Allilute Book of the C ouncll of St. Jollil's House, Jul\ 1864-Janua~T 1876, 99 C ~ t e dIn hloore, A Zc>nlforR P ~ ~ I ~ I I 9~ ~ O I I I ~ , 104. hIoore,136. 105. Ib~d.,130. 106 I b ~ d,132

Notes to Pages 73-76

187

107 Ibld , 165 \Ian\ I equests came fi oln N e ~ lZealand, the S a n d ~ $ ~Islands, ch and so forth. The\ d ~ pursue d tllelr rlurslilg a n d renlalned ~ilfluentlal,partlLula1 I\ tor lnlsslons 108. See Suininers, "Tlle Cost a n d Benefits of C arlilg" and Xilrle Sunliners, ? and Rellglous Models 111 the H~storlog"Franle\$orks or S t r a ~ g a ~ k e t sSecular ~ 1988ral11n of Nlus~ng,"P(/crltI5 Prpw~it Tlip C1IHLT/ACHLYE k ) \ ~ / o tPr~5~1itntio1ir, 1996, ed. Sllella J. Railkln Zerr (Tai1~ou\er. C anadla11 Xsso~latlonfor the H ~ s t o r \ of Nursing, 1997), 213-39. 109 hlllmm, \tol(>~/ L ) / I I L ~ ~5 , I T~ ' PI II ~ IIllotli~rr, ~ I15 110. Tlus 1s not to sa\ that there \ \ e r e ilo rle\$ llospltals ln England 111 the illileteentll ceilturl. H o n e \ er, Eilglarld llad e x p e r ~ e i l ~ esuccess11 d e \$a\es of 110s111tal folundat~onfioln Norman to G e o ~ g l a ntlmes O n the o t h e ~h a n d In the U i l ~ t e dStates there \\ere onl\ three llospltals h\ 1821. X ~ ~ o r d l i ltog J. Togel, "\\'lleil Bostoil's first general llospltal opened 111 1821, there \$ere oil11 t \ \ o other sllch Instltlltlons In the L n ~ t e dStates " Logel, Tlip I I / T J P I / ~o/ fOt Il /r ~ ~ l l oHorl~/t(/l d~~~/ (Ch~cago.rill\e r s t \ of C l l ~ ~ a gPress, o 1980), 1. Ill C oloillal Ne\\ Soutll \\'ales there \$asone llospltal ln 1820. 111 Dora B \\emel s h o ~ $1s1 0 ~Napoleon made an exception tor the nllrslng s~sterlloods,see The Crtr-eit-Pntrenf rit Rez~olrrtronn~) nnd I J ~ @ P ) PZ (~I ~Z(Baltl~llore. S Jollils Hopl,~ilsUnl\ e r s ~ t \Press, 1993), 4. Kulturkainpf d e ~ r e e s too, , exeinpted nllrslng s~sterhoods;seeJonathon S l ~ e be^, l Pol~ctlnrCntliolicir~r/O ~ L T ~ l i ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ t l i - C ~ ~ Gei innnj ( P r l i l ~ e t o nN.J.. , Ui11\ers1t\ Press, 1984), 223. l dlleirlrlla of \'~ctorlailnonlen, a n d F l o r e i l ~ eNight112. For a d ~ s ~ u s s ~ofo ithe Ingale In ~ ~ a r t l c u l asee r , hlartha \ lclnlls, I ~ / d ( y ~ ( v / d TpT~~ iI tI L P I ~TT'o11r n~iclC o t ~ ~ t ~ ~ c c ~ i / h . n l \ e r s ~ t \of C l l ~ ~ a gPress, o 1985), foi Sritgle Tlbmeit, 1850-1920 ( C h ~ c a g oU Poo\e\, I7)7ezleitDezlelof1ine)7fs The Ideologzcnl T l o ~ kof Gendo 277 Jlrd-lictoiznit Eitglnitd (C:h~cagoL nlr el s ~ oft C:h~cago ~ Press, 1988); Florence N ~ g h t ~ n g a lEeT, J Pfico I 5, F1o)ence ,\igl~fzngnle Selected Letfeis, ed. hlartlla \ ' ~ c ~ i l uasn d Ben Nergaard (London. \'lrago Press, 1989), Elalne Sho\$alter, "Florence Nlghtlilgale's Feirllil~st C olnplalnt. \ \ o m e n , R e l ~ g ~ oand n , \ccggc>rt/o1/5fo1 Tlroccglrt," \ / g ~ i rJ o c o ~ / nrlfTT'o~r/~,, l 277 Crr1tu)enitd Socretj 6, 3 (1981). 395-412. 113. Nlghtlilgale to h l a n ~ l l ~ l lgj, ? Jul\ 1852, BL Add LIss 9093/10, Pllotocop\ llellcolne Inst~tute,London hlanmng d ~ not d c o n s ~ d eher ~ good lnate~lalf o ~ coil\ers~oil,as she \slued her 01\11 Iilterpretatlon of C l l r l s t ~ a n ~too t \ 111ghl\, a n d h e apparenth thought the o h e d ~ e i l ~ r eeq u ~ r e dof the rellglous l ~ f e\\auld not be 11oss1ble tor he^ to attaln She seemed to agree \ \ ~ t h111sassessment a n d I e c o ~ e r e d froirl her fllrtatlon n ~ t l coil\ l ersloil. 114. Nlghtlilgale's correspoildeil~eLarl he quoted as anti-null or as \ e r \ sup1101 t l ~ ea n d admlrlng N u r s ~ n gnuns \ \ e r e not all the same, and N~ghtlngale a n d tllelr \\orl, e t l m urlderstood t h ~ s It . \$as the Lontext, tllelr profess~onal~snl, that irlattered to her. As a \ouilg nonlail ln Xlexaildr~ashe found "nlneteeil t of H o s l ~ ~ t a l S~stersof C h a r ~ t \d o ~ n gthe \\ark of mnet\ " " O n D ~ f f e ~ e nS\stems Nurslilg," a p p e r l d ~ xto ,\hfes on Hosf~zfnls(1839), reprlrlted ln F1o)ence A\rglltritgnle on H o s f ~ z f n l R e f o ) ied. ~ ~ ,C llarles E Roserlherg (Ne\\ 170rl,. Garland, 1989), 181-87. 115 \ \ ~ t h\ I a n n ~ n g ' sassistance she \\as able to galn 1 x 1 lnlsslon to entel the hla~soild e la P r o \ ~ d e i l 111 ~ eP a r ~ as s a "postulant" to recen e ilurslilg tralillilg. Slle \\as to \\ear a l l a h ~ at n d \\orl, under the d ~ r e ~ t l oof i l the slsters. She \$as to take meals a n d sleep sel~aratel\fioln the nuns She caught measles \\1t111nt\\o necks and \\as f o r ~ e dto ahaildoll the exeruse. Derl~sG. hlurpll\, T h e ) Drd ,\hfPnss B) The Stoij of t h e E n i b Pzoitee)~ofA\ z1)szng (Lolldoll. Loi1girla1ls, 1956). s In the C Ilmea came as milch from Nlght~ngaleas 116 T h e r e l ~ g ~ o utenslon

188

Notes to Pages 76-80

a m o n e else \lother Br~dgelnan'sd1a11 records ha1 lnonlous r e l a t ~ o n s l ~\\1t11 ~l~s the doctors, irlost of \\honl slle describes as "Protestailt dissenters." T h e slsters men starched the lnlnlstel la1 collars f o ~the chaplains \ \ h e n the\ lalunde~e d their 01\11 \ells. See Bolster, The S z ~ t eofI\.Ie)c) )~ l i t the C~zn7enitI l k ) , 140-41. 117. See, for iilstailLe, Tallor e t al., Enston Hosf~zfnlsnitd Eitglrsh A\u)ses a i d El~zabethD a ~ l s T, l i AirtoOiogrcrl~ln ~ ofE11zcrb~tIrD ~ ~ J nI Bnlntln1~cr ,, LY1llrr:Dcrirglit~~ oj ed. Jane TVilllanls, 2 \ 01s. (Lolldon. Hurst a i d Bla~l\ett,1857). Dnjjdd Cndrc~nlnd)), j 118. See Anile Sunlnlers, ,ingels nnd Crtrzeit~ E)zfzsh Ilbineit ns J f z l z f n ~ A\u)ses, 1854-1 915 ( L o n d o n Rolltledge, 1988) 119. Ibid.,71. 120. Bolster, The Srstos ofJ1e)c) rit the C~rinennI l k ) , 13. 1889, BLXdd hlss 43,783, c ~ t e d 121 F l o ~ence N ~ g h t ~ n g ato l eBelnjaln~nJo~$ett, ln JoXrlil G. TViderquist, "Dearest Re\ 'd Llotller," 111 Flo~eitce,\igl~fzngnle nitd He, ed. Tern Bullougll, Borlilie Bullough, a i d E,n ,i Collectron of A\erc~ Scholn~shrf~, hlanetta P Stanton (Ye\$ York. Gal land, 1990), 302 122. Ed\$ard C ook ~laiirlsthat Nlghtiilgale thought ilurslng "the least iinporl s \\llicll she llad beell forced." Cook, The L2fr ofF1o)ence tailt of all the f ~ ~ n c t i o iillto 2 TOIS ( L o n d o n hlacln~llan,1913) ,1. 231 LY/glrt~~~gcrlp, 123. Helinstadter, "Robert Bentlel Todd," 310, see also Se\nler, ,i Gene~nlHZSto, ) ofA\ rosritg, 20-23. 1 2 1 1 am g ~ a t e t u to l C alol Helmstadter tor polntlng out the tact that ImproTefor nurses had been uilder\\a\ slrlce tlle 1830s, predatirleilts 111 a~~oir1ir1od~1t1o11 lrlg the "nloral refornl" Issues that later doinmated ilurses' resldeil~es. 123 F l o ~ e n c eN~ghtlngale,c ~ t e dIn Deslree Edna~d-Rees,TIM \tor] ofLYirr\o~g (London. Coilstable 170uilgBooks, 1963), 60. 126. L I o n l ~ aBah, "The Niglltlrlgale Nurses. T h e LI\ th a n d the Reallt\," ln 111sI I I Hirto, ~ I TIIP\tot? of t l i ~ Art, e d C h r ~ s t o l ~ h ehlaggs r ( L o n d o n C:room Helm, 1987). 127. As tlle font of all kilo\iledge she \\as consulted o n the establisllineilt of h o s l ~ ~ tsel a l \Ices f o ~the L S go\el nment dl11Ing the Chrll \tar, a n d as a I esult of her efforts 111 tlle Franco-Prussiail TVar she \\as, ~ncredibl\,d e ~ o r a t e db\ both sides. Slle \$as a\\arded tlle Bronze Cross b\ the So~letGd e Secours nu Blesses b\ the French a n d the Prllss~anCross of \ l e n t b1 the h a ~ s e rIn 1871; see F l o ~ e n c e Niglltlngale, ,is Jfzss ,\ighfzngnIe Snzd Flo~eitceA\zghtritgnle T h ~ o z ~ gHhe ) 5n)ritgs ,i 1icfo)rnnPe~sf~ecfzz~e, ed. hloilica Ball (Lolldoll. Scutarl Press, 1991), 36. A \

Chnjfe, 5 ,ifthe J1n)gzns of theEn7jr~e 1. It \$as ail expeilsne trlp froirl England. It took four nlonths, passeilgers had to pro\ ide for their 01\11 susteilarlce a i d required erlougll ~llarlgesof ~lotlliilgto allov tor a clean outfit e a c h ~ $ e e (kn o \ \ a t e r \ \ a s t e do n lalund~T ) SeeX \\ h l a r t ~ n , H e i t ~ Pn~lies j Bzog,@h) (Carlton, \'ic.. Llelbourne Unnersit\ Press, 1980), 1025. 2 T h e ~ectressesof St L ~ n c e n t ' shosp~tal\ \ e l e notnen of educatlon and substance, a c ~ o r d i i l gto Catherme O'Carrigan, ".A~~straliail C a t h o l l ~Hospitals ln tlle Niileteerltll C eiltur\," [or11 nnl of f h e , i ~ ~ ~ t ) n l zCntholzc nit Hzsfo)rc(I(Soczef) 7, 4 (1964). "-36 "The folu rectlesses of the n ~ n e t e e n t hcentulr St L ~ n c e n t ' s\$ere I T S foundress, hlotller Baptist d e L ~ L \ tralned , ln Dubliil St. Tlnceilt's, hlotller Josepll O'Brien, her slster Llotller T e r o n l ~ aO'Brleil, both educated ln France and first collslns of SII D o l n ~ n C ~ ch r r ~ g a nthe , elnlnent Dubhn 11h~s1c1anT h e first

Notes to Pages 80-82

189

Ll~lst~al~an-born nllrse and long-sel Tlng ~ectress,hlother Xa~lelC lunnlnghaln, In contrast, \$asthe granddaughter of coil\~cts"(22). 3 Antl-C athol~c~sm and sectanan r l ~ a l l rlas l no slnall Issue In colonla1 Sldner, but ~t\$asst111irllld ~oirlparedto North Xinerl~a.There \$ereno "IGlo\\-ilotlllngs" or Natn 1st in01 eirleilt equn aleilts ~n .Australlail hlstorl. Noiletheless there \\ere notable antl-C athol~cfiglu es, and Henrl Pal l\es gar e a famed "1mm1g1atlon S p e e ~ h "that trled to tap Into the \ o t ~ n gponers of those frlgllterled that the colon\ \\as be~orlllrlgIrlsh. Desplte the rlletorl~and ~ilflanlinator\spee~lles,the l often exelnpt from 1nllc11of t111shatled nllrslng S~stersof C h a r ~ t nere 4. The Ro\al P r l i l ~ eAlfred Hospltal \\as opened late 111 1882 and took soirle \ears to be~oirleestabllslled. There \\as a lunatic. asllunl, and regional llospltals appeared \\1t11settlelnent Horle~erSt L Incent's and the Srdnel Infil lnal r reinalned the onll nlajor llospltals untll the 1890s. 5. As the Brltlsll go\ erilrllerlt Intended, Ne\$ South \\'ales, so reirlote ail outpost, \\as a place of exlle fi oln \\111c11felt collld expect to I eturn 6. B. R. 111tcllel1,Ii/te)i/ntroncrlHrsto~zcnlSfnfzsfzcs ,if,rccr, L4szcrcritd Ocecr~/zcr,17501988, 2nd re\. ed. (Neil 170rli.Sto~litoil,1993), 63, and hllt~hell,Ii/toi/nfzoncrl Hirto~~ccrl \tntirtic, T l i ~ A t ~ ~ ~ rn~i/lArr\trnln\icr icnr (Detro~t.Gale Resealch, 1983), 7'7, 95. 7. Van Dleineil's Land 1s the lslarld kno\\il as Tasnlanla after 1835. S The settlement of Ne\\ South \\ales l n r o l ~ e dthe d~spossess~on of ~ t A1101 s I ~ I ilal populatloil. See H e l m Relilolds, Drsf~ossessron Elnck ,iusf~crlzcrns nnd Il%rte I)7zlcrde1s(S\ drlel. Allen and Un\\ln, 1989). 9 This \\as to change bl the lSiOs, rlhen \\omen (In ~ ~ a r t ~ c uIr1s11 l a r r$olnen)In S\dile\ for a \\hlle outiluinbered nlen. The storl up couiltrl \\as qulte dlffereilt, r~ildinell coilt~iluedto outrluirlber nonlen slgillfi~antl\ln o\erall terms. See Sh11ler Fltzgel ald, R i r i ~ i gDn~rip \ I ~ I ~ ( > 1870-90 I (\Ielbolu n e Clxford Lnlr el s ~ t l Press, 1987), 179. 10. If the \~onlen'sbables s u r \ ~ \ e to d the age of trio the\ \\ere transferred to the 01phan School Ruth Teale, ed , C o l o ~ i ~ n l E \ococ~\ ~ ~ ( > o ~ Ii T ~ I I L P oi I ~ iliotr/111/1,17881914 (hlelbourile. Oxford Un11ersm Press, 1978), 18. 11. Rosa 1Ia~Glillel, D\i/ninzc of H o f ~ eTloineit Pelrgrorrs Ii/sfzfrrtes rril ,iust,crlzcr (Sldner . C:ross~ngPI ess, 1996), 702 12. The\ also brought nlusl~.S u ~ l\$as l the jo\ 111 slilglrlg that, a~cordlrlgto legend, one \$onlan e s ~ a p e dthe Refectorl one e\enlng to serenade the slsters 111 ap111 eclatlon before I eturnlng to he1 dormltorr PI Irate colnlnllmcatlon r$1t11 S~stel C atllerlile O'C arrlgail, hlstorlail of the Slsters of C llarltl, Potts Polilt, S\dile\. 13. hllrlain Dlrson, The Pecrl Jfntrldtr Tloinen critd Ideittrtj / I / L 4 r ~ ~ t ) n l 1788-1975 rn, (Sldner. Pengllln Books, 19'76), 119-20 No conrlct \\omen \\ere sent to Lan Dleineil's Land froirl Ireland. 14. Patrl~liO'Farrell, The I)zsh rit ,iust,crlzcr, re\. ed. (Fkilslngton. Ne\$ Soutll Ilales Um~ersltlPI ess, 1993), 23 13. Pold~ilgto Propagrlildrl Flde, October 1839. The L e f t e ~ ofJohi/ s Eede Poldzng, ed. 11. Xa\ler Coirlptoil et al. (S\dile\. Good Sainarltail Slsters, 1994), \01. 1, 146 16 This lnoTe \\as In confol mltr r$1t11 their rule The slstels considered that tllelr \ o\\ of po\ ertl pre\ eilted the111froirl reLen lilg pa\ irleilt. 17. Slster O'Brleil \$aspartl~ularlllrlceilsed at tills. Her po\ert\ 111 S\dne\ \$as berond her \\orst expectations Her dorll r had been &1,300- a sltbstantlal s u n and to be begglilg froirl the blsllop and sur\l\lilg 011 doilat~oilsof food \tr1s\ e r \ hard. hlaureen hl. I(.O'Sull~\an, Cnrrse of T ~ o u b l Ie~~z s h*\rri/s nnd Englrsh C1e)zcs (Sldner . C:ross~ngPI ess, 1993), 62

190

Notes to Pages 82-83

18 \lacG~nle\,D I I ! O I I ofHol~c>, L!~ 67 19. Rule fornlulated nlth Jesult asslstailLe. T h e other Jesult ~ n f l u e i l ~comes e from the 1'01 k Hollse of \la1 \ \ a d , \+hele hIar\ A k e n h e a d undertook he1 no\ltlnte 111preparation for estnbllslllilg the Slsters of C llarlt\. See hlacG~nle\,D ) ncritlzc ofHo;De, 70. 20 Ho\\e\el, the 1 x 1 lnlsslon of the b l s h o l ~\\as a l ~ \ a \Iseqlnl e d tor ~ \ o r k\\1t111n s 111s dlocese. 21. ,1 Ceittu)) of Se171zce The Reco~d of Oite H z ~ n d ) e dIems, publlslled for the C entenarl of St L Incent's Hosp~tal,23 J a n u a r ~1934 (Dltblln. BI o n n e a n d Nolan, 1934), 20-21. 22. Tlle hlotller Rectress coiltrolled the llospltal- nurses nrld lrledlcnl nlen. "It 1s to her that the hIedlcal staff a1 e r e s l ~ o n s ~ bfol l e all that concel ns the sclent~fic \\elfare of the llospltal. She also rntlfies the ilorlllilntloil of all lrledl~nloffi~ers, though hesto\+nlof staff appoliltnlents IS reser\ed for the Head Superlor (of the comlnlumt\) D~sbllrselnent1s e n t l r e l ~In her hands," Ibld , SO , 23. I h ~ d .64-66. 24. Slster d e Sales (Catherlile O'Brleil) llnd trained at the H6p1tnl de la P~Gtle, r u n b\ the Hosl~ltalli.resof Thomas d e Llllenelne He1 1833 notebook (In F r e i l ~ h )~oiltnliledlrledlcnl nrld ilurslilg ~nforlnatlon.Slle also spent n rllorltll at Le H a r e C lllldren's Hospltnl and llnd a liilo\\ledge of dlspeilslng. O'Brlen \tent to Hobal t In 1847 to escape Poldlng's persecution S ~ s t eBaptlst r (Ahcla de Lac\) s Duhllil. See "200 17enrs of Nursing, n Pllotogrnplll~ trnliled at St. \ ' ~ i l ~ e n t ' 111 Hlstorl," B~ceiltenil~al 11ft out, The Lnitlf~,Xprll 1988. 23 See Anne-\la1 e e \ \ h ~ t a k e "The ~, C on\lct PI lests. 11lsh C : a t l ~ o l ~ c ~Ins ~Earl\ n Coloillal Ne\\ South TZhles," ln The I ~ z s hTlo11d Tlzde H1sfo14,He~zfnge,Idepnfzf),101. i ail (London. L e l ~ e s t e Un11 r erslt\ Press, 3, Relzgzoit critd Ide)7fzf),ed. P n t r l ~ lO'Sulll\ 1996), "-40 Partlculal I\ during the FI ench \\ ars these C:athohc con\lcts and tllelr prlests \+ereregarded \ \ ~ t lcorls~dernble l susp1~1oi1. For n ~ I S C U S S I O Iof ~ C llrlstlnrl ~ l l u r ~ l l ln e s elgllteenth- and nineteenth-~enturl S\dne\ see Geoffrel PartL Y / ~ t ~ Its o ~ iB~!t!\li cr~iclIris11 Root, (\Ielboul ne. Australian lngton, TIIPA~tstrcrhcr~i S~llolnrl\P u h l ~ s l l ~ n1994), g, 1-28. 26. O'Carrlgail, "Slsters of C llarlt\," 2. 27 T h e l e n e l e three deaths In 1833 See C)'Sulllran, A C/rrr\~ofT~orrblc~), 233 28. Ibld., 123 for n dlscusslon of the attelnpted dlspossessloil of the slsters of C llarlt\ of tllelr Pnrrnrllnttn coil\ eilt. 29 In 1834 hIlss \la1 \ Ann C lunnlnghaln, \ + h o\\as to become the first Ll~lstras ser\lilg, d\lng CIS rectress of St. Vlnceilt's Hospl11ail trnliled nurse, nrld ~ t longest tal ln 1903, armed to jolil the c o n l n l u n ~ t nrld \ he trnliled as a nurse. Slle \\as sent , a\\a\ until the colnmumt\ had a home of the11 o n n C:ather~neO'C a1 ~ l g a n"St Vlnceilt's Hospltal, S\ h e \ , Ploileer ln Nlileteeiltll C erlturl Henltll Care" (1l.A thesis, Ui11\ e r s t \ of S\ h e \ , 1986). SO Poldlng \+as oTerseas and C;legol\ as second In command \\as In charge Tlle Slsters corlsldered Gregorl " ~ o l n l n o n . "The\ \\ere not lrlcllrled to he ordered about b\ a nlail the\ ~orlslderedtllelr s o ~ l a llnferlor. See O'Sulll\nn, LA C/rrr\c>ofT~orrblci),228 31. Father Gregorl to Slster TVllllnnls, 16 .Aprll1847, Correspoildeil~e,Gregorl to TVllllnnls, 16 Xprll 1847, quoted 111 O'Sulll~ail, 111. 3 2 ( J o h n Hubel t Plunkerr), A B~iclf5lr~tclio f t l i ~Ptocts Co~!g~c>g-crtio~! of 51stp1sof Chn~rtj,Cn~rfrrl(!Selectedf,om LArrtheittrc Sorr~ces( S \ d n e \ . Kelnp and Fnlrfnx, 1853), quoted 111 O'C nrrlgnn, "St. \ ' ~ i l ~ e n t 'Hospltal, s S\ dne\." 33 51d1icqd1o1~io!gHr.~crld, 8 Febl ual \ 1833

Notes to Pages 85-87

191

34 Geofrel Serle, TIIPGol&~iA ~ P Histo) I of t l i ~Colo111oflrlctor~n,1851-1861 (Llelbourne. Llelbourne Un11erslt\ Press, 1971), 10-12. 33 O ~ ~ p o s ~to t ~the o ntlanspol tatlon of con\~ctshad become ~ncreas~ngl\ ~ocal ln \'lctorla and Ne\\ Soutll IVales, but tlle end of trarlsportatloil \\as final11 sealed \\ltll tlle gold rusll. As tlle Brltlsll Secretan of State dr\l\ reinarked, "It nould appear a soleclsln to con\e\ offenders, at the public expense, \+lththe lntentlon of at no dlstailt tlirle settlilg their1 free, to tlle lirlirledlate \ I C I ~ ~ Iof~ \tllose \ e r \ goldfields \\hlch thousands of llorlest labourers are ln \am tr\lng to r e a ~ h . " hlanmng Clark, A 5liort H~,torI rlfActrtrcrhcr (hlelbollrne. Penguin, 1993), 131 Tr,lilsport~lt~on to Irestern .A~~stral~a did, llol+e\er,coiltlilue uiltll 1867. 36. The papac\ \\as \ e r \ ner\ous about natlonallst nlo\eineilts. Tlus caused 111 oblems for the h~erarch\In 11eland, \\ho endea~oredto e x l ~ l a ~that n Ir~sh lrldepeildeil~e\\as not a left-1+111gre\olutloilar\ nlo\eineilt. But b\ the 1920s, \\hlle onl\ fi\e of a hundred C atllollcs \\ere Irlsll, three of four prlests !+ere I I I Air,t)nl~n, 293 In Allstralla the long t~+entleth11~shmenSee O'Fal I ell, T1r~Ir1,h ceiltur\ relgil of Xrchblsllop Llanillx ln Llelbourile dranlatl~all\sllaped Austra11ail polltlcal hlstor\ through both \\orld nars and the Cold IVar. See Lllcllael Hogan, " \ \ h a t e ~ e rHappened to Xllstlahan Sectar~amsm,"Jorrr~icrlof R~l~g~octr H z s f o )13, ~ 1 (1984-85). 83-91. 37. Il'llether tlle slsterllood \\as Irlsll or not ln cllara~terand foundatloll, ~ o n l ls In the mneteenth centurl In Australla, and to a munltles of ~ e h g ~ o l\\omen l\ Irlsll ln rlurllber - Irlsll great extent 111 Nortll Xnlerlca, alirlost ~ n e \ ~ t a bbe~arlle .A~~stral~an fouildatlon \\oirleil ran alnlost all the slsterlloods. E\ en the (ilon-Ir~sll) of the Slsters of St Joseph, under the rebelllous \Iothel hlch~llop, \+astaken o\el b\ Irlsll nonlen. See Jarll~eTrailter, "The Irlsll Dlirleilslorl of ail Xustral~arlRellglous Slsterllood. The Slsters of St. Josepll," ln TI!?I~zshTlb)ld Tlrde, \ol. 3, ed. O'Slllh~an,234-33 38. Tlle best ~llustrat~oil of tins Xustral~arlnature of the S\dne\ ~ o n l i n u i l ~1st \ that St. Vlnceilt's proud11 pro\~ded.A~~stral~a's first ilurslng \oluilteer to TZhrld agalnst ~ n ~ o l \ e l n eIn n t the rial, Ilal 1 The Ir~shIn Allstralla \\ere o~er\\helln~ngl\ a slgrllficarlt factor 111 tlle defeat of the trio national referenda oil Loi1scrIptloil. For tlle polltl~alIrlsh, tlle Issue of nlllltar\ ser\lce for Brltaln !+as llillied to dramatlc e\ents back holne, sllch as the defeated 1916 Eastel Rlslng In Dltbhn, and the 1917 execution of Irlsll patriots. 39. Poldlilg to Propagailda Flde, 20 June 1839, PoIdri/gLetfeis,287. 10 Slr C:hal les N~cholson,descl lbed b\ Dublln'sXl chb~sllopC llllen as a "benefactor of tlle nulls and an adnllrer of tllelr \\ark," \\as t\plcal of tlle lilrld of ilonC atllollc pllllailtllroplst nllo ~ a l u e dtlle norli of the slsters. He \\as a nlail of figlue In the econolnlc de~elopenormous \\ealth and a substantla1 h~stor~cal In 1837 lle returned to Eilglarld \\here lle b e ~ a i n ea ke\ ad\lser irleilt of .A~~stral~a. to tlle Brltlsll go\ erilrllerlt on all nlatters .Australlail. 11 Ibld He \+asto continue to support the hospital \+lthg~ftsfrom Ellrope of stallled glass and rellglous art. 42. Ibld. To be paid ln £300 ~rlstallrllerltsat 7 percent Interest. 1 3 (Plunkerr), A Brief 5lr~tclioftlip P~octrCo~igrr>gcrt~o~~ Cnllc./l 51,t~rof Clrcr~it~ 44. Poldlilg to Propagailda Flde, 20 June 1839, PoIdri/gLetfeis,287. 43. Ibld.. "~oiltrar\to nl\ judgeineilt, but ln deference to hlrs de L ~ L \a, Dr Robel tson had been al~l~olnted lned~calattendant " 46. St. Vlnceilt's Hospital, Fz~stL4i/i/rrnl Pejo) t, 1857-61 (S\dile\). 47. Poldlrlg to Propagailda Fldes, 13 hla\ 1859. "The finail~eof the Xrclldiocese has been great11 stralned b\ a debt of &I000 " Poldo~gL~tt~rr, 281

