www.newadvent.org Open in urlscan Pro
37.19.207.34  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

../utility/search.htm

<form id="searchbox_000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0" action="../utility/search.htm">
  <!-- Hidden Inputs -->
  <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active">
  <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0">
  <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:9">
  <!-- Search Box -->
  <label for="searchQuery" id="searchQueryLabel">Search:</label>
  <input id="searchQuery" name="q" type="text" size="25" aria-labelledby="searchQueryLabel">
  <!-- Submit Button -->
  <label for="submitButton" id="submitButtonLabel" class="visually-hidden">Submit Search</label>
  <input id="submitButton" type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" aria-labelledby="submitButtonLabel">
</form>

Text Content

 

Search: Submit Search



 Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Bible   Library 

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z 


Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > M > Western Monasticism


WESTERN MONASTICISM

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this
website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church
Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...


PRE-BENEDICTINE PERIOD

The introduction of monasticism into the West may be dated from about A.D. 340
when St. Athanasius visited Rome accompanied by the two Egyptian monks Ammon and
Isidore, disciples of St. Anthony. The publication of the "Vita Antonii" some
years later and its translation into Latin spread the knowledge of Egyptian
monachism widely and many were found in Italy to imitate the example thus set
forth. The first Italian monks aimed at reproducing exactly what was done in
Egypt and not a few — such as St. Jerome, Rufinus, Paula, Eustochium and the two
Melanias — actually went to live in Egypt or Palestine as being better suited to
monastic life than Italy. As however the records of early Italian monasticism
are very scanty, it will be more convenient to give first a short account of
early monastic life in Gaul, our knowledge of which is much more complete.




GAUL

The first exponent of monasticism in Gaul seems to have been St. Martin, who
founded a monastery at Ligugé near Poitiers, c. 360 (see LIGUGE; ST. MARTIN OF
TOURS). Soon after he was consecrated Bishop of Tours; he then formed a
monastery outside that city, which he made his customary residence. Although
only some two miles from the city the spot was so retired that Martin found
there the solitude of a hermit. His cell was a hut of wood, and round it his
disciples, who soon numbered eighty, dwelt in caves and huts. The type of life
was simply the Antonian monachism of Egypt (see EASTERN MONASTICISM) and so
rapidly did it spread that, at St. Martin's funeral, two thousand monks were
present. Even more famous was the monastery of Lérins which gave to the Church
of Gaul some of its most famous bishops and saints. In it the famous Abbot John
Cassian settled after living for seven years among the monks of Egypt, and from
it he founded the great Abbey of St. Victor of Marseilles. Cassian was
undoubtedly the most celebrated teacher that the monks of Gaul ever had, and his
influence was all on the side of the primitive Egyptian ideals. Consequently we
find that the eremitical life was regarded as being the summit or goal of
monastic ambition and the means of perfection recommended were, as in Egypt,
extreme personal austerities with prolonged fasts and vigils, and the whole
atmosphere of ascetical endeavour so dear to the heart of the Antonian monk (see
JOHN CASSIAN; FRANCE; ST. CAESARIUS OF ARLES; LE´RINS, etc.).


CELTIC MONASTICISM (IRELAND, WALES, SCOTLAND)

Authorities are still divided as to the origin of Celtic monasticism, but the
view most commonly accepted is that of Mr. Willis Bund which holds it to have
been a purely indigenous growth and rejects the idea of any direct connexion
with Gallic or Egyptian monasticism. It seems clear that the first Celtic
monasteries were merely settlements where the Christians lived together —
priests and laity, men, women, and children alike — as a kind of religious clan.
At a later period actual monasteries both of monks and nuns were formed, and
later still the eremitical life came into vogue. It seems highly probable that
the ideas and literature of Egyptian or Gallic monachism may have influenced
these later developments, even if the Celtic monasticism were purely independent
in origin, for the external manifestations are identical in all three forms.
Indeed the desire for austerities of an extreme character has always remained a
special feature of Irish asceticism down to our own time. Want of space forbids
any detailed account of Celtic monasticism in this place but the following
articles may be referred to: (for Ireland) ARMAGH, BANGOR, CLONARD, CLONFERT,
CLONMACNOISE, LISMORE, BOBBIO, LUXEUIL, SAINTS PATRICK, CARTHAGE, COLUMBANUS,
COMGALL; (for Wales) LLANCARVAN, BANGOR, SAINTS ASAPH, DAVID, DUBRIC, GILDAS,
KENTIGERN; (for Scotland) SCHOOL OF IONA, ABBEY OF LINDISFARNE, SAINTS NINIAN,
COLUMBA, AIDAN. Undoubtedly, however, the chief glory of Celtic monasticism is
its missionary work, the results of which are to be found all over northwestern
Europe. The observance, at first so distinctive, gradually lost its special
character and fell into line with that of other countries; but, by that time,
Celtic monasticism had passed its zenith and its influence had declined.




