Bishop Charles Davis’ Management and Leadership Skills as Coadjutor to Archbishop John Bede Polding (1848–54)

The Fr. Patrick Serenus Farrelly dispute

Between the years 1848 to 1850 the Benedictine Journal gives the impression of steadiness and happiness amongst the Sydney monks. In 1848, for example, Sr. Scholastica Gregory described the community as ‘fervent’ and ‘disciplined.’ ² The Dominican historian, Christopher Dowd argues, however, that by the late 1840s St Mary’s morale gradually became low and poor discipline began to numb the community. ³ This decline emerged because of the haphazard recruiting of monks in Australia and overseas, superficial training, personality clashes, management problems and frequent and prolonged absences by Polding or Gregory either on their missionary journeys, or overseas. ⁴

Dowd describes St Mary’s as having, ‘reached its apogee of Conventual life around 1850 when there were approximately 45 monks.’ ⁵ By late 1851, it was obvious the morale of the community had become disheartened. Recreation days, for instance, had developed into days where the monks were simply, ‘loitering about the garden, or in moody silence or such like.’ More importantly: ‘This day [23 October 1851] … was distinguished by a step, which will hold an important place, in the records of Monasticism in Australia, one which will not easily be forgotten by the present inmates of St. Mary’s.’ ⁶ The commentator was referring to the question over the validity of the monks’ vows. These uncertainties had been fostered by Patrick Serenus Farrelly, an Irish secular priest who had been received into the monastery at the end of 1843. He became convinced his monastic profession was invalid. Farrelly managed to convince several other aggrieved monks their vows were also null and void. Moreover, Farrelly and the rebel monks argued the monastic government under Gregory could be barely tolerated. They claimed they had to be ‘abject, grovelling and slavish’ towards him. ⁷

Dowd focuses on Gregory’s abrasive personality as a catalyst for the disunity at St Mary’s. In particular, he cites the outburst of Gregory towards Pius IX in 1854, so causing the ‘personal animosity harboured against Gregory in the mind of the Pope himself’ as the motivation for his eventual removal from Sydney. In addition, Dowd writes that ‘Pius was not the sort of man to forget a slight on his dignity.’ ⁸ Benedictine historian, Terence Kavanagh attributes much of the unrest in the monastery to Farrelly who claimed his monastic profession was invalid, as did other monks from St Mary’s. Farrelly travelled to Rome in 1852 to seek dispensation from his solemn vows. Kavenagh quotes part of a letter from Oswald Connery to Prior Wilson thus: ‘Dr Polding hurried his novices through their time of probation and ordained them before their proper time.’ ⁹ Kavenagh observes that perhaps as early as 1848, the vow formula no longer had any reference to the English Benedictine Congregation; rather ‘the sole authority now being the Archbishop and his successors.’ Perhaps the ‘hurried’ ordination of novices ill-prepared for a colonial ministry contributed in part to the unrest at St Mary’s. Kevin Livingstone attributes the political hostilities in the monastery, either rightly or wrongly, to the early death of Davis who shouldered much of the anguish in the community during the absences of Polding and Gregory. He writes: ‘The overburdened young bishop succeeded in controlling the situation as perhaps no one else could. No doubt the burden of this disunity among the monks and the worries of administration which Polding unloaded on him hastened his death in May 1854, some months short of his fortieth birthday.’ ¹⁰

Davis was approached by the community and the matter was discussed openly and honestly with him in the absence of Polding and Gregory. ¹¹ Since the problem was deemed to be ‘most serious,’ it was expected that ‘long consultation was needed to conciliate’ their doubts, leaving them in a ‘state of most afflicting doubt, apprehension and uncertainty.’ ¹² Given the significance of the matter, one wonders whether they held chapter often. The period of anticipated ‘long consultation’ between the groups distressed some of the monks because a few days later, some of the recently professed monks were granted dispensation from their simple vows by Davis ‘in consequence of a serious misunderstanding between them and their superiors.’ ¹³ Those monks previously dispensed of their simple vows were ‘no longer considered as belonging to the community.’ ¹⁴ On 28 October 1851, other monks approached Davis and presented a document ‘containing their reclamation, and setting forth the grounds thereof.’

When Polding returned from the Bathurst District on 17 November 1851, Davis briefed him regarding the complaints and objections, as well as informing him of the previous dispensations. The next day, Polding and Davis met with the ‘reclaimants’ and listened to their grievances. The monks left the meeting ‘fully satisfied’ and with ‘their doubts’ removed, ‘thus restoring unanimity and good feeling’ at St Mary’s. ¹⁵ This was to prove temporary. As Prior, Gregory was not expected to have all the answers to questions within St Mary’s monastery, but there was an expectation he should be compassionate towards them and discern the truth of the community by allowing the monks to speak the truth from their own perspective. By all accounts, Gregory preferred an autocratic style which seemed to deny the monks the chance to open their hearts with honesty and trust. It appears Gregory did not listen to the experiences of the men who brought to the community of St Mary’s their own unique gifts and personalities. Certainly, the ideals of the Rule of Benedict set down in the sixth century should never be abandoned, but to become an effective Prior, Gregory needed to re-interpret the Rule and adapt it to a nineteenth century monastic context in colonial Australia. ¹⁶ Church historian, Patrick O’Farrell describes Gregory as one who ran the monastery ‘as a martinet.’ He writes:

‘Lacking ability to handle men, he invariably relied on stern demands for subjection to authority. Outside the monastery, in the public – and particularly the Irish – view, Gregory seemed the epitome of the arrogant Englishman.’ ¹⁷

Davis on the other hand, was sensitive to the members of the community no matter what their length of religious service was. He was approached because he valued every monk for who they were and regarded everyone as equal. Davis endeavoured to hear the Word of God in each monk, so the Word of God might be practiced in the Sydney community. Whilst Polding and Gregory were on extended missionary journeys, Davis usually supervised the running of the monastery albeit in an unofficial capacity. Edmund Moore describes the lift in morale at St Mary’s during the absence of Gregory: ‘I have been from time to time tormented with thoughts of dissatisfaction even up to the present, but now I am happy to say that things begin to wear a brighter aspect and I hope and expect that the Monastery, which has been given up to Dr. Davis’ management will under his fostering care thrive apace.’ ¹⁸ O’Farrell sums up Davis’ personality in general terms which likewise reflect his disposition towards his monks: ‘Davis’s warmth and charm had won him wide affection. He was more approachable than the stately, venerable Polding, and invited a degree of familiarity which the Archbishop did not.’ ¹⁹

The Monastic Constitution of St Mary’s Sydney

Whilst the problem of the validity of vows was being considered, another issue erupted. Some of the monks at St Mary’s queried the Monastic Constitution (or apparent lack of). As part of his plea in Rome regarding the alleged validity of his vows, Farrelly argued the nonexistence of a formal Monastic Constitution at St Mary’s. The Constitutions became the subject of Polding’s supposed inconsistent interpretations. ²⁰ Farrelly stated Polding’s authority at St Mary’s was careless inasmuch as the variations of the Rule of St Benedict for Australian conditions were not formalised and they were being regularly altered by Polding. ²¹ A couple of years earlier, Edmund Moore wrote the English Constitutions he experienced at Downside appeared to be irrelevant at St Mary’s. In fact, Moore went so far as to allude to an apparent lack of rules under Polding’s leadership:

‘In my first letter I remember very well saying that St. Mary’s was more of a Monastery than St. Gregory’s. These were my sentiments when I had been only a few days on land. Afterwards, when I had had time to (discern?) the internal arrangements of things, my impressions began to be other than those which first came over me. I had left England under the full persuasion that here in Sydney I should find a Religious House in which the Constitutions of the English Benedictines wd. be observed almost to the letter. To my great surprise, instead of the Constitutions, I found not so much as one Rule of any kind by which the House was to be governed. When I had noticed this I went directly to the Archbishop and had an interview with His Grace of an hour, during which time I learnt that there existed a set of Rules which he himself had drawn up before he left for Europe. This was to me information which I had been unable to meet with elsewhere. This tended somewhat to settle my mind, but I was very slow in the recovery from my disappointment of (not) finding English Benedictines here. I even went as far as to tell His Grace that I much regretted having left England. To break the matter short, suffice it is to say that the Archbishop and myself were on very bad terms from the time of my interview with him, until the Easter Retreat.’ ²²