192

Notes to Pages 87-90

18 It nas the cause of great resentment and d ~ s l n ato ~ the slstels H o \ \ e ~ e r , altllough S~sterScholast~cnG~bborls1s re\ ered as tlle founder of the .Austral~ail ~ the Good Shephe~ d,she refilsed eTer to renounce comtnlumt\ of the S ~ s t se of her status as n S~sterof Chnr~t\nrld reirln~ileda S~sterof C llar~t\urlt~lslle d ~ e dSee . hlacG~nle\,,i D j ncrmrc ofHo@e,92. 19 S~stersof C h a r ~ t \A, Histo11 oftlip 50tprs ofCli(/rit\ ( 1 ) iliot1/11!/1, 118 50. 5jd77ej .\.lo) nritg He~crld,2June 1859. 51. 5jd77ej .\.lo) nritgHe)crld, 6June 1859. 32 She \\as cel ta~nllnot plln~shed,desp~tethe fact that Poldlng had a1 I anged for tlle S~stersof C llar~t\to be fornlall\ se\ered from tlle~rDubl~nllouse. See O'Sull~\nn,LACnrrseofTiouDle~,91-103 for n d ~ s ~ u s s ~ofo the i l cllr1ilgeof the S~sters of C h a r ~ t \I ule that Poldlng secret11 obta~nedfrom Rome, ~+111ch separated theln \ not froin Dub1111and put tlleirl under 111snutllor~t\.It !+as dear that de L ~ Lllnd to return to Ireland nrld lo\ed S\dile\ nrld tlle llosp~talgrentll. X letter slle \\~slled \\rote to the slstels In S ~ d n e man\ l leals later reflects h o ~ milch + she had mlssed her "dear fr~eilds~n the sunil\ soutll." Xrlilnls of tlle S~stersof Chnr~t\,S~stersof C llar~t\X r ~ h n e sDubl~n. , 33 C)'Sulh~an, A Clrrr \P of T Iorr blc.,, "39 54. Pold~ilgto Cnrd~ilnlBarilnbo at Propaganda F ~ d e ,16 .Apr~l1860. Poldzng Letfeis, 317. 33 And perhaps he \\as C erta~nllan Ir~shb~shop,DI Qunn, shamelessl\ perse~uteda group of S~stersof h l e r ~ \~n Br~sbnrleat tins tlirle nlthout censure. See Edrllurld Cainp~on,Roclicho;D;Dos G~orc~zngP Cntholrc 277 ,iust,crlzcr (Llelbourne. Penglun, 1982), 73 56. None of tlle fi\e or~g~ilnl S~stersof C llar~t\rerlln~iled~n S\dile\ nlleil de LAD)ncrinzc of H o f ~ e . Lac\ returned to Ireland ~n 1859. See LIn~G~ille\, 37 L n t ~the l t ~ + e n t ~ ecentm th 1, hen the hosp~tal became Incleaslngl\ successful at gnlillilg publ~cf ~ ~ i l dSee s . Br~nrlD~cliel,"St. \'~il~ent's Hosp~tal,S\dile\. X Note," Jou)itnl offheRojcrl,iust~crIzcritHrstoizcnl Soczetj (8 Septeinber 1978). 131-33. 38 Sllch nas the nllmber of f o elgnel ~ s ~ + hcame o to St L Incent's that the^ e \\as a La11 for eirlbnss~esto nsslst tlle slsters to defra\ tlle ~ o s of t burla1 of fore~grlers Hosp~tal,,innucrIRef~oit,1872 (S\dne\). \\~tllout fain~l\.St. \'~il~ent's 39 H e n r ~Pal Les, F f t ~Ewr\ ofAir\tlnl!n~!H!\torj (London Longmans, 1892), \ol. 2, 28. 60. O'Carr~gail,".A~~stral~ail C a t h o l ~Hosp~tnls ~ 111 the N~ileteeiltllC entun," 20-36 61. Jledzcnl Gcrzeftel (1871). 110. 62. I b ~ d . 63 Pal Les nas not about to mlss the o11po1tlurntl to bask In the reflected g l o r ~ of one of tlle real stars of the V ~ ~ t o r ~era. a i l He ~ o i l t ~ i l u endcord~nlcorrespoilderlce 111tllN~ght~ilgale and he \\as ?\en so lloilored as to be granted an nud~ence b\ the lad\ on her ~ n ~ a collch l ~ d In 1888 Pa~Les,F f t j Ewr\ ofArr\tlnl!n~!H i s t o l ~ , 209-10. 64. Florence N~gllt~rlgnle to H e m \ Pnrlies, 24 October 1866. Cob of cot ~ e s f ~ o n ~ P I I ( P~ P ~ ( ~ J P Pt Il !i ~COIOI!I(II go7vJr1 , I ~ I P It! (11!d llI1ss FIOIPI!CP L Y ! g l i t ~ ~ i g(11ic1 / ~ l ~otli~r ~ 5 (i~itlt iejheitce to the I)7fiodz~ctr0)7of Tinrited ,\il,sesfoi the 5jdne) Iitfii i n n ) ) critd Drs@ensnij (S\ drlel. Josepll C ooli, 1867), 8.L11tchell. 63 J F r e d e ~ ~ cItatson, k TI/(>H!\torj oj'tli~ 5jd1i(>jHo\pitnljorr~ 1811 to 1 9 1 1 (S\drle\. TV. A. Gull~cl\,191l ) , 30. 66. Jaines hl~lellnrll!+as ~ourt-inartlaledfor rlegle~t~rlg tins l+onlnn.Thereafter, attending slu geonsnel e allo\\ed 11m1tedprnate p~actlce at the S l d n e ~Infi~mar\

Notes to Pages 90-92

193

See C J C lunlnlns, "The C olonlal \Ied~calSel \lee," J I ~ ~ P~I II [! T ~ ! o~f dI ~! tPr t r n l ! n (7Jailunr\ 1974). 16. 67 Bartz Schllltz, A T / I ~ I IPrlf~ ~J PII T J I ( P T l r E~ T J O I / L ~ofLYl\;o ! O I ! r i ~ i g/ I ! i l l ( \ ~ I / I I ! / I(\Ielbourne. Churclllll Ll\lngstoile, 1991), 77, and Douglas Lllller, E n ~ l r eD) n ) s ,4 S f o ~ j of S f I>itceitt s (S\dile\.Xilgus nrld Robertson, 1969). Pnnce Xlfi ed \\as the f i st ~ member 68 It \+asa dreadfill scandal f o ~Ll~lstral~a of the rolal fainll\ to \ l s ~the t Loiltlileilt r~ild 111s I S I ~llnd ~ n u s e dn frenz\ of pntrlotlsirl at endl stop. Fredn LI~Donilell,Jlrss zghtritgnle s Ibrr itg Lndzes (S\ dile\. Angus and Robertson, 1970), 31 69. Tlle Ferllnrls \\ere n secret ilntloilnllst group forinall\ called the Irlsll Rep u b l ~ ~ nBrotllerllood. n The\ \+ereilnrlled after n nl\ tl11~ C elt~chero and brail~hes l\ and Dltbhn In 1838 The\ \+eretanlolls \\el e to1 lned s~lnultaneollsllIn Ne\+ 1'01 for, nrlloilg other thlilgs, ail 111-concened assault on C nnada ln 1866. H e l m Pnrkes \\as irlost l l \ s t e r ~ ~about al the threat of the Irlsll nrld \\ltllheld the lilforirlntloil that CI'Fal I ell \\as an untortllnate d~sturbedlndl~ldllal\+ho\\as most Ilkel\ actlng alone. Indeed, lle llnd attenlpted to nssnsslilnte the C a t h o l blsllop ~~ of Llelbourne a short tlrlle before the attenlpt on P r l i l ~ Alfred. e Tlle truth d ~ not d coirle to l~gllt until aftel the execution A \\ hlart~n,H ~ ~P /I I II~ , A P ~Biogrcrl~li~(\Ielbolu n e hlelbourile Un11ersm Press, 1980), 240-41. 70. See Jud~tllGodden nrld Sue Fors\ tll, "Defining Relat~onsll~ps nrld Llirl~tlrlg rI Po\\el. TT+O Leadel s of Australian Nurs~ng,1868-1901," L Y / ~ r \ ! ~ ! g I ~ ! q7u !(2000) I ~ the ~ ~ po\\er struggles bet\+eeiltrained nurses and nled~calirleil for n ~ I S L U S S of ln Ne\+South \\'ales. 71 In fact, \\hen the model ne\\ hosl~~tal \\as opened, the Pnnce Alfied, Roberts poliltedl\ n\olded appoliltlilg n trained nurse as matron. Tlus \+asa snub to Osburil, \+lloreturned to Eilglnrld ln 1884. Tlle uiltralned matron \+asalso unsat~sfacto~ \, "exceed~nghe1 all tho^ I T \ " b\ appolntlng nlu ses as head nlu ses Roberts nppolrlted ailotller trained nurse, Susan hlcGahe\, to the posltlorl ln 1891, but agnm refused to gl\ e her the authorlt\ to funct~oilproperh. I b ~ d . 72 hlarl Bal l \ e ~to Florence N~ght~ngale, 30 hlal 1868, BL Add hlss 17,737, ff 233-36.L11tchell. Llbrarl. 73. LUL\Osburil to Florence N~gllt~ngnle, 20 LIn\ 1869, BLXdd. hlss. 47,737, ff 73-75, hl~tchellL ~ b r a r ~ 74. I b ~ dOsburn . 1s quoting hllller's grunlbllng to Nlghtlilgale here. 73. Osburn to N~gllt~ngnle, 26 Februarl 1869, BL Add. hlss. 47,575, ff 101-4, hl~tchellL~brarl 76. Osburil to N~glltlngnle,4 Deceirlber 1868, BL Add. Llss. 47, 737, ff 93-100, h l ~ t ~ l l eLlbrarl. ll 77 H e n ~ r\Ia\he~+o b s e r ~ e dthat 111sh\\omen" h a ~ l n gbeen accllstomed to tllelr hoods - the\ seldoirl \+earboilnets." hla\lle\\, Loitdon Lnborr~nitd the Londoit Po07 (1861-12, reprlilt Hnrnlondsl+ortll.Peilgulil, 1983), 57. 78 I b ~ d 79. 111 addltlon to the "nlnkeo\er" of the nurses' llalr, Osburn ~nlined~atel\ lrltroduced prnlers ln the \\ards. Barker to Nlghtlilgale, 30 LIn\ 1868, BL Add. hlss 47, 737, ft 233-36, \11tchell L I ~a1I\ 80. P u b l Cllnrlt~es ~~ C onlin~ss~oil, Coininzsszon 41f1oritted to Inqrrz7e z77fo nitd R e f ~ f o ~ [?on the Tlb~liritgnitdJlnnngemenf o f f h e Publzc Chn~rtres,F z ~ sPt e f ~ o ~18 t , Septeirlber R~chards,1973), 76 1873 ( S ~ d n e lThomas . 81. Ibld., 73. 82. Be\erle\ Klilgston, J f ) Tlife, A J f ) Dnughto, n77d Po07 Jim) ,47777 Tlbineit nitd TT'o11r/ I ! A~trtrcrhcr( S l d n e ~Nelson, . 1973), 29-33 A \

194

Notes to Pages 92-95

88 R e g ~ s t eof ~ Nllrs~ng,S l d n e ~Hosp~tal1868-84, S ~ d n e Hosp~tal l Archlr e 84. Osburn to N~glltlngale,24 AIar~111870, BL Add. AIss. 47,737, ff 127-32, hl~tchellL ~ b r a r l 83. D. G. Boud, Lrrcq Osbu)it, 1836-1891 (TVlndsor. Hanlisbur\ Press, 1968), 19. 86. I h ~ d . 87 Luc\ Osbllrn to Florence Nlght~ngale,24 hlarch 1870, Add \Iss 17,737, f 127-32,AIltchell Llbrar\. 88. At the e n d of tllelr tllree-\ear corltraLt four of the fi\e \ \ e r e not ~ o n t l n u e d . See Boltd, L u c ~050co11,20 89. Osburn to N~glltlngale,24 hlarch 1870, BL Add. AIss. 47, 757, ff 127-32, h l ~ t ~ l l eLlhrarl. ll 90 Osburn to Nlght~ngale,16 J u n e 1869, BL Add hlss 17,757, f 113-18, h l ~ t ~ l l eLlhrarl. ll 91. I h ~ d . 119-22. , 9 2 O s b l l r n to Nlght~ngale,26 Febrllar\ 1869, BL Add \Iss 47 373, ff 101-1, h l ~ t ~ l l eLlhrarl. ll 93. P u h l ~ cCllarlt~esC o n l ~ n ~ s s ~Fz~st o i l , Re$o~f , 72. 94 Because of t h ~ d~tficlllt\, s t h e ~ en a s n o slster In tralmng at the tlme of the 1873 Iilqulr\. Ibld., 34. 93. Oshuril to Nlghtlilgale, 16 June 1869, BL Add. hlss. 47,757, ff 113-18, hl~tchellL ~ b r a r l 96. Oshurrl to Nlghtlilgale, 12 Ma\ 1873, BL Add. hlss. 47,757, ff 140-43, h l ~ t ~ l l eLlhrarl. ll II, 97 See Pal tlngton, T l r ~ A / r \ t r n l ~,nY~/ Ii ~ I O"-13 98. Lllllail James, "Horse-Breal\~ilgPreferred! Lucl Oshuril of S\dile\ Hospltal," 111 Lr7jes Obscrr~e(!Glenf Hzsto~zcnlE s s q s on Tlbineit 277 A\ezo Sorrth Tlnles, ed. Patrlc~aTholnl~sonand Susan Yorke ( S ~ d n e S~ o. c ~ e tof~ \\omen \ \ n t e r s (Aust r a l ~ Neil ~ ) South \\'ales Branch, 1980), 92. 99. AI~Donilell,Jlrss ,\ighfzngnIe s Ibung Lndzes, 103. l e lost t a ~ t hIn Osburn n h e n a t a m ~ l e~t t e ~\\1t11 nensl 100 N ~ g h t ~ n g a had lnforlnatlon o n the care of Prlrlce Alfred had beell Lopled a n d c l r ~ u l a t e db\ o n e of Osburil's couslils. Schultz, ,i T n f ~ e s fof~ qSe)zlrce,82. 101 Pubhc C h a r ~ t ~C:omlnlss~on, es F~rrtR r y ~ o ~30 t, 102. I b ~ d .76. , 103. hlotller AIarl X~lieilllead,111 LA Ceittu,) ofSe17~zce, 24. 1 0 1 St \Incent's p ~ o l t d lclallns ~ a felt "firsts " For Instance, ~t n a s the f i ~ s t h o s p ~ t a to l enlplo\ a ~hlorofornllst,&chard Ba~le\.See ,iust~nIzns Qrresf f o ~Colo11201 Henlth (Br~sbane.U i l ~ \ e r s ~of t \ Queenslaild, Departlrleilt of C luld Health, RCH, 1983), 91 105. See hllller, En~lze,Dnqs, 66-67 a n d S~stersof Charlt\, "A H ~ s t o r lof the S~stersof Charlt\," 104. 106 hlllle~,E n r l ~ Dnjr, ~r 24 107. 111 1886 the unl\erslt\ senate accepted tllese rules for nled~calappolntIneilts, and ln 1891 St. \ ' ~ i l ~ e n t 'expanded s ~ t role s as a tea~lllrlgllospltal for the Facult\ of hledlclne at the L m ~ e r s of ~ tS~~ d n e lSee hlllle~,E n r l ~ Dnjr, ~r 24 , 108. I b ~ d . 105. 109. O'Sull~\an,LA Cnuse of T ~ o u b l e20. ~, 110 Ibld , 303 111. S~stersof Charlt\, "A H ~ s t o r of l the S~stersof C l l a r ~ t ~n \ .Australla," 117. 112. Tlle con\erslorl clalnls so colrlrllorl 111 the North X l n e r ~ ~ allospltal il arlilals are consplcuollsl~absent fi oln those of the S ~ d n Se ~ s t se of ~ C har~t\

Notes to Pages 97-10:!

195

113 Tralmng at St \ ~ n c e n t ' s \ \ a sat a cost to the nluses- ten guineas In 1888 Tlus p r o \ ~ d e d\\orkers and lilLorlle for the slsters. T h e slsters ~ o u l honest11 d clnlirl that b\ necessltT the\ attracted a "better class of g111" Tralmng of secula~\\omen coirlrllerlced ln 1882. Tlle first slster to he trnliled \+asXrlil Cuiln~ngllainln 1857. Flrst Reg~ster,St. Vlnceilt's Hospltnl, Dnrllngllurst, S\ dne\. 1 1 1 A h o ~ eall, ~t \\as d ~ f f i c ~to l t find a neat nurse, nor n a s neatness an e a n attrlhute to ~nstlll."It \\as \ e r \ d ~ f f i ~ uto l t t e n ~ l ltlle ilo\lces to he neat. h l ~ s s ll and Oshuril found n prett\ Irlsll glrl llad t ~ e du p tlle holes ln ller f r o ~ \k+ ~ t strlilg, she shpped o f her shoes and stock~ngs\ \ h e n In the rial ds " Tralmng \\as poss~ble, ho\+e\er,nrld ln splte of these d e f e ~ t sOsburn clnlirled that tlus recrult \tent o n to becorne "a klild a n d capltnl ilurse." See hl. Snlinon, "A P~orleerof Trained Nllrses," A/r\t~nlcrricr~! Trn!~!c~l~Y/rr\~r Joco1!nl(13 N o ~ e m b e r1911). 363 115. Luc\ Osburn's slsters becnrne nlatrons of hludgee Hospltnl (1870), Tarboil Creek (1873), Ornrlge (1877), Parrnnlatta (1879), (1880), Chlldreil's Glehe (188O), Launceston (188O), Hobart (1881), Bathllrst (1881), Balla~at (1883), aild170uilg (1885). See R. L\ilette Russell, "Lucl Osburn. T h e Flrst of Alan\," F o s f A\ntroncrlA\i~)szng H r s t o ~ jCoitfe)eitce, Llelbourile, LIn\ 1993 (hlelbourile. Ro\nl College of Nlu slng, Australla, 1993), 68

1. C l l r o r l ~ ~ lof e s tlle S~stersof P r o \ ~ d e i l ~3e Ma\ , 1876-Jul\ 1878, \ol. 1, 1 ( X ) , t~ans S ~ s t eDo1 r otln Lentz P r o ~ ~ d e n Seattle ce hIed~calCenter C ollect~on,S~sters of P r o \ ~ d e i l ~Xer ~ l l les, \ S n ~ r e dHeart Pro\ IilLe, Seattle, TZhslllilgtoil (llerenfter SPA, ilunlbers ln pareiltlleses are collect~orlnunlhers). 2 Of collrse the notlon of "fi ontlel " 1s far fi oln ~ ~ r o b l e m a tS~~cn c eF r e d e ~ c k l ctlle e Frorlt~erln XinerlJn~ksoilTurner's f;~inous1893 essnl, "Tlle S ~ g i l ~ f i ~ n rof call Hlstorl," tlle coilLept llas heen Inlportailt 111 Xnler~cailh~storlogrnph\.Ree + ~ t n e s sae dcrltlque of the race, g e n d e ~ and , class assllmlltlons cent \eals h a ~ ~ See, that uilderp~niled\ \ l l ~ tXnler~ca's e \le\\ of the so-~alled"einpt\ " \+~lderiless. Jaineson, eds., The Tlbn7eit s Tlesf (Norfor IilstailLe, Susan Xrrll~tngenrld El~znbeth man. U n l r e ~s ~ t \of C)klahotna PI ess, 1987) I l ~ t h o u tattemlltlng to o ~ e r s ~ r n p l ~ f \ the LoilLept of "front~er,"tlle inlsslonar\ iluils expressed tlle roinailtlc chnllenye of pioilee;ing ill a \vild place. Tlleir diaries touch ;n tlle beaut!, of tlle \vilderiless, their wonder at the strangeness of native American culture, a n d their horror at the barbarity of rllerl. In sllort, they \\.ere touched h!, their enviroilnlent and aware of their setting, and they were building empires in the new land. Tlle ilotioil of frontiel; then, is usefill ~ i h e nesamining this chapter of t h e i r ~ i o r kin America. 3. Tlle X i n e r ~ ~ aProtect11 il e Xsso~~nt~o ori lM , A , \+asa secret ilntloilnl orgaillzntlorl that alnled to keep all go\ernineilt posts 111 the llnrlds of Protestants. It \\as \el T p o p u l a ~In the 1890s a n d ~ Tepo~+erfill ~ In Seattle T h e h u hlllx hlan n a s also \ e r \ nLtl\e ngalnst Cntllollcs, nrld crosses \+ereburned oil llospltal la\\ils 111 Oregon and ln Snrl Xntoil~o.See E l l ~ sLuun, Senftles Srstos of Aoz~rdence(Seattle. P10~1detlce\Ied~calC entel, 1978), 37; a n d S ~ s t e\ I~a ~ g a r e tP a t ~ ~ cSlatterl, la Prot~lzscs to fie$ A H r s f o ~ ofthe j Szsfe~sof Chn)zf)ofthe Iitccr~ncrfe T l b ~ d Snit , Aittonro, Texns, 2nd ed., 2 \ols. (Sail Xntoil~o.S~stersof tlle Incarnate IVord, 1998), 101. 2,227. 1 h l o t h e ~S a ~ nPICI t I e C:~nqu~n, c ~ t e dIn Slatte~1, P I O I ~ to ! Ik'(>cy), ~ P \ ~ o 1, l 7 5. Tins \+asn ~ o n l i n u i l ~full\ t \ ln the splrlt of St. \ ' ~ i l ~ e n t 'Daughters s of C llarlt\. For IilstailLe, tlle Custoinar\ of the Dnugllters of C l l a r ~ t \Ser\ailts of tlle Poor ~ncllldest r a d ~ t ~ o n\a IncentIan l exercises sllch as ~ e c o l l e c t ~ oof n pralel 1+1tl1the

196

Notes to Pages 102-105

s t r ~ k ~ nofg the clock; see General Chapter, 1938 \Iontreal, 12, S P 1 Dallghtels of C llarlt\ Ser\ailts of the Poor \+as the orlglnal offi~laltltle for the coinnlunlt\, altllough the slsters llad other corllrlloil names. 111 1970 the officlal tltle \+as changed to S~stersof PI o ~ l d e n c eT h ~ ts~ t l e1s st111used to I efer to the ealll cornmunlt\ hen the\ \\ el e officlall\ Dallqhtel s of Chal IT\,S~stels of PI o ~ l d e n c ethe11 ; Freilcll rlairle was Filles d e ~ l l a r i ~e;,antes t~ des Pauvres. 6. Tllat said, a rich irlix of \\.oineil becarne Sisters of Provideilce. T h e register of entl ants for the three nestel n 11roTlnces s h o ~ +11 slsh, Engllsh, Amencan, Gel Inan ( a n d eTen an Australian!) n o m e n tlalned In \ l o n t ~ e a l Nonetheless, Montreal \\omen pledomlnate men In the 1900s In fact ~t1s not until the 1930s that thele are irlore U.S. tllarl Q u e b e ~\+onlen oil tlle register. Reglster S e ~ r e t a r lGeneral Office, SPA 7 Lettels of hlother Salnt PICII C C lnqlun, tlans Slstel hathleen Gal Te\ (1977), 6. Llotllerhouse of the Ii1~arilateTZhrd, Sarl Ailtonlo, Texas (hereafter LLISP, A\lIIl) 8 Pat1 lcla Slattel ~ ' trio-~olulne s 111sto1\of the cotnmunlt\ 111o ~ l d e sdetailed bacl\grouild o n tlle irlotller Loininuillt\ ln France, see. See Slatten, P ) O I ) L Z to S~S K(>c?,~ol1, 11-17 9 I b l d , 208 10. Ibld, 134. 11 Non-\Iex~canrellglous n e r e exl~elledfioln h l e x ~ c oIn 1917 S l a t t e r ~PIOI~I, I S ? ) to k'(>$), ~ o 2, l 227 s h o ~ \ the s 11stof college 1111nc1palsIn hlexlco- the names cllarlge to Spaillsll b\ 1909. Vol. 1, 133 llsts reLrults b\ i l a t ~ o i l a l ~-LIexlcan t\ \\omen entlants rlse from follr In 1911 to fifteen In 1922 12 I b ~ d, 6 l 13. Ibld., 23. 1 4 There 1s a m l ~ l ee ~ l d e n c ethat the first leadel, h l o t h e ~\Iadelelne C:hollet (1869-72), \ \ h o n a s agaln leader at the e n d of he1 hfe In 1891-1906, \\as 11hte1ate. See Slatterl, P)oi)lzses to Elre$, 101. 1, 22-23. T h e ~ l l a r g for e p r n a t e patlents \\as $1 00 to 5 2 5 0 pel da\, c ~ t \patlents 30 cents pel da\, a n d there n e r e a large nllmber of flee patients 29, X\1111 At FOIt Ilorth there n e r e three classes of patleilt. prnate, L I ~ \( ~ l l ~ l r latn\ d eirlplolee), and railroad. Slatterl, \ol. 2, 91. 13 Slattel\,\ol 2, 3 16 Santa Rosa Infil I n a n Remark Book, J u n e 1892-Octobel 1892, Janua11 1896-De~enlber1898. XLIITK 17 \lother Salnt Plerre to Lions LSPC , X\1111 18 \lother Salnt Plerre to Lions 19J u l ~ 1884, , 117 LSPC:, XhlI\\ 19. T h e count\ llospltal ~ l o s e ddo\\il after fi\e \ears, f o l l o \ \ ~ n de\astatlon y ln a st01In, a n d the slsters had great d~fficlllt\gettlng mane\ o n e d them b~ the count\ See Slatten, P ~ ~ I I to L Kc>($, I \ P S~ o 12, 11 20. For Instance, the St. LOUISllospltal led to tlle establlsllrllerlt of a irlajor a separate proTlnce Slatten, f o u n d a t ~ o nIn \11ssoll11,~+111ch e ~ e n t l l a l lbecame ~ \0l 1 , 3 3 21. T h e stor\ of the Xinarlllo Hospital, St. Xiltlloil\'s, IS good exanlple of the l e ~ e l a g ea l ~ l ~ h etod attlact the slstels T h e tonn of X m a r ~ l l ohad n o hosp~talIn 1898, but the local docto1 s banded together and trled to 1 x 1 suade the Slstel s of the Incarnate TVord to establlsll one. Tlle inlsslonar\ argunlent-that tlle tolirl ~ \ o l l l dbl11ld a C:athohc chill ch 1f that \\as \\hat ~t took to get the slsters to come, \\as \\hat finall\ s\\a\ed hlother \Iadelelne Slattel T , ~ o 2, l 123-29