ITALY

Like the other countries of Western Europe, Italy long retained a purely Eastern
character in its monastic observance. The climate and other causes however
combined to render its practice far harder than in the lands of its origin. In
consequence the standard of observance declined, and it is clear from the
Prologue to St. Benedict's Rule that by his day the lives of the monks left much
to be desired. Moreover there was as yet no fixed code of laws to regulate the
life either of the monastery or of the individual monk. Each house had its own
customs and practices, its own collection of rules dependent largely on the
choice of the abbot of the moment. There were certainly in the West translations
of various Eastern codes, e.g., the Rules of Pachomius and Basil and another
attributed to Macarius. There were also St. Augustine's famous letter (Ep.,
ccxi) on the management of convents of nuns, and also the writings of Cassian,
but the only actual Rules of Western origin were the two by St. Caesarius for
monks and nuns respectively, and that by St. Columbanus, none of which could be
called a working code for the management of a monastery. In a word monachism was
still waiting for the man who should adapt it to Western needs and circumstances
and give to it a special form distinct from that of the East. This man was found
in the person of St. Benedict (480-543).


THE SPREAD OF ST. BENEDICT'S RULE

Full details of St. Benedict's legislation, which had such immense effects on
the monasticism of Western Europe, will be found in the articles ST. BENEDICT OF
NURSIA and RULE OF ST. BENEDICT. It is sufficient here to point out that St.
Benedict legislated for the details of the monastic life in a way that had never
been done before either in East or West. It is clear that he had acquainted
himself thoroughly with the lives of the Egyptian fathers of the desert, with
the writings of St. Basil, Cassian, and Rufinus; and in the main lines he has no
intention of departing from the precedents set by these great authorities. Still
the standard of asceticism aimed at by him, as was inevitable in the West, is
less severe than that of Egypt or Syria. Thus he gives his monks good and ample
food. He permits them to drink wine. He secures a sufficient period of unbroken
sleep. His idea was evidently to set up a standard that could and should be
attained by all the monks of a monastery, leaving it to individual inspiration
to essay greater austerities if the need of these were felt by any one. On the
other hand, probably as a safeguard against the relaxations mentioned above, he
requires a greater degree of seclusion than St. Basil had done. So far as
possible all connexion with the world outside the monastery is to be avoided. If
any monk be compelled by duty to go beyond the monastery enclosure he is
forbidden on his return to speak of what he has seen or heard. So too no monk
may receive gifts or letters from his friends or relatives without permission of
the abbot. It is true that guests from without are to be received and
entertained, but only certain monks specially chosen for the purpose nay hold
intercourse with them.

Perhaps, however, the chief point in which St. Benedict modified the
pre-existing practice is his insistence upon the stabilitas loci. By the special
Vow of Stability he unites the monk for life to the particular monastery in
which his vows are made. This was really a new development and one of the
highest importance. In the first place by this the last vestige of personal
freedom was taken away from the monk. Secondly it secured in each monastery that
continuity of theory and practice which is so essential for the family which St.
Benedict desired above everything. The abbot was to be a father and the monk a
child. Nor was he to be more capable of choosing a new father or a new home than
any other child was. After all St. Benedict was a Roman, and the scion of a
Roman patrician family, and he was simply bringing into the monastic life that
absolute dependence of all the members of a family upon the father which is so
typical of Roman law and usage. Only at the selection of a new abbot can the
monks choose for themselves. Once elected the abbot's power becomes absolute;
there is nothing to control him except the Rule and his own conscience which is
responsible for the salvation of every soul entrusted to his care.

