Panic about damaged religious reputation and sexual accusation caused by the publication of the Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk was quickly followed by questions regarding the truth of the novel, the existence of the author, and the questions about what to believe that were left unanswered. Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk added fuel to the feud between the Protestant and Catholic faiths. While Protestants used the novel to illustrate why Catholics were immoral, Catholics responded with disgust at the thought that people would believe such slander.
Determined to prove Monk's story false, Catholics released a variety of rebuttals in the form of newspapers,
advertisements, and refuting novels. Soon after the novel's initial publication, the Catholic Telegraph
released the statement miserable fanatics, these murderers of reputation, would rather see the heavens fall than
do justice to an injured Catholic
(Maria,
Catholic 301). The harsh language used in this reaction displays the
anger Catholics felt about this false portrayal. Additionally, the author is retaliating by questioning the morality
of Protestants by calling them murderers
and stating their unwillingness to help someone who needs it. This article
also goes on to identify statements made in the novel that are false. Two errors identified are Monk's description of
the convent's walls and the identification of Monk's child's true father.
In addition to resources stating that Maria Monk's account is in fact fiction, another book, Awful Exposure
of the Atrocious Plot,was published in 1836 as a direct rebuttal to Monk's story. The author points out errors
throughout the novel and claims that the novel's purpose is to harm the Catholic reputation. For example, this book
states that the lack of dates and a timeline correlates with its inaccurate portrayal because there is no evidence to
support the claims Maria Monk
is making and the depiction of the architecture in the convent is inaccurate.
To refute the rebuttal and attempt to redeem the reputation of Maria Monk, a second book, Further disclosures by
Maria Monk, claiming to be written by Maria Monk, was published in 1837 and addresses the points made in the Awful
Exposure and attempts to explain why those mistakes were made. This book reads as rushed and desperate to prove itself
as true, which may have led readers to further question the authenticity of the original novel.
Though Protestant and Catholic newspapers had very opposing reactions to the release of the novel, some sources managed to stay neutral amongst the chaos. One literary source, produced March 1st, 1836, draws attention to both sides of the conflict and does not explicitly state the author's opinion regarding whether the novel is accurate depiction of the Catholic faith or not.The article states that this novel deserves punishment, unless it is true, indicating that the truth of the novel was still unknown and under question at this time. Despite the uncertainty, this source states:
in glancing through the pages of the book in question, we must confess that it wears at least the semblance of truth; for crimes to which we cannot give a name, are alluded to in the fewest possible words, instead of being depicted in a manner that would tend to deprave the mind. And corrupt the passions, as would probably have been the case, had the writer intended it solely for pecuniary speculation.
This response demonstrates that even if the novel is proven false, it may have lasting impacts on the
Catholic reputation because the stories depicted in it must have come from somewhere. In addition to accusing
Catholics of having horrific practices like those depicted throughout Monk's novel, this article also challenges
Monk herself. It states, The book has been proved to be a base forgery, it having been discovered that it is a
translation from an old book in the Spanish language and its author has been disowned from the Methodist connexion,
of which he pretended to be a minister.
Although we do not know which Spanish book is referred to here, the charge of
plagiarism further stacks the deck against Maria Monk's authenticity as an author. The idea that the book was forged
and was based on the Protestant faith rather than the Catholic faith raises serious questions. If the book were
plagiarized, the real author merely used her name to sell books. Additionally, the popularity of Monk's and the
Spanish author's stories reinforces the idea that these types of books were extremely popular at the time because
people were looking to read books that confirmed their beliefs at the expense of others.