Notes to Pages 103-108

197

22 Slatte~r, \ ol 1, 39 23. Tlus tralnlng program \+eilt o n to becoirle one of tlle first baccalaureate prograins 111 tlle couiltrl. Slatterl, \ol. 2, 16. 24 S l a t t e ~ r , \ o l1 , 9 1 25.14 S e p t ~ n b e 1882,53. r LSPC, XhIITV. 26 19J111r 1884 LSPC:, XhII\\ 27. Llotller Saint P ~ e r r eClrlqulil to Llotller Mar\ de Sales, Superlor of Preseiltatlon C:on~entSneem, k e r n , 2 \la\ 1883, '77 LSPC:, X\11\1 28. Blsllops \\ere not keen oil loslrlg irlucll needed slsters to forelgrl nllss~ons. Flnallr In 1913 the S ~ s t seof ~ the Incarnate \ \ o r d , San X n t o m o ~ +eeable ~ to open a house ln Hollaild for tlle receptloil of Gerirlarl nonlen (the blsllop prolllb~ted recrlutlnent of Dutch \ \ o m e n ) T h ~ hollse s fell \ l c t ~ mto \\orld \la1 1 a n d closed In 1924. Flilallr, ln 1924, sorne fortr rears after Llotller Saint P ~ e r r e ' sattempt, a hollse In G a l n a ~ Ireland , \+as opened that p ~ e p a r e d\\omen f o ~the lnlsslon In Texas. Slatterr, 101. 1, 147. 29 T h e f i st ~ of fi\e l e t t e ~ s fi oln C h ~ e fSelt~ceIn 1870 to the slstel s 1s addressed to S ~ s t e Cr atllerlile Eiln~s."Re\ S~ster,Slrlce tlle tlrlle r o u passed b\ tins place, all mr people h a ~ been e g r e a t l ~~ + ~ s h lto n gh a ~ amongst e 11s some of \ o u r S ~ s t se f~o ~ the e d u ~ a t ~ oofi lour glrls. Tlle fatllers [Jesu~ts]here are dolrlg tllelr best to t e a ~ l l 0111 b o ~ sa, n d n e are glad of I T , but our ~ I IsI a1 e o r l ~ h a n sand , ~f~ 0 1 1or some o t h e ~ slsters d o not m i n e , the\ \\111alnars be so, because nobod\ \\111take care of tllein." T h e g111s\ \ e r e not 01phans In the f a l n ~ sense l~ of the \\ord; the\ \ \ e l e "orl~hans" ln tlle e d u ~ a t l o n a lsense because the bors llad teachers but tlle glrls d ~ not. d Helen hlason, S P , H l r t o ~OJ ~ \t Ig~icrt~ctr P I O T J I OJ I ~tCl tP~~ O ~ P IOS J P I O T J I ~(SpoPII(P kane, \\';~sll..Pro\~derlceXdinlnlstratloil, 1997), 12. SPA. 30 The\ ~ e l n a ~ n ethe d 1111nc1pa1 health cale p ~ o ~ l d efor r s the north\\est \+ell Illto the t n e n t ~ e t hLenturr. As late as 1954 a S ~ s t eof r Pro\~derlce\\as pres~deiltof the \ \ a s h ~ n g t o nH o s l ~ ~ t aX l ss s o c ~ a t ~ o Todar n P r o ~ ~ d e n cHealth e Srstem 1s the r tlle \test mast. See Llasoil, Hzsto)) of St largest ilorlprofit llealtll care p r o \ ~ d e oil I~I/(/~//L\ 31. Llasoil, Hzsto)) ofSt Igncrfzus, 6. 32L~llc1lle Dean, S P , "Specla1 Feature hlot11erJosel111 of P r o ~ ~ d e n c ePal , " t I, 1 SPA. 33 I b ~ d, Part 11, 1 34. Correspoildeil~e,hlotller Joseph to Llotller Godfrer, Superlor General, d ~ s c l ~ s s ~bnl ngl d ~ n grepalrs at P ~ o ~ ~ d e Hosp~tal, nce Seattle, 2 S e l ~ t e l n b e1893 ~ (13), hlotller Joseph of tlle S a ~ r e dHeart Personal Papers C o l l e ~ t ~ o(llereafter rl hIJSH), l e t t e ~s, t~ans S ~ s t e r\la1 r Leol~oldlne,\ol 2 hlother Joseph discusses ele\ator deslgrl \ \ ~ t lLlotller l LIarr Xntolnette, Superlor General, ln hloiltreal, 1 4 Februarr 1900 (13) \IJSH, translated l e t t e ~ s~, o 2, l 282 h l o t h e ~P h ~ l o m e n eto Mother Josepll, ~oirlpl~irleilts ller o n the altar slle bullt at \\'alla \\'alla, 12 Februarr 1880 (13) \IJSH, C:or~esl~ondence, Box 3, P e ~ s o n a lPapers of \ I o t h e ~ Ph1lonlene, trails. S ~ s t eTllerese r C arlgnail. 33 S ~ s t ePraxedes r placed a letter under the statue of St Joseph the da\ before the telegram arrl\ed. TVesteril U i l ~ o i lTelegrapll Conlpan\, 6 h l a r ~ h1877. SPA. T h e t e l e g ~aln 1s filed In a collect~on\+1t11a cm ~ o u ts~ t l eC:or~ . esl~ondence- CIthe~ C orresporlderlce bet\\een El1111 Kauteil a i d Llotller Praxedes, trails. hl~ss~oils. S ~ s t eThe1 r ese C a1 Ignan 36. C llroil~cles1894-95, 36 (56). P r o \ ~ d e i l ~Seattle e h l e d ~ c a lCerlter Co1le~tlon, SPA Other secret b a l ~ t ~ s m are s recorded at 1 6 , 3 1

198

Notes to Pages 108-114

37 Reg~sterof patients, St Joseph Hosl~~tal, Lancolner, \\ashlngton, 1858 (23) St.Josepll Hospltal, Vancou\ er, TZkslungton C olle~tloil,SPA. 38. It \\as s a d that "Freenlasons need e\traordlilarr g r a ~ e . "(23) Cllrorl~~les ~ Lentz, rol 8, 18 St Joseph Hosp~tal,\ancomer, 1871-72, trans S ~ s t eDo~othr \\'ash~ilgtoilCollect~on,SPAA. 39 Letter fi oln hlother Josel111 of the Sacred Heal t to pal ~shesbelng rlslted, 18 De~erllber1876, (13). hIJSH, Correspoildeil~e,Box 2. Letters of Irltroduct~orlfor hlotherJosep11, t ~ a n sS ~ s t eTherese ~ Chr~gnan,13 40. C Ilr~stopllerJ.Kauffinail, J f z n r s f ~) crnd Jlecritzng Pelrgrous Hzsfo)) ofcnfholrc 5t11t~) (Ye\\ York. C:rossroad, 1993),100 H[>nltlrC n r I~I I tlip 1 SII~PIJ s, 37-38, 36 (56), P r o \ ~ d e i l ~ Seattle e LIedl~alCenter C ol41. C h r o n ~ ~ l e1883, lect~on,SPLl 42. "SI no11 pa\ I S ~oI ,c c ~ d ~ st ~~f"\ ou lla\ e not fed tllein, r ou ha\ e l\~lledtllein. See Ehzabeth Ral~ler,Tlrp Dh~otps T T ~ I ~ I P IIIIIJ I I Clri~r~li I I I J P ~ J P I I ~ P P I I ~ J I - C P IFI ~I IWI I I C P (Llontreal. 11~G111 Ui11\ers1t\Press, 1990), 80. 1 3 Barbra hlann \\all, "C:onstancr A m ~ dC:hange. C:athohc Yllns and the DePllD d~ssertatloil,Uill\ers~t\of Notre \elopnwnt of Health Care Inst~tut~oils," Dame, 2000 44. Xrt~clesof 111~orporatloil,S~stersof C llar~t\of the House of Pro\~dence, \ ancour er, 11ash~ngton,19 hlarch 1869 ~e hled~calCenter 45. C llroil~cles,1Julr 1878, ol.1,5, 36 (56).P r o \ ~ d e i l Seattle C ollect~on,SPLl 46. Ib~d.,25. 17 Rer Alfred AI chambealllt, Eccleslast~calS l q ~ lor e ~ to \lother Josel111, 1 Deceirlber 1894. hIJSH, Correspondence, trans. S~sterhlar\ Leopoldlne, ol.2,26066 (13) SPA 83. 48. Luua, Co)ite~sfone, 19 L I ~ ~ I ( ~ ~ \ I ( ~GI Jl Io( dI I~oJt11~ I J I S ~ P IO) J P I O T J I ~ (\Iol1t1eal. PII(P Pror~dence\la~sonMere, 1889), 15. 50 Ibld 51. C llroil~cles,1Julr 1878,101. 1 , 5 36 (56). P r o \ ~ d e i l Seattle ~e L l e d ~ ~Center al C ollect~on,SPLl 52. Chronl~les,24 Jul\ 1885 (56). P r o \ ~ d e i l ~ Seattle e L l e d ~ ~ Center al Collectlon, SPA s, St. Josepll Hospltal, Vai1~ou\er,\\'aslllngton ColleL53. C h r o n ~ ~ l e1871-72, tlon, rol 8, 18 SPA Seattle e L l e d ~ ~ Center al Collec54. Chronl~les,24 Jul\ 1885 (56). P r o \ ~ d e i l ~ tlon, SPA Pror~denceHosp~tal -3 3 . Luua, Co)ite~sfone, 83. lndlrlduals ~ + hnele o opposed to the slstels and 56 X trp~calst01r relates 11o~+ \\orl\ed agalilst the llospltal ~ o u l dbe trailsforined b\ tllelr Lare. One \+onlan\+as so hostile to the slstel s that he^ doctor a1 ranged for her to hare a pnrate secula~ nurse \\hen she \\as adin~tted.Ho\\e\er, she d~sirl~ssed her nurse and then her doctor and became a f i nl ~ f i ~ e n dof the slsters C hron~cles,1896-97, 40 (56) Pro\ ~derlceSeattle hled~calC enter C olle~tloil,SPA. 57 The 1926 custolnal r deals re1 r clea~lr1\1th the nu\ of profess~onaland splr~tualdut~esand decorurll Issues for slsters, and gl\ es an uilanlb~guousacLount of their profess~onal/sp~r~t~~al resl~ons~b~l~tles 58. Chronl~les,24 Jul\ 1885 (56). P r o \ ~ d e i l ~ Seattle e L l e d ~ ~ Center al Collectlon, SPA

Notes to Pages 114-117

199

39 S ~ s t eBlandme ~ to hlot11e1Josel111, 1 1 Februarl 1897 (13), \1JSH Personal Papers C olle~tloil,Correspoildeil~e,Box 1, 1836-1901. 60 R(>g!\twd ~ 111!5r!o1! r r ~l+~r!n~id(.c., cr In PIOTJ!I!CP d i ~J I I C I ( ~C O P ~IJP, O \ O P I L I 5 IJP C l i ~ l r ! t ~ Se17lnnfes des Pnrr-cl~es,Iki/couz~o,Tlkshzngton, def~rrzsI ejoqrre de In Fondntron 1856. SPA 61 Foundat~onRequests, A-Z, Rer X P a ~ o d S~J, , Request f o ~a school and hosp~talln Ellensburg, TVash~ilgtoil,5 March 1884. SPA. 62. Fouildat~onRequests, A-Z, Re\. TV~ll~anl H. Judge, SJ., Request for a scllool In Da\\son (C lrcle Chtl), North Ilest T e r n t o ~ ~ e28 s , December 1896 SPLl 63. Referred to ailotller ProIlnce and accepted. Fouildat~onRequests, A-Z, Request fro111Father Hartle~h,SJ., h l o s ~ o nIdallo, , 9 Ma\ 1892. SPAA 64 L u c ~ aCOI , ~ ! p r r t o ~93 i~, 63. Clara S. TVeeks \\rote Textbook ofSrr~sritg,the first textbook for nurses to be publlshed 111 the Url~tedStates (Nen 170rk.Appletoil, 1883). 66 Notes fi oln a collect~onof papers br \11ss \la1 gal et Tl nan, R\ ent~tledJt I?i/cei/t s School ofA\ rr~sritgoftheI17stzfrrteofP~ozlrdenceIts H r s t o ~ jnnd,ilrrini/ne (Portl Nursing, St. V~nceilt's,1930), 53, 1-3. SPAA. land. S ~ l l o oof 67 Slattell, P r o r ~ u , ~toEk.c$,~ol r 1, 36 68. Suzl Farren, Cnll to C n ~ eThe Tloineit Tl%oBrrzlt CntholrcHenlfhcn~e217 ,ime~zcn (St. Lou~s.C atllol~cXsso~latlonof the Url~tedStates, 1996), 139. r 1, 33 69 Slattell, P r o r ~ u , ~toEk.c$,~ol 70. S~sterBlaild~ila'sr e ~ o l l e ~ t l o inere l s publlshed as Blaildlila Segale, ,iftheEitd Press, 1932, rpt. Albuquerque. ofthe SnnfnFe T ~ n r (l C olu~nhus,01110. C olu~rlh~arl L nlr el s ~ t of r Ye\\ \1ex1co PI ess, 1999) 71. "If those \tho Lame after us could onll real~zenllat the first slsters !lent through to build u p the d~ffereilthouses ln the TVest, the\ nould not so eas~l\find fault rl1t11rlhat the\ find there " "S~sterC a t h e ~ ~ \Iallon'sJou~ ne nal," ed Thomas ficllter, Part T\\o, A\ezo I\.Iexr~oH r s t o ~ R j P ~ U52, P 3~ (1977). L~ 246. 72. Slatterl, P~omrsesto Keej, 101. 1, 38. 73 An call\ paltr of slstels from \Iontreal (1832) attempted to retlun to C anada \la Cape Horn fro111an 111-fatede x p e d ~ t ~ otonthe ilortll\\est. After a hairralslng trlp the\ ended u p ln C lllle, \\here the\ renlalned. S~sterPeter of Xlcantara to hlother Amable, S l l l ~ lor e ~ Gene1 al, 18 F e b ~ ual r 1880 (13) hIJSH, Personal Papers C ollectloil, Correspoildeil~e,Box 2. Notes of trlp to Chlle. SPAA 74. "TVe d ~ not d find there the klnd generous Irlsll heart that \ \ e llad rnet 111 other camps " "S~sterC a t h e r ~ n ehlallon's Jolu nal," 131 73. Letter from Llotller Joseph of the S a ~ r e dHeart to parishes belilg I ~ s ~ t e d , hloiltreal, 18 De~erllber1876 (13). hIJSH, Personal Papers C o l l e ~ t ~ o Corren, , spondence Box 1, 1836-1901 SPA It rlas not alrlars profitable, h o \ \ e r e ~and clrLunlstailLes ~llarlgeddra~nat~call\ from one \ear to the next. In 1876, for l llad Instance, a hegglilg trlp ln Portlaild p r o d u ~ e dl~ttleb e ~ a u s ethe l o ~ a rlllile gone banl\rlq~t See Lllcla, C o r ~ ! c ~ ~ r63 to~i~, 76. The trlp from Fort \'ancorn er to St. Ignatlus, Alontaila nas 650 nllles, 400 oil horseba~k,and S~sterhlarl Ed\\ard llad beell k ~ ~ k h\ e da horse and \\as unable to rlde for the last sectlon of thejollrner See \lason, H i r t o ~I of\t I g ~ ! n t i ( (P107u1icc>, r 2 l or 77. Xppareiltl\ at il~glltthe slsters 111 tralillilg slept ln tents \ \ ~ t lllarldbags saddles for p~llo\\s and cooked ln the open. LIotllerJoseph of the Sacred Heart to Bishop Ignatllls Bollrget, 10 \la\ 1864 hIJSH, Pel sonal Papers C ollect~on,Chrrespoildeil~e,Box 1, 1836-1901, \ol. 1, 132-36. SPAA. 78. Lucille Dean, S.P., "Spe~ialFeature Llotller Joseph of Pro\idence," Part 3. SPLl.

200

Notes to Pages 11 7-1 22

79 C hron~cles,24JuI\ 1 8 S 3 , ~ o l1 , 2 1 (36) P ~ o ~ ~ d e Seattle n c e hled~calCenter C ollect~oil.SPA. SO Ibld , 2 1 , 81. I b ~ d23. 82. &chard Berner, "Port Blaliel\ 11111 Colnpain 1876-89," Poczjc ,\h,thrc!esf 1966). 1 3 3 - i l Q / r n r t ~ ~(Clctober I\ 83. S ~ s t e Eugene, r Superlor of P r o \ ~ d e i l Hospital, ~e Seattle to Mr. J. C anlpbell, 12 .A~~gust 1895. Port Blahel\ Mill Co. C olle~tloil. l ~ to f o lnal~ze ~ a1 I angements betneen the h l ~ l l 8 4 T h e slstel s \ \ e r e eel t a ~ n keen and the hospital. S ~ s t e rEugene to Port Blahell hI111, 7 October 1898, addressed sllnpl\ to "Gentlenlen" seehlilg to rneet \ \ ~ t lthe111 l to rlegotlate rates. Port Blaliel\ s \\as challenged as e x p l o ~ t a t ~ r e hllll C o C:ollect~on,SPLl B\ the 1920s t h ~ practlce of casual norliers, \\hose slilgle da\'s pa\ \\as belilg d o ~ h e dfor a neeh's InsurailLe f, co\ erage. T h e Bureau of Labor Stat~stlcs,State of TZkslungton, 9th Erei/i/zolRef~o~ 1913-11, 64 states that the "hosp~talfee nsteln 1s too often abllsed" a n d that ~t coi1stltutes "an onerous tau upoil the \\orhlilglnan." P r o \ ~ d e n c eHealth S\stenl C orporatlon Records, T ~ ~ l i et sGeneral. SPA. 83 D e h b e ~a t ~ o n sof the C:orl~o~ a t ~ o n 1839-1941 , PI o ~ ~ d e n cHealth e S\stem C orporatlon Records, SPA. 86. Pegrsf~edes / I ) ~ Z S S Z O I de/)lni/dees. /S SPA. The\ reported regularl\ to 11ontreal. hlother Josel111 \\as ~nstrllctedto "estabhsh a fixed I ule of c o I~espondence" and to \\rite lnonthll. hlotller Pllllorllerle to 11otller Joseph, 4 June 1863 (13). LIJSH, n, Box 1, 1856-1901,\ol. 1, 79. SPAA. Persolla1 Papers C o l l e ~ t ~ oCorrespondence, S i I I I T J P I I ~ (11~5 I I Ioror~~((OI~~\ PS ~ P I ( IP I O ~ ! I I I (J IPI C~I P/ CLO P ( ( ) ,SPA " 88. Mar\ Enens, "The L e a d e r s h ~ pof Nuns 111 Inlln~grailtC a t h o l l ~ ~ s n l ,111 Tlbnlei/ nnd Pelrgroit rit ,ime,zcn, 101. 1, The ,\ii/eteei/th Ceittu,), ed. Rosenlar\ Radford rue the^ and Rosemar\ S l \ ~ l l eheller ~ (San F ~ a n c ~ s c oH. a ~ p e ra n d ROT\, 1981), 105. 89. Slatterl, P~omrsesto Keej, 101. 1, 19-22. t been r e ~ e a l e dto the folunde~Jeanne de C:hantal In a 90 Slnce the h a b ~ had \ISIO~ tins ~ , !+as a serlous breach of the rule. Slatterl, \ol. 1, 13. 91. "Rule g n e n to our first lrlotllers oil lea\lrlg F r a i l ~ e , "1869, 5. XhIITV. 9 2 I b 1 d , 3-3 93. Corlst~tut~oils of the S~stersof Charlt\ of the Ii1~arilateTZhrd, 1872, 20. 'l11IIV. 94 Ibld , 3 7 95. I b ~ d .56. , 96. Slatterl, \ol. 1, 31. 97 h l o t h e ~Salnt P I ~I eI to the \el Re\ hlother hlarle of Jesus, 1 1 S e l ~ t e l n b e ~ 1882, 51-52. A111IV. 98. Slatterl, \ol. 1, 134. 99 Ibld , i 7 100.111f a ~ t11otller , 11ar\ Godfrel, Superlor General, urged tllelrl to plan tllelr \ t r e k around French and English, so that the C anadIan slsters \\auld learn Enghsh a n d the h l n e ~ lean slsters learn French - "the langllage sac1 Ifice 11111 be 72. blessed and 11111Lreate u m t \ among the s~sters",see L u u a , Co)i/e~sfone, 101. See the Custorllar\ of the S~stersof P r o \ ~ d e i l ~Ce ~, r ~ u l aof r s the Superlor C,enelal, ~ o 11, 1898-1901 ( P ~ o ~ ~ d ehnl co teh e ~Hollse, \ I o n t ~ e a l ,1910), 11 102. "Our strerlgtll Lolrles fro111our nlotherhouse." hlotller Praxedes to Father Kauteil ln response for request to take o \ e r llospltal ln Seattle House of pro\^dence, i hlarch 187i, \ancolner C 01~ e s p o n d e n c eSPLl ,

Notes to Pages 122-128

201

103 T h e C h r o n ~ c l e scelebrate occasions of I enenal, I etreats, f o l l n d ~ess d a ~ , , 1, 34 (36). P r o \ ~ d e i l ~ e \ ~ s ~fro111 t s Montreal, etL. See for lrlstnrlce C h r o n ~ ~ l e s01. Seattle hled~calC entel C:ollect~onSPLl 104. Cllroil~cles,lIn\ 1886-Jul\ 1879, 101. 1 (56). P r o \ ~ d e n c eSeattle L I e d ~ ~ n l Center C ollect~oil,SPAA. 103 S ~ s t eSalnt ~ P I ~I eI to S ~ s t eXll~honse, r 3 Feb~ uar\ 1889 C:orresl~ondence, 314. AAllIIV.