The Rule of St. Benedict was written at Monte Cassino in the ten or fifteen
years preceding the saint's death in 543, but very little is known of the way in
which it began to spread to other monasteries. St. Gregory (Dial., II, xxii)
speaks of a foundation made from Monte Cassino at Terracina, but nothing is
known of this house. Again the traditions of Benedictine foundations in Gaul and
Sicily by St. Maurus and St. Placid are now generally discredited. Still the
Rule must have become known very soon, for by the death of St. Simplicius, the
third abbot of Monte Cassino, in line from St. Benedict, it is referred to as
being observed throughout Italy. In the year 580 Monte Cassino was destroyed by
the Lombards and the monks fled to Rome, taking with them the autograph copy of
the Rule. They were installed by Pelagius II in a monastery near the Lateran
Basilica. It is almost certain that St. Gregory the Great who succeeded Pelagius
II introduced the Benedictine Rule and observance into the monastery of St.
Andrew which he founded on the Coelian Hill at Rome, and also into the six
monasteries he founded in Sicily. Thanks to St. Gregory the Rule was carried to
England by St. Augustine and his fellow monks; and also to the Frankish and
Lombard monasteries which the pope's influence did much to revive. Indirectly
too, by devoting the second book of his "Dialogues" to the story of St.
Benedict's life and work, Gregory gave a strong impetus to the spread of the
Rule. Thus the first stage in the advance of St. Benedict's code across Western
Europe is closely bound up with the name of the first monk-pope.

In the seventh century the process continued steadily. Sometimes the Benedictine
code existed side by side with an older observance. This was the case at Bobbio
where the monks lived either under the rule of St. Benedict or St. Columbanus,
who had founded the monastery in 609. In Gaul at the same period a union of two
or more rules was often to be found, as at Luxeuil, Solignac, and elsewhere. In
this there was nothing surprising, indeed the last chapter of St. Benedict's
rule seems almost to contemplate such an arrangement. In England, thanks to St.
Wilfrid of York, St. Benedict Biscop and others, the Benedictine mode of life
began to be regarded as the only true type of monachism. Its influence however
was still slight in Ireland where the Celtic monasticism gave way more slowly.
In the eighth century the advance of Benedictinism went on with even greater
rapidity owing principally to the efforts of St. Boniface. That saint is known
as the Apostle of Germany although the Irish missionaries had preceded him
there. His energies however were divided between the two tasks of converting the
remaining heathen tribes and bringing the Christianity of the Irish converts
into line with the Roman use and obedience. In both these undertakings he
achieved great success and his triumph meant the destruction of the earlier
Columban form of monasticism. Fulda, the great monastery of St. Boniface's
institution, was modelled directly on Monte Cassino in which Sturm the abbot had
resided for some time so that he might become perfectly acquainted with the
workings of the Rule at the fountain head, and in its turn Fulda became the
model for all German monasteries. Thus by the reign of Charlemagne the
Benedictine form of monasticism had become the normal type throughout the West
with the sole exception of some few Spanish and Irish cloisters. So completely
was this the case that even the memory of earlier things had passed away and it
could be gravely doubted whether monks of any kind at all had existed before St.
Benedict and whether there could be any other monks but Benedictines.



At the time of Charlemagne's death in 814 the most famous monk in western Europe
was St. Benedict of Aniane, the friend and counsellor of Louis the new emperor.
For him Louis built a monastery near his imperial palace at Aix, and there
Benedict gathered thirty monks, chosen from among his own personal friends and
in full sympathy with his ideas. This monastery was intended to be a model for
all the religious houses of the empire, and the famous Assembly of 817 passed a
series of resolutions which touched upon the whole range of the monastic life.
The object of these resolutions was to secure, even in the minutest details, an
absolute uniformity in all the monasteries of the empire, so that it might seem
as if "all had been taught by one single master in one single spot". As might
have been expected the scheme failed to do this, or even anything approaching
thereto, but the resolutions of the Assembly are of high interest as the first
example of what are nowadays called "Constitutions", i.e. a code, supplementary
to the Holy Rule, which shall regulate the lesser details of everyday life and
practice. The growth of the Benedictine monasticism and its development during
the period known as the "Benedictine centuries" will be found treated in the
article BENEDICTINES, but it may be stated broadly that, while it had of course
its periods of vigour and decline, no serious modification of St. Benedict's
system was attempted until the rise of Cluny in the early part of the tenth
century.