Many of Polding’s monks were not born in England, other than the Sydney superiors, which points to the fact most monks were essentially Irishmen by birth or descent. Outstanding secular missionary priests such as John Lynch, John Rigney, James Hanly and Timothy McCarthy, worked in Sydney and supported Polding and his ideas. There were examples of ethnic tensions in the Australian missions that were not confined to the English and Irish. In the 1840s and 1850s, for example, Polding did not have good working relations with the Italian and French clergy present in his diocese. Similarly, there were Irish bishops who had a bad record in their dealings with priests not of an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic background. ²³ The ‘Rules’ alluded to by Moore were probably the ones approved by Pius IX in a Propaganda decree dated 15 May 1847 stating: ‘On account of the need for religious institutes in Australia, that those monks who have the consent of the Superiors, may leave their monasteries and that all of them may follow equally a uniform Constitution in Australia, even though the rules of the Houses where they made their profession may be different ….’ ²⁴

Polding and Moore continued to clash over matters of authority. Polding described him as a person of a ‘censorious, discontented disposition,’ probably because Moore questioned him on matters concerning the administration of the monastery. ²⁵ Following Davis’ arrival at St Mary’s in December 1848, Moore and Davis became friends. Moore saw in Davis a connection to Downside. ²⁶ This relationship seemed to offer Moore some degree of ‘protection’ from being removed from St Mary’s by Polding. During Davis’ first serious illness when he was close to death (from 25/4/1849 to 14/8/1849), Polding sent Moore back to England in the May. Subsequent to Davis’ recovery, Davis wrote to Prior Wilson of Downside:

‘You were no doubt astonished at Edmond (sic) Moore’s return from Australia. The affair occurred when my illness was at its height, and all that I heard of it at the time was that he had complained to the ArchBp and had distressed His Grace so much by his manner of complaint that the result was a separation. It is possible that Edmond (sic) was misunderstood as I know that the good ArchBp’s mind was in a greatly harassed state on my account, my death being almost hourly expected. I think that had I been well Edmond (sic) would not have left.’ ²⁷

Moore suggested the ‘Rules’ drawn up by Polding were known only by a few and had not been made available to the entire community. Davis supported this view and wrote the following comments a couple of months after his arrival:

‘The Monastery has hitherto been governed by our Holy Father’s Rule as interpreted by the Abbot, - a plan no doubt unobjectionable, being the [way?] our Holy Father lived, who tho’ Abbot was always on the spot to interpret the rule and prevent irregularities and abuses, but I don’t think the plan so practicable and desirable under our circumstances when both the Abbot and the Prior (viz. the ArchBp. and Dr. Gregory) have in addition to their monastic cares, that of their immense Mission.’ ²⁸

Whilst Davis approved of an interpretation of the Rule by the Abbot to ‘prevent irregularities and abuses,’ because Polding and Gregory were often absent from the monastery. Davis favoured a structured set of rules which conformed to the context of nineteenth century Sydney but realised the ideals of the original Rule should never be abandoned. He began writing his own interpretation of the ‘Rule’ for St Mary’s: ‘something like standing and permanent orders.’ Davis was satisfied with his ‘humble endeavours’ and was encouraged to know his ‘Rule’ would ‘ultimately prove beneficial’ for the running of the Sydney monastery. He was convinced Polding and Gregory would approve of his suggestions and see the advantage ‘of having things more defined.’ ²⁹ It is unknown whether Davis completed his ‘Rule’ because six months later Polding wrote to the English Benedictine Congregation President stating: ‘When we are sufficiently numerous to form a separate Body for the Mission we shall be enabled to establish Rules [for] our Government.’ ³⁰ By May 1851, regulations of some kind had been formulated and were being used at St Mary’s. In a letter to Abbot Pietro Casaretto of Subiaco, Polding described ‘daily regulations’ taken by Gregory to submit a report on the Australian Church to Propaganda:

‘I think it will be an excellent thing to establish exact conformity between the discipline at Subiaco and ours in Sydney. Where there exist different disciplines, the customs are different as well as the regulations, and making comparisons is not good. The Prior is taking our general daily regulations with him and, as he knows my ideas, it is not necessary to me to write in greater detail.’ ³¹

Whether Polding wrote these ‘general daily regulations,’ guided by the draft prepared by Davis two years earlier will be difficult to ascertain. On 15 February 1856, Polding formally promulgated the new Constitutions for his community. These Constitutions were approved by Rome in 1855 and were referred to as the ‘Declarations’ since they were appended comments to each chapter of the Rule of St Benedict. ³² Davis recognised in both Polding and Gregory a style of leadership that leaned towards the imperious. In a letter to Dom Peter Wilson, Davis suggested they should both ‘suffer the diminution of their authority’ if the monastery and the mission were to succeed. ³³ Here Davis was indicating Polding and Gregory should clothe themselves in greater humility by learning to listen to the words, directions and wisdom of those who might be the voice of Christ at any particular time. One is reminded in the Rule that:

‘[A] man not only admits with his tongue but is also convinced in his heart that he is inferior to all and of less value, humbling himself and saying with the Prophet: I am truly a worm, not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people (Ps 21 [22]:7). I was exalted, then I was humbled and overwhelmed with confusion (Ps 87 [88]:16). And again, It is a blessing that you have humbled me so that I can learn your commandments (Ps 118 [119]:71, 73).’ ³⁴

Davis’ observations bring Polding and Gregory face to face with their struggle for authority. Davis’ desire for objectivity, humility, compassion and even-handedness as a leader in the monastery becomes more evident during this period of instability at St Mary’s; particularly during Polding’s and Gregory’s absences. Furthermore, the Benedictine charism becomes more apparent in the person of Davis during his frequent periods of leadership at the monastery. Meanwhile Farrelly’s dispute with Polding over the validity of his vows still required a solution.

Farrelly’s dispute with Polding

What caused Farrelly to believe his Solemn Profession on 8 April 1845 was null and void? According to Farrelly, he alleged that as a postulant and novice he was frequently harassed by Polding, and as such, his religious profession was invalid. Farrelly added the following reference from the Theological College of Salamanca to support his argument: ‘The same is to be said of a Solemn Vow made from grave fear; for such a vow has no binding on the one who makes it even if it is entirely and simply left to his free-will (Salmaticenses).’ ³⁵ According to Farrelly, his harassment stemmed from an alleged sexual relationship he had with a woman in 1845. Both Farrelly and the woman denied any sexual impropriety. Farrelly wrote a letter to Polding describing in detail three separate occasions where Polding allegedly acted with hostility towards him. Firstly, he asserted that Polding pronounced a ‘sentence of public punishment for a secret frailty’ on him. Secondly, he claimed Polding limited his walks in the gardens of St Mary’s and stated that ‘if he did not submit to [Polding], [Polding] would denounce him from the altar of St. Mary’s.’ Thirdly, at a retreat for deacons, Farrelly alleged he requested a blessing from Polding. Polding supposedly replied, ‘Begone out of my sight. How dare you stand or appear in my presence.’ ³⁶ Farrelly presented Davis with his letter of allegations who then gave it to Polding. In a letter to Cardinal Fransoni, Polding outlined his response to Farrelly’s allegations, and provided an entirely different perspective on the circumstances. During Polding’s absence of two years in Europe in 1843, Polding’s Vicar General, the Very Rev. Dr. Murphy reported Farrelly’s behaviour was ‘extremely unfavourable … mingled with indubitable proofs of great indiscretion.’ Murphy removed Farrelly from public life and employed him in the monastery until Polding’s return from Europe. Polding wrote:

‘Thus employed, the same want of discretion, apparent indulgence of vanity and neglect of duty were evinced to the no small scandal of the Boys; parties composed chiefly of women were frequently invited to his room. In his discourse to the people there were betrayed great self-sufficiency, great want of judgement, in so much as that on one occasion the Vicar General arose and publicly left the Church, and unfortunately admonition was of little use in the case of this young man.’ ³⁷

Polding’s letter continued to describe Farrelly’s lack of discipline and the deplorable state of the seminary whilst under his direction during Polding’s absence. Polding agreed that he withdrew ‘him for a time from the exercise of ministerial and even Sacerdotal functions.’ He admitted telling Farrelly:

‘[H]is conduct had been such that [Polding] could not in conscience permit him the exercise of his ministerial duties for a considerable time, in order that he might enter into himself and in prayer, meditation and Instruction, in retirement, atone for the past and fit himself for such duties at some future time, if I found him sufficiently prepared.’ ³⁸

In the final part of his letter to Fransoni, Polding believed Farrelly, ‘either [was] not acting with good faith in urging the invalidity of his Profession, or must be labouring under a most grievous mental hallucination.’ ³⁹

Polding requested Davis to convene an Ecclesiastical Council comprising Davis, the Archdeacon of the Cathedral, John McEncroe and the Dean of Sydney, Peter Magganotto to consider Farrelly’s claims. The opinion of the Council was unanimous. They decided Farrelly, ‘had allowed considerably more than five years to elapse after his solemn profession without making any reclamation’ and were agreed in deciding they were not qualified to settle the problem of the validity of his vows. Polding and Farrelly were advised of the outcome of the Council. Farrelly was resolute he should straightaway forward his reclamation to Rome for a suitable decision. On the advice of Davis, Magganotto spoke with Farrelly as a friend asking him to reconsider sending his reclamation to Rome, ‘and to express his regret to the Archbishop for the pain which his actions had caused His Grace.’ He also advised Farrelly to approach Polding for a reappointment to another Mission if ‘he was really unhappy at St. Mary’s,’ because he was confident Polding would approve it. Farrelly’s response to Magganotto was unwavering: ‘He would detract nothing, that he would go to Rome, and if the Archbishop would not pay his expenses, he would beg them from the people.’ ⁴⁰

On 28 November, Farrelly sent a message to Davis requesting travelling expenses to Rome. The body of the note suggested he had been waiting for an answer from Davis since 24 November and, ‘if no answer be given to that proposal before Sunday next, I will be obliged to appeal to my friends.’ Farrelly’s note to Davis smacked of intimidation. Farrelly added: ‘The impression which such a call on them will produce, both here and at Rome will be so unfavourable, that I for one am willing to avert it.’ ⁴¹ Davis response was immediate and business-like: ‘I was not aware … you had applied for your travelling expenses to Rome. I must at once say that I have no funds at my disposal, for the purpose. If you either have applied or intend applying to the Archbishop for the same, His Grace will, I presume, himself reply to your application.’ ⁴² On the evening of 28 November, Farrelly advised Polding via brief correspondence that he had decided to travel to Rome and requested travelling expenses. Polding’s reply was heated, but direct:

‘I must decline holding any communication with a subject who declares to me his determination to leave my jurisdiction without my permission … And now I give you due notice and warning that should you solicit in any manner pecuniary assistance from any person whatever, for the said purpose, all your Ecclesiastical faculties including permission to celebrate Mass will, ipso facto, cease.’ ⁴³

Farrelly ignored Polding’s notice not to, ‘solicit in any manner pecuniary assistance from any person whatever,’ so Polding placed him under the authority of Davis and severely restricted Farrelly’s movements and community contact within the monastery. Furthermore, Farrelly was confined to the monastery and prohibited from leaving without Davis’ permission. He was ‘strictly prohibited’ from speaking to ‘any secular person or persons’ about his intended trip to Rome or the raising of money for the voyage; nor was he permitted to speak to any postulants ‘under any pretext whatsoever.’ ⁴⁴

Farrelly ignored Polding’s punitive restrictions and left the monastery, withdrawing from clerical duties without the authority or permission of Polding or Davis. Mention of Farrelly’s departure in the Benedictine Journal recorded the following: ‘F. Serenus Farrelly … left St. Mary’s a short time since – he is at present lodging in town – And is about going to Rome, with a Reclamation against his religious profession, which took place April 1845.’ ⁴⁵ Polding and Davis worked together to safeguard the good name of the Church citing Farrelly’s behaviour as a ‘great disedification and dreadful scandal’ to the Sydney church. ⁴⁶ They decided not to publicise Farrelly’s actions in the hope of limiting the opportunities, ‘the bigoted infidel party in this city and country would gladly avail’ by attempting to develop clear divisions in the Church. Both prelates were of the opinion that if Farrelly’s appeal to Rome and his conduct was upheld, ‘the effect on the minds of the clergy in the Diocese [would] be most injurious.’ Moreover, they both wrote and co-signed a clear statement to Cardinal Fransoni: ‘A wound will be inflicted upon the Ecclesiastical Authority in this Church which will prove almost incurable.’ ⁴⁷ Bishops Davis, James Goold and Francis Murphy co-wrote a detailed address to Pope Pius IX affirming Farrelly was unfit to be a priest and his accusations towards Polding were fabricated and defamatory. They also remonstrated against an emerging practice amongst some clergy who avoided local church authority by communicating directly to the Holy See about projects for diocesan development, as well as making, ‘unjustified vituperations against the episcopal character.’ Similarly, they argued that if the Holy See continued to receive expressions of ‘republicanism’ and ‘presbyterianism,’ Australian bishops would never be at peace with their clergy. By reason of the tyranny of distance, the prelates urged the Holy See to develop appropriate methods to initiate procedures along the lines of a civil government in Australia. This would allow for petitions and complaints to be received by the Holy See only if a copy of the objections had been received by the Australian religious authority, thereby enabling them to respond to the accusations or claims. If the Holy See were to follow this procedure, they would hear both sides of the petition or complaint, and cases could be fairly and accurately resolved. ⁴⁸ This submission appears to have been ignored.

Farrelly and Rome

Farrelly’s allegations were listened to in Rome: on the recommendation of Cardinal Fransoni, the Pope released Farrelly from his vows; not because they were considered invalid, but because Farrelly was unable to live by them and Rome intended to prevent a prolongation of the legal proceedings. ⁴⁹ Farrelly’s portrayal of St Mary’s as a community handicapped by division and conflict probably added to the decline of Roman confidence in Sydney ‘Benedictinism.’ More damaging was the comments Farrelly made to Fransoni in a letter condemning Polding’s New South Wales mission. He described the Archdiocese of Sydney as being in a deplorable situation and called for the arbitration of the Holy See. Farrelly also claimed Benedictine dominance was detrimental to priestly vocations due to the pressure being placed on aspirants to become monks. Moreover, he maintained the English and Australian Benedictines were out of touch with the Irish population in Australia, and their concentration at St Mary’s monastery further isolated them from the parishes and people they were supposed to be serving. ⁵⁰

Farrelly seemed to gain some credibility with Rome since his comments mirrored McEncroe’s 1851 interpretation of the Sydney Archdiocese. ⁵¹ Even as early as 1850 Davis wondered at the effectiveness of the monastery to provide priests for the needs of the Australian mission: ‘It will be some years before we shall be able to supply the wants of the mission from the monastery. Nearly all our present young religious we must keep long in the house for purposes of teaching, etc.; in the meantime our Catholic population is rapidly increasing.’ ⁵²

Frustrated and discouraged by the unrest in his monastery, Polding wrote a letter to Cardinal Fransoni on 20 March 1854, describing his disillusionment about the leniency shown to Farrelly:

‘[T]he dreadful misuse which the Priest Farrelly has made of the leniency of the Holy See towards him has overwhelmed me in the deepest affliction … Letters follow letters all declaratory of his triumph … the effects of these communications have been most disastrous. Peace of mind is disturbed – confidence in Ecclesiastical authority is shaken – much is said and done exceedingly injurious to Religion … the Absolution from Censures are deemed no adequate punishment for a Monk, who was guilty of giving most grievous scandal in the City of Sydney, who openly set at defiance the authority of his Superiors, raised money in his disobedience, left his Community, and thus was guilty of the most flagrant breach of his vow of Obedience, Religious and Ecclesiastical, and of his vow of Poverty.’ ⁵³

Polding continued to show his annoyance at the outcome by describing what he believed Farrelly’s exoneration by Rome would achieve:

‘The effect of leniency towards this man will I fear, render the Establishment of such discipline as ought to be found in a church in the days of her first fervour almost impossible. The conduct of this man as detailed by myself and the Bishop Coadjutor … appeared to us so flagitious … we could not imagine he would meet with any favor from the Holy See.’ ⁵⁴

The final paragraphs of Polding’s letter portrayed a man deeply distressed by the outcome and one who ultimately offered his resignation to Pope Pius IX as Sydney’s Archbishop in 1854:

‘The confidence of my clergy in me must be shaken. I cannot enforce discipline. Farrelly’s case in itself was founded on calumny and misrepresentation; opposed to it was the representation and explanation of circumstances testified by the signatures of the Bishop Coadjutor and myself to the real state of the case … I would wish to pass the few remaining years of my life, not in idleness, but in giving Missions, and in forming zealous Ecclesiastics to the work of the Ministry. I therefore most humbly and earnestly entreat Your eminence to place at the feet of the Most Holy Father, the Archiepiscopal dignity of the See of Sydney, and to permit me to retire from a situation, the duties of which I cannot fulfil, with usefulness to others and safety to my own conscience.’ ⁵⁵

Polding preferred the life of a missionary, spending over two years travelling to many inland areas while Davis as his coadjutor dealt with the administration of the diocese. One of the main reasons Davis was selected as Polding’s coadjutor was to allow Polding to minister to both the churched and the unchurched in the outback of Australia. This letter to Fransoni sums up Polding’s passion: the love of his missionary spirit on the wider Australian community. Polding left Sydney with Gregory to tender his resignation and defend his Sydney Benedictine plan on 21 March 1854, Davis became the senior prelate of the Australian Catholic Church. Little did Polding or Gregory realise, Davis was to die of heart complications on 17 May 1854 leaving John McEncroe in charge of the Sydney Archdiocese for almost two years.

Charles Davis: in charge of St Mary’s Monastery

During Davis’ residence in Sydney (1848–1854), there were various occasions when he was given the responsibility for the management of the Sydney Archdiocese and St Mary’s Monastery during Polding’s and Gregory’s many absences. The following list presents a summary of Polding’s days away from St Mary’s during each year Davis was in Sydney:

1848 A total of 57 days on the Mission. The final 11 days of Polding’s journeys occurred following the arrival of Davis in December

These journeys amount to an aggregate of 755 days (two years, three weeks and four days) away from St Mary’s. With Polding (and Gregory) absent, management of the Archdiocese and monastery fell to Davis. There are four significant areas of his leadership style that will be examined. They concern the spiritual dimension of St Mary’s, indigenous affairs, the significant number of appointments at St Mary’s Monastery and some general administrative and pastoral matters. When Polding and Gregory left St. Mary’s on a missionary journey of 90 days to the southern districts of the colony of New South Wales in January 1849, Polding left Davis in charge of the monastery. ⁵⁶ As temporary Prior, his duties were specific: to focus ‘only [on] spiritual matters.’ According to Moore, ‘it is very hard to draw the line of distinction between spirituals and temporals … as Prior of a Monastery.’ Even Davis ‘scarcely [understood] what His Grace [meant]’ by this appointment. ⁵⁷ Common sense prevailed, and Davis supervised the monastery ‘as he [thought] proper both in spiritual and temporal matters.’ ⁵⁸ Davis was aware of the spiritual outcomes of public prayer, especially within the context of the Mass and the Sacraments. Nonetheless, Davis was mindful the power of Christ’s presence offered in the various forms of public prayer could not become a part of the monks’ lives without regular private prayer. He invited his community to listen for the voice of God in their lives to separate them from any constraints or obstacles they may have been experiencing in their own lives. Silence played a significant role in the Benedictine Rule and it was through silence the voice of God could be heard. ⁵⁹ Following Polding and Gregory’s absence, Davis sought to adjust one of the cornerstones of Benedictine life and spiritual development: silence and implement new practices at St Mary’s monastery. These reforms provide a glimpse into Davis’ spirituality. ⁶⁰ In addition to the usual occasions when silence was meant to be observed at St Mary’s, Davis directed the monks to observe extra periods of silence to help them attain a more peaceful communion with God. In the monastic tradition, silence is an attempt to quieten the voice, the imagination, and the mind in the confidence of God’s presence. The Rule of Benedict directs that silence is so important that:

‘[P]ermission to speak should seldom be granted even to mature disciples, no matter how good or holy or constructive their talk, because it is written: In a flood of words you will not avoid sin (Prov 10:19) … Speaking and teaching are the master’s task; the disciple is to be silent and listen.’ ⁶¹

Davis directed that Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent were to become ‘Communion days’ and ‘recollection and silence were to be observed on the evenings of Tuesdays and Thursdays.’ ⁶² Davis directed the community to observe ‘silence and fasting, for a period of three days to beseech Almighty God, to avert the calamity impending at Subiaco, in the death of Mother Mary Scholastica.’ ⁶³ Regrettably, she died of consumption on 8 October 1850. In addition to the usual occasions when silence was meant to be observed, such as after Compline, Davis anticipated that if the monks observed extra periods of silence, they might attain a greater respect for each other, a spirit of peace, and a sense of place. It would assist in abandoning gossip and the shallow approach to the spiritual life. In the words of Benedict: ‘The wise man is known by the fewness of his words.’ ⁶⁴

The Liturgy of the Hours defined the essence of Davis’ spirituality and their solemn celebration in the Abbey Cathedral was a central aspect of Polding’s ‘Benedictine Dream.’ It enabled him to join with Christ in praying for everyone who was suffering. The praying of the Psalms by Davis expressed his faith in God’s mercy, justice, and salvation at the most profound level. Benedictine author, Joan Chittester writes similarly:

‘The point is clear: there is to be no time, nothing, that absorbs us so much that we lose contact with the God of life; no stress so tension-producing, no burden so complex, no work so exhausting that God is not our greatest agenda, our constant companion, our rest, our refuge.’ ⁶⁵

In 1849, during another one of Polding’s journeys, Davis observed the large number of people desiring the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a Friday and the small number of priests available to dispense this Sacrament. Davis considered it prudent to adjust the usual length of meditation on Friday evenings after Reconciliation. He directed that ‘night prayers [Compline] and the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament,’ should be 15 minutes earlier than the customary time, ‘lest the people disappointed of the Meditation, should disperse before the time appointed for the Benediction (7½ o’clock) had arrived.’ Davis’ decision to change the time for meditation was an attempt to allow the public a deeper experience of prayer by experiencing Benediction and Compline with the monks. ⁶⁶ Here, Davis was dispensing with the monastic routine of lengthy periods of prayer and focusing instead on the function of prayer (the establishment of a relationship with God who is in relationship with us) by facilitating the participation of the people in the Liturgy of the Hours. Davis’ directive seems to have remained in effect permanently. The following week, the evening service was ‘the same as on last Friday.’ ⁶⁷ Subsequent to Polding’s return, the Benedictine Journal reported: ‘His Grace and the Vicar General returned from their visit to the district of Illawarra. Service in the cathedral this evening the same as usual.’ ⁶⁸