C h n j f e ~7 C~ossritgthe Co17frsszoncrlDzzlr(lp

1 See Ralph Glbson, "Female R e l ~ g ~ o 01 u s ders In N~neteenth-Centlu France. C n t l l o l ~ c ~ s111 ~ rBl r ~ t n ~nrld i l F r a i l ~ eS ~ i l 1789," ~e 111 Cntholrcrsin 217 B ~ z f n r icritdF~crnce t s (Lolldon. Ha~nhledoil,1996). Sznce 1789, ed. Frnrlh Tnllett nrld N ~ ~ l l o l nXtli~rl e dElnmet L a r k ~ n , T h e Lltramontane ~ e \ o l l l t ~ oInn Ireland I S class~call\r e ~ ~ e n In "De\ot~oilnlRe\olut~oil~n Ireland," Aine~rccritHrsto1zcnlPezlrezo80 (1972). 623-32. l 111 tlus trnnsfornlnhlar\ Peclillnrll hlagrnl g n e s the nonlen a Illore ~ e r l t r nrole tlon In TIM T ~ c r ~ / l f o r t ~ l o / g P' Iof t~l i ~ xci~r ~1 / 5T T ~ ) I ~ ~ P Rc>l/g/o~i, I/, n ~ i dCirltconl C l i n ~ / g ( > ~ ~ i 900 (Neil Yorli. Oxford Un11ersm Press, 1998). I ~ e l n i t d 1750-1 , 2. See Re\. TV. A. Pnssn\ailt, "Tlle Den~orlessand the Profess~oilnlNurse," PIO(PPIJI 1/95I I I / P~ / I ~ O5 P( I f t l r ~Tlrtrd C O I @ ~ P I O / CJPE ~ ! / I I / ~nl( >Lir I It( l i ( ~ rDP(ICOIIP\ ~ ~ ~ i 5 Illotlr~~houses 217 the I7~7rtedSfntes (Onlnlla, Neb., 1899), 333-35. 3. As d ~ s ~ u s s eearl~er, d the Frerlcll Dnugllters of C h n r ~ t \\ \ e r e forrned 111 the se\enteenth centurT; h o ~ $ e \ e~t~n a s not 11nt1l the mneteenth centlu that t h ~ s C O I I ~ I ~ ~ rU~~i l~IdI~ ~111n11\ S\ clones ~ l l o \ e dbe\ oild the Frerlcll \\orld. Ne\\ Frnrlce \\as of Lourse n major slte of the expansloll of tllese orders and ~ t ~ilfluerlce s on X l n e ~Ican nu1 slng s~sterhoodsp a r t ~ c l l l aI\ ~r e l e ~ a n tSee C I ~ r ~ s t ~ n e X l l"\\olnen en, l ~ n e r ~ ~111 a ,Tlomen " critdRelzgz017 [ i t ,lrne~zcn,101.2, T h e Colonrnl ~n C oloil~alF r e i l ~ lX nnd Pe7lolufzoitn1~ Pe~zods,ed. Rose~nnr\Rndford Ruether and R o s e ~ n a r \Sh~ilner a sl11Te\ of the French h e e l e ~(San Francisco. Hal per and ROT\,1983), 79-131, f o ~ Xrller~cnrlexperience. Ho\$e\er,~n general the rnost ~ilfluerlt~nl rlurslrlg conlnlu, I r ~ s lS~sters l of C h n r ~ t \and , illtles, s u ~ lCIS l the Xnler~cailDnugllters of C l l a r ~ t \the the S~stersof h l e ~c~ \\el e mneteenth-centu~T de\elol~lnents 4. T h e 1815 C orlgress of \'leima renl~giledstate nrld ~ o i l f e s s ~ o n bouildnr~es al hlenn\\h~le,C ntllol~c\$orliers ~ n o \ e dto ~ n d u s t r ~ a l ~ zProtestailt ~ng nrens, \ $ l l ~ l e PI otestants m o ~ e dInto C a t h o l ~ careas f o lnlng ~ a Protestant b o l ~ r g e o ~ sIn~ ethe C ntllol~cLoner Rll~ileand Ruhr. See Jonathan Sperher, P o j u l n ~Cnfholrcrsn7 rit A\znefeenfh-Cenfrr,) G e ~ i n n i t )( P r ~ i l ~ e t o N.J.. n , Pr~rlcetoilU i l ~ \ e r s ~ Press, t\ 1984), 43-46 5. Sperher cltes ~ l e r ~~~o n~ rl l p l n ~to i l tpso l ~ c e 13. , 6. Tins ~ n f l u e i l 1s ~ esuggestn e of a flon-on e f f e ~of t r e l ~ g ~ ore\ u s I\ nl fro111F r a i l ~ e . I b ~ d, 9 3 7. LInss p ~ l g r ~ n l a ghe se n \ ~ l orcllestrnted \ b\ C ntllol~c~ l e r g becnrne \ a gesture of reslstrlilLe to the Pruss~nrlstate 111 the earl\ 1870s. The\ \$ere also d e f n ~ t orall~es for the Center Part\ Delnonstrat~ons,bo\cotts of state h o l ~ d a ~and s , mass cele, h r a t ~ o n soil C a t h o l fest~\nls ~~ \ \ e r e also a feature of tlus p e r ~ o dI.b ~ d .223-29. 8. Staillel Nndel argues that the Ne\$ Yorh Gerrllnrl colnnlunlt\ \$as d ~ s t ~ i l ~ng of seclllar subcomlnlurnt~eso\el ~ t s glllshed b\ I T S " o ~ e r ~ $ h e l l n 111edom1nance us r e l ~ g ~ o ones. u s In 1860, half of Ne\$ 170rli'sGernlails \\ere n ~ t h o urt e l ~ g ~ o nffil~n, t ~ o n . "See Nndel, Lzftle Gel innnq Efhitzczf),Pelrgroit, cr17d Class rit A\ezo 1o1k C r t ~ 1845I880 (Lrbana. U n ~ r se~~t of \ I l h n o ~ sPress, 1990), 91

202

Notes to Pages 128-131

9 S ~ s t e rhlarr G a b ~ ~ H e le n n ~ n g e r ,\ ~ , t ~ rof\ \t d1o11 cr~iclT1r~1rH [ ~ ~ l oJ !l g~ , r ~ o ~ i (St. L o u ~ s .S~stersof St. 11arr of tlle Tlllrd Order of Saint Franc~s,1979), 4. hatharlna Bergel 1s \a1 ~ollslrI\norln as S ~ s t e(late1 ~ \ I o t h e ~ )O d ~ l l aOdella, , and Ottllla. 10. TZhirleil represented oil11 41 perLerlt of total Gernlail inlgrants, Irlsll\\oirleil 32 9 1 x 1 cent T h e Ix-opoI tlon Increased throllgh the centurr, from 33 pel cent In 1830 to 53.8 perLent 111 1900. Hasla Dliler, E7zn s Dnrrg1lfe)s rit ,imozcn I ~ z s h11)11)12s Press, p n i t t Tloinen 277 fhe,\iiteteeitth Cenfrr~j(Baltlinore.Jollrls H o p k ~ i l Unl~ersltr 1983), 30-33 11. X ~ ~ o r d l i to l g Sperber, tlle ta\errl \$as the center of tolirl a n d \11lage 11fe ln these \ears, \ \ ~ t lll~ t t l erespect ainoilg rural and urban Lorllirloil people for tlle chlu ch T h e ~ l l e g ~ t ~ l n Iaates c r are cotnmonlr c ~ t e das an ~ndlcatorsof lunrehg~olls), nnd Chnnge Relzgzoz~~ Dzmeniless. See C atllerlile 11. Prellnger, C l ~ n ~ z fChnllenge, ) T I O J ~ P s) Jfo-cremenf ~ 277 Ge)mnit) (Nen 170rk.Greensroits oftl~~~\.fzd-~\jiteteeittI~-C~ittz~~ \ \ o o d P ~ e s s 19S'7), , 18 a n d S p e r b e ~Poprrlcr~ , Cntliolicir~r!,93-94 hlore s t ~ ~ k are ~ng ilunlerous coirlpla~iltsfrom clergr of abuse and lilsults durlrlg rel~glousser\lce and tlle busr trade of ta\ errls oil Suilda\ s. m C:hapla~n of the S ~ s t e ~ofs St \la1 r's Infirlnarr, 12 Rer \ \ ~ l l ~ a hellenhof, to tlle 1921 s l l ~ e jubilee r h ~ s t o r \of the hospital, S~stersof Karlsas C I ~ \Forellord , St. hlar\, The Srsfe~sof St J f n ) ) nitd Tl~ez)Hos@rtnl Tlb~li277 Knitsns Czf), Jfzssorr~r, 1895-1920 (hansas C ~ t rSt . hlarr's Hosp~tal,1921), 6 13. Heilnlnger, Srsfe~sofSnznf J l n ~ nitd j Ther~Henlritg Jfzsszoit, 2. , 14. I b ~ d . 10. 13 H e n n ~ n g ecltes ~ the annals of the Sel \ants of the Sacred Heal t, \ \ h ~ c hstate, "Fatller Braun nlo\ed 111s ~ o n l i n u i l ~.t r. . the good \\111of tlle Xr~llblsllop11111~h l elderlr rel~glous had Looled toliards lllirl follo\\lng the reLent dispute \ \ ~ t ltlle [ \ I o t h e ~O d ~ l l a"] ( 3 ) 16. S ~ s t e L r o u ~ s eHlriler, Cnlled to EeFnrtl~fzll,i H r s f o ~ of j the Szstos of St F~nitcrs, J f n ~ j z ~ r l lAJfzssou)r e, (11ar\\1lle,110.. S~stersof St. Franc~s,hlourlt A11 erilo Coil\ eilt, e d the PI usslan hlarr-i~lle,19S4), 10, argues that ther collld hare been ~ l n m u n ~ z br Xrnn as tins \$as111despread durlrlg the Franco-Pruss~ailTZkr. 17. Tllere \$asa general La11 for nurses, d o ~ t o r sa, n d n l e d ~ ~saulp p l ~ efrom s tlle H o \ \ a l d corps of 1111rs1c1ansI b ~ d, 1 4 18. Letter froin 11otller Od111a to S ~ s t e rhlargaret 11ar\ Noelkner durlrlg the \ elloll fe\ er e p ~ d e i r ln l ~1Ieinphls, ~ 1878, u t e d ln Heilnlnger, Szsfe~sof Snritt J f n ) ) n ~ ! dTli[>i~ H [ ~ n l o ! g J I ~ , r ~16 o ~hlother i, Od111abegan he1 l e t t e ~to the nulslng slster, "Greet~ilgsfroin all \ o u r corllparllorl S~sters\ t h o are coilt~iluallrprarlrlg a n d \\eeplrlg for \ ou." Tlle o b ~ t u a r 11st \ 1s a\ allable 111TVllhelnl Faerber, The Srstos of S f dlor I of \t Loco, I I ! C O J ~ O ~ ! P I I LoOf tIl /rI~\~I / I~ JOP I IJl(Oil(~ ~ o f t l i ~O r ~ l ~1872-16 t, ,YO~IPIILOPI 1 8 9 7 (St. LOUIS.Xinerllia Prlrltlrlg House, 1897), 23. j Ther~Henlritg Jfzsszoit, 17. 19. Heilnlnger, Srsfe~sofSnznf J l n ~ nitd 20 T h ~ sFranciscan tlalnlng \\as the e ~ e n t u a lcause of dlscord See H l r n e ~ , Cnlled fo EeFnzfhfz~l,22. 21. Otller clerg\ also a ~ t e as d ~llaplalilsa n d coilducted retreats. I b ~ d . , l l . 22 X c c o ~ding to Fael bel's hlstorr, 26, the S ~ s t se ~ of St \la1 r nllrsed 4,213 fainll~es111 tllelr lloirles ln St. LOUISbet\\eeil 1872 a n d 1897. 23. St. hlarr's Hospital, St. L o u ~ s,,i n n u n I R e f ~ o ~1896 f, (111~ludedat the back of F a e r b e ~ ,28) hsts patlents as 968 C a t h o l ~ c 284 , Protestant, 3 3 n o r e h g ~ o n 3, Hebren. Natlonalltr 1s l ~ s t e das 627 U r l ~ t e dStates, 371 Ireland, 164 Gernlan\, 26 England, a n d thereafter rluirlbers decreaslilg to one. Tlle 1897 ,innunl P e f ~ o ~ t ( F a e ~ b e r 27) , lists nllmbers of c h a r ~ t ra n d pllrate patlents slnce 18'77, sho\\lng

Notes to Pages 131-134

203

tnlce as man\ IInTate as c h a l l t ~IIatlents c o n s ~ s t e n t lo\el ~ that penod The ratlo \nrles \+ltll~nstltutloils,St.Joseph's Hospltnl, St. Cllnrles 111 1887-97 llad hetneeil 80 and 100 percent c h a l l t ~patients (29) 24. Heilnlnger, Srsfe~sofSnznf J l n ~ nitd j Ther~Henlritg Jfzsszoit, 21. j Lorrzs, 6, for n llst of ~nstltutloils. 23. Ihld., 113. See Fnerber, Srstos ofSt J f n ~ofSt 26 T h ~ shospital, St \Ialr's, hansas Chtl, nas dedicated In 1909 See Henillilger, Srstos of Snritt J l n ) ) nnd Tllez) Henlzng Jlrssron, 115. , for n full llst of superiors at Slsters of St. LInr\ ~ilstltutlons. 27. See ~ b l d .332 28 I b l d , 11 29. \\1111e tills "llnpresslon" nla\ \\ell be colnpleteh lnlslendlng, ~t 1s north ilotlilg t l ~ l ~t t IS 111 sllr1rp d ~ s t ~ r l c t ~to o r lt l ~ l offered t 111 the ailnun1 reports of Xlnel lean Dallghters of C:hal I T \ , or Slsters of PI o ~ l d e n c eannual I eports and brochures (see chapters 3 and 6). , to Joseph G. TVebster, 30. Tills \\as the case at St. Mar\ 's, Knrlsns C ~ t \according "The Staff of St \la1 1's Hosl~ltal,"Jlrcl,\o~i Coir~ihJI(~llccr15oc1~t1TTi>elrl\ B ~ t l l p t30 ~~i (30 June 1965). 1570-71. Flilnll\, under the leaderslup of Llotller Mar\ C oncordla ln 1921 (\+llollad all forelgn-horn slsters naturnllzed), St. LInrl's enlhraced the C athollc Hospltal Assoclat~on,enreled Into contractllal allangelnents \ \ ~ t h the Jesult fathers at St. Louls Uill\erslt\ and estahllslled St. LInr\'s Group of Hospltnls as uill\ e r s t \ ten~lllilgllospltals. Heilnlilger, Srsfe~sof St J f n ) ) nitd Tllez) H e n l i ~ i g d l ~ r \ ~39 o~i, 31. Ihld., 37. 32. Hlrner, Cnlled fo EeFnzfhfz~l,14. 33 Henmngel, 51,t~rrof5n11itJI(rr1 n ~ i dTlr~irH ( ~ n l i ~ i g d l ~ r \116 ~o~i, 34. X s ~ l l o o lof rlurslrlg at St. hlar\'s, Knrlsns Clt\ \+asnot opened uiltll 1916, under the leadership of Slster LInr\ Llnr~ellliln,m, B.S., ln St J f n ) ) s Hos@rtnl 5cliool ofLV~\'corl~ig kkr~i\nrCih JIi\\oco~, 1964-65 (hansas C I T \ .St Marl's Hosl~ltal, 1965), 6. 33. Heilnlnger, Srsfe~sofSnznf J l n ~ nitd j Ther~HenlritgJfzsszoit, 31. 36 T h e Slstel s of St \la1 T and the Slstel s of St Francls reumted as the FI anclscall Slsters of Mar\ 111 1987, llorlorlrlg both Llotller Odllla nrld tllelr XnlerlcnnSee F)nitcrscnit S z ~ t e of ) ~,\.In) ) P)rceIess He~zfnge,1823horn hlotller .A~~gustlile. , 1 9 8 8 (St Lolus. FI anelscan S~stersof h l a r ~ 1988) 37. Ihld., 19. 38. Ihld., 11. 39 E ~ e nthe hlstonan of the S~stersof St \la1 concedes these polnts; 1b1d , 2 i 40. Hlrner, Cnlled fo EeFnzfhfz~l,22. 41. Ihld., 13. 1 2 I b ~ d, 2 7 43. Ihld., 22. 44. Ihld., 47. 1 3 I b ~ d, 1 1 46. B\ 1927 the Slsters of St. Frail~lso\\iled and c o n d u ~ t e dfour llospltals. St. Frail~ls,LInr\~llle,St. Xiltlloil\'s, Olilnllolnn Clt\, St. Ellznbetll's, Hnnillhal, and St \la1 's, Nebraska Cht\ In 1906 the S~stels of St Franc~stook chal ge of \\abash Rnllrond llospltals at LIoberl\, hllssourl, Peru, Iildlnna, and Decntur, Illlilols. Hlriler, Cnlled to BeFnrtl~jrl,22, 147-49. 1 7 P r a \ e l s ~ + e lsaldln e Gel Inan, French, English, andLatln ho\\e\el, ~eflectlng the slsters' rellglous trnlillilg. Offi~laldoculrleiltntloil \\as ln Gerlnnn. Ibld., 44. 48. Ihld., 16. 1 9 Although thele I S milch talk of the h a ~ s e r s ~th+ emodel ~ In nineteenth-

204

Notes to Pages 134-138

centllr\ nu1 slng, and ref01 Inel s sllch as Elizabeth FI r and Flol ence Nlght~ngale \\ere profoundl\ ~ i l f l u e i l ~ eh\d Flledner, there IS renlarl,abl\ llttle detall, espethe field O n e exception 1s Irene Schl~essle~ Popc~allrIn lecent s c h o l a ~ s h In ~l~ 1111's stud\, "Nurslilg Uillforlns. Rolrlarltlc Idea, Furlct~oilalXttlre, or Irlstrulrleilt of Soclal Change," ,\i17szng H r s t o ~ jPLe7~ze7~12 (1994). 153-67. 30 T h e Dutch hlennomte e x a l n ~ ~\\as l e the otficlal lnspll atlon pltbllshed b\ the Ka~sers\\erthIrlstltute 111 the lrllportarlt hlstor\ ~olrlplledh\ Isabel Halnptoil Robb, ,\i17szng the Srck Pcrf~e~sf,orn the I)7fe1ncrfzoitnlCong~essofChn)rtres, C o ~ ~ e c f z o n , 1893; rpt Ne\\ l'ork. \1cC;1 all-H111,1919), 37-59 n ~ i dP l r / I n ~ i t l r r o(C:h~cago, ~~~ 51. Catherme Prellnger's nark 1s one of the fell s~llolarl\sources a\allahle 111 Eilgllsll o n nonlen a n d rellglorl 111 i l ~ i l e t e e n t h - ~ e n t u rGerman\. l See Chn~rtj, T T ~ ) I ~ / P Ir / Chnlke~/g(>, n ~ / dClin~/g(> Rpl/g/orr\ D I I I L P I / \ I OofI / t\ l i ~llI~~J-LY~~i~~t~~~~itlr-C~~~it~r ,\.foz~erneitt 277 Gel innnj (Ne\\ 170rl,. G r e e n \ \ ~ Press, ~h 1987), 10. 52. Ihld., 19. 3 3 Ibld 54. Ihld., 11, Frederlck S. TVelser, "Ser\lilg Lo\e" (Degree of D I \ I ~ Itllesls, ~\ C 11ur~11H ~ s t o r \Lutheran , Tlleologlcal C ollege, Gett\ shurg, Peilrls\ 1\ anla, 1960), 21 -3 3 . Xhdel Ross TVeiltz, Flzedito theFnzthfrr1 ( P h ~ l a d e l p l l ~Board a. of P u h l ~ c a t ~ oof il the Uillted Lutllerail Church ln Xnlerlca, 1936), 35. 36 Ibld , 3 6 57. Tins \\as the staildard Ka~sers\\ertll deacoiless nlodel, there \ \ e r e arlatloils, r becarne ~olrlpulsor\. partl~ularl\11lleil fornlal rlurslilg o r t e a ~ l l e tralillilg 38 Pophn, "Nluslng Lnltorms," 133, glres extenslre detall on the outfitting and unlforlns at Kalsersllertll. 59. Most ilotabl\, Prusslail rlllillster of state Frelllerr \ o m Stelrl had \olced 111 alse fol the Slsters of C:hal lt\ In the 1810s a n d called fol a Lllthel an eqlllr alent See TVelser, "Ser\ lilg Lo\ e," 17. 60. C atllerlrle Prellilger, "Prelude to Coilsc~ousiless,"ln Gel mcrn Tlomen rit the L Y ~ ~ i ~ > t ~C~~>~ l~tii trlrrA l JOC/III Hotorl, ed J o h n C: Four (Yell York, Hollnes a n d hleler, 1984), 126. 61. T h e S\rlods of the Rlllrlelarld and of TVestphalla \$erethe first to take offi~lal actlon to restore the role of deaconess Ilentz, FI/PIJIIPI tli~Fcr/tlfi(l, 79 62. X ~ ~ o r d l i to l g Prellnger, the Prusslail l,~ilg,Frederlck TV~ll~anl I\: llad not supported the deacoiless ilotloil at first, preferrlilg a soclet\ of rnale nurses for the Be1 hn h o s l ~ ~ t aCl h n ~ / hClinll(>~/g(>, , cr~/dClin~/g(>, 2 63. Isabel Halnptoil Robb et al., "The TZhrl, of Deacoilesses ln Gernlail\ from the Flledrler Institute," 111 rr~sritgtheSrck, 99. l\ br Elizabeth FI r 's pl lson rlol l\, but the 64 Fllednel \\as o r ~ g ~ n a l~nflllenced ilurslilg slde of the operation dorlllilated fro111the earl\ da\s. TVeiltz, Flredne) the Fnrthfrrl, 34. 63 "Ilollld You Like to be a Deaconess;" (C:lnclnnat~.Bethesda Hosp~tal, 1922). 66. Ail11 Dolle, "Nursing b\ Rellglous Orders ln the Urllted States, Part I\'Lutheran Deaconesses, 1849-1928," AIIL(>II(OI/ Joco1/nlof~Yc\'cor11igl0 (1929). 11971207,1200. 67. hlarle a u g e r had orlglnall\ beell at Kalsersllertll hut llad resigned. RohLcr~/lr(>~icrir Horl)~tnl,For I ~ / P I I I el ta \Iarherl \ \ a t , H l r t o ~I ofLYirr\ o / g I I ~P(~~i~ir\li~n~/lcr, Gel inn77 Hosf~zfnl,Phzlndelf~hrn(Harrlshurg. Penils\l\ ailla State Nurses Xsso~latloil, 1939), 441. 68 Lankenall's support rlas cl lt~calLankenau, arlealthr banker a n d a\\ldorler A \

Notes to Pages 138-141

205

\ \ h o had lost both 111sc h ~ l d r e nchanneled , all 111senergles and ample funds Into the deaconess ino\ erllerlt nrld the Gerirlnrl Hospltnl. TVeiser, "Ser\ iilg Lo\ e," 50. 69 It shollld be ~ e n l e n l b e r e dthat the Dal1ghte1s of Charlt\ \\11o ~nflllenced \ersioil of slsterllood tllail their Iris11 or Knisers\\ertll \$ere n less "e~~lesiasticnl" Xrllericnrl Louilterparts. The\ took oil11 annual ens nrld \\ere free to lea\ e. 70 T h ~ makes s ~tqlnte d~fficllltto t~ack the11 p~esence In state nllrslng 01ganlzntioils or ll~erlsiilgbodles. Xrlotller group, hleilrloilite den~oilesses,did not establisll llospitals uiltil the t\\eiltietll Lenturl. 71 Usllall\ the first t\\el\e months ~ n \ o l \ e d~ e h g ~ o land l s nursing t ~ a l n l n g 72. hle\er llnd beer1 lrlstruirleiltnlii1 locntiilg n group of den~orlessesprepared to Lorlle to X i n e r l ~ nSee . Doll?, "Nurslng b\ Religious Orders, Part 11;" 1201. 73 C:ha~lesH \Ie\er, L e t t e ~to the Board of T~llsteesof the Gel lnan Hos111tal of Pllilndelpllln to the hlerllbers of the L l e d l ~ a lBoard, 1 4 D e ~ e r l l b e r1885, TVnl. N. Llencke, S e ~ r e t n r l268.0B1.1, . F3. Xrcllnes of the Den~oilessC onlnlunlt\ of the E\ angelleal Lutheran C 11111ell In h l n e ~ lea (hereafte~LIDC:ELC:X) 74. Ibld. 75. Hzsto)) of the Ge)merit Hosf~zfnl(Plllladelpllln. Gerirlnrl Hospltnl of Pllllad e l l ~ h ~1893; a, 1, 1, f l , C SNH) T h e H!\torj does not mentlon deaconesses luntll page 29, nrld tlleil oil11 for o n e paragraph. In the 1911 Annual Report there are ilo deacoilesses o n the llospltnl board nrld the ~ l l n i of r the rlursiilg Loirlirlittee is both a b o a ~ dl n e l n b e ~a n d a clerg\man 521111A ~ ! ~ ! r rR($ort nl r l f t h ~T I rr\twr of tlrp Gel innn Hos@rtcrl (Philadelphia. Steeil a i d Co., 1911). 76. Fl\er, Doilntioil Da\ at the Gerrllnrl Hospltnl, Thnnksgi\iilg Dn\, 27 No\enlbe1 1881 268 0 61 1 f3, ; U ) C ELC A 77. LInr\ Drexel \\as the aunt of St. Katherine Drexel, fouildress of the (C ntholic) Sisters of the Blessed Sn~raineiltfor Irldlnrls nrld Colored People. 78 "hgreelnent," Gel Inan Hosp~talof the C:lt\ of P h ~ l a d e l p h ~aan d the \la1 \ Drexel Home a i d Pllilndelpllln hlotller House of Den~oilesses,21 h l a r ~ h1899, 7-9. 268.0 B l , F3. .AD( ELCX. 79 Frederick S \ \ e ~ s e r ,To J p ~ i tlrp ~ p Lor11 I I I ! H ~ I SP('oplc)l(:1884-1984 C~Ic>b~crto!g the Helzfnge of cr Cenfrr~jofLrrthe1crn Dencoi/esses z2n Aine)rccr (Glad\\\ne, Pa.. Den, coiless C onlnlunlt\ of the Lutllernn Church ln X i n e r l ~ n 1984). SO \ \ e ~ s e r ,"SCI\ ~ n gL o ~ e , "70 Yon-Gel Inan entrants I e l n a ~ n e dI a1 ltles u n t ~ l TVorld TVnr I1 (124). 81. Britlsll a i d Xrllericnrl Gerinail hletllodlsts e\nngellzed back to German\, the latter focllsed pal tlclllarl\ o n the H a m b u ~g area See R u l ~ teE~ D a ~ l e s dIc>tlr, odrsnr (Lolldoll. Epnorth Press, 1963), 140. 82. Llethodists split Into separate coilfereil~es( d e i n o ~ r n t i c~oil\eiltioils/ndmlmstlatlre unlts) along raclal and langllage/ethmc hnes See Jalnes hlrbl, Russell E. & ~ l l e \ nrld , Kenneth E. Ro\\e, The Jfethodrsts (TVestport, Coiln.. Green\ \ o o d Press, 1996), 90-92. 8 3 T h e C onference \\as the a d l n ~ m s t r a t ~ rand e o ~ g a n ~ z a t ~ o nlneetlng al of hletllodlst nrld Lutllerail churclles. Deaconesses forrned tllelr 01\11 Kalsers\\ertll C orlfererlce 111 1861. See TVentz, Flredne) fheFnrtl~jr1,94. 8 4 T h e f i ~ s tGerman hlethod~stchllrch In Anlenca \\as founded In 1838 In C ii1~iilrl~1tl. Hlstorl~nlS k e t ~ l l e as i d Nine Lnes of the Orgnnlzatlon, n.d., L. 1948. 2,2-3, f l l , CHSNCGM. 83 C:la~ahI Ba\ of C)h~oagonlzes orer heth the^ to go Into the Gel lnan deaconesses because she does not l m e the language - tllougll her parents do. 1897. 2,2-15, f l l , C HSNC GLI. 86 In the 1922 palnphlet "llollld You L ~ k eto Be a Deaconess;" the t ~ a l n l n g ,

