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: 05 August 2009
Represented by a small, pioneering religious group in the Anglo-American colonies, the Catholic faith was not transplanted in conspicuous degree to the United States until the nineteenth century. Mainly through immigration the Catholic population in the United States rose from a mere 50,000 in 1800 to more than twelve millions a century later. Though many believed that countless Catholics were lost in the transition process—the question has been endlessly debated—few denied the preeminent success of the Catholic Church in handling immigrants. Its swelling membership steadily augmented its influence on most phases of American life, including the social movements which played so large and significant a part in the nation's development during the nineteenth century.
1 Shaughnessy, Gerald, Has the Immigrant Kept the Faith? A Study of Immigration and Catholic Growth in the United States, 1790–1920 (New York, 1925), p. 262.Google Scholar
2 Maynard, Theodore, The Story of American Catholicism (New York, 1941), p. 295;Google ScholarHandlin, Oscar, Boston's Immigrants, 1790–1865 (Cambridge, 1941), pp. 199–205, 207–210, 214, 268.Google Scholar When progressive Catholics charged the Catholic press with “unchristian illiberalism” on social questions, its defenders usually retorted that misrepresentations of Catholics by unscrupulous Protestants and “ex-priests” justified its position. Cf. “The Catholic Press,” editorial, Catholic News, 06 20, 1888.Google Scholar
3 Pilot, , October 31, 1874.Google Scholar Not all influential ecclesiastics, it should be pointed out, agreed with Archbishop Bayley. Several priests and bishops, notably Bayley's immediate predecessor in the See of Baltimore, the Most Reverend Martin John Spalding, were friendly to trade unionism of the modern type. Cf. Browne's, Henry J. article, “Terence V. Powderly and Church-Labor Difficulties of the Early 1880's” Catholic Historical Review, XXXII (04, 1946), pp. 1–27Google Scholar and his book, just published, The Catholic Church and the Knights of Labor (Washington, 1949), pp. 12–33,Google Scholarpassim, for the conclusion that the clergy questioned not trade unionism but the oath-bound secrecy and socialism associated with some labor organizations.
4 Guilday, Peter, (Ed.), The National Pastorals of the American Hierarchy (1792–1919) (Washington, 1923), pp. 216–217, 218–220;Google Scholaribid., A History of the Councils of Baltimore (1791–1884) (New York, 1932), pp. 275–277.Google ScholarRowe, J. F., “Phases of Religion in the United States,” Christian Quarterly, I (04. 1869), pp. 177–193;Google Scholar“The Sanitary and Moral Condition of New York City,” Catholic World, VII (07–08, 1868), pp. 553–566, 712–714;Google Scholar “The European Exodus,” ibid., XXV (July, 1877), 433–443.
5 “Colonization and Future Emigration,” Catholic World, XXV (08, 1877), pp. 677–689;Google Scholar “Catholic Colonization,” ibid., XXXI (May, 1880), pp. 273–284; Sister Henthorne, Mary Evangela, The Career of the Right Reverend John Lancaster Spalding, Bishop of Peoria, as President of the Irish Catholic Colonization Association of America, 1879–1932 (Urbana, 1932), especially pp. 23–27.Google Scholar
6 The Religious Mission of the Irish Race and Catholic Colonization (New York, 1880), p. 121.Google Scholar
7 Particularly important are: Clarke, Richard H., “Catholic Protectories and Reformatories,” American Catholic Quarterly Review, XX (07, 1895), pp. 607–640;Google ScholarO'Brien, James W., “The Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America,” in Centennial Temperance Volume. A Memorial of the International Temperance Conference, Philadelphia, June, 1876 (New York, 1881), pp. 722–733;Google Scholar and Campbell, John H., “The Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America,” in One Hundred Years of Temperance. A Memorial Volume of the Centennial Temperance Conference.Philadelphia,September, 1885 (New York, 1886), pp. 556–560.Google Scholar
8 “The Sanitary and Moral Condition of New York City,” loc. cit., pp. 561–564;Google Scholar“The Charities of New York,” Catholic World, VIII (11, 1868), pp. 279–285;Google Scholar “A Word to the Independent,” ibid., XIII (May, 1871), pp. 247–254. Father McGIynn was criticized by his opponents for failing to provide a parochial school.
