Hild of Whitby and the Ministry of Women in the Anglo-Saxon World

BY ANNE E. INMAN (PUBLISHED BY FORTRESS ACADEMIC, 2019)

Inman’s book offers a history of the life of Hild born from careful and skilful interrogation of primary sources and their context, and from which follows valuable debate about the role of women in the church in the Anglo-Saxon world. Inman argues that her study confirms that “abbesses once held positions of authority that were in many respects on a par with those of bishops and that they engaged in many pastoral, liturgical and sacramental activities, which, in the Catholic Church are now the sole preserve of the male priesthood.” (xi).

Inman highlights the importance of the works of Bede, and the lack of surviving writings from Hild, but carefully locates Hild in the texts of other important figures of her day. Inman raises questions about the accuracy of Bede’s account which we see perhaps most clearly in “Hild the Overseer”. Inman argues that Hild was likely the most educated believer in her region and, though Bede does not use the title “teacher”, other accounts show this must have been the case (118-119). She highlights the perhaps political tension that may have troubled Bede as he considered the role of the abbess in relation to that of a bishop. Inman tells us that “given her probable ordination to the clerical state when she became abbess, it would seem unlikely that she was also not a teacher and in that respect on a par with bishops” (122) but that identifying Hild as a teacher for Bede would “blur the distinction between abbess and bishop” (119).

Inman, as one would expect, carefully considers The Synod of Whitby and explains that “at the time of the Whitby Synod, Hild was the most influential Church leader in the north of England, and Whitby the leading Christian institution” (167) but it seems even she was not able to recognise the “profound changes that were to take place” (168). Inman’s examination of the different Celtic and Roman practices and debate is engaging, but her commentary on the significance of Wilfrid’s role in “The Aftermath” is particularly interesting and worthy of the chapter devoted to it.

In “Hild the Confessor” and “A Window into Ancient Liturgies”, Inman highlights the active ministry of Hild and is determined that the reader accept her significance. Inman tells us that “though a priest was needed for the celebration of the Eucharist to take place, it would seem that an abbess like Hild would take an active part in the Liturgy”, dispensing sacraments and especially anointing the sick (98). This is an important statement, though Inman recognises the context of her comment in relation to the number and availability of priests at this time. Inman’s study of St

Ita as well as Bede’s comments about Hild in relation to confession are compelling and result in Inman’s near certainty that “Hild heard confessions and set penances” (84), and that “Hild played an indispensable part” (85) as the sacrament of penance developed over the centuries. Inman explains “the innovations that Hild surely helped to consolidate remain part of the sacramental process to this day” (85). It is perhaps apt to note that in her consideration of Hild as a confessor, Inman accepts “if ‘confession’ is not ‘sacramental confession’ unless absolution is given, then there was no sacramental confession in the early medieval period” but “to argue a distinction between sacramental confession and disciplinary confession is to argue for a distinction that would not have been understood during this period and which simply did not exist.” (88).

Inman convincingly argues, through careful analysis, that Hild was a spiritual master of her time, and her influence should not be underplayed. Readers of Inman’s study will enjoy her academic rigour and bold advocacy for Hild, produced so that “her brilliant light might shine out more fully in the tradition that she helped to shape”. (204).

Miss Foster, recent Housemistress of St Margaret’s House, is now the principal lay chaplain of the College.

REVIEW BY FR PHILIP ROZARIO OSB OF

BY MARK H. SUTHERLAND (A78) IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEIL SUTHERLAND (A77) [AMAZON, 2020, AT £14.95 OR FREE IN THE KINDLE EDITION.]

Howpopulation growth and poverty interrelate remains hotly contested. This absorbing study of a landmark 1923 libel case between contraception enthusiast Marie Stopes and Dr Halliday Sutherland vividly depicts a culture in turmoil –channelled through the ordered passion of a lawsuit.

Darwin’s Origin of Species had encouraged reflection on how selective breeding might improve livestock quality. The human dimension was added by Francis Galton’s realisation that transmission of hereditary traits was traceable between successive generations: hence “eugenics” – from the Greek for “good” and “breeding.”

Dr Marie Stopes’ opening in London (1921) of the British Empire’s first birth-control clinic arose from this cultural ferment and offered a focus for intense argument on deeper issues around provision and promotion of contraceptives.

In Exterminating Poverty, the defendant’s grandsons, Mark and Neil Sutherland, vividly revive clashing popular, legal and medical positions on birth control, skilfully highlighting widespread assumptions that contraception was an obvious social benefit. In Stopes’ words this would: “furnish security from conception to [the] racially diseased, already overburdened with children, or in any specific way unfitted for parenthood.” Dissenters were readily cast as unenlightened reactionaries.