Two days after Polding left Sydney on 13 May 1851 on a two month visit to towns in the south-west area of New South Wales, Davis directed the hymn, Veni Creator and the prayers, Deus qui Corda, Defende quaesumus and Excita Domine, be recited each morning before Mass ‘for His Grace’s intention.’ These prayers were in addition to the ones Polding had previously directed the monks to recite on the day of his departure for the purpose of invoking the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary upon Prior Gregory ‘and his undertakings.’ According to Polding, these prayers were ‘to be continued until further notice.’ ⁶⁹ During Polding’s absence in June 1851, Davis directed Benediction and Night Prayers would occur in the Cathedral on Thursdays at 7p.m. ⁷⁰ This would again allow the laity to join with the monks in prayer. By 1852 there were only a ‘small number of choir religious in the monastery’ because most of the priests were ‘frequently [away] from home in the mornings’ during the recitation of Terce and Sext; customarily at 9 a.m. The monks had been praying Terce and Sext concurrently rather than at the times of 9 a.m. and 12 noon respectively. ⁷¹ About a week after Polding left Sydney, Davis directed Terce and Sext to be prayed immediately after Prime (approximately 6 a.m.), so ‘all may be enabled to attend choir’ prior to commencing their pastoral duties. ⁷² Because Davis’ life was shaped by the Psalms and Scripture, he likewise tried to inspire his monks to live under their influence. Additional liturgical processions became standard practice at St Mary’s under the leadership of Davis. The celebration of the Feast of Corpus Christi over a three-year period demonstrated a different liturgical approach between Davis and Polding. Whilst Polding and Davis leaned towards the conventional celebration of Mass, it seems Davis was more accommodating in the sense that he allowed the laity, to some degree, to become involved in the liturgy while Polding did not. ⁷³ It appears that in practice Davis may have been trying to more closely integrate the monastery and the diocese. Already we have seen Davis’ inclusion of the laity in the experience of prayer with the monks.

The day before the Feast of Corpus Christi in 1849, Polding directed that the Vespers of the Feast of Corpus Christi were to be recited. At Matins the Te Deum and Gospel were sung. At Lauds, ‘the Altar was decorated in the same manner as at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament,’ followed by Benediction by the Subprior of the monastery. ⁷⁴ On the day of the Feast, Polding led an evening service commencing at 7 p.m. The service included:

‘Litany of the Blessed Sacrament & Night Prayers … Short Instruction delivered by His Grace … towards the end of the Lecture, the Candles on the altar were lighted – torches were then distributed to all within the Sanctuary – The ‘O Salutaris Hostia’ was intoned & whilst His Grace received the Ostensorium from the Deacon, a procession was formed. It moved through the Transept at the Gospel side, along the Nave, & returned by the opposite side – The choir in the meantime chanting the ‘Pange Lingua’.’ ⁷⁵

The laity, in this case, played only a spectator role because it was Polding and the other clergy who formed a procession through the Cathedral with lit candles. During the celebration of the Octave of Corpus Christi a week later, Polding held a service in the Cathedral at 7 p.m. and included ‘Benediction and Night Prayers.’ He concluded the Octave by carrying ‘the Blessed Sacrament in the procession & gave Benediction.’ Although there are no clear details about who was in the procession, it was probably similar to the one he celebrated on the Feast of Corpus Christi. ⁷⁶ The following account of the Feast of Corpus Christi in 1850 provides an insight into Davis’ devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and his unique approach to liturgy on the days leading up to and including the Octave of the Feast. ⁷⁷ The day before the Feast Day, preparations for a procession of the Blessed Sacrament through the gardens of the monastery occurred. Davis directed work be performed in silence but made allowances for speaking in case ‘the nature of the duties to be performed’ required some communication. ⁷⁸ The monastery gardens in front of the cloisters and the Archbishop’s residence were decorated with ‘arches formed of green boughs.’ Similarly, the door entering the garden was ‘decorated in [a] like manner.’ A bower had been made in front of Polding’s house. Within the bower ‘an altar upon which the Sacred Host was to be placed for a few minutes’ had been built. Davis invited the laity to become involved in this celebration and invited them into the monastery to donate ‘flowers for the occasion’ and place them ‘in great profusion on the several arches and doorways – and still more abundantly in the little bower – upon the front and sides of which garlands of the best Flowers were hung in festoons.’ ⁷⁹

During the monks’ early morning meditation on the Feast of Corpus Christi, Davis exposed the Blessed Sacrament and celebrated Mass before it. The celebration was described as ‘very solemn’ and directed the Blessed Sacrament remain exposed ‘during the whole of the morning office.’ ⁸⁰

Mass was celebrated at 11 a.m. by Davis and concelebrated by the ‘Fr. Subprior … The Archdeacon & the Dean … FF Ignatius McClennan & Kavanagh.’ To highlight the solemnity of the Mass, copes and chasubles were worn. At the end of Mass, the procession (which included the laity) commenced through the Cathedral to the gardens of the monastery. The following entry captures the grandeur of the final procession led by Davis:

‘At the end of the Mass the Master of Ceremonies commenced arranging the procession – The order was the following – 1^st cleric with two acolytes bearing the processional cross – next the students of St. Mary’s Seminary – Then the Society of the Holy Guild preceded by their cross – After these came the Subdeacons and acolytes with the Cathedral Cross – then the Choir – the boys attending the Sanctuary – the Priests in vestments – Those in Copes – an acolyte bearing the Bishop’s Crozier – two of the youngest boys scattering flowers – Thurifers – The Bishop bearing in his hands the Ostensorium with the Sacred Host – attended by two Deacons – after these followed the Mitre bearer, carrying in his hands the Mitre – and lastly the Congregation walking two by two – The people behaved in a most edifying manner, though the whole of the avenue and the walks about the garden were thronged there was not the least disturbance, each one kept his place, in the order in which he left the church – From the resting place in the garden the procession moved through the cloisters & St. Felician’s chapel, back to the Cathedral where Benediction was given – and the Indulgences published.’ ⁸¹

Afterwards, Davis directed that exposition of the Blessed Sacrament during Mass in St Felician’s chapel, ‘will be the case every morning during the octave’ of Corpus Christi. ⁸² Whilst Davis employed liturgical ritual to its extreme to highlight the sacredness and beauty of the occasion, he made sure the laity was included in the celebration. In fact, this appears to be the first time the congregation were included as active participants in a liturgical procession at St Mary’s. On the Octave of Corpus Christi a week later, Davis intended to have another procession of the Blessed Sacrament outside the Cathedral which again included the laity. Unfortunately, the weather had been very inclement and on the morning of the intended procession, the conditions were reported as being ‘very damp.’ Davis’ anticipation of poor weather allowed him to direct the monks to prepare the interior of the Cathedral the evening before with ‘boughs and flowers – and a throne was formed over the Tabernacle, in which the Sacred Host was to be reposed during the Holy Sacrifice.’ ⁸³ Mass was celebrated by Davis, followed by a procession of the Blessed Sacrament within the Cathedral, again involving the laity who this time held lighted candles. The Benedictine Journal entry reveals:

‘At 7 o’clock this morning service commenced. The Bishop celebrated the Mass – after which a procession was formed which moved through the passages between the seats of the gospel side of the altar, down the nave and then back to the sanctuary, through the opening between the seats on the epistle side – The greater number of the people were provided with lighted candles which they bore in the procession. The altar looked very beautiful.’ ⁸⁴