THE RISE OF CLUNY

The essential novelty in the Cluniac system was its centralization. Hitherto
every monastery had been a separate family, independent of all the rest. The
ideal of Cluny, however, was to set up one great central monastery with
dependent houses, numbered even by the hundred, scattered over many lands and
forming a vast hierarchy or monastic feudal system under the Abbot of Cluny. The
superior of every house was nominated by the Abbot of Cluny, every monk was
professed in his name and with his sanction. It was in fact more like an army
subject to a general than St. Benedict's scheme of a family with a father to
guide it, and for two centuries it dominated the Church in Western Europe with a
power second only to that of the papacy itself. (See CLUNY; ST. BERNO; ST. ODO;
HUGH THE GREAT.) Anything indeed more unlike the primitive monasticism with its
caves and individualism than this elaborate system with the pomp and
circumstance which soon attended it could hardly be imagined, and the instinct
which prompted men to become monks soon began to tell against a type of
monasticism so dangerously liable to relapse into mere formalism. It must be
understood however that the observance of Cluny was still strict and the
reaction against it was not based on any need for a reform in morals or
discipline. The abbots of Cluny during the first two centuries of its existence,
with the sole exception of Pontius (1109) who was soon deposed, were men of
great sanctity and commanding ability. In practice however the system had
resulted in crushing all initiative out of the superiors of the subordinate
monasteries and so, when a renewal of vigour was needed there was no one capable
of the effort required and the life was crushed out of the body by its own
weight. That this defect was the real cause why the system failed is certain.
Nothing is more remarkable in the history of Benedictine monasticism than its
power of revival by the springing up of renewed life from within. Again and
again, when reform has been needed, the impetus has been found to come from
within the body instead of from outside it. But in the case of Cluny such a
thing had been rendered practically impossible, and on its decline no recovery
took place.


REACTION AGAINST CLUNY

The reaction against Cluny and the system of centralization took various forms.
Early in the eleventh century (1012) came the foundation of the Camaldolese by
St. Romuald. This was a hark back to the ancient Egyptian ideal of a number of
hermits living in a "laura" or collection of detached cells which were situated
some considerable distance apart (see CAMALDOLESE). A few years later (1039) St.
John Gualbert founded the Order of Vallombrosa which is chiefly important for
the institution of "lay brothers", as distinct from the choir monks, a novelty
which assumes high importance in later monastic history (see LAY-BROTHER;
VALLOMBROSA). In 1074 came the Order of Grammont which however did not move to
the place from which its name is derived until 1124 (see GRAMMONT; ST. STEPHEN
OF MURET). Far more important than these was the establishment in 1084 of the
Carthusians by St. Bruno, at the Grande Chartreuse near Grenoble, which boasts
that it alone of the great orders has never required to be reformed (see
CARTHUSIANS; LA GRANDE CHARTREUSE; ST. BRUNO). In all these four institutes the
tendency was towards a more eremitical and secluded form of life than that
followed by the Benedictines, but this was not the case in the greatest of all
the foundations of the period, viz. the Cistercians.