206

Notes to Pages 141-144

lack of drltdgerl, cal eer ol1l101tumtles, and colnfort and secw I ~ Tof the deaconess 11fe are stroilgll enlpllas~zedfor those \\llorll God calls. 2, 2-22, 515. C HSNCGAI. 87. Clnrn hI. Ba\ of Ohlo. 88 Lolnse Golder, "The Deaconess h l o t h e ~ h o ~ l s eIn , " Tlip L)(>nco~/c>,r n ~ / H(>I d Tlb)li (Clnclnilnt~.Betllesdn Hospltnl, 1l.d.). 2, 2-1, f2, C HSNCGAI. Re\. Chr~stlail CToldel,Histo11 o f t h ~ D ( ~ r c o ~I iI ~I \o\ ~ ~ ~/ I>/ tlw ~ ~ CI/~oticr~i ~ ~ > ~ / tC1/(o(1/(Nev 1'01k. Eaton and Alnlils, 1903). 89 A Repol t to the Second Nat~onalDeaconess C onference, Ocean G r o ~ e , Ne\\ Jersel, 7-9 August 1889, sllo\\s Betllesda Hospltnl, C 111Llrlilntl c o n d u ~ t e db\ a Boa1 d 111esldent, a blshol~;\Ice p~e s ~ d e n t clergllnan; , second \Ice 111esldent, clerg\~rlnrl,tlllrd 1Le pres~deilt,h11ss Isahella T h o b u r n , 3 \\ olrleil seLretnrles ( o n e an hlD); a male treasurel; and an execlttlre comlnlttee of 3 men (2 clergl) and 4 \\olneil. 2, 2-22, f2. C HSNCGAI. 90 No deaconess 1s a slgnatol T on the a1 t~clesof lncorporatlon of the German hletllod~stDen~oilessHolrle 111 1896. E \ e n the r e \ ~ s e d~ o i l s t ~ t u t ~(1934, on 111 English) c l e a ~I\ sho\\s that the Deaconess C:omm~ttee1s dolnlnated b~ the 11osl11tal. "Tlle Den~oilessCo~rlrll~ttee sllall Lorlslst of se\ ell (7) lnelnhers, tlle ~ l l a l r n l n n of \ \ h ~ c hshall be the P r e s ~ d e n tof the C)~ganlzatlonT h ~ committee s shall hare s u p e r \ ~ s ~ oof i l the ndlnlsslon, tlle trnlillilg nrld the lrlnlilteilnrlce of the deaconesses, and lt shall repol t these matters to the Boa1 d of h l a n a g e ~s or the Execlto n tlle ~ o r l d u a~ntd t n e Colnnl~ttee.It sllall also report n ~ t hreco~rlrllerldnt~oils appolntlnent of each deaconess to he1 C o n f e ~ence Deaconess Board T h e Sltpellrlterlderlt of tlle hlotllerllouse nrld the ~llaplnlilshall he lrlelrlhers of tins Lolnlnlttee " Xrt~clesof I n c o ~poratlon of the German \Iethod~stDeaconess Holne, 1 6 2,2-1, f2, c HSNC GAI. 91 T h e 1902 ~xlbhcatlonL ) ~ c r l r o ~ i / ~ r ~ ~ / - ~ I I i r t t (aid c ~ t l iBc r~itrl~i ~ \ dHo\pit/rl n lists \11ss L o u ~ s eGolder (Obe~rit)as a n ex offic~orllelrlber of tlle board. Dzcrlionrssei/ J1ufte)Horl~/tcrl( P ~ t t s b l l r g hC I ~ T\11ss1on Pltbhsh~ngC olnpanl, 1902), hnctr (aid B(>tl/(>rdn 47. C HSNCGAI. 9"\ e~ser,To \(>I T J P t l / LOIIJ, ~ 13 93. TVe~ser,"SerIlng Lo\e," 138. TVe~ser's11st of deaconesses r e ~ o r d s\\hetller the\ left to ma1 I 1 From t h ~ Isecol d, ma1 I lages to pastol s n e r e not infrequent 94. Lesl~eLnrsoil, "Fogelstroln and tlle Dln~oilnte,"L4rr~~stri/zcrn Qz~crlcr,to(4 5, 26, 4 (Clctober 1947). 347-34 AI chlres of the Deaconess h l o t h e ~ h o ~ l s eglad^\^ , ne, Penils\l\ ailla, U r l ~ t e dLutheran C h u r ~ hln X l n e r ~ ~ n . 93 E A fog el st^ oln, AirtoOiogtcrl~li~, t~ans S ~ s t eElf1 ~ Ida Sandberg, Immanuel, 1937-38,3. 96 Ibld , 3 3 0 97. T h e Inllnailuel Deaconess Iilst~tute\\as e\entuall\ n ~ c e p t e dln the Xlnerlcan Augltstana S ~ n o dand the h a ~ s e ~ s ~ \ eChnference rth of Ellrope See Fogelstroln, L4rrtobzog~(r;Oh,, 3-4. 98 fog el st^ om, Airtobiog~crph~, 31 99. "Fogelstronl and tlle Dln~oilnte,"351. 100 P r e h n g e ~ Clicrtit~, , Chcrllc>~igc>, ccr~idClicr~/g(> 19 101. TVe~ser," S e r \ ~ r l gLo\ e," 21-23. 102 Fogelst~oln,AirtoOiogtcrl~li~T h e JOT of God's \\ark 1s a po\\el ful m o t ~ fIn Fogelstroln's nrltlng, see 26-28. 103 C alol h C oblu n's stltdl of \11am1 C oltntT, hansas glres d e t a ~ l e dbacks p o s ~ t ~ oln i l tlus rural ground to tlle estnbl~sllrllerltof the S\ilod nrld ~ t central comlnlumtl's ~ d e n t ~ See t l C oblu n, L l f >/rtForrt C o ~ ~ t p tRc>l/g/o~i, r GPIIIJPI, III/~EIJ(((II-

Notes to Pages 143-148

207

t!o~iI I ! cr GPIJ ~ ! I I I ! - L ~ ( ~ JCo~ror!~o!~t\, IPIIII! 1868-1 945 (Laltrence. Lnlr el s ~ t \Press of Kansas, 1992), 25-30. 1 0 1 I b ~ d,36-37 105. But tlle nlaliltenailLe of t r a d ~ t ~ orrell ~ e so n educat~oil,and so education and the estahl~sll~neilt of a netnork of Gernlail s ~ l l o o l sand colleges \$ere Lent~al to the11 e f f o ~ts oTer t h ~ sp e n o d T h e s\ nod c~eated a slstem of elemental \ s~llools,lunlor colleges, ~olleges,a n d selnlnarles that uiltll TVorld TZkr I \\as tlle largest Protestant educational slsterll ln X l n e r l ~ aI. b ~ d .27. , 106 I b ~ d, 3 0 107. TVe~ser,"Ser\lilg Lo\e," 119-20. Trio llospltals \ \ e r e tlle heglrlillilg of dea~orlessnark for tlle h l ~ s s o u rS\nod. ~ Fort TZk\ile, I n d ~ a n aand Bea\er Dam, Illscons~n There \\as n o m o t h e ~ h o ~ l saen d the\ d ~ dnot joln the Deaconess Conference. l occurred agalrl 111 108. 11o1es to e r a d ~ c a t eilon-Eilgllsll e d u ~ a t ~ o i l aslsterns 1890 C oblu n, L f i crtForrr C O I I I P I176 \, 109. Tllose \ t h o rerlla~iledsuffered bad11 under Stalln. 92,000 \ \ e r e nlo\ e d fro111 ~a Bessarab~ato settle Poland, and follo\\~rlgthe \tar Inail\ \\ere herded to S ~ h e r h\ the Red XI In\ See S h ~ r l e \Flsche~X ~ e n d s TIIP , C~~itrnlDcrlrotn G ~ r t ~ ~ c rTlr~!r ~ir HISto1 ), Lni/gucrge, nitd Cultroe (TVash~ilgtoil,D.C.. Georgeto\irl Uill\ e r s t \ Press, 1989), 63-63. 110 At the e n d of the mneteenth centlu-1 h o s l ~ ~ t a\l\se r e founded b\ deaconesses ln Grafton, North Dal\ota, Fargo, Nortll Dakota, and tllroughout 11111ilesota. Doll?, "Nurslilg b\ Rellg~ousOrders," 1204. 111 Mass, of course, \$as In Latln luntll Lat~can11 In the 1960s Nonetheless, pra\ers, Blhle lessoils, h l n n s , and the Inan\ ~ o l n p l e xfestn als and de\ otlorls \$ere all 111 Gerlnan. 112 H I Inel, Cnlled to B ~ F / ~ ! t l $ r 9l , 113.Ja\ P. Dolail, TheL4ine)rccri/CnfholrcElif~e~rei/ce ,i H z s f o ) )f)oin Coloi/zcrITzmes to , Douhledal, 1987), 297. See also Dolan, The 11)11)12the P)esei/t (Garden C I ~ \N.Y.. g ~ n ~Clirrrtlr !t LYe70Yorlr r I I I ~n ~ iIdG P I J ~ ! ICcrt110110, III 1815-1865 ( B a l t ~ m o r Johns e Hopklrls Ui11\ e r s t \ Press, 1975). j Szste)~crnd A \ ~ ~ ~ / 114. George C. Ste\\art, J1n)zlels of Chn~rtj H r s f o ~ ofLin7e)zcni/ ( H u n t ~ n g t o nI, n d . C)ur S u n d a ~\ 1s1to1,1991), 112 records that F ~ a n c ~ s c a n es l e the fastest gro\$lilg colnnlunltles of \\omell 111 tlle U i l ~ t e dStates het\$eeil 1918 and 1943. The\ gren from 6,461 slsters ln 1900 to 30,241 111 1945. 113 H e n n ~ n g e r ,5 1 r t ~ 1cf\t , dI/lr\ n ~ i dTlr(vr Henlo!gJI!,,!o~!,10, 116 er 116. T h e \ouilg slsters \$erer e l ~ ee\ d \\her1 11otller Seraphla S ~ h o l c t e ~ n e \fell asleep and the\ e\entuall\ lrlade the~nsel\es co~rlfortableoil tllelr il~ile-hourlourne\ I b ~ d 117 , 117. Both rules are qulte clear oil tll~s,forh~ddlrlgfastlilg, il~glltpralers, etc., \ \ l l ~ c lare l corllrlloil F r a i l ~ l s ~ apraLtlLes. il See C llapter 6. tl~ hen man\ F~anclscancolnmll118 T h ~ schanged In the t ~ $ e n t ~ ecentlul, illtles became teaclung Lolnlnuilltles. Stenart, J1cr)zlels of Chmzf),412. 119. Tllese sangulne colrlrllerlts \$ere111Keuenhof's Fore\\ord to The Szste)~ofSt ~ I / I InI~ i dT ~ I ( >Ho\l~!tcrl II Tlb11, H e \$as fa1 more glo\\lng In 111s praise of the late r tlle colnnlunlt\ ln St. LOUIS. Father Faerher, splr~tuald l r e ~ t o of 120. C llr~stlarlGolder's H r s f o ~ of j the Dencoi/ess I\.lozleine~/tIS tlle oil11 sourLe of ~ ~ h o t o g ~ a and p h s 111ofiles of the e a ~ l \deaconesses It 1s the sowce for D o ~ l e ' s "Nursing b\ Rel~glousOrders, Part V." 121. Ibld. 122 Prehngel, Clicrrlt~,Clrcrllr~~ige, ccr~idClicr~!g(>, 18

~

208

Notes to Pages 148-133

123 I b ~ d 124. Catherme Prellilger, "The N ~ i l e t e e n t h - C e i l t ~Dea~oilessate ~r\ 111 Gernlail\. T h e Efficacl of the F a l n ~ hlodel," l~ In G P I I I L (T~T I~ !I I L P I !0 )t l r ~ E ~ g l r t ~ ~(1r1~t 1! d1 ~ Y o ! ~ t ( ~ ~ ! t l i Ceittu)zes ,i Soczcrl nnd Lzfe)crijHzsto) ), ed. Ruth-Ellen B.Joeres a n d Llarl Jo LIa\rles 1986), 213-29. (Blooinlngton. Iildlaila U i l ~ \ e r s ~Press, t\ 123 I b ~ d,13-16 126. At least, tlus IS llo\\ the sltuatloil appears. Research 111 Gerinail, S~iedlsh, Danish, a n d Nor\\eglail llospltal archnes \\auld reall\ need to be d o n e to sa\ heth the^ that rule a l ~ l ~ l l ethrollghout d all deaconess hosp~talsIn the L n ~ t e d States. It certalill\ a p p l ~ e d111 the notable hospitals that l m e been exainlned, and the C a t l l o l ~s~sterlloods ~ \ \ e r e the e x e p t l o n s to the rule. C a t h o l ~ rellglous ~ coinh ~ o u g h o u tthe 111sto1\ munltles ha\e contlolled the11 o\\n assets In C a t h o l ~ c ~ stm of the inonastlc in01 eineilt, these lirlirllgrarlt C atllol~c\\oirleil111 the U i l ~ t e dStates inerel\ follolied custonlarl praltlle. 127 Suz\ Farren, A Cnll to Gorp Tlw TThlri~~! TTIro Blolt Cntliol!c H(>crltliccr~~ 0, L4itle)rccr(St. LOUIS.C a t h o l Xssoclatlon ~~ of the U r l ~ t e dStates, 1996). 128. TVe~ser," S e r \ ~ n gLoIe," 69, u t e s S ~ s t eJr u l ~ eLlergiler's letter to T h e L u (21 A11111 1904). 304-3 S ~ s t eJuhe r I S adalnant. " l l e a l e c o n ~ ~ n c tehd~ IsS tli~r(r~i not the reined\ to our d~fficult~es. TVe need norliers", but so d o the Erlgllsll a n d Gernlan-Engl~shuslrlg houses 111 Baltlinore a n d Llll~iauhee,she polilts out. "T271\ shollld lie t111oli aria\ a treasure [Gel Inan langllage] b e f o ~e there 1s the least ilecesslt\ for dolilg so? Let those lillo d e s ~ r eail Engl~sh-speali~ng house go \illere there IS one." 129 Goldel, H!\tor 1 of ~ / I P L ) P I I ( OLI !IPI ~o~i ~ ~ ~133 r ! ~ In ~ ~1924 t , on11 124 of 810 actn e dea~orlessesliere l ~ s t e das ser\lng ln llospltals, \\hereas all deacoilesses ln Gerinail\ liere graduate nurses. Doll?, "Nurslilg b\ Rel~glousOrders 111 the U r l ~ t e d States, Part \ -Deaconesses, 1833-1928," A I I L ( > Joco~icrl I I ~ ~ I ! of Sirrso!g 19, 11 (1929): 1336.

C h n j f e i 8. T h e Tzc!eittrefh Cenfrrij 1 hathleen \I J o ~ c e ,LII(>~Ji(i~i(: LII(r~k~>t\, ( I I ! ~L I I o ~ / ~ lCs ~ ~ t l r oHo\l~!t(rl\ I!~ ( r ~ ! dt 1 1 ~ Ethzcs of,iDoi fzoit l i t E n ~ l 20th-Cenfrrij ) L4itleirccr,TVorlilng Papers serles 29, 2 (South Bend, Iild.. C u s h ~ i aCenter for the Stud\ of X n l e r ~ ~ aCi atllol~c~sin, l Ui11\ers1t\ of Notre Dame, Fall 199i), i 2. Tins IS Anile Sunliners's argument, see "The LI\ster~ousDeirl~seof Sarah Ganlp. Tlle Donl~clllar\Nurse and H e r Detractors," 1icto)zcrn Sfrrdzes 32 (1989). 363-86 a n d " \ I ~ n ~ s t e r ~Angels," ng H!\tor I T o d n ~39 ( F e b ~ ual \ 1989). 31-37 3. See C llr~stlrleAllen, "TVonlen ln Colorllal F r e i l ~ l X l i n e r ~ ~ a ln , " Tlbn7eit critd Pelrgron 277 ,iitleirccr, \ol. 2, T h e Colonrnl nitd Pe7lolufzoitnij Peirods, ed. Roserllar\ r (San FI anclsco. Hal per a n d ROT\, R a d f o ~d R ~ l e t h e ar n d Roselna~\ S k ~ n n e hellel 1983), 80-83, 111-17. See also Paullile Pauls, "A Hlstorl of the Edrlloiltoil Geilera1 Hospital, 1893-1970," PllD d ~ s s e r t a t ~ oUnl\erslt\ n, ofAlberta, 1994. t~~cr Sir r so!& 18504 Susan \I Re\ el b\, O I I J P I Pto~ C ( I I P Tlw L ) ! l c ~ t ~ ~ofA~ric>r!ccr~i 1945 (C anlbrldge. C arllbrldge rill\e r s t \ Press, 1987). C ella Da\ les inahes tlus pomt too 111 her ~ o i l ~ l u s ~too i Geitde) l n77d the P~ofesszoitnlP,edzcnmenf rit Srrisritg (Bllcl\~ngham.C)l~enU m ~ e r s ~PI t \ess, 1993), 180 5. hlargaret hlaccurtaln, "Godl\ Burden. C atllol~cS~sterlloods11120th-C erlturl Ireland," 111 Geitde) nitd Sexrrnlrtj rit Jlode) 77 helnitd, ed. Xnthonl Bradlel a n d Llarlann G~alanella\ allllhs (Xlnherst U n l r e ~s ~ t of \ \Iassachl~settsPress, 199i), 248

Notes to Pages 153-139

209

6 Anne Sllmlne~s,"The Costs and Benefits of C a l l n g N u r s ~ n gC h a r ~ t ~ e s , c.1830-1860," ln Jfedrcri/e nitd Chn~rtjEefofo,~ the I l l f c r ~ eStcrte, ed. Joilntllail Bnrrl and C:ol~nJones ( L o n d o n Routledge, 1991), 133-43 7. Sue Ellen Ho\, "The Jourilel Out. Tlle R e ~ r u ~ t n l enrld n t Eirllgrntloil of Irlsll Rel~glousTZhrllerl to tlle U r l ~ t e dStates, 1812-1914," Jou) ncrl of Tlomen s Hzsto) ) 6 , 4 (1993). 61-93 8. Mar\ E. Dab, "TVonlen ln tlle Irlsll Thrliforce from Pre-Industr~alto hloderrl Tlnles," SOL4THL4R7 (1981). 77. 9 \Ialgalet hlacClu taln, "Late In the F ~ e l dC:athohc S~stersIn T ~ + e n t ~ e t h C e l l t u n Irelaild nrld the Ne\\ R e l ~ g ~ o Hlstorl," us Jou) ncrl of Tloinen s Hzsto) ) 6, 4/7, 1 (TVlilter/Sprlilg 1993). 34. 10 For a dlscllss~onof the 111s11tal\eo~erof the S~stersof the Hall C I oss and the S~stersof St.Josepll of Caroildelet - t\+oFrench Loininuilltles - see Barbra hlailn TVnll, " R e l ~ g ~ o E n ,t h n ~ ~ ~a it d\ ,Nurslilg. Tlle X n l e r ~ c n n ~ z a t ~ofo nIrlsll C ntllol~c S ~ s t eNlu r ses," P I O ( P P I J IoI f~t~l \i ~C O I ~ ~ I P 0 1 ) I t~l C i Histo) ~P 1 o f I T i ) ~ r iR~ ~ li i g o ( ( sLOT , ola U i l ~ \ e r s ~ tC\ ,h ~ c a g o ,24 June 1998, 2-3, nrld TVa11, "Unl~l,el\ Eiltrepreileurs. Nulls, Nurslilg, a i d Hospltnl De\ elopirleilt 111tlle TVest a i d hl~d\\est,1805-1915," PhD dlsse~tatlons, L r n ~ e r s of ~ tNotre ~ Dame, 2000 11. B\rile, "111 the Pnrlsll But Not of It. S~sters,"139, u t e s h l a n Scllilelder. 12. P n t r l ~ ~ B\rne, n "111 tlle P a r ~ s hBut Not of It. S~sters,"ln T~crnsfo)inzngPn~rsh I T ~ ) I I L P RI ~ ~ l i g o ( ( se,d Ja\ P dIi~ii\tr\ TI/(>Chcr~ig~~igRolc~s ofCntliolic Clr~1g1,L n i t ~ cr1i11 , Dolail, R. S ~ o tXppleb\, t P n t r l ~ ~B\rne, n a i d Debra Cainpbell (Nen 170rl,. Cross's that prlor to Vat1~ai1 I1 "e\ e r \ road, 1990), 153, u t e s Joan A. C l l ~ t t ~ s t e rcorllrllerlt da\ 11fegot smaller Rehg~ollshfe had become the celebrat~onof the t~n ~ a "l 13. T h e S e ~ o r l dVat1~ai1Counc11 (1962-63) resulted ln a drnrllnt~ctrailsforina~~ a i d 11fe. tlorl of C a t h o l 11turgl 1 4 T h e codlficat~onof canon la\\ c o \ e ~ e deTer\ aspect of chluch la\\, not slinpl\ nlatters pertalnlng to rellglous \+onlen.It \\as the result of n innssne a i l sultntne project \ \ ~ t ltlle l erltlre eplswpnte -all tlle blsllops ln the \\orld. Needless to sa\, notnen n e r e not consulted 13. See B\rile, "111 tlle P a r ~ s hBut Not of It. S~sters,"for n d~scuss~orl of these cllnrlges nrld tllelr ~ n l p l ~ ~ n t l o i l s . 16 T h ~ 1s s not to sa\ that some notnen d ~ not d manage to oTercome I estrlctlons a i d nlalntaln n l l ~ g lprofess~on~ll l profile. Tlle trend, llo\\e\er, \+asto ino\ e slsters out of tlle llinel~gllt. 17 BTIne, "In the Palls11 But Not of It. S~sters,"113 l a i d Lnteilt A e n u e s of Soclal hlo18. Heleil R. Ebaugh, " P a t r l a r ~ h nBnrgnlils b111t\. Nuns 111 tlle Roirlnrl C a t h o l ~Churcll," ~ Geitde) nlrd Socret) 7, 3 (Septeinber 1993). 100-414,103 19. For a b r ~ e f~ I S L U S S of I ~ the ~ ~ lnlpnLt of these ~ l l a i l g e s oil the S~stersof St. Josepll of Caroildelet see C nrol I(.C oburil nrld hlartlla S n l ~ t hSf~z~zted , Lzzles Hozo LYi~~i\ JI~II~I(>)PIJ Ccrtlioli( C ( ( l t ( o ~ c r ~ i d A ~ r i ~ rLlfr: i c c r 1836-1 ~i 920 (C:hapel H111L n l r e ~ s~t\ of North C nrollna Press, 1999), 224-23. 20. B\rile, "111 the Pnrlsll But Not of It. S~sters,"131. ls In the t \ \ e n t ~ e t hcentlll\ 21 T h e lncongrllous existence of ~ e h g ~ o l\\omen before I7ntlcnn I1 1s discussed b\ El~zabethk l n l e r , Relzgzorr~ Ilbnreit 277 the itzted Del.. Stcrtes L4 Srr~zle)of the I~lJIrrei/trnlLrte,ntu)e f)oin 1 9 0 to 1 9 8 3 (TV~lirl~ilgtoil, hllchael Glaz~er,1981); Helen Rose Fllchs Ebaugh, Out of t h Cloi\t~r ~ A 5trrd1 of O~gnnr~crtzoi/nlDrlemmcrs (.A~~stlil. U n ~ \ e r s ~of t \ Texas Press, 1977), B\rne, "111 the Pnrlsll But Not of It. S~sters,"115-33. 22 Of cow se I T S patlent base d ~ not d necessal~l\follo~\slnt T h e patlent base of

210

Notes to Pages 159-162

a hosp~talfollo~$edthe soc~ala n d d e m o g ~ a p h l cprofile of I T S constltuenc\, a n d l o ~ a t l o i lrather tllail rellgloil \$as the prllnar\ reasoil for llospltal use. See Bernadette hlcC:aule\, "Sltbl~meh n o l n a l ~ e s\\omen R e l ~ g ~ o lal ns d Roman C a t h o l ~ c , [ore ncrl of the Hzsto) ) ofI\.1edzcz~7enitd,illzed Hosp~tals111Ne\\ York C ~ t \1850-1920," Scrences 32 (1997). 304. 23 " S ~ s t e shollld ~s be t ~ a ~ n In e dthese matters and Instruct students 111oper1~ ~ i l d e l ~ c ~tr1sks l t e ' r ~ rule,"' ~ Custonlllone\ er, ~tIS best ~fthe\ d o not perform su~11 ~ er ~ h n e s Seattle, , \\'ash~ilgtoil,106. Tlus rule IS 111 ar\, 1928, S~stersof P r o \ ~ d e i l X comlnon \ \ ~ t usllal h p~actlce - tralned nu1 ses d ~ superTlse d the hands-on \\arks of tralilees a n d tlle slster-nurses \$ere n o d~ffereiltln tins respelt. 24. Ibld., 103. , \la1 Lets, and 1101als," 7 23 J o ~ c e "\Iedlc~ne, 26. S~stersof St. F r a i l ~ founder ~s 11otller Xugustlile G~eseillost ller a r m ln the lauildr\ nlangle. See S ~ s t e rL o u ~ s eHlriler, Ccrlled to Be Fazthfrrl ,i H z s t o , ~of the J I S ~ P5 I(If\t F I ( I I ! C OLlI(rr17~~11(: , LIIOrol~r!( h l a r ~ ~ ~hlo l l e ., S~stersof St FI a n u s , hlount X1\ errlo Coil\ eilt, 1 1 a r l llle, ~ 1984). 11arkets, and 11orals," 7. 27. Jolce, "11ed1~1ile, 28 Jean R~chardson,"C:athohc Rehg~olls\\omen as Inst~tllt~onal Inno~ato~s. \ the f i s e of tlle 11oderil Urban Hospltal 111Buffalo, N.Y., the S~stersof C l l a r ~ t and 1848-1900," PllD d~ssertatlon,State U i l ~ \ e r s ~of t \ Ne\\ York at Buffalo, 1996,23339 29. See Katllleeil 11. Jo\ce, " S ~ ~ e i al n~dethe Saints. X l n e r ~ ~ aCi la t h o l ~ ~ a ns d \, 227-32. Health Care, 1880-1930," PllD d~ssertatloil,Prlrlcetoil U i l ~ \ e r s ~ t1993, 30 Bernadette \IcC:aule\ argues that In Ne\\ 1'01 L the d~ocesan1ue1a1 cln "~1111ported refor111 crltlclsrlls of slsters and ln so dolrlg assulned a ile\\, proactne role ln C a t h o l health ~~ lare." See "Subllnle Xnolnal~es,"305. 31 S~stersd e h ~ e r e dbables In San Antonlo a n d Seattle Dallghte~sof C h a r ~ t \ coilducted nlaternlt\ llospltals 111 Buffalo, althougll d o ~ t o r sperforlrled dell\erles - as \\as tlle ilorrll 111 tlle northeast. S~stersattended u n e x p e ~ t e darm als. 32S1ste1 hlarl G a b ~ ~He el n m n g e ~ J, l r t ~ ~o rf J n o ! t d I / cr~ill ~ ~ ~T ~ I H~ (I~Ic r l ~ ~ i g ~ l I ~ r r ~ o ~ i (St. L o u ~ sS~sters . of St. hlar\ of tlle Tlllrd Order of Saint Franc~s,1979), 171. a, 33. Teresa &ailel, \ t h o establlslled tlle Frail~lscail111sslonar1esto X f r ~ ~Lanlp a ~ g n e d~ I elessl\ I f o ~pel lnlsslon to T I aln and p~actlce as ~ n l d \ \ ~ r e\l shen In 1936 Plus I S cap~tulatedn ~ t hCanon 489, " h l a t e r n ~ t \Tralillilg for h l ~ d \ $ ~ f eS~sters," r\ slle opened a ~ n ~ d \ $ ~ fse~rl \l o o lln Uganda. See 11a~Curta1il,"Godl\ Burden," 23 1 34. C Ilr~stopllerJ.Kauffinail, J f z n r s t ~) crnd Jlecritzng: LAPelrgzoz~sHzsto) ) ofCatholrc Health Cole 277 the citzted States (Nen 170rl\:Crossroad, 1995), 171. 3.5. J o ~ c ed, I ( ~ l ! o ~ !JI(r1lr~t5, r: cr~illJIornlr, 24. , 36. I b ~ d .6. ; 1880 onl\ 360 trained nurses 37. In 1873 there \$ere onl\ tllree s ~ h o o l s 111 scattel e d throllgh the entll e count1 T ; b~ 1890 on11 thlrt\-fi~eschools. Bal b a a~ hlelosll, "Tl~ePh~szczcrit 'SHcritd": T l b ~ kCultroe aitd Coitflrct rit LAine~rccrn Srosritg(Ph11adelplua: Telrlple U i l ~ \ e r s ~ Press, t\ 1982), 23-26. 30. Xrlil Do\le, "Nurs~ilgb\ R e l ~ g ~ o lChders ls In the L m t e d States, Part 111- 1871-1928," AIILPI!C(II! J o ~ ~ r ~ iof( r l 9 (1929): 1085 u t e s tlle tllree quoted C atllol~chospitals. *Yz~1sritg19, 38. I b ~ d . 1092. , 39. Ibld., 1090. 40. T h e first nurse to be reg~steredln Xlabalna \$as S ~ s t e rChr\sosto~rlof St. Vlnceilt's Hospltal. I b ~ d . 1093. , 11. Ibld., 1094. ETen In the 1930s the Dallghte~sof P r o ~ ~ d e n In c e Seattle pro-