The celebrations led by Polding the previous year provide a very different approach to liturgy compared to the preparations and ceremony of Davis with the inclusion of the laity in the final procession. Davis appears to have begun recontextualising liturgy at St Mary’s, which previously distanced the laity from the clergy, and instead fostered a greater sense of ‘community’ amongst the local Catholics. Davis understood that all members of the faithful: clergy, religious and the laity all members of the one Body of Christ ‘for we were all baptised by one Spirit so as to form one body — whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free — and we were all given the one Spirit to drink’ (1Cor 12:13). Although the laity had no formal role in the celebration of Mass, Davis recognised that every lay faithful possessed adverse yet complimentary charisms and ministries who should be able to participate more actively in devotions and prayer than they had previously experienced. In 1851, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, Polding was absent from Sydney again, so Davis celebrated Mass at the Cathedral. A couple of days before the Feast day, he announced ‘great preparations’ were to be made in the grounds of the monastery ‘in front of the Cloisters & the Archbishop’s apartments.’ Part of the preparations included the erection of ‘a handsome canopy … for the occasion.’ Perhaps this was similar to the one built the year before. Disappointingly, on the day of the Feast, ‘the weather was so very boisterous that [a procession] was altogether impracticable.’ ⁸⁵ The Mass at 11 a.m. consisted of Davis as the main celebrant, with ‘F. Maurus O’Connell Deacon … & Fr. John & Br Felix Sheridan [Subdeacon]. The Archdeacon & The Dean were vested in Copes – FF Bede Sumner, Serenus Farrelly & John Kavanagh in Chasubles.’ ⁸⁶ On the Octave of Corpus Christi, Davis celebrated Mass in the chapel at Subiaco and then processed the Blessed Sacrament through the house and grounds of the convent while, ‘the nuns, with their pupils, and the Lay Brothers belonging to the establishment formed a grand procession.’ ⁸⁷ Once again, Davis included the laity as active participants at the conclusion of Mass, rather than as quiescent spectators. Davis also invited laypeople to assist in the preparation of the Liturgy. It appears that Polding did not. Davis understood the layperson’s apostolate needed to be broadened because of the severe limitations placed on them in the nineteenth century, [i.e.] the priest-congregation relationship was dominant-submissive.

Indigenous affairs: John Benedict – Tongan Islander

In 1847, an islander boy from Tonga was ‘taken into the House by the Fr. Prior [Gregory] whilst His Grace was in Europe in 1847.’ ⁸⁸ He was baptised in August 1848 and given the name ‘John Benedict.’ Following Polding’s return from Europe on 6 February 1848, Benedict became Polding’s servant. ⁸⁹ Unfortunately, John Benedict contracted ‘a severe cold which prevented him from performing his ordinary duties.’ ⁹⁰ He was sent to Subiaco to be cared for by the nuns. Maurus O’Connell travelled to Subiaco on 5 December 1849 to visit ‘John the Black Boy, who was … in a very delicate state of health.’ ⁹¹ Following ‘dinner’ the next day (1 p.m.), ⁹² Davis called the community together in the Chapter Room and ‘informed them that he had just received a letter from the Fr. Subprior [O’ Connell] announcing the decease of the Boy John, who departed this life this morning.’ ⁹³ Davis requested the monks gather in St Felician’s Chapel ‘where the Litany & prayers for the dead were recited.’ After night prayers, Davis directed ‘the Priests of the Monastery to offer the Holy Sacrifice [Mass], and the other Brethren their communions, on the following morning, for the repose of the soul of John.’ ⁹⁴ Even though the community had just experienced the death of John Benedict, life at St Mary’s went on as usual. Bede Sumner, Mellitus Corish and Peter Magganotto spent much of their time hearing Confessions at the Immigrant Barracks. This persistent activity of ecclesiastical life at St Mary’s is again apparent the day after John Benedict’s death: ‘[Davis] celebrated the Mass of the Sacred Heart. Benediction was not given in consequence of its being part of the service for the evening. The confessionals being very much crowded this evening … .’ ⁹⁵

Davis celebrated the Conventual Mass at 5.30 a.m. on 8 December. The Benedictine Journal entry stated: ‘The whole community approached the Holy Communion.’ ⁹⁶ The fact that all the monks from St Mary’s received Communion was a rarity due to the monastery being a disparate and multi-faceted place because of the significant non-Benedictine element amongst its residents; the urgent pastoral needs required of the monks; and the frequent absences of Polding and Gregory. Perhaps this was the community’s response to Davis’ request two days earlier. The recitation of the Litany and prayers for the dead in the evening, and the Mass the following morning for the repose of the soul of John Benedict was conducted with due solemnity. It is interesting though, to observe the various reactions to the death of John Benedict, especially amongst the community at St Mary’s. His death appears to have evoked little emotional response from the monks other than their formal prayers for the dead. His death, however, elicited ‘a great sensation amongst the Lay Brothers and others at Subiaco.’ Most likely, the Lay Brothers who worked closely with the boy from the time of his arrival in 1847 would have gotten to know him well, and the ‘others at Subiaco’ were probably the nuns who cared for him during his illness.

There was no mention in the Benedictine Journal of a Requiem Mass at St Mary’s or Subiaco other than the boy being ‘interred in Parramatta’ on 7 December. Presumably Maurus O’ Connell officiated at the funeral, even though there is no comment; although the Benedictine Journal does refer to the anxious state of O’ Connell following his return to St Mary’s on 8 December. ⁹⁷ Due to the shortage of priests at St Mary’s, Davis upheld the community’s official mourning period by reciting the Office ‘for the repose of the soul of John.’ Additionally, [Davis] ‘offered the Holy Sacrifice for the same end.’ ⁹⁸ Davis maintained dignity, respect and sacredness amongst the community in response to the death of a respected member of the cathedral community. What kind of relationship did John Benedict have with Polding? Whilst the Benedictine Journal records he ‘acted as servant’ to Polding, nothing about his relationship with Polding is recorded. ⁹⁹ It is likely Benedict was treated with the same care and affection as the other indigenous boys who resided at St Mary’s over previous years. Other young indigenous boys who had previously been brought to the monastery regarded Polding with a deep sense of trust and love. ¹⁰⁰ On the day Polding returned to the Monastery after an absence of nearly two years, for example, the ‘small aboriginal boys rushed up in welcome and threw themselves at his feet.’ ¹⁰¹ After blessing the boys, Polding allowed the other monks in his missionary party to embrace the boys, and then according to Jean Gourbeillon, Polding sat them on his knees and caressed them. ¹⁰² No doubt Polding considered these boys (and the other indigenous children who occasionally lived at the Monastery) as possible vocations to the Benedictine Order. Regrettably, after 6 February 1848, the Benedictine Journal is silent about their outcome.

John David Murra – ‘The little black boy’

Another entry in the Benedictine Journal relates to the ‘fostering’ of an indigenous child during Davis’ period at St Mary’s. His name was John David Murra, aged about seven or eight years of age. It was the intention of Polding that Murra be sent to Europe to be trained for the religious life in a Benedictine monastery. The Benedictine Journal reported:

‘A short time since, a child belonging to one of the Aborigines, was sent to the Archbishop – he is about 7 or 8 years of age – His Grace intends to have him educated for the sacred ministry. This evening, the Bishop Coadjutor baptised him – he received the name of John David. In a few days he will be sent to England & from thence to Genoa to the Benedictine Monastery there.’ ¹⁰³

On the same date Davis wrote to Thomas Heptonstall:

‘The Archbishop has written to you … informing you of his having sent a little aboriginal boy under the care of Captain Jones, to be entrusted to your care by the Captain. His Grace has fully explained to you the object of sending this little black to Europe.’ ¹⁰⁴

Sadly, the letter from Polding to Heptonstall described by Davis appears to be lost. Davis wrote to Heptonstall the following day, but in more detail regarding the acquisition and departure of John David Murra. Davis’ letter is reproduced in its entirety: ¹⁰⁵

Mr dear Confrere,

Did Davis and Polding consider the rights and needs of Murra given they believed they were acting in his better interests sending him to Europe to have ‘him educated for the sacred ministry’? ¹⁰⁶ Regrettably, the same tensions and complexities in balancing the human rights of Australia’s Indigenous community in contemporary Australia reappear in Davis’ correspondence. Why did Davis and Polding consider they had the authority to impede Murra’s right to remain distinctly Indigenous and pursue his own social and cultural development within his clan? Davis acknowledged ‘we dare not keep him longer, for … they would be sure to steal him away.’ Even more tragically was Davis’ acknowledgement the boy’s father was ‘already sorry for having [given the boy up], and [was] longing to have him again.’ Davis ignored the father’s request to have his son returned, instead sending the boy overseas. This incident tragically underlines the misunderstandings of the time about the Australian Aborigines. In Davis’ and Polding’s opinion, Murra belonged to the Catholic Church. For that reason, they believed he could legitimately be sent away to live and train in Europe to become a Benedictine monk. Davis and Polding assumed a life in a Benedictine Monastery would be a time of spiritual solitude, education, refinement and dignity for Murra; free from the apparent disadvantages of living in the Australian bush as a nomadic Aborigine. They ignored his right to be able to take control of his future and decide how he would live it with the support of his community. Unfortunately, Davis and Polding were products of their time and probably would not have considered how the permanent separation from his family might have impacted on Murra. It seems ironic Davis’ letter closes with a request to forward personal letters to his mother and sister at the same time he was about to dissolve Murra’s own family links forever.