9 Cf. Matt, Joseph, Deutscher Romisch-Katholischer Central-Verein (St. Louis, 1893);Google Scholar“Committee on Immigration,” Irish Catholic Benevolent Union, Annual Convention, Proceedings (1875), 19–20;Google Scholar “Sketch and History of the Irish Catholic Benevolent Union of the United States and Canada,” ibid. (1892), pp. 3–8; Gibbs, Joseph C., History of the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America (Philadelphia, 1907);Google ScholarJamme, L. T., “The Society in America,” St. Vincent de Paul Quarterly, II (05, 1897), pp. 91–101;Google ScholarRiordan, John J., “The Priest at Castle Garden,” Catholic World, XLII (01, 1886), pp. 563–570;Google Scholar Helen M. Sweeney, “Handling the Immigrant,” ibid., LXIII (July, 1896), pp. 497–508; Steckel, Alfred, “The Roman Catholic Central Society of the United States of North America,” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society, VI (1895), pp. 252–265;Google Scholar J. M. O'Reilly, “The Leo House for Immigrants,” ibid., XVI (1905), pp. 445–451; Schaefer, Joseph and Herbermann, Charles G., “The Society of St. Raphael and Leo House,” Historical Records and Studies, I (01, 1899), pp. 110–129.Google Scholar
10 In an early number the Catholic World, after alluding to the once prevailing non-Catholic view that “Religion, morality, liberty, happiness would be swept from the country “ if the Catholic clergy “were not exterminated,” noted that now, “forsooth, we are gravely asked, why we do not exert a greater influence for promoting the general wellbeing of the country? What a change of base, this is!” “Religion in New York,” III (06, 1866), p. 389.Google Scholar For the new attitude that Catholics “in spite of their religion” had a constructive, moral and social mission to perform in the United States, cf. Frothingham, O. B., “The Order of St. Paul the Apostle and the New Catholic Church,” Christian Examiner, LXXVIII (01, 1865), pp. 1–26;Google ScholarPartem, James, “Our Roman Catholic Brethren,” Atlantic Monthly, XXI (04–05, 1868), pp. 432–451, 556–574;Google Scholar and Smith, Goldwin, “United States Notes” (1864)Google Scholar, in Hautain, Arnold, Goldwin Smith: His Life and Opinions, pp. 253–254, 279, 285–286.Google Scholar
11 Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, Pastoral Letter (Baltimore, 1884), pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
12 Cf. especially George Dering Wolff's two articles, “Socialistic Communism in the United States,” American Catholic Quarterly Review, III (07, 1878), pp. 522–562,Google Scholar and “The Wage Question,” ibid., XI (April, 1886), pp. 322–344.
13 Spalding, John Lancaster, “Are We in Danger of Revolution?” Forum, I (07, 1886), p. 410.Google Scholar
14 Browne, Henry J., The Catholic Church and the Knights of Labor exhaustively explores this whole subject.Google Scholar
15 A Retrospect of Fifty Years (Baltimore, 1916), I, pp. 195–206.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., I, pp. 205–206. For a like reason the Reverend George Zurcher of Buffalo urged that the cardinal's idea of association irrespective of religious affiliation, be generally extended. “If we are not allowed to unite with non-Catholics in fighting immorality and drunkenness,” he wrote, “the future of the Church in many American cities is not bright. Business men are loath to employ frequenters of saloons. They select their employes largely through clubs and moral benevolent associations. If Catholics are barred from all associations not strictly Catholic they will suffer such a disadvantage in securing work diat many will be tempted to leave the Church, especially since Catholics constitute the poorer portion of the population,” Foreign Ideas in the Catholic Church in America (East Aurora, N. Y., 1896), pp. 47–48.Google Scholar
17 For an extended discussion of this and other aspects of the McGlynn-Corrigan conflict, Cf. James J. Green, “First Impact of the Henry George Agitation on Catholics in the United States,” a master's essay at the University of Notre Dame, 1948.