The Cistercians derived their name from Cîteaux near Dijon where the Order was
founded about 1098 by St. Robert of Molesme. The new development differed from
that of Cluny in this that, while Cluny established one scattered family of vast
size, Cîteaux preserved the idea that each monastery was an individual family
but united all these families into one "Order" in the modern sense of an
organized congregation. The Abbot and House of Cîteaux was to be pre-eminently
for ever over all the monasteries of the order. The abbots of all the other
monasteries were to assemble at Cîteaux in general chapter every year. The
purpose of this was to secure in every monastery a complete uniformity in the
details of observance, and this uniformity was to be made even more certain by a
yearly visitation of each house. The Abbot of Cîteaux possessed the further
right of visiting any and every monastery at will, and though he was not to
interfere with the temporalities of any house against the wishes of the abbot
and brethren, in all matters of discipline his power was absolute. This
elaborate system was set forth in the famous document known as the "Carta
Caritatis" and in it for the first time the expression "Our Order" is used in
the modern sense. Previously the word, as used in the phrase "the monastic
order" had denoted the mode of life common to every monastery. In the "Carta
Caritatis" it is used to exclude all monastic observance not exactly on the
lines of the "new monastery", i.e., Cîteaux, and subject to it. The monasteries
of the Cistercians spread over Europe with surprising rapidity and from the
colour of their habit the monks were called the "White Monks", the older
Benedictines and Cluniacs being known as the "Black Monks" (see CISTERCIANS;
CITEAUX; ST. ROBERT OF MOLESME; ST. BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX.)

The impetus given by these new foundations helped to revitalize the Benedictine
monasteries of the older type, but at the same time a new influence was at work
upon western monasticism. Hitherto the monastic ideal had been essentially
contemplative. Certainly the monks had undertaken active work of many kinds but
always as a kind of accident, or to meet some immediate necessity, not as a
primary object of their institute nor as an end in itself. Now however religious
foundations of an active type began to be instituted, which were dedicated to
some particular active work or works as a primary end of their foundation. Of
this class were the Military Orders, the Templars, Hospitallers, and Teutonic
Knights; numerous Institutes of canons, e.g., Augustinians, Premonstratensians,
and Gilbertines; the many Orders of friars, e.g. Carmelites, Trinitarians,
Servites, Dominicans, and Franciscans or Friars Minor. Of these and the
multitudinous modern foundations of an active character, as distinct from a
contemplative or monastic one, this article does not profess to treat; they will
be found fully dealt with in the general article RELIGIOUS ORDERS and also
individually in separate articles under the names of the various orders and
congregations. It must be recognized however that these active institutions
attracted a vast number of vocations and to that extent tended to check the
increase and development of the monastic order strictly so called, even while
their fervour and success spurred the older institutes to a renewal of zeal in
their special observances.

The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 passed certain special canons to regulate
monastic observance and prevent any falling away from the standard set up. These
directions tended to adapt the best features of the Cistercians system, e.g. the
general chapters, to the use of the Black monks, and they were a great step in
the path which later proved so successful. At the time however they were
practically ignored by the monasteries on the Continent, and only in England was
any serious effort made to put them into practice. The consequence was that the
English monasteries of Black monks soon formed themselves into one national
congregation, the observance throughout the country became largely uniform, and
a far higher standard of life obtained than was common in continental
monasteries at the same period. The system of periodic general chapters ordered
by the Lateran Council was maintained. So too was the subjection of all
monasteries to the diocesan bishops as a normal state of affairs; indeed only
five abbeys in all England were exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. There were
of course failures here and there, but it is clear that, from the date of the
Council of Lateran up to the time of their destruction, the English Benedictine
houses maintained on the whole a good standard of discipline and preserved the
affectionate respect of the great majority of the laity in every rank of life.


