‘Yes, My Lord’: Some Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Bishops and the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Abstract

That we may freely and consistently persevere in our intention … we will that … all and each of ours shall make a vow never to seek directly or indirectly nor to allow others to seek … that except the Chief Pontiff to whom alone we humbly beg to be subject, any religious order whatsoever or any person whomsoever or any bishop or any one else appointed by the Pope to visit us, should have us so committed to his charge as to exercise over us authority, power, or jurisdiction.(Memorial of Mary Ward, translated from the Latin original, Archivum Romanum Societatis Jesu, Anglia 31, 11, pp. 675-685).The above are strong words, even from a forthright Yorkshirewoman, and they are almost startling when one considers how submissive, personally, was their author to all authority in the Church. But, in this Memorial, Mary Ward describes the constitution she envisages for her Institute. The firm lines she draws are even more accentuated in her Third Plan of 1622: ‘We most humbly beg that the entire hierarchical structure of this work should depend entirely on the Holy See and not on any other authority’. Another document headed Reasons why we may not alter makes it clear that the proposals admit of no compromise. The genesis of this attitude is not far to seek. Mary Ward considered she had received divine intimation that she was to undertake some new work to the greater glory of God and for this she was to follow St. Ignatius’ Society of Jesus with its direct responsibility to the Holy See. Sr. Immolata Wetter points out that Mary Ward’s ideas were further sharpened by the contemporary situation of the Catholic Church in England: ‘adherence to the primacy of the Pope distinguished the English martyrs and confessors of the faith. For their loyalty to the Vicar of Christ these brave men and women suffered restrictions both in public and private life.