Notes to Pages 162-164

211

r ~ d e dthe 111esldent of the state h o s l ~ ~ tassoclatlon al See H i , t o r ~o j t l i ~TTi~rlii~igto~i State Hospltnl Xssoc~nt~oil, 1958). Stcrte H o ~ ~ ~ t c r l ~ I ~ ~ o c(Seattle. z c r t z o ~TZkslungton ~ nal and 1 2 Ehzabeth Smrth d e r e l o l ~ sthe Idea of dual ~ ~ r o f e s s ~ oengagement cltes a 1965 census of r e l ~ g ~ o\\olrleil111 us Canada that deirloilstrntes the l l ~ g lle\ l el of professloilnl educat~orland trnlillilg of slsters. See Sin\ th, "Profess~oilnl~znt~oil Xlnong the Professed. T h e Case of Roman C:athohc \\omen Rehg~olls,"In Clicrl077 Tloinen s Piofrssroncrl lengzng Piofrsszons Hzsto~zcnlcritd Coi/te~nf)o~cr)) Pe)sf~ectzz~es e Tlb)li, ed. Sinrth, Snrldrn Xcker, Sandra Bourne, and Allsoil P r e r l t ~ ~(Toronto. L nlr el s ~ t rof To1 onto Press, 1999), 248 h1acChl1tam d e s c ~ b e sthe nuns as the "ploneerlilg graduate e l ~ t e "of Irelnrld after tller \\ere perirl~ttedto attend unl\ ers ~ t rln the 1940s. LIn~Curtaln,"Godlr Burden," 249. 1 3 Anne hlarle R a f e ~tr, T l r ~Politic, ofLY(\'cori~ig K1io7ol~dg~ ( L o n d o n Routledge, r ll l n r n ~ tas e rskill 1996), 40, Susnrl Re\ erb\ supports tins Iden ln her d e p ~ ~ t ~ofo ~ ln 0,deied to Ccr~e,as does C e l ~ nD n \ ~ e 111 s Geitde) crnd theP~ofrsszoncrlP~edrccrn7ei~t. 1 4 \Ielosh, " T I I P P ~, iIoI n ~ i H o ~ i d, "3

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

This research has relied upor1 a range of both prinlary and secondary texts. I believe that, giwn the lunfamiliar natllre of the 11rimal-y and archival solu-ces to llistoriails of nursing, it is \vortll\vhile providiilg a brief explarlatiorl of the material used. Archi~esof religious Tiolnen generally include the follo~iingtypes of inforination:

A ~ / ~ / n These lr are ln-hollse accounts of eTents The\ ma\ be a u t h o ~ e db~ a set \ ,\\rltterl for nlail\ \ears b\ queille of noil-nained rllerllbers of the ~ o n l i n u i l ~or a slilgle hand. The\ nla\ be llaildnr~tten,ln Eilgllsll or other languages. Orlgltlped and t~anslatedThe annals often ~ncllldeextensne nals ma\ h a ~ been e necrolog~es,or aclounts of lrllportarlt coinnlunlt\ rllerllbers on the occaslorl of tllelr death. L(>ttprr Lette~s I e l e ~ a n to t the foundat~onof a comtnlumt\ 01 lnstltutlon a1 e often keut ln the arclll\ es. 111the il~ileteerltllceiltur\ letters to and froin the inothert\ betnee11 the corlfessor ( p e s t ) llouse, letters bet\\een ~ o n l i n u i l ~nlenlbers, and the mot he^ sulIellor, betneen the colnmunltT and the d~ocese,affect~onate ilens\ letters, business letters, and so oil are all found ln a r ~ h n e sAs . n~th anilals, these letters ins\ be llaildnr~tterland 111\armus languages, or the\ ins\ h a ~ been e collated, e d ~ t e dt, ~ l ~ eand d , t~ anslated Pelrgrous inntozcrls Praler bool\s, p ~ o u sl~terature,sernloils, a i d lessorls are soinel \ eallilg of the tlirles a\ allable. Outlliles of rel~gloustralillilg are p a r t ~ ~ u l a rre\ I ehg~olls 11feand the r e l ~ g ~ o tursa d ~ t ~ oa ncomtnlumt\ follo\\s R111es Endl conlnlun~t\had ~ t onrl s specla1 rule, often rllod~fiedo\er the \ears. \ Tlus rule a i d ~ t \sarmus edltloils are al\\a\ s a\ allable ln the a r ~ h les. llI[>~r~O~~r\li~l) / J ~ t ( / ~ lThese r deta~lscan be qlute extensne Some a ~ c h l ~hold e s full l~stsof all ineinbers, tllelr llorlle address, tllelr father s oclupatlon, and so oil. ilg \tho left Donr\ l~stsma\ be a\a~lable.Full l~stsof rllerllbers ~ i l ~ l u d ~non1er1 the colnlnumtT and ~$111ma\ be a\ allable C oluntrl of orlgln of lnelnbe~s, the11 age, a i d pre\lous 11feexperleille ins\ be oil record. Fzncritcrnl defnzls. Propert\ l~sts,deeds, mortgage docuineilts, bequests, debts a i d debtors, eTen e ~ e r l d afinanc~al ~ transactions ma\ be a~allable. 1'17;0ublzshed hrsfo~resHlstorles \$ere often uildertaken b\ slsters or tllelr pastor to

214

Bibliography

conlnlernolate an anmTersal\ sllch as the comlnlumt\'s 01 h o s l ~ ~ t a lfiftieth 's a11111\ersar\. T\\eiltletll-ceiltur\ inaster's and PllD dlssertatlons o n the mininunlt\'s lllstor\ are often also a\allahle ln coinnlunlt\ a r ~ h n e as s \\ell as 111 routlile sourws. X r ~ l l les \ (rellglous and other) used for tills stud\. Brltlsll Llhrarl, Loildorl (BL) C Inclnnatl H ~ s t o r ~ c aSlo c l e t ~ C:~nc~nnatl, , C)hlo, Nlpl~elt C ollectlon of German \Iethod~sln(C:HSNC Ghl) , e ~ 1'l01 l\ (DC)C:X) Dallghters of C:hal IT\,A l b a n ~N Dltbhn Archd~ocese,B~shop'sPalace, Dubhn Deaconess C:omrnllnlt\ of the E~angellcalLllthel an C:hllrch of A m e r ~ c a(ADC:ELC:X), G l a d ~ l r n eP, e n n n l ~ a m a hllt~llellLlhrarl, State Llhrar\ of Neil South TVales Notre Darne Un11erslt\, Soutll Bend, Iildlaila Slsters of Charlt\, Harold's Cross, Duhllil Slsters of the Incarnate TZhrd, hlotherllouse, Sarl Xiltorllo Texas (XhIITV) Slsters of LIerc\, Berinoildse\, Lolldoll Slsters of P r o \ l d e i l ~ e Sacred , Heart P r o \ l i l ~ eSeattle, , TZhslllilgtoil (SPA) St Joseph's Hospltal, Lancolnel St L Incent's Hosl~ltal,S\dne\ S\dne\ D~ocese,St \la1 \ 's C;athedral, S\ dne\ S\dne\ Hospltal, S\dne\ Ilellcolne Institute for the Hlstol \ of \Iedlclne L l b r a r ~London ,

Xgilell, Slster Clare. Ge~nldri/e,n Tnle of Coi/sczence Plllladelphla: E. Cunlinlsl\e\, 1819. Allen, C llrlstlne. "TVonlen 111 C oloillal F r e i l ~ lXnlerlca." l 111 Ilbnlei/ n n d Relzgzo~l211 AIILPII(O, \ol. T ~ IColo~i!nl P cr~!dR ~ r ~ o l r r t ! o ~ Pr.~!o/lr, i c r ~ ~ ed. R o s e l n a l ~Radfold R ~ l e t h e rand Roselnal \ Sklnnel h l l e r . San Francisco: Hal per and ROT\,1983. 79-131. R~l!g!orr,C O I I L I I L ~ ~1845-1 O ~ ! P \ ,900. LonXllchln, A. 11. Tlip \il(wt R(>Opll!o~iA~!gl!ccr~! don: SCAI, 1938. Xnson, Peter Fledellck. T l i ~Clrll r l f t h ~C l o i r t ~ R~ ~: h g o c t rCo~ror!io!iti~\ I I I ! ~K I I I I J I P ~ Bodres 211 theL4i/glrcni/Con7n7z~nronLolldoll: SPC & 1935. Xrends, Shlrle\ Flscher. T h e C e n f ~ nDnkofn l Gel mni/s: The11 H r s t o ~ j ,Lnitgunge, nitd Crrlfrr~e.TVaslllngton, D.C .: Georgeto\\il Unl\erslt\ Press, 1989. Xrnllger, Slster Bernadette. "The Hlstorl of the Hospltal TVorli of the Daughters of Charlt\ of St. \'lilceilt d e Paul ln the Eastern Pro\lilLe of the Urllted States, 1823-1860." blaster of S ~ l e i l ln ~ eNurslng Education thesls, C atllollc UnlIers ~ t of \ Xlnel lea, 1917. XI lnltage, Susan a n d Elizabeth Jalneson, eds. T I I PI T ~ ) I ~ ! P rI ! IT>rt. Norlnan: L m ~ e r s ~ t of \ Ol\lahoma PI ess, 1987. XI nsteln, Ilalter L. P r o t ~ , t n ~l?v,ctr !t Cnthoht 0 , dIi/l-T7!cto~!n~i E ~ ! g l n ~ dIr ! d ,Y(>u~deg~rt~ cr~illt l r ~ ~ Y i r C:ollunbla: ~!,. L r n ~ e r s l tof~ hllssolu I Press, 1982. Bah, hlonlca E. FIor~~~(~~Y~gIrt~~ig~r.lll(~~r~i~l t l i ~ ~ Y i r r \ o ! g L ( > gLondon: ~rc~ Clooln Helln, 1986. -. "The Nlglltlrlgale Nurses: Tlle LI\th and the Reallt\." 111 S r r ~ s r i t gH Z S -

"

Bibliography

213

tor] T l i ~Jtcrt~o f t l i ~Art, ed. C h r ~ s t o l ~ h hlaggs. er London: Clooln Helm, 1987. 33-59. In Be1 l n o n d s e ~ Bartlett, Alan. "From Strength to Strength: Roman C:athoI~c~sm u p to 1939." In The Chu,ch ond the Peojle: Cofholzcs nnd Thez, Chrr~chrit E ~ z f n z n , c.1880-1939 TZkr\\l~k:Centre for the Stud\ of S o ~ l n Hlstor\, l Uill\erslt\ of \\ar\\lcl\, 1983. 30. Berner, ficllard. "Port BlnkelT 11111C onlpnn\ 1876-89." Pnczjc,\h, th7~lestQrrn)t e ~ l ) (October 1966): 153-71. L I I ( > ~ J/ I ~S (/I ~P~r o~f~i \>o o ~ i f oT~T ~ ) I ~ / P Ye\\ I~ Blacl\~\ell,Ehzabeth and E m ~ l \Black~+ell. 170rk:lV.H. Tlnson, 1860. Blessing, J. P a t r l ~ k "Irlsll . Enllgratlon to the Urllted States, 1800-1920: Xi1 O\erT I ~ T + . " In TIIPII/\II ~ ~ i A t ~ ~ ( > ~ ~ c n : E ~ ril\\or/~l(rt/o~/, / ~ g r c r t ~ o )(IIIIJIIIL~I)(IC~, ), ed. P. J. Dl [KIT. Ne\\ York: Cainbrldge Ui11\ ersltT Press, 1985. Bolster, E\el\n. The Szsfe~sof J f e ~ c q277 the C)zrneoit Tlir~Cork: 11eruer Press, 1964. Boss\, John. T l i E~/gl/\li ~ Cntlroht C o t ~ ~ t ~ ~ c 1570-1850 c~i/h, London: Dal ton, Longnlail, nrld Todd, 1976. Boud, D. G. Lrrcq O s b u ~ n 1836-1891. , 1Lndsor: Ha\\ksburT Press, 1968. B r o ~ \ n Petel. , Tlip Bod] cr~id 5 o o ~ hJI(w, T T ~ ) I ~ / P I /(/)id , J P Y I L I I I R P I / ~ O / ( I ( ~0 ~) E/lrl] IOI/ Ch)rsfzonrtq London: Faber and Fnber, 1990. Br\nil, Ed\\ard. The Chrr~chof I ~ e l n n drit the Age ofCotholzcEi~~nnczjofzoit. Ne\\ York: Gal land, 1982. B\rne, P n t r l ~ l a"In . the Parlsh But Not of It: Sisters." 111 T~nnsfo)mritgPo~zsh Jfznrsf ~ q The : Chongzng Roles of Cofholzc Cle~gq,Lnzf), nnd Tlbmen Pelrgrorrs, ed. Ja\ P. Dolan, R. Scott Applebl, Patllcla BTIne, and Debla C:aml~bell. Yell I'oll\: Crossroad, 1990. Cnnlploil, Ednlund. R o c k c h o f ~ f ~ eG)ozc!zng )~: c ) Cofholzc rit ,iust~oIzo. hlelbourile: Penglnn, 1982. C nrroll, hlar\ .Austlil, RS11. Leo7~esf)ornfhe,innols ofthe S z ~ t eof,\.fe~cq, )~ 4 \ ols., \ 01. 2, Englnnrl. C72177eo,Scotloitd, ,iz~~t)oIzo, n77d ,\b711 Zeolnnd Ne\+ 170rk:C a t h o l l ~Pubh c a t ~ o nSoclet\, 1383. C nsterns, Susan P. "Vlrgln \'o\\s." 111 Relzgzo)7 l i t the Lzzles of Eitglrsh Tlbinen, 17601930, ed. Gall hlalnlgreeil. London: Crooirl Helm, 1986. 129-60. Castel hne, Gall Fa1 r. "St. Josel~h'sand St. hlarl's: T h e O r ~ g l n of s Catholic Hos111tnls ln Plllladelpllln." Peititsqhlonrn Jfngozrite of H r s f o ~ qnitd Eropnf~hq108, 3 (1984): 291-314. A C?~/tco\~ ~ J P I T ! I (TPl r ~R ~ c o ~o df O ~ /Hio/d~p/J p Ecr~,.Pllbllshed for the Centenarl of St. \ ' ~ i l ~ e n t 'Hospital, s 23 Jnnuarl 1934. Dublin: Bro\\ile nrld Nolan, 1934. Clark, 1Innillilg. LA Shot f Hrsto~qof,iusf~olzo11elbourile: Peilguln, 1995. Cleal, C h t r o n a . sir^/\ I I ~,Yl~i(>tp(>~itJr C(>~/tco\ IIPIIIIIIJDublin: G111 and l l a c m ~ l l a n , 1897. C oburil, C nrol K. L f e ot For11 COT170s Pelrgron, Geitde?, ond Educntron rit n Ge)moil1868-1945 Lanl ence: Lnlr el s ~ Press t ~ of Kansas, 1992. Lirtli~rn~i Co~ror/io/~t\, C oburil, C nrol K. and hlarthn Snlltll. " 'Pra\ for 170ur TZkilderers': TZhirleil Re11g1ousoil the Colorado 11111111g Frontier, 1877-1917." F)oittre)s 15, 3 (1995): 27-32. Coburn, Carol K. nrld hlartlla Snllth. Sjozfed Lzzles: Hozo *YZLI~S Shnjed Cofholzc Crrlfrr~ennd,imozcnn L f e , 1836-1920. Cllnpel H111: Unl\erslt\ of North Carolliln PI ess, 1999. C olenlail, Re\. Lelglltoil. "English Slsterlloods nrld Deacoilesses." Chrr~chJfngnzzne (1886). C o n n o l l ~ Gel , a1 d. " I r ~ s hC:athohc \IT t11 01 R e a h t ~ Another ? Sol t of 111s11and the

216

Bibliography

Rene~+al of Cathol~cProfess~onalAmong C:athol~csIn England, 1791-1918." t Sller~dailGllle\. London: 111 The I ~ z s h277 the licto)zcrn Crtj, ed. Roger S \ \ ~ fand C:room Helln, 1983. "2-34. "C on\erlt of hlercl, Berinondse\." Soz~fh7~~cr~li Peco~d,Jrlilurlr\ 1932, 15-19. 2 \ 01s. London: hl;lc~ll~ll~~il, 1913. Cook, Ed\\ard. The L2fr ofFlo~eit~e~Yzghtritgcrle Cop! 'If ( o I w ~ ~ I ~ bI pI t~~ ~~ p~ptlrp ~I i! COIOI!I(II ~ ( ~ ~ O T J P ~ I ~ I I LI PI II !! ~~r\Ior F I O I P I I rY~glrto!g(rlc~ (P to the 1itt)oductroit ofT)nzned AYrrr~ses foo, the S)ditej Il?fo mcr)) crnd othe~s7111th~efe~eitce crndDzs@eitsn)j Sldile\: Joseph Cook, 1867. Cott, N a n c ~F. Tlrc>Bo~idroj' TTbr~~cr~iliood "TT'orl~cr~! ' 5 Jplr(>~(>" 11i LYc~7E 0 I ! ~ ~ / I1780II~, 1835 Ne\\ Ha\en, C onil.: Yale Unl\ ersm Press, 1977. C uinnl~ilgs,S~sterC eleste. " H ~ s t o r of \ the Hospltal T k r k and the De\ elopirleilt of e the Schools of Nlu slng of the S~stersof C h a r ~ t \In the Eastel n P r o ~ ~ n c(1860a, 1900) ." Llaster's thes~s,C atllol~cUnl\ ersm of X i n e r ~ ~1948. C uinnl~ils,C. J. "The C oloillal hled~calS e r \ ~ ~ e J. f"o d o it I\.1edz~z~7eof ,iz~st)crIzcr (7Januarl 1974). Curt~s,L. P., Jr. ,ingIo-Snxons crnd Celts Sfrrdj of ,infz-I~zshP,grrdrce 277 licfo)rnn Englnnd Brldgeport, Coiln: Uill\ers~t\of Brldgeport Coilfereil~eo n Br~tlsll Stud~es,1968. -. ,i@es crcrnd Aitgels The I I I S ~ I ~277C Ilicto~zcrit )~ Cn~rccrfrr~e TVaslllngton, D.C.: Sinlthsoillail Iilst~tut~oil Press, 1971. D a l ~ \la1 , T 11. "11olnen In the I r ~ s h1101Lforce fi oln Pre-Indllst~la1 to l l o d e r n Tlnles." SOL4THL4R7(1981). Da\ ~ e s ,Cella. Gende~ critd the P~ofrsszoncrl P)edzcninenf rit *Yrr~sritg Bu~klngllain: 1993. Open U n l r e ~ s ~Press, t\ Da\les, Rupert E. Jlethodzsin. London: Ep\\ortll Press, 1963. D a \ ~ sEl~zabeth. , The,iufobropnf~hjof Elrxbefh Dnzlrs, cr Bnlcrclcrzlcr ,\iL)se, Dcrrrgllfe) oj Dcq5dd Cnd7ocrlndj1. 2~01s.Ed. Jane \\~lllams.London: Hurst andBlacLett, 1837. T h e I ~ r s hrit B)rtcrzn, 1815-1914. Dubllil: Glll and h l a ~ i n ~ l l a 1991. n, D a \ ~ sGrahanl. , cr Genecrlog) of Lrbe~nlGo-cle)ncritce Dean, h l ~ t ~ l l e lTlh. e Constrtufzon ofPozlo f ) To~~lcr~ds London: Rol~tledgel,1994. Delunleau, Jean. Ccrfholzczsn7 Bet~~leeit L u f h e ) critd lbltcrr~e,i ,Ye711 lie711 of the Corritte7R ~ orncrtroit. ' o ) Trans. Jollil Boss\. London: Burns and Oates, 1977. D!nlro~!~rrc>~! dIrrtt~rlicrrr5 rr~!dB ~ t l i ~ , dHorl)~tnl n P ~ t t s b ~ r gC h :I ~ \11ss1on T Pllbhsh~ng Coinpain, 1902. D~cke\,B r ~ a n"St. . \ ' ~ i l ~ e n t 'Hospltal, s S\dne\: XNote." [ore itnl offheRojcr1,iust)crI!n~iH~rto~!ccrl \oe!~tj(8 Septenlber 1978) : 131-33. Dliler, Hasla. E ~ r i t ' sDcrrrgl1fe)s 277 ,imozcn I ~ r s hImmrpnitt Tlbmen rit the AYznefeenfh Cenfrr~j.Baltlinore: Jollils Hopklils Un1\ erslt\ Press, 1983. D~xson,h1111am. TIM R ~ ( r lJI(rt!ldn T T ~ ) I I L P I ! (r~!dI ~ P I ~0 )~Ac(rt~(rl~(r, I ~ I 1788-1975 S\ h e \ : Pengum Books, 1976. Dolail, Ja\ P. The ,imozcnn Cntholzc Ex@e)ze17ce ,i H r s f o ~ f~oin j Coloitzcrl Tzmes fo the Cht\, N.Y.: Doltbleda\, 1987. P I ( > W IGarden !~ -. The Iininzg~nnfChrr~ch AYezo l o ~ k ' hrsh s critd G e ~ i n n nCnfholrcs, 1815-1865 Baltlnlore: Jollils Hopklils Un1\ erslt\ Press, 1975. Doona, h l a n Ellen. " S ~ s t eh~l a r ~Joseph CI oLe: Another \ o ~ c efrom the CI mean TZkr, 1834-1836." AYrr~sritgHrsfo~j Pezlrezo3 (1993): 3-41. Doll?, Ann. "Nurslilg b\ Rel~glousOrders 111 the Uil~tedStates, Part 111- 18711928." A I ~ ! P I !Joco ~ ( ~~I ! nojLY\'rrrro!g19, l 9 (19")): 1083-93. -. "Nurslnq b\ Rellq~ousOrders 111 the U i l ~ t e dStates, Part I\'-Lutheran Jou)itnl ofAYrosritg 19, 10 (1929): 1197Deaconesses, 1849-1928." L4ine~rccrn 1207.

Bibliography

-.

217

"Nursing b~ Rehg~ollsClrdels In the Unlted States, Part \ -Deaconesses, 1853-1928." ,ime~zcnit[orr~itnlof,\il~szng 19, 11 (1929): 1331-43. Ebaugll, Helen Rose Fuchs. Orrt ofthe Clorsfe~,i Sfrrdj of O~gn~tzznfzo~~crlDrlemmcrs. Austin: Unlrel s1t1 of Texas PI ess, 1977. -. "Patr~arcllalBargalils and Latent .A\ enues of S o ~ l a lhlob111t\: Nulls ln the Roman C:athohc Chllrch." G ~ I ! ~( (I >I ! I~\ O ( I P ~ I 7, 3 (Sel~telnbel1993): 100414. Ed~tard-Rees,Desiree. Tl/c>5to1j ofLYc\'corl~ig. London: C:onstable Young Books, 1963. of t h TTbrljl~ig ~ CI/r\r 0 , E ~ ! g l n ~ !1841; d Clxtord: Engels, Frledrlch. TI/(>Co~i/lltlo~i Blacli\\ell, 1971. Eltens, \la1 T. "The Leadelshll~of Nluns In Ilnln~grantCathol~c~sln." In T T ~ ) I I L P I ! crnd Relzgz017 217 Aine~rccr,101. 1, The AYznefeenfhCenfrr~j,ed. Roseinar\ Radford R ~ l e t h e ar n d Rosemal 1 S k ~ n n e lh l l e r . San FI anclsco: Hal per and Ron, 1981. E\\eils, hlar\. The Role of the *YZLI~ 217 AYz~7efee~7fh-Ce~7frr,4 ,imozcn Neil Yorli: Xrilo PI ess, 1978. Faerber, IVllllelin. The S Z S ~ PofI SSf. J f n ~ ofj St Lorrzs I n Coininemo~ntronof the Szl-cre~ LYo7~~rrlb~>~ 1897. St. Lolus: Xlnel lka P r ~ n t ~ nHollse, g J I L ~ ! I o~f>t lPt ~O r ~ l ~1872-16 t, 1897. Farren, S u z ~A. Cnll to C ~ I PTI/(> : TTbrrl~~! TT'lio B~rlltCntliol!c H c ~ ~ l t h c n11ir A ~ I I L P I St. ~(~. LOUIS:C a t h o l l ~Hospitals Xssoc~at~oil, 1996. Fleldlng, S t e ~ e n .Cl/rrr cr~!dE t h ~ i ! o h I: I ! ~Cnthol!cr I 0 , E ~ i g l n ~ i /1880-1939. l, Buck~ilghanl:O p e n Un11erslt\ Press, 1993. Fltzgel ald, Sh11l e ~ R!\l~igDnrr~p: , \ I ~ I ! ( > I 1870-90 \Ielbolu ne: Clxtord Lnlr el s1t1 Press, 1987. F~tzpatllck, Da\ ~ d"A . Cllr~olls111ddlePlace: T h e I r ~ s hIn Brltaln, 1871-1920." In The I ~ r s hrit E~rtcrzn, 1815-1939, ed. Roger S\\lft a n d Sllerldarl Gllle\. SaIage, \Id.: Barnes and Noble, 1989. Fogelstrdin, E. A. ,iufobrog~n@hjTrans. Slster Elfrlda Sandberg, Inlnlailuel, 195738, 31. Foucault, h l l ~ h e l "Go\ernineiltal~t\." . 111 TheFoucnulfEject Studzes 217 Gozlo itinentnl!h, ed. GI aham BUIc h ~ l lCohn , Go1 d o n , and \eal \11lle1.Ch~cago:Unlrel s1t1 of C l l l ~ a g oPress, 1991. Franchot, Jennl. Rocrd, to Rorrl~:T l i ~ i l ~ ! t ~ b ~Prot~\t/~~!tE~i(ocoitc>r lI~or~ 7(1!tl1C ( ~ ~ J / O I I ( I S I I L Berliele\: Ui11\erslt\ of Callforilla Press, 1994. Frcr~iclrccr~i 51rt(>1\0f~l1/r11 PII(PI(>O H(>~lt/rg(>, 1823-1988 St. Lolus: F ~ a n c ~ s c aS~sters n of hlar\, 1988. Frpd(~l( k \ T T ~ ~ \ P cI r ~ i H ~ l! , Pc>ol~l(:1884-1 984 C~lc.O~nto!g t h Hc>r!tcrgc> ~ oflr CPI!tco I of Lrrthonn Decrconesses r r t ,imozcn Gladn\ne, Pa.: Dea~oilessCoinnlunlt\ of the Lutheran C:hlu ch In Alnel lea, 1981. Gerber, Da\ld. The Jlcrliritg of nn Aine~rccrnPlz~~crlz~in, Ez~jcrlo,AYerc!Ib~li,1825-60. Urbana: Urn~erslt\of I l h n o ~ sPress, 1989. Gerber, Llilda. "Separate Spheres, Fernale IVorlds, IVonlen's P l a ~ eTlle : Rlletorlc of Ilolnen's Hlstorl." Joco~!nl( I ~ A I I L P hot I I ( Ior^ I I !73, 1 (1988): 9-39. Gibson, Ralph. "Fenlale Rellglous Orders ln Nlneteeiltll-C erlturl France: C atllollclsln In Bntaln and France Slnce 1789." In Cntliollclrrr~0 , B ~ l t n l ~n i~ i dF I ( I I I ( P S I I I C P 1789, eed. Frarlh Tallet and Nlcholas Xtliln. London: Hainbledon, 1996. -.A \oonlHlrto~\ o f F r ~ ~ ! cCntliolltlrrr~, li 1789-1914. London: Routledge, 1989. G111, Sean. Tlbmen critd the Chrr~chofEngIcrnd:F~ointheEzghfeenfh C e i t t u ~to ) theP~esenf. London: SPCK, 1994.