Human ‘stock management’ was bluntly promoted, as in the Daily Mail:

Are these puny-faced….feeble, ungainly withered children the young of an imperial race? Why has Mrs. Jones had nine children, six died, one defective? [Should not] the leisured, the wise, tell her the facts of life, the meaning of what she is doing, and ought to do?...Mrs. Jones is destroying the race.

Fears of military defeat also emerged. Lloyd George insisted: “you cannot maintain an A1 Empire with a C3 population.”

Stopes – a noted palaeobotanist and first female lecturer at the University of Manchester – first gained prominence with her best-selling Married Love (1918); followed by Wise Parenthood (1918) and Radiant Motherhood (1920). The latter noted:

“…the vast and ever-increasing stock of degenerate, feeble-minded and unbalanced who are now in our midst and who devastate social customs. These populate most rapidly, these tend proportionately to increase, and are like the parasite upon the healthy tree...”

On founding the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress in 1921, Stopes’ insistence on “the sterilization of those totally unfitted for parenthood made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory” was broadly shared by cultural heavyweights such as HG Wells, Bertrand Russell and Maynard Keynes. She also recommended X-rays to sterilize both sexes.

In the 1922 general election, Stopes urged candidates to: “agree that the present position of breeding chiefly from the C3 population and burdening and discouraging the A1 is nationally deplorable…”

Enter Dr. Halliday Sutherland; received into the Catholic church soon after Great War service. His opposition to eugenics and reproductive control predated his conversion. He was attracted to Catholicism by its clear opposition to these – not vice versa. Sutherland’s position on the poverty/contraception issue was already on record: “So far from high birth rates being the cause of poverty…poverty is one of the causes of a high birth rate.”

In 1921, George V’s doctor (Lord Dawson of Penn) spoke in favour of contraception – presaging the Anglican volte face at the 1930 Lambeth Conference. The Catholic Church was left to defend the immemorial Christian stance.

In The Evils of Artificial Birth Control Sutherland attacked Stopes’ clinic and her eugenic programme, describing the poor as “natural victims of those seeking to [experiment] on their fellows” – a clear reference to Stopes.

Legal opinion held that his statement was defamatory, the only available defence being Justification – i.e. that his assertions were true in substance and fact. However, if Sutherland’s attempt to establish the truth of his claims were unsuccessful, he would risk being sued for “aggravation of the original injury.” With help from Cardinal Bourne, and Sunday Mass special collections, Sutherland was able to pay initial legal costs.

A second line of defence was that Stopes had had the ‘Gold Pin’ pessary applied to her clients. The crucial issue was that this device was seen as experimental, with uncertain effects and a possible abortifacient. Abortion was at that time still illegal.

With a high-powered legal team, Stopes seemed certain to win. However, there were at least two potential Achilles’ heels. Stopes – heedless of advice – liked to speak at length about her broader racial and social program. This eroded the image of a selfless charitable woman as portrayed in the opening speech on her behalf. It also showed her work as publicly significant – hence a reasonable target of criticism.

The Gold Pin also refused to ‘disappear.’ One of Stopes’ witnesses admitted that –having opened the way to conception – the Pin tended later to induce abortion. Stopes’ dilemma was that if she knew the Pin was abortifacient, she was inciting crime. Otherwise, she was experimenting on the poor – the very point at issue.

The turning-point came with disclosure of a letter from Stopes to Dr Norman Haire which effectively admitted that the Gold Pin was an experimental technique. It also revealed that she had lied in court and that her standards of care were below those to be expected of a physician.

Perhaps confused by the complexities, the jury gave a rather paradoxical verdict - holding the comments to be defamatory but true in substance and fact, yet not constituting fair comment. Judgement was given in favour of Sutherland. The Court of Appeal allowed Stopes’ appeal. However, the House of Lords restored the original verdict and awarded costs to Sutherland.

The authors skilfully summarise the witnesses for both sides, recreating the courtroom drama and highlighting the impact of effective and well-focused advocacy by counsel for both Stopes and Sutherland. Marie Stopes’ lack of self-awareness in revealing her wider eugenic goals was an unexpected windfall for the defendant.

After a further century, Stopes v Sutherland remains highly topical. Contraception –especially since the 1960s sexual revolution – is taken for granted in wider society. Bishop Charles Gore of the 1930 Lambeth Conference minority – and Cardinal Michael Browne OP at Vatican II who opposed the ambiguity of §50 of Gaudium et Spes on the relationship of openness to children to spousal love - saw clearly that a ‘nuclear bomb’ had been placed under the entire rationale for Christian marriage. The unquiet spirit of Marie Stopes remains to be firmly laid to rest.