How did Fr. Rale die?

There are a few different accounts of how Fr. Rale died. According to Fr. de la Chasse (who received his information from an Abenaki who escaped the massacre), Fr. Rale was shot to death on coming out of his cabin in order to distract the English and give the women and children time to escape. Seven Indian chiefs tried to save him but were shot down. All of them died at the foot of a steel cross planted in the middle of the village.

Alternatively, English accounts hold that Fr. Rale was shot inside his cabin. As to what occurred inside the cabin, accounts differ. Some say that Fr. Rale was writing a letter to his superior when he was interrupted by the soldiers. Some said that Fr. Rale was firing out of the cabin and would neither “give quarter nor take none.” A later account has Fr. Rale inside his cabin, holding a fourteen year old English boy (captured in an Indian raid) hostage and stabbing him in fury on his capture. This only shows up in a much later source.

If one accepts that both parties intend to be honest (which one does not have to), a blended account would hold that Fr. Rale was shot in his cabin and that the natives laid their dead after the massacre at the foot of the steel cross. The refugee who reported back to Fr. de la Chasse saw the bodies below the cross and simply assumed that that was where they had died.

Were Fr. Rale’s more spiritual or political?

English accounts tend to attribute purely political motives to Fr. Rale. This fails to make sense of Fr. Rale’s priesthood. It is true that he did engage with political whom he believed could help defend the souls entrusted to his care, but it was always the good of souls that drove him.

Was Fr. Rale killed in hatred of the faith?

The French held that Fr. Rale was killed because he was a Catholic priest. There is some truth to this as priests were illegal on New England soil. It is also true that the English hated Catholics and this clearly reflected in the fervor against Fr. Rale leading up to the massacre.

However, the English defended their actions by saying that Fr. Rale was a belligerent in the war. Therefore they targeted him like one would any military opponent. Whether or not Fr. Rale was indeed a military opponent depends on what Fr. Rale’s true motivations were. If he really was only seeking justice for his tribe and their continued access to the sacraments, then killing the voice of conscience does not seem like merely taking out a military target. On the other hand, there may have been a serious misunderstanding as to what Fr. Rale was about, perhaps only partly clouded by prejudice.

The reason this is a key issue is that to be declared a martyr, one traditionally would have to be killed in the hatred of the faith. Pope Francis has recently allowed that dying for another person (like with St. Maximilian Kolbe) would also count as martyrdom. Under the newer criteria, Fr. Rale is clearly a martyr. Under the old criteria, it is harder to tell.

How do you spell “Rale?”

Many people get confused with the spelling of Fr. Rale’s name. He himself spells it different ways. Among the variations of name “Rale” you will find

• Rale

• Rasle

• Ralle

• Racle

• Rallee

Since the name is French, the correct pronunciation is rawl (like “John Rawls” without the “s”.)

Who actually had the rights to Norridgewock?

When Fr. Rale first established the mission at Norridgewock, the French claimed all territory as far east as Nova Scotia and as far west as the east bank of the Kennebec River in present day Maine. Fr. Rale’s mission was on the east bank river. The English did not acknowledge this claim and claimed territory as far east as the St. Croix River (the present day border of Maine and New Brunswick.)

Once the French lost Acadia in the Treaty of Utrecht in 1714, the political dynamics shifted. All French territory in Acadia was yielded to the English. However, the English assumed that all Indian territory (since they were allied with the French) would also belong to them. No Indian was part of the negotiations, and Indian territory was nowhere mentioned in the treaty. Therefore when the English began to build forts and trading posts on Indian territory, the Indians objected and Fr. Rale took up their cause.

In the end, Indian rights to Norridgewock was the hill that Fr. Rale died on. It had spiritual consequences since if the English took over the territory, then Fr. Rale would not be allowed to continue his mission there. The Norridgewock tribe would be without a priest and without the sacraments. However it practical implications as well. Norridgewock was the home of these people and the English could not presume to simply take over.

On the English end of things, since they had presumed that that was part of the treaty, they could not understand why their settlements were being attacked and burned. This difference is what caused Dummer’s War.

Was Fr. Rale the main cause of war, or did the Indians themselves believe in the cause behind Dummer’s War?

The French and Indian Wars took a terrible toll on native Americans. In the beginning of the wars they were the majority population in the territory of what is now Maine. By the end, their population was greatly diminished. The wars continued almost without relief from 1688 until 1724. During those wars, they could not tend to normal activities like planting crops, so hunger was a major problem. Casualties from the war left families devastated and destitute.

By the time we get to Dummer’s War in 1724, there was a major question of whether or not it was worth the fight. Fr. Rale did stand up for them and advised them not to capitulate to the English. Some have argued, therefore, that Fr. Rale wanted the war more than the Indians did, that without him, the war would not have happened. Given the stakes of the war, this seems unlikely. The Indians stood to lose everything under English rule, from their land, to their religion. While it is certainly imaginable that some were ready for peace at any cost, it also seems evident that others were not. Fr. Rale was used as a diplomat, a European in their corner who would know how European thought and worked, but the chiefs were the ones who made the ultimate decision.

Was Fr. Rale accessory to kidnapping by being pastor of an Indian tribe who used the practice as a means of war?

If you read 17th century accounts of the French and Indian Wars, one of the common complaints about Indian attacks was their habit of taking children captive. There is evidence that some of these children passed through Fr. Rale’s mission village in Norridgewock.

The question is whether or not Fr. Rale tacitly approved of this practice. He does write in his letters that he exhorted the Norridgewocks to observe the laws of war. Presumably, this indicates that he did not think their ordinary practices were in accord with such laws. A pastor can exhort those under his care, but once he has done so, there is a limit to how much responsibility he has for the actions of his flock. It seems that Fr. Rale did his best to take care of the English children who were captured. In cases where the children were orphaned, it seems that he arranged to have them brought to Montreal or Quebec where they could live in a less wild environment. One of these children (Esther Wheelwright) even became the first American born nun and was mother superior of the Ursuline convent in Quebec.

Did Fr. Rale stab a 14 year old boy in his cabin?

Very few historians take this claim seriously. The accusation comes decades after the event in the midst of an atmosphere of extreme prejudice against Catholics. There appear to be no credible motives for such behavior as it gained Fr. Rale nothing during the attack (nor could it have been expected to.) It also is not in keeping with Fr. Rale’s character. A man who sacrifices everything for love Jesus Christ and for souls is unlikely to stab an innocent person, even if out of love for souls he is willing to countenance a defensive war against belligerents.

Did the English violate the laws of war?

Was Fr. Rale exceptionally holy or just a run of the mill missionary?