218

Bibliography

C,llle\, Shendan "Gal l b a l d ~R ~ o t sof 1862'H!\tor!ccrlJorrr ,!(/I 16, 4 (1973). 697732. - "Heretlc London, Hal\ P o ~ etl ~ and , the Irish Poor, 1830-1870 Do~~JI!\I/JP 89 (1971).64-89. Rez~reu~ -. "Irlsh Catholl~lsin111 Brltlail." In ReIzgzoi/, Stcrte, critd Efhnrc G ~ O I I ~ed. IS, Dona1 A h e r r Xldel shot. Dal tmouth Pltbllsh~ng,1992 -. "Protestailt Lolldoll, N o P o p e r \ a i d the Irlsll Poor, 1830-1860." Pecrrsnnf Hzsto)) 1 0 , 4 (1969).210-30. - "The Roman C:athohc C 1 1 ~ell 1 a n d the Nineteenth C entlu 111s11 Dlasporn." Jou) ncrl ofEccleszcrstrccr1Hrstoij 35, 2 (1984). -. "The Rorllnrl C a t h o l l ~hllssloil to the Irlsll111Lolldon." Recz~~cri/t Hzsfo)) 10, 3 (1969).123-43 Glilzberg, Lor1 D. Tlomen nitd the Tlb)li of Benez~olenceJfoicrlzf),Polrtrcs, crnd Clnss 277 the A\ri/efeenfh-Cei/tu,) I'nrted Sfnfes Ne\\ HnIeil, Coiln.. Yale Uill\erslt\ Press, 1990 Goddell, Judltll a i d Sue Forsltll. "Defining Relntloilslllps nrld Llirlltlrlg Poner. T n o Leaders of .Australlail Nurslilg, 1868-1904." rrisri/gIi/qurij7 (2000). CToldel,C:hllstlan, e d T/~PDP(ICOIIP\\ IIIotlr~~l~o~o(: / I ! It) RPI(/~IOI! to ~ ~ ~ P D P ( I TT' ( Oo11r I!P~\ Plttsburgh. Plttsburgh Prliltlilg Co., 1907. Golder, Cllrlstlnn. Hrstoij of the Decrconess Jfo7remenf rit the Chizstrnit Chu,ch Ne\\ York Eaton and \Ialns, 1903 Golder, Loulse. "Tlle Den~oilessLlotllerllouse." 111 TheDencoi/ess crnd He) Tloik Betllesda Hospltnl, Clnclnilntl, Ohlo. CTusfield,J o s e l ~ hR J\~r!bol!cCIIO(IIJP Jt(/tro Politio I I I ! ~tlr~A I I L P I I ( I~I'I?! I ~ ! ~ ) P I ( I I ! C P \ of Illlilols Press, 1986. I\.lozleitlei/t Urbnnr1. U I ~ Ierslt\ Hnnlpton, Isobel A. e t al. ,\i17szng of the Srck, 1893 Ne\\ Yorli. L I L G ~ \ L - H1949. I~~, Helmstadter, Carol "Old Nurses and Ye\\. Nulslng In the London Teaching H o s p ~ t ~ ~ l s B e f ao ir de After the LIld-Nlneteentl1-Ce11t~1r\Refornls." rrisritg 1 (1993).43-70. Hzsto) ) Rezlre~~ - "Robert B e n t l e ~Todd, SalntJohn's House, and the 01 lglns of the \Iodern Trnliled Nurse." Eulletrit of the Hrsfoij ofI\.1edzcz~7e67, 3 (1993).282-319. Helinstndter, ficllard a i d Paul T. Phllllps, eds. ReIzgzoi/ 277 Iicto)zcr)7 Soczetj ,4 SoroceLanhatn, \Id . U m ~ e r s l t \PI ess of Xlnel lea, 1983 Oook ofDocctt~~(>~!ts Henillilger, Slster Llnrl Gnbrlel. Srsfeis of S f J f n i j nitd Theri Hecrlzng Jlrssron St. Louls. Slsters of St. Llnrl of the Tlllrd Order of St. Frail~ls,1979. Hlrnel, Slster Lolnse Cn1lc.d to BP F/l!tl$frrl A Histo) of t l i ~\!\t~r5 oj' Jt Frcr~icis, h l a r \ ~ l l l e ,hlo.. Slsters of St. Frail~ls,hlouilt Xl\errlo CoilJIcr) )71z11e, A\.fz~~or~ir ~ e i l tLInr\\llle, , 1984. Histo) 1 oftlip TT?/slri~igto~! Jt(/t~ Hosl~!t(/lil\soc!~~t!o~! Seattle. \ \ a s h ~ n g t o nState Hospltnl Xssoclatlon, 1938. Hobbs, Colleen Adele. Flo~ei/ceA\ighfzngn1e Neil Yorli. T\\a\ne, 1997. Hogan, \11chael " \ \ h a t e ~ e rHappened to AustralIan Sectallanlsln " Joco~!nlof Relzgzoz~~ Hrstoi ) 13, 1 (1984-83). 83-91. House Surgeoil nrld Ph\slclail's Seinl-Anilual Report to the Board of P11\slclnrls a n d Surgeons, and staff of the Buffalo H o s l ~ ~ tof a l the S~stels of C:hal I T \ , C)ct 1 1856-.Apr11 1, 1836. Ez~jcrloJfedrccrlJou~i/nl12(June 1836). 62. Hal, Suelleil. "The Jourilel Out. Tlle Recrultineilt a i d Erlllgrntloil of Irlsll Rehg~ollsIlolnen to the Lnlted States, 1812-1911 " Joco~!nl~ ~ T T ~ ~ I \L Hotor\ PI! 6, 7 / 7 , 1 (\\inter/SprIng 1995). 64-98. Hudson, TLnthrop S. ReIzgzoi/ 277 L4itleir~cr,417 Hr~toizcnl~4ccorri/t of fheDezlelof~itlenf of Atluvicn~!Rpl!g!orr\ L f i Yell Yo1 I\. Scl lbnel 's, 1981 A \

A \

220

Bibliography

C:athol~cH o s l ~ ~ t aIn l s Nerl 1'01 k Cltr, 1830-1920." Jorrr ~icrlo f t l i ~Histo) rlfJI(~liczne crnd,illzed Sczeitces 52 (Juh 1997) : 289-309. hlacC urtaln, hlargaret. "Godl\ Burden: C a t h o l l ~Slsterlloods ln 20th-C eiltur\ Ireland." In G P I I I Jcr~!d P ~ \~\(((rlit\ 0 )r\Io/J~r~~ IIPIIIIIIJ, ed. Xnthon\ BI adler a n d \la1 \ an11 Glalanella \'al~ul~s. Xnlherst: Uill\erslt\ of l1assa~l~usetts Press, 1997. . "Late In the Fleld: C:athohc Slsters In T \ \ e n t ~ e t h - C e n t ur ~Ireland and the Ne\\ Rellglous Hlstorl." [orrincrl of Tlbinen s Hrstoij 6, 4/7, 1 (\\'~ilter/Spr~ilg 1993) : 31. hlacGlnle\, Rosa. ,iDjncrmrc ofH@e Tlbmen Relzgzoz~~ Iitsfzfrrtes l i t L 4 r ~ ~ t ) n l Sr n\ d. n e \ : C:rosslng PI ess, 1996. hlagral, liar\ Pe~l,llain.The Ticrnsfo)inzng Pozoe) of the *Yrrits: Tlbinen, Pelrgroit, crnd C rrltrrrnl Clrcr~igt0 , Irelcr~id, 1750-1900 Nerl York: Clxfol d Unlrel s ~ t \PI ess, 1998. hlaher, hlarr Denls. To B I I !c;l, ~ t h ITbcc~idr: ~ Cnthol!c \!\t~rSrrrr~\0 , t l i ~c' 5. C / ~ JITirr !I Ne\\ Yorl,: Green\\ood Press, 1989. hlallon, S ~ s t e rCathenne. "S~sterCathenne hlallon's Jolu nal. Part Trlo." Ed. Tlloinas ficllter. AYezc~ Jfexzco Hrsfoij Pe7~ezo52, 3 (1977). hlannard, Joseph G. "C:on~ertsIn Conrents: Plotestant Ilolnen and the Soclal Appeal of C atllollc Rellglous Llfe ln Xiltebelluirl Xnlerlca." Reco)ds of the,imoz(01, Cntliolit H!\toricnl \ o c i ~ hrlfPlr!lnd~ll,h!n104, 1-4 (1993): 79-90. hlailsell, S. B. Eitglrsh Szsfeihoods ,477 ,iddiess Delr7le)ed nt the Pe-o@eitzitg nitd Benedzc~i 5 JIcr\ 1863. London: J o s e l ~ h\lastel s tio~iof \t. P(>tp)r Hot~~c:B ~ o ~ r i p t o\qrrnrr: Aldergate Street, 1863. hlarteau, Lolus. T l r ~Horl)itnl of 5t Joli~i cr~!d \t. El!zcrb~tlr, 1856-1 992. London: H o s p ~ t aof l St.Jollil and St. Elizabeth, 1992. h l a r t ~ nAllan , \\ ~lllam.H(>~ir\Pcr~lr(>r: A B!ogr/~l~lij hlelboul ne: \lelbollrne Lnlrelsit\ Press, 1980. hlartln, R. "The\ Serred the Slck, In No1 th and South." JI!litn)\ L\I(~diti~i~> (Jul~ 1961): 373 hlason, Helen, S.P. Histo)\ rlf\t. Ig~icrt!rr\P r o ~ ~ o ! c ~ ( l f\toJtr~~r rO ~ P I O T J I I J PSpokane, I!CP. TZksll.: Slsters of P r o \ ~ d e i l ~1997. e, blaster, J. "A Fev Ilol ds to Some of the Ilolnen of the C:hllrch of God." London, 1850. Reprlilted ln Ilbn7eit 277 Englrsh Relzgz0)7, 1700-1 925, ed. Dale A. Jollilsoil. Ne\\ l'ork: Edrlln \Iellen, 1983. 17-23. hla\lle\\, H e m \ . Loitdon Lnborri nitd the Londoit Pooi. 1861-12; Harinonds\\ortll: Penqlnn, 1983. hlc~oi;nell, Freda. Jlrss AYzghtritgcrles l b u n g Lndres S\dile\: Xilgus a n d Robertson, 1970. hlcGlnle\, hl. R. ,iDjncrmrcofHol,e Iitsfzfrrtes of Tlbinen Pelrgzoz~sl i t L 4 r ~ ~ f i n lS\drle\: rn C:rosslng PI ess, 1996. hlcLeod, Hugh. Relzgzoit critd Soczef) l i t Eitglnitd, 1850-1914. Ne\\ 170rl,:St. hlartln's PI ess, 1996. hlcNanlara, Jo Ail11Ka\. Srsfeis rit ,i,ins: Cnth~lrc~Yrrits Thiough Tzoo ,\.fzlleititzcr. Canlbl ~ d g ehlass: , Harral d Unlrel s ~ t Press, \ 1996. hlelosll, Barbara. "The Ph)~zczcrit'S Hcritd": Ilbili Crrlfrrie nitd Coitflrcf rit ,imozcnn a: Unlrels~t\Press, 1982. Srrrro!g P h ~ l a d e l p h ~Temple hllller, Douglas. E n ~ l z eDojs ) 4. S t o ) ) of Sf. I>itce)7f'S S\dile\: Xilgus and Robertson, 1969. hllt~llell,B. R. Iittoitnfzoncrl Hzsto~zcnl Sfnfzsfzcs Af~zcn,ASZOnnd Ocecrnrn, 17501988 2nd I eT. ed. Ye\\ York: Stockton, 1993.

Bibliography

.

221

I ~ i t ~ r ~ i c r t i oH~rto~iccrl ~inl \tcrti,ticr: T I I P A I I L P I Ic( IrI~\ ~ ~ J A ~ ( r t ~ Detlolt: c r l ~ ~ s i Gale l~~ Research, 1983. hlonl\, hlana. TIr~A7cfifrrlDirclorrrrc~~ rlfdI/l~indlo~ilr,or t h \c>cr~tr ~ ofcr Xir11'5L f i 111 n Conz~entEli;Dosed1836. Neil York: D.11. Bennett, 1878. hloore, Judlth. ,i Zenlfo) Pes;DonszDrlrt~:The Sfiugglefoi P~ofesszoi/nl,\i17szng 277 l i c Athens: Unlrels~tlof Georgla Pless, 1988. torin~iE ~ i g l n ~ i 1868-1883 d, hlorrls, C llarles. Snritts nnd Sri/i/e)s.Neil 170rl,: Tlrlles Books, 1997. hlulllenherg, TVllllain A ~ ~ g u s t ued. s , Thoughts oil E-clni/geIzcnlSzste)hoods. Lolldoll: S.11. Partridge a n d Co, 1872. hlunlin, Susan. Stolen Dnughtos, li7gzn J f o f h e ~ sL4i/g1zcni/ : Srsfeihoods 277 licto)znn Bizfnrit. London: L e l ~ e s t e rUnl\erslt\ Press, 1999. hlul pin, Denls G. 2% rcr I ~ i c o g ~ i i t01n t l i ~C O I I T J PofI I t~lSi ~CT~iit(>~J K I I I ~ ~ OLondon: IIL Loilginails, 1873. -. The) Dzd *Tot Pnss B ) : The Stoi ) of the E n ) ( ) Proneos of AYrrisri/g Lolldoll: Longmans, 1936. Nndel, Stnnlel. Lzftle Gei innn): Eth)71crt),Pelrgron, nitd Clnss rit AYerc!Ib~liCrt), 184580 Urhaila: Un11ersm of I l l ~ i l o Press, ~s 1990. Neale, J o h n Mason. Lpttp~rofJO111il l I / ~ r oLY(>c~lp ~ ~ Ed. \la1 1 S a c k ~ ~ lLl ea ~ t s o nLon. don: Loilginnns, 1920. Nelson, Slobail. "Eilterlng the Professional Donlaln ln 17th Cerlturl F r a i l ~ e . " XirrroigHirto~I R P ~ J7I (1999): P ~ ~ I 171-88. -. "Rendlilg Nurslng Hlstorl." AYrrisri/gIi/quri)4 , 4 (1997): 229-36. Ne\\innn,John H e m \ . ,i;DoIogzn Pio l i f n Srrn. 1864. Ne\\ 170rl,: Peilguln, 1994. Nlghtlngale, Florence. Ar J I i , , L Y ~ g l i t ~ ~ i\(rid g / ~ lFIOIPIICP ~~ L Y / g l ~ t ~ ~ ~Tlrroccglr g c r l ~ H(>r a London: Scutarl Press, 1991. Sn)ri/gs lictoizni/ Pe)sf1ectr71e.Ed. 1 I o n l ~ Ball. -. "011 Dlffereilt S\steirls of Hospltnl Nurslilg." .Appendl\ to *Totes oon Hos;DrlI c ~ Rclfort~~, ed. Charles E . tnlr, 1839, r e l ~ l l n t e dIn F I O ~ P I ILCYP/ g l ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~g cI rHo\l)itcrl Rosenherg. Ne\\ 170rl,: Garland, 1989. -. E71e) I b z l ) ~Floiei~~e~YrgI~tri~gnle: , Selected L e t f e ~ sEd. . 11nrthn \ ' ~ c ~ i l uand s Bea Nergaal d.London: L lrago PI ess, 1989. North Lorldoil Deaconess Iilst~tut~oil. Secoitd L4i/i/rrnlRejoi f. Lolldoll: \'art\ Prlilters, 1803. O ' B r ~ e n Susan. , "Flench Nluns In N ~ n e t e e n t hCkntllrl England." P/l\t n ~ i dP ~ P ~ P I I ~ 134 (1997): 142-80. O'C nrrlgnn, Catherlile. ",I~~strallail C a t h o l l ~Hospitals ln the Nlileteeiltll Celltlul." Jorrr~icrlo f t l i ~ A i r \ t ~ n l i nCntlroht ~i Hi\toricnl \ o c i ~ h7, 4 (1964): 20-36. -. "St. \'111~ent's Hospltnl, S\dnel, Plorleer ln Nlileteerltll Cerlturl Henltll Care." hLI thesls, Unl\erslt\ of S\dile\, 1986. O'Connell, \la1 \In. "The Roman C:athohc T l a d ~ t l o nS ~ n c e1343." In C n ~ o i gn ~ i d Tindzfzo)7~,ed. Ronald L. Crriritg Henlth nnd I\.1edz~z~7e277 the Tlbsfe)i/ Relzgzoz~~ Nuinhers nrld Darrel TV. Xnlundseil. Ne\\ 170rl,: 1In~inlllnn,1986. 108-43. O'Farrell, Patllck. Tlw Iri\h 111 Air\t~nlin, re\. ed. henslngton: Ne\\ South \tales Ulll\erslt\ Press, 1993. O'Sulll\nn, 11nureeil hl. I(. Cnrrse of T)orrblez Iizsh *Yrri/snndEi/glzsh C1e)rcs. S\dnel: C:ross~ngPress, 1993. P a r k s , Heilrl. F& lenis of,iusfinlznn Hzsto) ). 2 \ols. Lolldoll: Loilginails, 1892. Partlngton, Geoffrel. T I ~ e , i z ~ ~ t ~ n,\jlfzoi/: I z n i ~ Its E)zfzsh nitd Iirsh Roots hlelbourile: Allstrallan Scholal I\ Pllbhshlng, 1994. Passa\nnt, I\: A. "Tlle Deaconess nrld the Professloilnl Nurse." P)oceedzngs nnd Jfofhe)horrses.Onlnlla, Pn;Dosofthe T h r ~ d ~ i n n uCoi~fe~enceofE7~nngeIrcnlDenco~7ess nl Neb., 1899.

222

Bibliography

Pallls, Pauhne "A Hlstorl of the Edmonton General Hosp~tal,1893-1970 " PhD d ~ s s e r t a t ~ oUn11 n , erslt1 of Alberta, 1994. P h l l l ~ l ~Paul s , T "C onre1 tlng the \ \ o r k ~ n gC:lasses " In R ~ h g o /~I ! !lr!ctor!n~! 5oo~h ,i Sorricebook ofDocun7enfs, ed. ficllard T. Helnls - a n d Paul T. P l l ~ l l ~ pLails. l l a ~ n11d.. , Un11erslt1 Press of Xnler~ca,1983. 21 1-63. Poldlng, John Bede TI/(> L(>ttprsofJolr~iB P ~PoIdi~!g P Ed h1 Xarler C olnpton et al il 1994. S\ d n e \ . Good S a ~ n a r ~ t aS~sters, Poo\e\, hlarl. c i/ez1e77Dez~elof~inenfs The Ideologrccrl Tloik of Geitde) 277 Jlrd-lictoizcri/ C:h~cagoU n ~el r s1t1 of C:h~cagoPress, 1988 E~igln~id P o p l ~ n Irene , Sclluessler. " N u r s ~ n gU i l ~ f o r ~ nRs .o ~ n a i l t ~Idea, c Furlct~oilalX t t ~ r e , o r Instru~neiltof S o ~ ~Change." al A\u)szng Hrstoij P & ? ? ~ z P (1994). z o ~ 133-67. PI ehnger, C:athe~lne h1 Clicrrit~,C/rnllr>~!g(>, cr~!dC/rcr~igr> R~~l!g!octs DIIILPI!\IOI!\ of tlr~ Jlrd-A\znefeenfh-Cenfrr~ Tloinen s ,\.fozlernei/t 277 Ge)moil) Neil York. Greeilnood Press, 1987. - "The N~neteenth-Ce n t l u l Deaconessate In Gerlnanr. T h e Efficacr of a F a ~ n ~hlodel." l\ 111 Geimcrn Tloinen 277 the Ezghfeenfh nitd A\znefeenfh Cei/tu)zes LA So~zcrlcr17d Lrtein,) Hrsfoij, ed. Ruth-Ellen B. Joeres a n d 11arl Jo hla\iles. BloonlI n g t o n I n d ~ a n aL n ~el r s ~ t rPress, 1986 "13-30 -. "Prelude to Coilsc~ousiless."111 Geimcrn Tloinen rit fheA\i)7eteei/thCenfroj ,i So~zcrlH~~foij, ed. Jollil C . Fout. Ne\\ Yorli, Holrlles a n d hle~er,1984. P~ochaska,F h "Bod1 a n d Sol11 B ~ b l eNurses a n d the Poor In L letonan London." HrsfoirccrlResecr~ch60, 143 (1987).336-34. P u b l C~ l~l r l r ~ t ~COII~II~ISSIOI~. es C O I ~ I ) ~ Z S ,1;0;0ori/ted SZOI~ to Inqrrz~eritto critd P e f ~ o [?oil ~t , st RrY1o1t, 18 S e l ~ t e l n b e ~ tlrp TT'o~lr!~!g n ~ i dL l l o ~ i c r g tr ~oj' ~tlr~ ~ ~Pirbltc ~ ~ ~ i C h n !~t ! ~ sF!r 1873. S\ d n e \ . Tllo~rlas& ~ l l a r d s ,1973. Rnffert1, Xilrle h l a r ~ e .The Polzfzc~ofA\il)sz)7gKi/ozoIedge London. Routledge, 1996. Rapler, Ehzabeth Tlip D(~!ot(>\T T ~ I I L P I cr~!d ~ CIrcoc11 / I ! ~ P ~ J P I ! ~ ( Y I ! ~F~III-I IC! ( P >I!~~~I 11ontreal. hlcG111 U i l ~ \ e r s ~Press, t\ 1990. Re\erb\, Susan 11. 0ide)ed to Cnie The Dzleininn of,ime,zcni/ ,\i17szng, 1850-1 945 C:amb~~ d g Ce a l n b ~ d g eU n ~el r s1t1 Press, 1987 Re\ilolds, Heilrl. Drsf~nsszon Block ,iust~crIzcri/snitd T1%zfeIit-crndos S\dne\. Allen a n d U n \ \ ~ n1989. , R~chardson,Jean "C a t h o l ~ cRehg~olls\\omen as I n s t ~ t u t ~ o nIanl n o ~ a t o ~Ts h. e S~stersof C l l a r ~ t \and the &se of the 11oderil Urban H o s p ~ t a~n l Buffalo, N.Y., 1848-1900." PllD d ~ s s e r t a t ~ oState n , Ui11\ ers1t1 of Ne\\ 170rkat Buffalo, 1996. - "A Tale of Trio N ~ n e t e e n t hCentlul Hosp~tals.Bufalo Hosp~talof the S~stersof Char1t1 and Buffalo General Hosp~tal."111 Jfedrccrl Hrstoi ) rit Brrffnlo, 1846-1 996 Collected Essn)s, ed. Lll11 Steiltz. Buffalo. S ~ l l o o of l 11ed1~1ne and B ~ o m e d ~ c Sel a l \Ices, State L nlr el s ~ t rof Ye\\ York at Butt alo, 1996 47-60 Robb, Isabel Hanlpton, ed., rrisri/gofthe Szcli Pn;De,s f~ointhe Iitto ncrfzoi/nlCongiess , rpt. Ne\\ 170rli.1 1 ~ G r a n ofChn)rtres, Coi )ecfzon, nnd Phzlnitthiofi C h ~ c a g o1893, H111, 1949 Rose, N ~ ~ o l a Go71e) s . nritg the Sol11 The Shcrf~zngof P)zzlcrfeL2fr London. Routledge, 1990. Rosenberg, C:ha~lesE Tlip C O I P oj' \t~cr~!g(>~\ TI/(>Risp ~ ~ A I I L P5 IHosl)it/ll I(II JIS~PIIL Ne\\ York. BASILBooks, 1987. -. TheCho1e)n lenis The c itzfed Sfnfesrit 1832, 1849, nnnd 1866 C h ~ c a g oU . il~\ers ~ t rof C hlcago Press, 1962 Russell, R. L1ilette. " L u L ~Osburn. Tlle F ~ r s tof 11an\." Frisf ,\irfzoi/nI A\rrisri/g LArrst)nlrni/,\i17szng - The Stoij hlelbourile, 11al 1993. hlelHzsto) ) Coi~feiei~ce b o w n e Roral C ollege of Nlu slng, Australla, 1993

'

A \

224

Bibliography

Sllmtne~s, Xnne A~igelscr~iclC I ~ I Z P IB~!t!\li I~ 1Thrr!~1! (15 I l l / l ~ t / ~ L tYl uv~s , 1854-1 915 Lolldoll. Routledge, 1988. Sllmtne~s, Xnne "The C ost and Benefits of C:ar~ngNUIslng C:hal ltles, c 18301860." 111 I\.1edz~z~7ecritd Chn~rtqBefoie the 1llfcr)e Stcrfe, ed. Jonathan B a r n nrld Collil Jones. Lolldoll. Routledge, 1991. 133-48. - "Frame\\orks or Stra~tjackets;Secular and R e l ~ g ~ o hlodels us In the Hlstorlogrnpll\ of Nursing. Post Is Piesent The CLiHA\/LiCHA\ Ke)note P)eseittcrtroits, 1988-1 996, ed. Sllella J. Rnrlhlil Zerr. Vnncou\er. C n n a d ~ n nX s s o ~ ~ n t l ofor i l the , "13-39 H ~ s t o of ~ N u r s ~ n g 1997 -. "hlln~sterlngAngels." Hrstoiq Todo) 39 (Februnrl 1989). 31-37. -. "Tlle hl\ sterlous Derll~seof Sarah Gnnlp. Tlle Doirllcll~nr\Nurse and H e r D e t ~ a c t o r s" T'ictoticr~!\ti~d!p\32 (1989). 363-86 Tallor, Fanil\ 11. e t nl. Enste,it Hosf~zfnlscritd Eitglzsh ,\il,ses, the *\cri ~crtr-cleof T7~~el-cje Jlonfhs Ex@e)ze17cel i t the Hosf~rtcrlsofKorrlnlr nnd Scufnir 2 \ols. London. Hurst a n d Blackett, 1836 Tallor, Ph111p. TheDzsfnnfJfngnet Eu)of~ecrn Emrpntron to the I T S L iLondon. E \ r e & Spott~snoode,1971. Teale, Rllth, e d Colo~i!nlE T J P JOILICP\ 0 1 ) I I ~ ) I I L P I /! I ! i l i o t t / ~ l ! / ~1788-1914 , \Ielbourne. Oxford Ui11\ e r s t \ Press, 1978. Thonlpson, Margaret Susan. To 5ei-clethe Peof~leofGod A\ritefeenfh Cenfrriq S z ~ t e017d )~ tlrp C I P / I ~ ! OofI !(I R ~ l i g o i oL f i I t o ~ k l n gPapers ser 18, 2 South Bend, Ind . Cusll\\a Center for the Stud\ of Xnler~cailC a t h o l ~ ~ ~ sUi ni l,~ \ e r s ~ of t \ Notre Dnnle, Sprlilg 1987. - "\\olnen, F e l n ~ n ~ s l and n , the N e ~ lRehg~ollsH ~ s t o r C:athohc ~. S ~ s t e as ~s n Case Stud\." In Belref nitd Behn-clzo) Essnqs rit the ,YP~L~ Pelrgrorrs Hrstoiq, ed. Pll111p R. Vnnder11eer r ~ i l dRobert P. S\\~ereilga.Ne\\ Brunsnlcl,, N.J.. Rutgers 1991 U n l r e ~s ~ t Press, \ Trailter, Jail~ce."Tlle Irlsll D~rllerls~oil of ail .Australlail Rellglous S~sterhood.Tlle S~stersof St. Joseph." In The Iirsh Tloild Ilide, 101. 5, Relzgzoit n77d Idenfzf), ed. Patnck C)'Sulllr an L o n d o n L e ~ c e s t eU~n l r e ~s ~ t Press, \ 1996 234-33 O'Tuathrn~gll,hI. A. G. "The Irlsll ln N~ileteeiltll-Ceiltur\ Brltnlil, Problerlls of Iiltegratlon." In The hrsh rit E~rtcrzn,1815-1939, ed. Roger S \ \ ~ fnrld t Sller~dail C;~lle\S a ~ a g ehld , . Bal nes a n d Noble, 1989 13-36 "200 lknrs of Nursing, a P h o t o g r a p l l ~H~~ s t o r l . "B~ceiltenillal11ft out, The L n i n f ~ , Xprll 1988. Tlnan, Margaret, RN \t T'!I!cPI!~ 5 J~lioolo f L Y ~ o s i ~oifgt l r ~I ~ ! \ t i t i ~( It ~ P ~ ~ T J !It\~ P I I ( P , Hzsto) ) cr)7dLilrrinitne Portlaild. Scllool of Nurslilg, St. \ ' ~ i l ~ e n t ' s1930. V ~ ~ l n u11nrthn. s, Indef~endeittTloinen Ilbili nitd Con7n7z~nrtqfo)Szngle Ilbmen, 1850\ C:h~cagoPress, 1983 1920 C:h~cagoL nlr el s ~ t of TVnll, Bnrbrn hlailn. "Rellg~oil,E t h n ~ ~ ~and t \ ,Nurslilg. Tlle X n l e r ~ c n n ~ z a t ~ofo n Irlsll C a t h o l ~S~~ s t e rNurses." In Pioceedzngs of the Co~tfe)e~tce oit the Hzsfo)q of ITi)rr!~~i R~l!g!orr\,L o ~ o l aL m ~ e r s l tC:h~cago, ~, J u n e 1998 -. "Uill~liel\Entrepreneurs. Nulls, Nurslilg, nrld Hospltal De\elopineilt 111 the TVest and hlldnest, 1863-1915." PllD d ~ s s e r t a t ~ o nUill\ers~t\ , of Notre Dame, 2000 TVnrd, D a \ ~ d .Crtres nnd Irnrnrpcritts ,i Geogin@hq of Chnnge 277 A\ritefeenfh-Ceittu~) ,ime,zcn Ne\\ 170rl,. Oxford Ui11\ers1t\ Press, 1978. Itatson, J F r e d e ~ ~ c Tlip k H!\totl oftlip J I / ~ I ! ~Hosl)itnlfror~~ I 1811 to 1911 S\dne\. TV.X. G u l l ~ ~ l191 , , 1. TVebster,Joseph G. "The Staff of St. 11nrl's Hospltal." [crckson Count) Jfedrccrl Socref) 30 (SOJlune 1963) 1370-71 IT?PI,II Birllc>ti~i

Bibliography

223

Ileeks, (:la1 a S A l?.ct-Ooolr oJLY~\'cori~ig Ye\\ York. h p l ~ l e t o n1883 , TVe~iler,Dora B. The Czfzze)7-Pcrfzeilt277 Pezlolrrtroi/n)) n77d Irn$e)zcr1 P O I Z SB a l t ~ ~ n o r e . 110 J o h n s H o l ~ l \ l n sL r n ~ e r s P~ ~t e~s s1993, , -. "The F r e i l ~ lRe\ l o l u t ~ o nNapoleon, , a n d the Nurs~ilgProfess~on."Brrllefzn ofthe Hzsto) ) of Jfedrcrile 46, 3 (1972). 274-305. I l e ~ s e rFI , e d e ~ c lS\ To \(~rivtlip L O I(111d ~ H o Pc>ol~Ic:1884-1 984 C ~ l c > O ~ n oJ t ~ ot ~hi ~ ofL~~fhe)crilDencoiles~e~ 277 ,ime,zcn Gladn\ne, Pa.. Dea~oiless He~rtcrgeofnCeiltz~)) Xnler~ca,1984. C o ~ n n l u n ~of t \ the Lutheran C 11ur~l1111 - " S e ~ r l n gLo\e " D e g ~ e eof D l r l r n t ~ thes~s,C hl1rch H ~ s t o r l ,Lutheran Tlleolog~calC ollege, Gett\ sburg, Penils\ l\ ailla, 1960. TVentz, ,111del Ross. Flredno fheFcrrthfu1 P h ~ l a d e l p h ~Board a. of P u h l ~ c a t ~ o iof l s the lea, 1936 U n ~ t e dLutheran C 11111ch In h l n e ~ TVest, Roberta hla\he\\. H r s t o ~ jofA\ rr~srilgril Penns)l-clnilzcr, Lnnkeilnu Hosf~zfnl,F ~ I m e ~ l Gel ) innn Hosf~zfnl,PhrIcrde(;Dhrn Harr~sburg.Peilrls\l\arl~aState NursesXssoclatlon, 1939 TVesterlia~np,LIar~l\ilJ. Tlbn7eil crild Relzgzoil ril En1(4 ,imozcn, 1600-1850 The Prr~rtcrilcrild Ezlcrilgelzcd T~ndrtronsLondon. Routledge, 1999. I l h ~ t a k e rAnne-hlaree , "The C on\lct P n e s t s 111~11 C a t h o l ~ c ~ sIn m E a ~ l lC:olomal , Idenfzf), 101. 5, Ne\\ South TVales." In The I ~ z s hTlo)ld Tlide H r s f o ~ j He~rtcrge, Relzgz0)7 crild Ideiltrtj, ed. P a t r ~ ~O'Sull~\ li an. Lolldoll. L e ~ ~ e s t e r e r s t \ Press, 1996,23-10 TV~derqu~st, JoXiln G. "Dearest Re\ 'd Llotller." In Flo~ei~~e~\zghtri~gcrle~ind He)E I O ,i Colle~fzoi~ ofA\ezo Scholcr)shrf~,ed. \'?I-11 Bullough, Borlil~eBullougll, a n d Alanetta P Stanton N e ~ 1' l 01l\. Garland, 1990 TV~ll~anlsoil, T l l o ~ n aJa\. s P~zsczllnSelloil, the P e s f o ~ oAffe) Tl1,ee Ceiltu,res of the Pelrgrous L f e ril theLi)7g1rccr~7Chrr~chLondon. SPCK, 1950. I l Iseman, Pat1 ~ c lS\ t e l ~ h e nChrdlnal Address to the C a t h o l ~ cCongress of \Iahnes, 1864. In The Relzgzorr~ nild Socrnl Poszfzon of Ccrfholzcs 277 Belg~unl,21 .A~~gust Englnnd D u b l ~ nJames . Duff\, 1864. I l o d~ s n o ~ th, C:hl stop he^ 01,\~,t~rlioodr(111dT'ou~, A Lpttp~ to tlrp T?>II 511 Gporg(> , P)o-closf Lolldon. R n ~ n g t o n s 1879. "TVould You L ~ l i eto he a Deaconess?" C ~ n c ~ i l n aBetllesda t~. Hosp~tal,1922.

This page intentionally left blank

Index

Aikenliead. Slothrl- Slal-v.23. 65. 82. 97. 98. 132, 133, 163 .kinlee, Sister, 72, 73 Alfred. PI-ince.son of Qtlrrn Yictol-ia. 90 .ill Saints Sisterllood, 70, 71 .iIpllorlse, Sister, 123 i m e l lean College of Slu grons ( iC*?) 160 Ibl .ilnericarl \lmnerl's Education .issociatioll, 33 .il~ahaptists,38 .illatolie, Sister, 119 And~-ex\:Sistrl-. 115 .illgelique, hlotller, 119 .illglicarlisnl. 6: ,irlglo-(:atllolics, 67, 94: cl-vpto-Catholic. 70. 93. 154: Episcopalians, 113: E\allgelicalisnl, 57, 63, 66, 68, 73,94,95: O.dord hlo~enlerlt,63, 67, 75, 78; sistrl-hoods.2. 16. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72, 73, 77, 78, 131, 134 .illllnrlciatiorl. Sister, 113 Anti-Catholic sentiment. 3. 6. 20: .ilustralia. 34, 85): Erlgland, 7, 34, 37, 75: United States, 32.33, 34, 3 3 , 4 2 , 4 3 , 4 4 , 101. S P ~ nlro C;atliolicis~n .illticlericalisln, 19, 73, 128 .ircllanlheault, (;anon ,ilfi.ed, 111 Armiger. Sistrr Br1-nadrttr. 38 .iugustille, Sister, 134 .iugustilliarl tradition, 119, I46

Baltimore Irlfirnlary. Baltimore, 36, 45 Bar (:orl~ellt,l b r k , 23 Bal-krl-.Sistel-hIal-x: 91 Beechel; (iatlleril~e,35

Bellan. Ann Pllunr. 41 B e l l e ~ Hospital, ~~e Nexv lJork, 113 Benedictirle Sisters of St.Joseph, I I 6 Bergrl-. Slothrl- Slal-vOdilia. 128-30. 133. I46 Bernlorldse), Lorldorl, 7, 14, 30, 36, 60, 61, 62, 63. 76 Betllarl) Illstit~~te, Berlin, 136 Betllesda Societ), 141 Betliesda Hospital. Cincinnati. 111. 112 Bill) the IGd, 116 Bismarck, 19, 20, 1%. 130, I46 Blackx\.ell. Elizabrtli. 31. 5 3 Blackxvell, Enlily, 31, 33 Blarldirla, Sister. S(vSega1e Blandine of t h r Holx-hngrls. Sister. 109. II4 Blundall, Eliza, 93 Bonham Cal-trl-.Henl-x: 28 Bolllraln-(;arter, Hipar), 94 Borg, Elaa, 143 Botliilda. Sistrl-. 143 Bracllt, Sister hlagdelene \ 011, 140 Braun, Father \letor, 129 BI-idge~nan, hIotliel- Francis. 76 British Elnpire, 8 , 80, 85 Broxvrl, Sister Rosxlilie, 34 Buisson. Sistrl-Agnrs. 103 Burke, Bisllop, 133 Calienslvism. 116 (:allill, Sister hlar), 82 (:a11 inisnl, 38 Canada. 1 . 102: FI-rnch Canadians. 4. 102. 106,135

228

Index

Canon Law. .CPPapacv (:armel, Dr., 117, 118 Gal-melites. 17. 19 Gal-nrv Hospital. Eoston. 14, 15 (:ar~le!, -i~lctre\v,44, 45 Gal-roll. John. bishop of hIal-T-land.152 Catholic Emancipation. .CcEngIand (:atllolic Hospitals hssociatiorl ((;HA), 160, 161.162 Catliolicis~n.(i: .ilustl-alia. 81. 83. 84. 86. 89. 517: Erlglarld, 57, 38, 351-62: Gernlarl) 26, 12(i-30: 11-rland.56-59; Unitrd Statrs. 32. 34-13; Coluntrr-Refol-1natio11,17. 18. 40, 43, 33: Diaspora 3, 1: E~arlgelicalis~n 63. 104. 106. 108. 109. 113. 121. 113: Revival. 13. 20. 31. 36. 126. 127; Ultl-amontanisnl, 57, 126. S~~ol~u.i~lti-(:atllolic Chant. Eessie. 93 Clial-ing CI-ossHospital. London. 71. 72 (:llarities. S PSisters ~ of (;llarity Clial-itv Hospital. 1Vrw Orleans. 1 0 Chile. 116 (:llollet, hlotller hladelairle, 103 Ch1-ist Hospital. Cincinnati. 111 Ch1-istian Erotliel-s. 38 (:llristiarl \lb~nerl'sTet.nlperarlce Societ), 12 Cliurcli of 11-rland.58. 59 Cinquin. Slothrl- Saint Pirl-rr. 101. 102. 104, 105, 120, 121, 122, 156 Cix-il IVar. tJ.S., 7. 11. 26, 33, 31. 47, 48 Clax-?I-,Sistel-Petri-, 112 (:ollen, Sister Eleanor, 102 Co~nmunisrSlanifesto. 133 C o ~ n m u n i t vof All Saints. (i9 (:orlgre~atiorlof the Poor Frarlciscarls, 129 Gong-I-rss of \Senna. 26 Convent Inspection Eill. (i3 (:orlve~ltof the Holy Trinity, O.dord, 512 Convicts. 81. 90; Frmalr Factol-v. Pal-alnatta. Svdnrv. 81; Irish. 81. 83; pl-iests. 84: trarlsportatiorl to Sydney, 81: \\omen, 81. 82. 83. 8 1 Co1-lo.c;llief, 111 (:ox, Theresa, I 1 5 Cl-ilnrar IVar. 7, 11. 26. 29, (51, 62. 63, 64, 71, 74. 76. 80, 1 3 1 (:~lllerl,Paul, arcllbisllop of Dublin, 24, 88 Dauglirrl-s of Charitv of St. V n c r n t d r Paul, 3, 6, 11, 17-15). 2 2 24, 23,26.30, 33. 36-11.13. 41. 43.17.18. 49, 30, 51.

32. 53. 76. 109. 126. 127. 114. 150. 133. 136. See (11~oSistersof (:llarit), U.S.

Dauglirrl-s of PI-ovidrncr. SPPSisters of PI-ovidence Davis, Jefferson, 48 d e Lacv. SisterJohn Baptist. 83. 83. 86. 87. 88 d e hlarillac, Louise, 18, 22, 24, 33, 36 d e Slatel. Jranne Chrzard. 102 Deaconessrs. 2. 9. 16. 23. 26. 27. 66. 67. 70. 126, 134-44, 145, 147, 148, 150, 151, 153: Anabaptist. 133; Anglican. 66. 67. 73: Ll~thrl-an. 73. 126, 151; Lutliel-an (Danish), 139, 1 4 2 143: Lutllerarl 26. 137-41. 142. 148. 149: Ll~thrl-an 139. 142: Ll~thrl-an(Scan(iXor~irgian), dina\iarl), 126, 127, 136: Lutllera~l (S\\.edish). 139. 112-14; hIetliodist. 67. 70. 73. 126. 138. 141. 142. 148. 131. 131; nlotllerllouse ( A l l l ~ t t ~ ~ ~126, / ~ o l136, i~), 139. 141. 113: I-rlationsIiip~\.ithc l r l - g ~ / doctors. 138. 139. 142. 147-19 Derlhscllrift statenlent, 135 Diaconate. I-evivalof. 26. 66. 126. 136. 153 Ditt~nan.Sister IVilhrlminr. 110 Dis, Dorotll), 30, I 6 4 Dominican Sistel-s. 1 8 Dubuis. Claudr. bishop of Texas. 102. 103. 104, 120, 121 D'Yo~ux-ill?.hIarg~lerite,1.151 Elizabeth Deacorless H o m e ,issociation. Cincinnati. 111 England: C;arholic Emancipation. 7. 8. 56. 37, 55). 60, 80: Refornration, 7, 37 Epide~nics.7. 31. 33.40.42.51, 153; cholera. 33.10.11. 42. 34. 59. 102. 130; diphtheria, 40, 131: d)senter), 55): s~llallpos. 40. 129. 130. 131; rvphoid. 10. 59. 113: t~: 10.11. 43. 130 plius. 13: ~-rllo\ifrx-r~-. El~iscol~al cll~lrcll.Se(>,irlglica~lis~n Eugenr. Sistrl-. 113 Eupliemia, hIotIiel-. 52 E~arlgelicalisnl,S(>e.i~lglicarlisnl: (htllolicism: Protestantism Evl-r. Lack Bal-bal-a.(i0 Farl-bel-.Fatliel-IVilliam. 130. 133. 116 Faith. Sister hIar~:113 Female hssociatiorl for the (:are of the Poor a n d t11r Sick. 136

Index F r ~ n a l eFactol-x: Pal-I-a~narta. ST-dnex-.SPP (;orl~icts F r ~ n a l esuffi-agr. 1. 12. 13. 7 1 Frnianis~n.SrrIreland Ferard, Elizabetll, 66, 72 Fillmol-e. Slillal-d.43 Fliednel-. Pasrol- Tlieod~u-. 23. 26. 66. 76. 126, 134-37, 142, 143, 144, 143, 148, 153, 131 Fogrlstrom. Pastol- El-ik. 113. 114 Frarlcllise. Sv(>Ferlralesuikage Franciscan rl-adirion. 128. 130. 133. 116 Frer~nasons.108. 127 Frellcll Re~olutiorl,19, 102 Friedl-icli I\'illiel~nK Kaisel-. 136 Frx: Elizabeth. 23. 66. 73. 126. 135

229

Hospirallrl-s. 22. 119 Hospitallers of the Incarrlate \\hrd, 102. .Set nlro Sistel-sof Clial-itv of rhr Incal-nate T\brd Hospitals: loggirlg, 101, 114: nlilitar), 49, 30. 89. 90: mining, 101. 111: privarr. 32. 33. 103; public. 32. 83. 103; qliaranrine, 40, 41, 131: railroad, 101, 104, 103, 131 Hhtel d e Yillr. Slonrl-ral. 1 Hughrs. Jolin. bishop of Nexilbrk. 36. 37. 42, 101 Hughrs. Slorlier Angrla. 37

I m ~ n a n u e Deaconess l Insrirlirr. Omaha. 143 Ilrlrllarl~~el Hospital, 143 Im~nigrarion,7. 17.13. 103; Gel-man 4. 9. 127. 128. 137. 111. 113: 11-isli.4. 27. 40. 43, 55). 128, 153: Scarldirla~iarl,137 Institute of Nlirsing Sistrl-s.66. .CPrilto Sisrrl-s of Charirv. PI-orestanr I n s t i t ~ ~of t e the Blessed \.irgill hlar), 23 Ireland. 20: emigl-ation. 4. 59. 153: famine. 7. 31. 37. 70; Frnianis~n.90: Nationalist nlovenlerlt, 83: Penal (:ode, 20, 57, 58, 39. 133; position ofx\.o~nrn.153 Ireland. Jolin. archbishop, 146

Ga~nelin.Enel-able E~nilir.102. 106 Gel-man Hospital. Kansas Cirx: Slisso~iri. 131 Gel-man Hospital. Philadelphia. 137. 138. 139.141.119 Gernlarl hletllodist Deaconesses, (;irlcillnari. 148. .CPn[to Deaconrsses Girsen. Sistel-A ~ i g ~ i s t i n133. r . 134 Golder, (;llristiarl, 141, 148 Goldrl-. Ida. 111 Goldrl-. Louise. 141. 142. 148. 1 3 1 Good Salnaritan Sisters, 87 Goodman, hIal-gal-er.(i8 Gol-hamJlidgmrnr. (i9 Grallll, Hugo, 135) GI-ant.Ulx-ssrs S.. 1 8 GI-rat.kx\.akrning. 31. (i3 Great Nortllern Hospital, Lorldorl, 66 GI-rvNuns. 1 GI-iffitlis.x-ical-apostolic of Er1-mondsev. 60. 61 GIIT'SHospital. London. 66. 9 1

Jeannr d e Chantal Slstel 111 Jeslurs SPPSocietr ofJrs115 Jesus, Sistel hlalx, 113 John hIotliel hIal r 121 John of God Sisrrl 111 Jones, \1dix, 72, 73, 77 Josrph of t11r Sac1 r d Heal t \lorliel CP Pal iseali Josel~lnrle,hlotllel, 48 Judge Fatlie1 I \ illlam 114

Haldane, Sister, 93 Hal-bers. Sistel- Clara. 131 Haver~nalis.Rex: Prrer. 43 Hebrew Berle\olerlt Societ), 44 Hepro11stall.Rrv.Tho~nas.82 Hooprl-. Sistel-Blanchr. 1 6 Hhpital d e Notre Dame d e laPitiC, Paris, 83 Hornbx: Joshua. (i6 Horner. Dr. I\'illiam E.. 46 Hospital of St.Jollll a n d St. Elizabeth, Lolldon. 64

liaisersxvertll, 16, 23, 26, 66, 67, 76, 126, 131.135.137.113.113 Icrble. Rex: Jolin. 65 Ke~~erlllof, Father \\'., I 4 7 Icing's College Hospital. London. 71. 72. 91 hligllts ofJerusalen1, 64 Iinox\.-Nothings. 34. 1 3 Iiolilmann. Sisrrl- h l ~ n a 110 . k a e t z e r , Sister hlariarlrla, 140 Iil-ugrr. Sistrl- Slal-ie. 138. 140

230

Index

Ladies of Charitv (Dalnrs d e la Charitr?). 18 Larlherlau, Jollll, 137, 138, 139, 133 Lankrnau Hospital. Philadelphia. 141 Lincoln. .-\l~ralia~n. 18 Lister, Josepll, Baron Lister of L)rlle Regis, 72 Loesclilnan. Sister Palllinr. 110 Lowe, Pastor \\'illlelln, 135) Lutliel-,hIal-tin. 144 Lutliel-anism. 6. 58. 133; G e l - ~ n a n 27. ~ : 126. 135: Scalldirla~iall,136, 137, 143: United Statrs. 134. 137-41. 112. 133; U.S. hIissolu-i Svnod. 114. 113. 146, 147 hIackrtt. Sister Alnata. 116 hIacqua1-ie. Lachlan. governor of Nr\\ South \Vales, 81 hIadelainr. Slother. 121 hIallon. Sistrl- Cathrl-in?. 116 hlarlce, Jearlrle, 4, 151 hIanning. H e n r ~ :38. 76 hIal-inr Depal-tment.Hospital of the (;it\- of Rochester, Ne\\ b r k , 30 hIal-T-Drexel Home. 139 hIasonic lodges. .CPFI-remasons JI(lter.icl ,\Ietlicci, I 1 2 115 hIattinglv. Sistel-Ursula. 13.11. 3 1 hIavo. Dl- T17llialn T\br~-all.13. 149. hIcl\~~ley, hlotller (;atllerirle, 60, 61, 62 hIcNlllt~:Sistrl-Frlicita. 1 6 hIeclitildis. Sistel-hIal-v. 130 hledical professiorl: education, 45, 46, 47, 31; hospital ~ i o r k32. . 43. 51. 118; rrlationship \iitli nllns/nlu-srs. 30. 32. 13. 46, 72, 91 hIercliant seamrn. 30. 89 hIercv Hospital. Chicago, 162 hletllodisln, 6: .-\fricarl-,-\nlericall, 141: Ellgland. 66. 67; G e r ~ n a n ~138. : 111; Unitrd Statrs. 111. 112; draconrss movement. 67, 70, 73, 126, 138, 141, 148, 151, 154 hIetliodist Deaconess Institl~tr,hIr\il~lu-n House. London. (i7 hleulllsieperl. hlorlseiylleur H e m ) , 130 hIe\il~lu-nHollse. London. .SrcSlrrl~odist Draconess Institute hleyer, (;lrarles H., 138, 135) hIildlnax- Pal-k. 66

hIilitaris~n.145 hliller, Sister ,-\rlrlie, 5) 1, 93 hIissou1-i Pacific Hospital. Sedalia. 131. 131 hIissou1-i Pacific Railroad Hospital. St. Louis, 104, 131 hIors. Slotlier hIar\- hlfi-ed. 119 hIonk. Slal-ia. 3 1 hloore, hlotller hIary (;lare, 60-63, 77: Ber7. (il. 62. 63: lnondsrv. 60; CI-i~nra. friendship \\.it11 Flol-rncr Nightingale. 7. 63

Napoleon. 19. 129. 113 Nal~oleollic\\'arb,36, 127 Native h ~ n r l - i c a ncomlnunitirs. 106. 108. 117.121.155 Neale, Dr. Jollrl hIasoll, 68, 69 Ne\idegate, hI1-.. lnember of parliament folNol-tli T\'ar\\.ickshil-e. 63 Ne\\rlra~l, Jollll Herlr), 58 Nicholson. Sil- Charles. 86 Nightingale. Flol-ence. 16. 20. 23. 27. 28. 251, 54, 56.37, 64, 63, 71, 72, 73-75), 91, 93, 94. 95. 97, 126. lL51.163. l(i1: C r i n ~ e a , 7. 11. 62. 76. 77: fi-irndship~ i i t l Sistrrs i of hlerc), Bernlondsey. 14, 29, 76: r i ~ a l r ) \\it11 hIotliel- Francrs Bridglnan. 29. 63. 76; n-stem of nlu-sing training, 8. 27. 71. ++ / / , 78, 80, 511, 518 Nightingale Fund. 27. 28. 77. 78. 80. 90 Noil-I-v.Sister S1al-x-ofJes11s. 1l(i North Lolldoll Deaconesses Irlstitutioll, 66 Nuns. 2.1. 3. 13. 11. 16. 23-23; clioil- sistrl-s. 23. 67: cloistrl-. 14. 16. 18. 78; conflict wit11 bisllopsdcleryy, 25, 36-38, 52, v 84-88. 96. 120. 156. 137. 164; d o ~ i l - 19. 20. 23. (51. 67. 69. 82. 120. 153; dressdllabit, 13, 14, 27, 67: la) sisters, 23, 67. 69: mothrl-l~ousr23. 26. 32. 53. 51. 82. 102. 119. 120. 121. 129: no\-itiatr 23. 24, 53, 129: relationsllip \\it11doctors, 32, 44, 1een an enorrnous support to the project and I have been arrlazed l>ytheir pi-eparediless to go to any lengths to provide assistance. I have received generous support at the Daughters of Charity Archi\-es,All>an!; Netv York; the Archives of the Sisters of Providence, Seattle, Washington; the Archi\-esof the Deacoilesses of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Arnerica, Glad~vyne,Pennsylvania; and the Archives of the Sisters of the Iilcarilate Mbrd, Sail Antonio, Texas. I arrl grateful also to the archivists at the Sydney Diocesan Archi\-e; the Sisters of Charity Generalate, Harold's Cross, Duhlin; the Duhlin Diocesan Archi\-e, Bishop's Palace, Dublin; Notre Darrle Unit-ersit!; South Bend, Indiana; the Ciilciililati Historical Society, Cincinnati, Ohio; and staff at the M'ellcorne Institute for the History of Rlediciile and the British Lil>rary,London. The follo~vingarchi\-istsha\-e also provided feedback o n draft material: Sister Elaine Tl'heeler, Daughters of Charity Archives; Loretta Green, Archi\-es of the Sisters of Pro\-idence; Sister Louise Burroughs, Archi\-es of the Deacorlesses of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Xrnerica; and Sister Frarlcesca Eikan, Sisters of the Iilcarilate Tl'ord. This research has relied o n the staltvart efforts of Marie Rogers, rny

research assistailt for the duration of this project. Marie's in\-alualdecontribution has cot-ered e\-eryaspect of research and production. Finally, rny e\-ersupportive farnily have endured rny rnany al>sencesand unsettling preoccupatioils uith rrlatters religious o\-el- the past three years - they are pleased it's o\-er.