The last reference to Murra in any of the Sydney Benedictine documents appeared on 28 January 1851, ¹⁰⁷ less than twelve months after his departure from St Mary’s in March 1850. When Gregory was in Italy in 1852, he made no reference of Murra in any of his correspondence. Similarly, there was no mention of Murra in the letters of Polding during his time in Rome from June to September 1854 and again in October 1854 to May 1855. Likewise, there was nothing about Murra in any of Davis’ surviving correspondence. Was it possible Murra had been forgotten by the Sydney Benedictine community? It appears so. The ‘little black boy’ who Polding intended ‘to have … educated for the sacred ministry’ died in July 1857 at S. Giuliano monastery near Genoa at the age of fifteen. ¹⁰⁸ Whilst Polding’s silence remains baffling, Kavenagh suggested a possible reason why he failed to mention Murra in any of his correspondence:

‘Perhaps, the archbishop’s expectations had not been very realistic to begin with. How quickly could an eight-year old aboriginal boy, taken straight from the bush, have been expected to master both English and Italian, (speaking, reading and writing), while also having to adjust to an entirely strange new world? … John David had survived almost a decade of exile, but one cannot imagine what the last two years of his life at S. Giuliano were really like. Still less can one imagine his feelings as he faced death, thousands of miles from his own country and people.’ ¹⁰⁹

Appointments

Polding left Sydney on 13 May 1851 for the south-west area of New South Wales, returning to Sydney on 22 July 1851. ¹¹⁰ It was during 1851 that the discovery of gold in this area and in Victoria caused a significant growth in immigration. In addition to the rise in population, problems affecting the church began to emerge; specifically, an altered geographic pattern of religious needs. For instance, in 1851, the population of Melbourne was 23,000 people. In ten years, the population increased to 125,000. The emergence and growth of country towns placed additional pressure on religious demands. ¹¹¹ In New South Wales, the population had grown from 200,000 in 1851 to 357,000 in ten years; an increase of 78%. ¹¹² The sudden departure of most staff at Subiaco to the gold fields in May 1851 placed undue pressure on St Mary’s. Davis was obliged to relocate lay brothers from St Mary’s to Subiaco to work on the farm. ¹¹³ It is during this missionary journey that we see Davis acting confidently and with authority by his appointment of monks to various positions within the monastery, which evokes a context for the second half of Davis’ ministry in Sydney. Following Polding’s return to Sydney, Polding wrote to fellow Benedictine, Bishop Joseph Benedict Serra in Western Australia lamenting the effects of the gold rush on Catholicism. He writes:

‘I apprehend this gold mania will be productive of many moral and physical evils amongst us. All that you read in the papers, or nearly so, is founded on reality. I expect we shall have an invasion of worthless characters poured in upon us. And I fear very much that the abundance of gold will make more world loving the souls of our people than they are even now. No part of the world is in such spiritual poverty as we are.’ ¹¹⁴

During the ten weeks Polding was absent, Davis made what appears to have been eight appointments within the Monastery and at Subiaco. Davis appointed a Refectorian, a Supervisor of the Subiaco farm, Lay Brothers in the role of farm hands at Subiaco and a Superior of the Lay Brothers, a Clerk of the Cathedral, a Head of St Mary’s museum, a Cellerarius and prefect of the Refectory, and a Master of Postulants. On the day of Polding’s departure, Davis appointed a new Refectorian to the refurbished Refectory; an appointment ‘felt by the Brethren, as no small boon from Superiors.’ ¹¹⁵ Within a week of the new appointment, the Benedictine Journal also reported:

‘The refectorian’s department is going on admirably – Improvements daily – each one better than that of the preceding day – When going into the Refectory at supper time, some of the Brethren were surprised to feel an unusual softness in the step of the door, but it was soon discovered that the cause of this was a grand mat, placed there no doubt, in order that each one might purify his feet, before leaving this place of bodily refection, from the dust, before entering upon the passages leading to the choir.’ ¹¹⁶

The day after Polding’s departure, Davis travelled to Subiaco and appointed Br. Aemilian Fitzpatrick to supervise the running of the farm. Davis replaced Br. Benedict Casey, the former manager of Subiaco farm, assigning him to the position of Clerk of the Cathedral. ¹¹⁷ A few days later, Davis chose Br. Felician Bowler to care for St Mary’s museum; the fourth appointment made by Davis since Polding’s departure. Ironically, the Benedictine Journal reported ‘all will soon be ‘head men’; each one, as the current phrase has it ‘Rises a dignity upon himself’ – and gets an office.’ ¹¹⁸

The following day, Davis selected deacon Felix Sheridan, the then chaplain of Darlinghurst Gaol and ‘visiting clergyman’ to Cockatoo Island, to the positions of Cellerarius and Prefect of the Refectory. There was a formal and public ceremony installing Sheridan and investing in him ‘all the power and authority requisite for the due and right performance of his new duties.’ ¹¹⁹ The same entry acknowledged the appointment of Br. Laurence ‘to the dignified position of Master of Postulants extraordinary’ a few days earlier. ¹²⁰ Davis probably made these appointments in order that the monks might gain more experience within the monastery, as well as receive recognition within the community for their previous accomplishments. Because a significant number of monks were promoted to key positions, the more junior members of the community would have gained some experience in lower positions. Davis knew from his years at Downside about the benefits for a community to witness promotion on a large scale. He demonstrated at St Mary’s that moving ahead in the monastery was a possibility that could motivate the monks to perform better. Moreover, working in the same position for decades could become boring and cause the person to lose interest in, and loathe his job. Nearing the end of Polding’s journey to the south-west region, Davis made his final appointment at St Mary’s, specifically, Br. Felix Sheridan to the position of ‘Immediate Superior of the Lay Brothers.’ This was Sheridan’s third appointment during Polding’s absence.

The Benedictine Journal reported that whilst various appointments were seemingly ‘springing up every day,’ ¹²¹ each position was important and essential to the smooth running of the monastery. Davis evidently made these appointments in an endeavour to maintain Benedictine autonomy. To ensure this model became effective, Davis began cultivating a more closely bonded and empowered community by delegating additional monks to various positions of responsibility. These appointments aimed to ensure a greater stability within the monastery so that ‘in all things God may be glorified.’ ¹²² Presumably Polding accepted these new appointments on his return since there is no mention in the Benedictine Journal suggesting Polding withdrew any of these positions following his return.

As bishop, Davis had numerous other duties to perform, particularly during Polding’s absence. Whilst celebrating the Queen’s Birthday, it was usual for the postulants to attend the ‘Government Domain’ so they could observe the ‘review of the Troops.’ Davis created ‘another new dignity’ at the monastery by allowing the deacons to attend with the postulants. ¹²³ An example of Davis’ mediation in Benedictine community life is his intervention in a dispute between Br. Laurence Moore, Master of Postulants ¹²⁴ and Fr. Maurus O’Connell, ¹²⁵ the Vice-President of Lyndhurst. The disagreement was formally brought to the attention of Davis via a letter from Moore complaining of O’ Connell’s ‘improper conduct’ towards him. What is fascinating about Davis’ response was the methodical and logical way he replied to Moore’s allegations, thus allowing another glimpse into his character. The content of Moore’s letter was more or less ‘letting off steam.’ Davis’ reply was candid and pastoral. He counselled Moore regarding his duties and the expected behaviour under a duly appointed superior. Davis also advised Moore he would need to detail all allegations meticulously if he wanted the incident to be investigated further. Davis reminded Moore about his vow of ‘holy obedience’ and suggested that ‘if the fitness of any superior to govern were to be decided by one subject to him, there would, I apprehend, be an end to all authority.’ Davis also advised Moore he was ‘fully justified in representing to higher authority’ because of the behaviour of ‘an immediate or local superior’ if he believed he had been unjustly treated. Davis suggested Moore could appeal to a higher authority if he thought his superior interfered ‘with [his] duties as to lower [him] before those under [his] immediate charge, and render [his] authority over them contemptible.’ ¹²⁶

Davis added, however, that Moore’s allegations were of ‘so vague a nature that [he could] do little or nothing with it in its present form’ because O’ Connell would ‘probably plead innocent of the charge.’ Davis was curious as to why Moore failed to advise him earlier of the ‘improprieties on the part of Fr. M on the occasions of their occurrence.’ Given the ambiguity of the allegations, Davis nevertheless offered the following advice: ‘However it is not too late now, and I must therefore request that you will mention the times and other circumstances, connected with these improprieties in order that I may be able to investigate the evil, and, if possible, correct it.’ ¹²⁷ Davis recommended to Moore that since Polding appointed O’ Connell as the ‘immediate superior of Lyndhurst,’ part of O’ Connell’s responsibility was to make sure everyone under his charge were doing their jobs properly. Moreover, if O’ Connell believed it was necessary to bring Moore’s ‘attention either to a neglect or an inadvertent omission of any of your duties, [Davis did not] conceive that he was guilty of uncalled for interference.’ ¹²⁸ Davis’ response reveals a superior who sought to act in a pastoral way towards Moore, but also one who was guided by the Rule. Aspects of Benedict’s Rule emerge in Davis’ reply to Moore:

‘Let all keep their places in the monastery established by the time of their entrance, the merit of their lives and the decision of the Abbot … Except for those already mentioned, therefore, whom the Abbot has promoted by a special decision or demoted for definite reasons, all the rest shall take their order according to the time of their entrance. Let all keep their places in the monastery established by the time of their entrance.’ ¹²⁹

Davis closed his letter thus:

‘I shall be happy to comply with your request to have a private interview with me, if it be for the purpose of giving you counsel and comfort as your Superior and friend – but if complaints or charges against another are to be the subject of your communication with me, I must in common fairness either treat of this in the presence of that other, or have them distinctly and definitely written down in order that I may justly investigate them.

Davis reminded Moore that because O’ Connell was the more senior member of the community and through the ‘spirit of holy obedience,’ Moore should be more respectful towards him. Most likely no further action emerged subsequent to Davis’ reply to Moore. There appears to be no further extant correspondence. Moore was never ordained a priest. He left the Benedictine Order in 1856, a little over three years after writing his letter to Davis. O’ Connell remained a Benedictine priest until his death in 1901. What has become a common theme throughout the life of Davis thus far was his consistent ethic of life fostered particularly within the convict and orphanage system of colonial Sydney. The Benedictine Journal is not specific about who wrote the following statement read out at every Cathedral Mass on 19 September 1852. It concerned the public hanging of convict Francis Thomas Green that was to occur at 9 a.m. on 21 September 1852. ¹³¹ Since Polding had been absent from St Mary’s since March, it was probably written by Davis:

‘On Tuesday next, the extreme penalty of the Law will be inflicted upon one of our fellow creatures. The faithful are earnestly exhorted to refrain from indulging a gross and unchristian curiosity by being present on the occasion and Parents and Guardians, and others are particularly entreated not to allow their children to witness a scene, which as well on account of its own painful character, as on account of the depravity of those usually attending it, is highly calculated to shock and render callous the best feelings of our nature. Mass will be celebrated on that morning, in the Cathedral, at a quarter to 9, instead of half part 8 o’clock and the Faithful are earnestly entreated to be present.’ ¹³²

Davis’ public stance outlined in this letter must have made a big impact on the local Sydney community, since ‘notwithstanding the badness of the weather a large portion of the congregation was present [at the Cathedral] amongst whom was the Judge who condemned the unfortunate man.’ ¹³³ All Roman Catholic churches and convents in Sydney celebrated Masses for the soul of Francis Green. ¹³⁴ Green had reconciled his crimes with God and converted from ‘the Protestant religion’ to become a ‘fervent disciple of the Catholic Church’ under the guidance of Felix Sheridan. ¹³⁵ Pius IX (the then current Pope) and many of Pius’ predecessors agreed that a properly constituted State could lawfully put to death one convicted of a serious crime both for the protection of society and as a matter of justice. Davis may not have been necessarily opposed to the death penalty but as a decent human being and a Christian he did not want his people gloating over an unfortunate death nor exposing their children to it, instead organising Masses for the repose of Green’s soul.

Conclusion

Prominent aspects of Davis’ leadership and spirituality have been overlooked by Australian church historians. What is remarkable about him was his ability to assist Polding with the management of the Archdiocese, supervise the monastery in both ‘spiritual and temporal matters’ during Polding’s absences, and continue functioning in his other roles. Davis was a prodigious and good-natured leader who gained the respect of everyone he came into contact with. At the same time, it could be claimed he was a liturgical and educational visionary. Davis was pragmatic in the accomplishment of his episcopal duties. What is distinctive about him was his ability to discern the different rhythms of life not only in the monastery, but also in colonial Sydney. He recognised how God was acknowledged in these rhythms and he identified the beauty of God through prayer and music. At the same time, Davis regularly distinguished the consequence of sin in daily colonial life and was not afraid to acknowledge it. This article allows one to observe Davis grow into his role as Polding’s coadjutor. His loyalty to Polding was apparent, even though he may have disagreed with him on occasions. We see Davis’ involvement in the Farrelly dispute, and in particular we see how he worked with Polding and co-signed a letter to Pope Pius IX affirming Farrelly was unfit to be a priest and his accusations towards Polding were fabricated and defamatory.

At the heart of the Farrelly affair was a growing discontent amongst other monks regarding Polding’s ‘Benedictine Dream.’ Even Davis did not think this vision would endure. Firstly, the monastery with its lack of numbers was not in a position to satisfy the growing Catholic demands of the colony, but his allegiance to Polding obligated him to the existing order. Secondly, Davis was powerless to resolve the instability and melancholy that had engulfed the monastery by the early 1850s. ¹³⁶ Davis recognised the equality of the laity and the clergy, engaging lay people in significant Cathedral liturgies and community prayer, inviting them to work beside the monks in the grounds of the monastery on at least one occasion. Davis saw ‘Church’ as a living institution which included all baptised people. Davis’ (and Polding’s) treatment of John David Murra, an Indigenous Australian child, saw his permanent removal from his Indigenous family and his involuntary transportation to a monastery in Europe. Polding and Davis were products of the society in which they lived and genuinely believed they were acting in the boy’s best interests. Despite the pleas of the boy’s father, they believed it was their moral obligation not to return the boy to his family for the sake of converting him to Christianity. Regrettably, it seems the boy was forgotten by Polding, Gregory and Davis after leaving St Mary’s.

The morale at the monastery became low due to a number of factors: the Farrelly affair, the insubordination of some of the monks, and the splitting of the community by Polding following the opening of Lyndhurst College. Polding’s self-confidence and energy levels were low, and he felt disheartened especially by the increased questioning of his long-term vision for the colonial church and Rome’s initial support of Farrelly’s case. This resulted in Polding travelling to Rome in 1854 to offer his resignation as Archbishop of Sydney. Finally, Davis began appointing monks to various positions of leadership at St Mary’s, Subiaco and Lyndhurst during Polding’s (and Gregory’s) absences and he modified some customary liturgical practices in the monastery and Cathedral.