Hawthorne, New York, Jul 11, 2017 / 01:34 pm (National Catholic Register).- Nathaniel Hawthorne added the “w” to his last name because one of his ancestors was John Hathorne, a Salem witch trial judge, and he wanted to distance himself from that legacy. Raised in a Calvinist milieu, Hawthorne was not a regular churchgoer, but as anyone who read The Scarlet Letter in high school knows, he was conversant with religious themes of sin, judgement, forgiveness, and mercy.
A supporter of Franklin Pierce, the 14th president of the United States, he was rewarded with a diplomatic post – the consulship in Liverpool, England. The Democratic Party did not nominate Pierce to run for a second term, however, and the Hawthorne family toured Portugal, France and Italy in late 1850’s after leaving that post.
Hawthorne’s wife, Sophia Peabody, had been raised a Unitarian and both Nathaniel and Sophia were influenced by the Transcendental Movement, being friends with Bronson Alcott, Henry David Thoreau, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. They had three children, Una, Julian, and Rose.
Nothing in the family background could have prepared them for the conversion of their youngest child to the Catholic Church – except perhaps those years in Europe where they encountered “the Roman Church” in art and architecture, music, culture and prayer.
Marriage, Conversion, and Separation
Rose Hawthorne’s conversion to Catholicism in 1891 shocked the family. Her father had died in 1864 and her mother moved the family to Dresden, Germany, where Rose met George Parsons Lathrop. Because of Franco-Prussian War, Sophia moved again, back to England. There she died in 1871; Rose and George were married later that year in an Anglican Church over the objections of her brother and sister; they thought it was too soon after their mother’s death and that Rose was too young and vulnerable to marry.
They had a troubled marriage; he abused alcohol and their only child Francis died of diphtheria in 1881. George edited The Atlantic Monthly and Rose wrote poetry. They lived in New London, Connecticut and took instruction from a Paulist, Father Alfred Young, and were received into the Church. Like many new converts, they were filled with zeal and worked for the Church together on several projects, including the Catholic Summer School Movement and a history of the Visitation Convent in Georgetown.
In 1895, Rose and George took the extraordinary step of asking the Catholic Church for a permanent separation – not an annulment of their marriage – because of George’s instability and alcoholism which endangered Rose. Neither would be free to marry until the other died, so they demonstrated their belief in the indissolubility of marriage and in the Sacrament of Matrimony even as they separated. George died of cirrhosis of the liver three years later.
A New Cause; A New Vocation
Rose had witnessed the decline and death of the poet, Emma Lazarus, who wrote the poem inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty, “The New Colossus.” Rose noted that although there had been no cure for Emma’s cancer, she had been comfortable and cared for during her illness. Rose began to think of those who suffered from the same disease without the same palliative care and studied nursing the New York Cancer Hospital. She went out to the poor in their tenements and opened Sister Rose’s Free Home on the lower East Side with the assistance of Alice Huber.
At the same time that she was engaged in such practical nursing and care for the poor. Rose attended daily Mass, went to Confession frequently, prayed, wrote (publishing a collection of family letters as Memories of Hawthorne), and worked to raise funds. At the urging of Father Clement Thuente, O.P., Rose and Alice became Third Order Dominicans.
On December 8, 1900, with the approval of the Archbishop of New York, Michael A. Corrigan, Rose founded a new religious order, the Servants of Relief for Incurable Cancer, and became its first Mother Superior with the name Mother Mary Alphonsa. She died on July 9, 1926 when she was 75 years old. Her parents had been married on July 9 in 1842.
Servant of God
The late Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York, approved the opening of her cause for canonization in 2003. She is now called a Servant of God.
Her story, with its hints of literary romance and reality of separation and sorrow, demonstrates how strong the call to holiness can be. Out of her disappointment and grief from her failed marriage, Rose Hawthorne Lathrop as Mother Mary Alphonsa found a new vocation and a way to serve the poor and destitute in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, as her order is known today, offers this prayer for her canonization on their website:
Lord God, in your special love for the sick, the poor and the lonely, you raised up Rose Hawthorne (Mother Mary Alphonsa) to be the servant of those afflicted with incurable cancer with no one to care for them. In serving the outcast and the abandoned, she strove to see in them the face of your Son. In her eyes, those in need were always “Christ’s Poor.”
Grant that her example of selfless charity and her courage in the face of great obstacles will inspire us to be generous in our service of neighbor. We humbly ask that you glorify your servant, Rose Hawthorne, on earth according to the designs of your holy will. Through her intercession, grant the favor that I now present (here make your request).
Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
…
This article was originally published by the National Catholic Register.
[…]
By 
Well, that’s a big fat lie.
Thankfully he addresses one subject at a time! One cause of divisive results! Typically journalists love to water down the affected subjects by drawing attention to other events!
Snort. Consider the source.
A source of scandal??? The Latin Mass? REALLY?? Can this guy exaggerate even more?? The opinions from the nest of vipers which is Germany hold no water for many in any case. .
Okay, Boomer.
Can you explain your cryptic comment? To whom is it addressed?
As I understand it, the phrase is a way to avoid substantial discussion by dismissing the opinions of any persons born from 1946 to 1964 (so, some 71 million people in the United States) as valueless because of when they were born.
Kasper has dedicated his life to fostering division by undermining and contradicting Church teaching on the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, the Real Presence etc. and by deliberately undermining Pope’s St John Paul Ii and Benedict XVI as a member of the Sankt Gallen mafia. Pot, meet kettle.
From Cardinal Kasper: “As far as I know, none of the bishops wants any schismatic act and there is a slowly growing number in the bishops’ conference who are resistant.”
About the German Synodal Way(ward) we have only “worries” and wishful thinking from Kasper. Perhaps the possibly shifting results of Kasper’s nose count of German bishops can be made as public as could be the also undocumented results of the Vatican survey regarding the Latin Mass?
The “slowly growing number” of resistant bishops rests on an originally small handful. I recall a reported 13 out of 69 bishops against the directions taken early by the synodal way. The schismatic and invalid blessing of homosexual unions is already a well-known “schismatic act”. From Rome, case-specific corrections would be most welcome, as such an approach could have been made against only those alleged traditionalist enclaves who reportedly reject the Second Vatican Council. Unlike the theology of Aquinas, for example, a similar precision in policy making is too-often vastly undervalued (but how to do this without being duped into creating photo-op martyrs and seemingly triggering the full-blown schism?)
As for the German Catholic laity: “The Catholic weekly newspaper Die Tagespost reported Sept. 17 [2020] that 53 percent of German Catholics said they were not interested in the Synodal Path” (https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2020/09/cologne-cardinal-warns-german-churchs-synodal-path-could-cause-schism/).
On the other hand, also in 2020, “conservative clerics were repeatedly outvoted by 80% to 90% when they tried to change the [unstructured membership] rules governing the [eventually “binding” synodal] talks” (https://www.ncronline.org/news/world/reformers-ideas-gain-momentum-german-synodal-way).
Apart from any future results, is the synodal-path process itself, in Germania, already schismatic?
This is the clerical equivalent of “You are a racist because you don’t agree with me.” EVERY single person who attends a Latin Mass rejcts Vatican II??? What world are these people living in? And he is a cardinal? So much for mercy and dialogue.