18 Letters addressed to Monsignor Dennis J. O'Connell in Rome by distinguished members of the hierarchy bear out this interpretation. Dennis O'Connell Correspondence, (Microfilm Copy), Box 6, University of Notre Dame, especially Gibbons to O'Connell, July 15, 1887, March 19, 1888; Ireland to O'Connell, March 24, 1888, April 1, 1888; James O'Connor (Bishop of Omaha) to O'Connell, April 22, 1888; John J. Kain (Bishop of Wheeling) to O'Connell, April 23, 1888; William Henry Elder (Archbishop of Cincinnati) to O'Connell, April 25, 1888; and Francis Janssens (Bishop of Natchez) to O'Connell, April 30, 1888.
19 Retrospect, I, pp. 203–204.Google Scholar
20 Malone, Sylvester L. (Ed.), Memorial of the Golden Jubilee of the Reverend Sylvester Malone (Brooklyn, 1895), pp. 61–62.Google Scholar
21 Quoted in the single-tax organ, The Standard, December 23, 1891.
22 “A Ringing Pastoral! Fifth Provincial Council of Cincinnati,” Catholic News, June 2, 1889; Ireland, John, “The Catholic Cnurch and the Saloon,” North American Review, CLIX ((10, 1894), pp. 503–505;Google Scholar Thomas J. Dully to Dennis O'Connell, July 30, 1894, “Dennis O'Connell Correspondence” (Microfilm Copy), loc. cit., Box 10; Miss A. M. Brown to O'Connell, November 13, 20, 1894, ibid., Box 11.
23 For a largely factual, non-interpretative account of Cahenslyism, cf. Meng, John J., “Cahenslyism: the First Stage, 1883–1891,” Catholic Historical Review, XXXI (01, 1946), pp. 389–413,Google Scholar and “Cahenslyism: the Second Chapter, 1891–1910,” ibid., XXXII (October, 1946), pp. 302–340.
24 Shea, John Gilmary, “American Catholicity,” Catholic News, June 7, 1891.Google Scholar
25 “Both parties in the Catholic Church,” he correctly stated, “agree that Catholics should not go into proximate danger of losing faith or morality.” Foreign Ideas in the Catholic Church in America, p. 49.Google Scholar In 1894 and 1895 the Pope finally ruled that Catholics must not become members of the Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias, or Sons of Temperance or participate further in parliaments of religion. MacDonald, Fergus, C.P., The Catholic Church and the Secret Societies in the United States (New York, 1946), pp. 185–211.Google Scholar
26 Harris, James, “The Baltimore Congress's Catholicism,” The American, XIX (1889), p. 149.Google Scholar
27 Hughes, William H., Souvenir Volume Illustrated. Three Great Events in the History of the Catholic Church in the United States (Detroit, 1889), pp. 61–63,Google Scholar“Platform of the Catholic Congress at Chicago,” Catholic Review, September 23, 1893.Google Scholar
28 Anonymous Letter of a German-bom Catholic Journalist, Logansport, Indiana, to Cardinal Gibbons, December 25, 1893, Dennis O'Connell Correspondence, loc. cit., Box 9,
29 Hughes, , op. cit., pp. 69–70.Google Scholar
30 Ibid., p. 63.
31 Ireland, John, “The Catholic Church and the Saloon,” loc. cit., pp. 498–503.Google Scholar
32 Catholic Review, May 11, 1895;Google Scholar“Editorial Notes,” Catholic World, LXII (10, 1895), p. 136.Google Scholar
33 “The End of a Scandal,” Preuss, Arthur, editor, The Review, VI (04 6, 1899), p. 20.Google Scholar
34 “Catholics and the Saloons,” LXI (08 15, 1895), p. 110.Google Scholar
35 August 17, 1895; Silver Jubilee Gathering of the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America (New York, 1895), pp. 37–49, 94–102.Google Scholar
36 Hurley, Timothy D., “Catholic Co-operation in Charity,” Charities Review, VII (12, 1897), pp. 858–868;Google Scholar Thomas M. Mulry, “Catholic Co-operation in Charity,” ibid., VIII (October, 1898), pp. 383–386.