PERIOD OF MONASTIC DECLINE

On the Continent the period succeeding the Fourth Lateran Council was one of
steady decline. The history of the time tells of civil disturbance, intellectual
upheaval, and a continual increase of luxury among ecclesiastics as well as
laymen. The wealth of the monasteries was tempting and the great ones both in
Church and State seized upon them. Kings, nobles, cardinals, and prelates
obtained nominations to abbeys "in commendam" and more often than not absorbed
the revenues of houses which they left to go to ruin. Vocations grew scarce and
not unfrequently the communities were reduced to a mere handful of monks living
on a trifling allowance doled out to them none too willingly by the layman or
ecclesiastic who claimed to be their commendatory abbot. Efforts to check these
evils were not wanting especially in Italy. The Sylvestrines, founded by St.
Sylvester de Gozzolini about the middle of the thirteenth century, were
organized on a system of perpetual superiors under one head, the Prior of Monte
Fano, who ruled the whole congregation as general assisted by a chapter
consisting of representatives from each house (see SYLVESTRINES). The
Celestines, founded about forty years later by St. Peter Morone (Celestine V),
were organized on much the same plan but the superiors were not perpetual and
the head of the whole body was an abbot elected by the General Chapter for three
years and ineligible for reelection for nine years after his previous term of
office (see CELESTINES; ST. CELESTINE V). The Olivetans, founded about 1313 by
Bernardo Tolomei of Siena, mark the last stage of development. In their case the
monks were not professed for any particular monastery, but, like friars, for the
congregation in general. The officials of the various houses were chosen by a
small committee appointed for this purpose by the general chapter. The
abbot-general was visitor of all the monasteries and "superior of superiors",
but his power was held for a vary short period only. This system had the very
great advantage that it rendered the existence of commendatory superiors
practically impossible, but it secured this at the cost of sacrificing all
family life in the individual monastery which is the central idea of St.
Benedict's legislation. Further, by taking the right of election away from the
monastic communities, it concentrated all real power in the hands of a small
committee, a course obviously open to many possible dangers (see OLIVETANS).


MONASTIC REVIVAL

In the great wave of reform and revival which characterized the later fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries the older institutions of Benedictines once more gave
proof of their vitality and a spontaneous renewal of vigour was shown throughout
Europe. This revival followed two main lines. In the Latin countries the
movement pursued the path marked out by the Olivetans. Thus in Italy all the
monasteries of Black monks were gradually united together under the name of the
Congregation of St. Justina of Padua, afterwards called the Cassinese
Congregation (see under BENEDICTINES). Similar methods were adopted in the
formation of the Congregations of St. Maur and St. Vannes in France, in the two
Congregations of Spanish Benedictines, and in the revival of the English
Congregation. In Germany the revival took a different path; and, while keeping
closer to the traditions of the past, united the existing monasteries very much
in the manner ordered by the Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215. The Union of
Bursfeld is perhaps the best example of this method. An example of reform in the
seventeenth century was the work of Abbé de Rance in instituting the Cistercian
reform at La Trappe. In this his object was to get as close as possible to the
principal form of Benedictine life. No one can question his sincerity or the
singleness of his intentions, but de Rance was not an antiquary and had not been
trained as a monk but as a courtier. The result was that he interpreted St.
Benedict's rule with the most absolute literalness, and thus succeeded in
producing a cast-iron mode of life far more rigid and exacting than there is any
reason to believe St. Benedict himself either desired to or did beget. The
upheaval of the French Revolution and the wars which followed it seemed likely
to give a deathblow to Western monasticism and in fact did destroy monasteries
by the hundred. But nothing perhaps is more noteworthy, in all the wonderful
revival of Catholicism which the last hundred years have seen, than the
resuscitation of monastic life in all its forms, not only in Europe, but also in
America, Africa, Australia, and other distant lands whose very existence was
unknown to the founders of Western monasticism. Details of this revival will be
found in the articles on the various orders and congregations referred to above.

No mention has been made in this article of the question of women under
monasticism. Broadly speaking the history of contemplative nuns, as distinct
from nuns of the more recent active orders, has been identical with that of the
monks. In almost every instance the modifications, reforms, etc., made by the
various monastic legislators have been adopted by convents of women as well as
by the monks. In cases where any special treatment has been thought necessary,
e.g. the Carthusian nuns, a separate section of the article on the order or
congregation in question has been dedicated to the subject. These sections
should be referred to in all cases for detailed information. (For practical
details of the monastic life and the actual working of a monastery see the
articles MONASTICISM; MONASTERY; ABBEY; ABBOT; ABBESS; OBEDIENTIARIES; RULE OF
ST. BENEDICT; ST. BENEDICT OF NURSIA; NUN.)




ABOUT THIS PAGE

APA citation. Huddleston, G. (1911). Western Monasticism. In The Catholic
Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10472a.htm

MLA citation. Huddleston, Gilbert. "Western Monasticism." The Catholic
Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10472a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Marie Jutras.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,
Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address
is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I
greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical
errors and inappropriate ads.

Copyright © 2023 by New Advent LLC. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

CONTACT US | ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT