No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2022
Eileen Fagan's and Janice Thompson's thoughtful and provocative call for papers in the Mysticism and Politics section of the 2021 College Theology Society (CTS) Annual Meeting prompted me to think anew about the complex legacy of the Friendship House (FH) movement in the United States. Fagan and Thompson invited papers that would help CTS members reflect on how we might “approach our world with a ‘mysticism of open eyes’ and an ‘attitude of encounter’” and to “think of and act on behalf of a future that shows Christianity embracing human dignity and common good for all God's people.” A look to the past can help us work more effectively in the present for that kind of future. The history of Friendship House, a mid-twentieth-century Catholic interracial movement, combined spirituality and action for justice in ways that merit a closer look. More specifically, the archival and published material from the Friendship House movement in the 1940s illustrates the legacy of one Catholic action initiative centered on racial justice that combined spirituality and political action for the common good. This history can help contemporaries track ways that Catholics have been involved in such movements and might be engaged in similar efforts today.
Please be advised that, when quoting period material only, this article retains racial language that reflects norms of the period in which the authors were writing. The word “Negro,” for example, was common parlance among Black and White people, including activists, in the 1930s and 1940s. In this article, the words “Black” and “White” are used. Regarding the latter, see “8.38: Ethnic and national groups and associated adjectives,” The Chicago Manual of Style Online accessed January 7, 2022.
100 Metz, Johann Baptist, A Passion for God: The Mystical-Political Dimension of Christianity, ed. and trans. Ashley, J. Matthew (New York: Paulist Press, 1998), 163Google Scholar.
101 For Catherine de Hueck's discussion of the “Little Mandate” see her autobiography, Fragments of My Life (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1979), 95–96.
102 For a full account of de Hueck's experience in Toronto, see Rademacher, Nicholas, “Between Independence and Obedience: Catherine de Hueck's Struggle to Establish Friendship House as a Lay Apostolate for Social Justice in the Archdiocese of Toronto, 1931–1936,” in A Realist's Church: Essays in Honor of Joseph A. Komonchak, ed. Denny, Christopher, Hayes, Patrick, and Rademacher, Nicholas (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2015), 61–78Google Scholar.
103 Catherine de Hueck to Thomas Merton, October 14, 1941, in Compassionate Fire: The Letters of Thomas Merton and Catherine de Hueck, ed. Robert A. Wild (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2009), 10.
104 Ibid.
105 Ibid., 16.
106 Ibid., 15–16. Here, de Hueck is making sweeping generalizations about Harlem for rhetorical effect. For a comprehensive overview of the Black Catholic community in Harlem at this time, see Cecilia Moore, “Keeping Harlem Catholic: African American Catholics and Harlem, 1920–1960,” American Catholic Studies 114, no. 3 (Fall 2003): 3–21.
107 Catherine de Hueck to Thomas Merton, Compassionate Fire, 16.
108 For a recent study of Friendship House in Chicago, see Johnson, Karen J., One in Christ: Chicago Catholics and the Quest for Interracial Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018)Google Scholar.
109 There was much discussion about whether married couples could join Friendship House. Although Catherine de Hueck married Eddie Doherty in 1943 to become Catherine de Hueck Doherty, membership in the inner circle was limited to people who remained single.
110 Catherine de Hueck Doherty during discussion following Ann Harrigan's talk, “Training from a Director's Point of View,” Convention Notes, 1946, Chicago History Museum, Chicago, IL (hereafter, CHM), 24. These convention notes appear to be verbatim transcripts of addresses and subsequent discussion.
111 Ann Harrigan, Chicago Friendship House Report, September 4, 1943, CHM.
112 Ibid.
113 Ibid.
114 Ibid.
115 Ann Harrigan, “Set-up of the Chicago Friendship House,” June 1943, CHM, emphasis in the original.
116 Ibid.
117 Ann Harrigan during discussion following Mabel Knight's Report on Areas of Concern in Harlem Friendship House, Convention Notes, 1946, CHM, 64.
118 Mary Galloway to Mrs. Kumbalck, October 6, 1948, CHM.
119 Ann Harrigan, Chicago Friendship House Report, September 4, 1943, CHM.
120 Catherine de Hueck, “The Story of Friendship House,” 1939, CHM. This artifact is a thirty-two-page pamphlet.
121 Catherine de Hueck, “Dear Reverend Mother and Sister,” July 1945, CHM. The letter addresses the woman's title only.
122 Catherine de Hueck, Staff Letter, April 18, 1944, CHM.
123 Monica Durkin, “Farm Problems,” Convention Notes, 1946, 51–52.
124 Catherine de Hueck, “Sumer School,” Convention Notes, 1946, 76.
125 Ibid.
126 Ibid.
127 Ibid.
128 Gerry during discussion following Catherine de Hueck's talk, “Sumer School,” Convention Notes, 1946, 82. Only Gerry's first name is given throughout the convention notes.
129 Catherine de Hueck during discussion following her talk, “Sumer School,” Convention Notes, 1946, 82–83.
130 Setup of the Chicago Friendship House, June 1943, CHM.
131 Gospel Inquiry, October 15, 1948, CHM. These notes are from a community reflection on a Scripture reading.
132 Mary Galloway to Sister, October 20, 1948, CHM. The letter addresses the woman's title only.
133 Metz, A Passion for God, 163.
134 Ann Harrigan, Chicago Friendship House Report, September 4, 1943, CHM.