37 “Charity Organization Society of the City of New York,” ibid., V (November, 1895), p. 44.
38 LXII (October, 1895), p. 136.
39 Merwin-Marie Snell, a conservative Catholic, pointed out that American Catholic liberalism was social and ethical and should not be confused with the theological movement bearing the same name in the Protestant world. “The Ethical Kinship between Protestant Radicalism and Catholic Conservatism,” Christian Register (Unitarian), July 27, 1893.Google Scholar Cf. also press quotations in Preuss, Arthur, editor, The Review, especially IV (02 10, 1898), p. 3 and V (December 8, 1898), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
40 Ibid., IV (August 26, 1897), p. 5 and IV (September 2, 1897), p. 1.
41 Church Progress of Louis, St., quoted in The Review, IV (08 5, 1897), p. 7 and TV (August 12, 1897), p. 3.Google Scholar
42 Malone, Sylvester L. (ed.), op. cit., pp. 89–98, 121–122;Google ScholarIreland, John, The Church end Modern Society (New York, 1896), I, especially pp. 104–111.Google Scholar
43 Ibid., I, p. 151.
44 Ibid., pp. xiii–xiv.
45 Ireland to O'Connell, February 16, 1894, loc. cit., Box 10.
46 The origin and implications of this term are critically explored in McAvoy, Thomas T., “Americanism, Fact and Fiction,” Catholic Historical Review, XXXI (07, 1945), pp. 133–153,Google Scholar and Vincent F. Holden, “A Myth in ‘L'Americanisme’,” ibid., pp. 154–170.
47 The Reverend Gerald Coghlan to Dennis O'Connell, Philadelphia, July 23, 1897, loc. cit., Box 12; “A New Roman Decision,” ibid., IV (June 27, 1897), p. 6; Romanus, “True Import of the Recent Ruling of the Prefect of the Propaganda,” ibid., (June 3, 1897), pp. 1–2; “Bishop Messmer's View,” ibid.; “A German Pastor's View,” ibid., (June 10, 1897), p. 3; “Our French-Canadian Confreres,” ibid., p. 5; “Exchange Comment,” ibid., p. 6.
48 S. G. Messmer, “A Program for Catholic Federation,” ibid., VII (November 15 1900), pp. 265–266.
49 “Catholic Organization,” ibid., TV (August 19, 1897), p. 7; McFaul, James A., “The American Federation of Catholic Societies,” Donahue's Magazine, LII (07 1904) pp. 87–90.Google Scholar
50 Ireland, John, The Church and Modern Society, I, p. 128;Google ScholarZahm, J. A., “Leo XIII and the Social Question,” North American Review, CLXI (08, 1895), p. 214.Google ScholarAntoine, Charles, S.J., Cours d'economic sociale (Paris, 1899), pp. 246–247, assigned leadership in die social movement to American and Swiss Catholics.Google Scholar
51 Notably Patrick W. Riordan (Archbishop of San Francisco) to William J. Onahan, February 1, 1893, Onahan Papers, Archives of the University of Notre Dame.
52 July 17, 1894, Dennis CConnell Correspondence, loc. cit., Box 10.
53 Superior Council of New York, Report, 1864–1865 (New York, 1866), p. 7.Google Scholar
54 Thome, W. H., “Betterment of the Masses,” The Globe, VII (06, 1897), pp. 217–230.Google Scholar
55 Editorial, “Labor and Temperance,” Catholic News, September 12, 1888.Google Scholar
56 Editorial, “Social Betterment,” ibid., March 17, 1897.
57 Thorne, op. cit.
58 This is dealt with briefly in the writer's two articles, “The Reception of Leo XIII's Labor Encyclical in America, 1891–1919,” Review Of Politics, VII (10, 1945), pp. 464–495,Google Scholar and “The Catholic Church and Social Problems in the World War I Era,” Mid-America, XXX (07, 1948), pp. 139–151.Google Scholar