______Gathered Fragments The Publication of the Catholic Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania
HistoriaFidelLux Vol. XIV, No. 2, Fall 2003 Pittsburgh’s First Bishop and the Dogma of 1854
By Craig Maier its infancy and governed by the Society for the Propagation of the Faith—and he popular feeling surrounding his own correspondence, which he the definition of the dogma of sometimes signed, “M. O’Connor, Tthe Immaculate Conception in Missionary priest, Bishop of December 1854 was deep. The January Pittsburgh.” Even so, the explanation is 13, 1855, edition of the Pittsburgh incomplete. If he wanted to be a mis Catholic, full of eyewitness reports of sionary priest serving a heathen people, the deliberations in Rome, captured the there would have been countless oppor sentiment. tunities for him to be one, and none of “This day has witnessed, I will not those opportunities would have say a triumph only, but a prodigy,” one involved Pittsburgh, no matter how particularly excited monsignor wrote. young the church in Pittsburgh was. “This very examination has renewed BishopMichaelO’Connor To get a more complete idea of what the discussion upon the whole subject could have been driving O’Connor, we that the pastors returning to their role in the development in the dogma is have to imagine what it must have been dioceses might be all of one speech, as typically mentioned only in passing. like to be brilliant, young and Irish in they had ever been of one faith.” O’Connor’s role was not decisive, and his time. By all accounts, O’Connor The same issue also carried a hum the episode seems to be only a footnote was interested in a seminary appoint ble article, only a paragraph long. “Our in the long career of a distinguished ment, and seminary appointments, like beloved Prelate writes from the Vatican, churchman. In those few days of academic positions today, were incredi where he is a guest of His Holiness,” it debate, though, O’Connor proved him bly difficult to come by. To get a decent reads. “He is in good health and spirits, self to be as true a trailblazer as he was position, he would have had to contend and hopes to return home by the end of in the rest of his ministry. with hundreds of Italian, Spanish, the present month.” German and French priests with CVs as The Prelate in question was the first From Ireland to Rome to Pittsburgh good as or better than his. bishop of Pittsburgh, Michael Born in 1810 near the city of Cork As Father Henry Szamicki wrote, O’Connor. But while the article does on the south coast of Ireland, O’Connor O’Connor’s already difficult quest for a not suggest it, O’Connor was more than was a gifted child, and he showed he position was interrupted by the death of a guest. He participated in the delibera showed tremendous promise as a the his mother, and he spent three years as tions—becoming one of the first ologian during his education in Paris a chaplain at a convent near Cork as he American bishops ever to participate in and Rome. His doctoral defense is said put his family’s affairs in order. By the a significant discussion in Rome. to have been so remarkable that Pope time he applied for a position at the For American Catholics today, the Gregory XVI congratulated the young seminary in Maynooth, near Dublin, he idea that there was a time when the priest by wrapping his handkerchief had been out of academic circles for American church did not participate in around O’Connor’s head, saying, “If it three costly years, and his stellar educa the wider affairs of the church seems were a crown of gold, you would tion in Rome meant nothing to a hiring strange. But as the Jesuit historian deserve it.” committee apparently more interested Father James Henessey has observed, One would expect anyone who in local ties. the American church at the time rarely received such recognition to have been His candidacy in danger, he ran into participated in Vatican discussions and destined for bigger and better things. So another young priest named Peter is often considered “a theological why would he come to Pittsburgh? Kenrick, an alumnus of Maynooth, who desert.” American bishops only really An easy answer is to see O’Connor had come on a mission from his brother began participating in force during the as motivated by missionary zeal. This Francis Kenrick, the coadjutor bishop First Vatican Council in 1870. view is sustained by O’Connor’s situa of Philadelphia, to bring priests to Among his biographers, O’Connor’s tion—the American church was still in Continued inside.
at
a
the
as
ask
the
sug
of
of
sen
“All
in
arti
of
As
to
per
of
are
was
last
inter
the
of ebul
and
exile
was
the
con
support
century,
and
unique
emerged
and
the
it.
it
of
IX’s
also
the
in
politics
Pittsburgh
way. reflected
Hennesey
Bull.”
more
a
the
dogma
to
involve
the
which
also
patroness
his
it Pius’s
to
that
dogmatical
assembled
on
in
Council
middle
excited different
and
Pontiff
Conception.
the
is
the
Errors
1848
Catholics,
entrails
the
turmoil
of -Catholic
Pius
had
providential
sensibility
ecclesiastical until
even
it
while
that
in
anti
devotional
of of
their
of
James the
a
definition,
the The
freedom
anti-Catholicism anti
typically
represented.
very
saw
of
Catholic
a
about
the
eighteenth
Reason,
both
definition
Conception,
European
free was
the
some
dogma
renewed was,
American
Vatican
response
focused
he
involved
Bishops
was
motivation, defining,
the
of
anti-Catholicism church
tenor
wrote
Mary
two
as
with
the
be
dogma
and
the
controversial
it
during
Sovereign
IX
determined,”
of
such American
of
the
that
form European
the
the
in
least dogma evidence
Syllabus
the
Immaculate
the
the
in
century.
First
Age
the of
order
democratic
of coming
by
how
definition,
the
of
which
is
at
the
dogma the
European
revolutions
to
“But
Pius
liberalism,
associates
never
the
the
priest
the
bishops’ Pittsburgh
and
the
secularize
of
influenced
part
the
everyone felt
then,
define
the
see
as
declared
of
was
wrote
the
to
already
of
the
Immaculate
that
a
strangled
important
to
devotion
took
the
study
that
there
will
the
to
monsignor to
to
in
and
Europe,
of
sentiment
potentially is
advice
with
possibility
time.
had
priest.”
political
Regardless
of
defining
the
in
Though
his
In
nineteenth
But
favor
1845.
Europe
Before
Catholic.
the Rome,
thought
points lient
real
expediency
ly,
and
the
dogma
clear
the
gested
refuting
European
during
for
ment noted 1870,
1864
dogma
In
played
subtext
“Man
last
king
and
son
clericalism, Diderot
timent
democracy.
sought in
tend
American
desire
anti-Catholicisms,
in America,
esting
value
in
who
a intensely
the cles
Marian
to
is
the
be
it
fall,
the
prob
the
to
two
of
a
their
and
oppor
by
decided
joining
unique
to
late
him.
anticipat
come,”
the
Muritto
the
Pope’s
Ineffabilis
Pope’s
upon
noted,
future
in
were
and
was had
Kenrick
definition
by Baltimore,
about
of
was
Dogma
was
depth
were
the
laid
bishops,
than
the
have
It
of
bull
has
and
the
is
who is
the
the
count
there
out
have
itself—an
Rome
O’Connor
at [Immaculate]
they
the
of
bishops “It
me
to
in
accompany Bishops
contributors
not
in
letters
several
priest
But
number,”
the
O’Connor
bishops
that
Conception, on
a
O’Connor
to
country.”
of
did
of
Chadwick
Kenrick,
present
Peter.
protégé
and
carrying
some
Archbishop
astir.
and
chose
wished
presented
arrived
such
of
found
each
his
which
American
Pope
presented
group
of
American
underestimate
was
have
Owen
Pittsburgh
“He States
they
Background
doctrine
for
Francis
brother
Immaculate
to
Neumann,
The to
Kenrick
become
two
As
city
“The
Kenrick
“Unexpectedly
the
his
prepared.
larger
The
hard
dogma,
Deus.
the
that
wrote.
represent
coming
a ed.
lem:
entourage
the
When
former John
including
wishes.”
obligation
of
Conception,
wish United
to
wrote
then
opportunity tunity
ly
a
a
to
in
it
a
and
of
of
gave
of
was
his
He
say
a
of
prob
pre
and
It’s
to
stay
made
in quick
When
45,000
to
and
impos
accept.
would
priest posi
new
what
He
in
to he
years
though,
money—
been
theolo
become
wanted
Kenrick,
a state
to
throes
over.
not
Pope
ministry
diocese had
life
the
the
O’Connor
group Kennck
first
to
during
with 29,
States
into
Diocese
erudition
diocese a
1841,
theological
four
the
note.
Catholics
little
the
to
petition, have
instead.
longing
did
pressing
Philadelphia,
it
of
from
Pittsburgh,
end-run
of 33,
in
major wanted
new
of
of
why
was bishop,
the
seminary
in
the
in
invitation
America,
he
new
a his
just
by
in
resistance—from
though,
failed.
have
an
age
he
may
to
Pittsburgh
priests
hostile
bishop
he
Bishop
the
United
in
Borromeo
O’Connor an
the
relished and,
O’Connor
days
But
word
a
scholarly
the
priests,
essentially in and
mentor
of
Pittsburgh well
he
in from administration.
German
turned
the
perhaps
of
episcopacy.
sides
a
1843,
building
the
path
that
of
1854,
be
for
what
could
21
imagine
efforts
church
Already
long.
he
anything Know-Nothings. refused
chance.
At
did
without
become
to
all
In
good
and
the
more
two-thirds
were
need
Philadelphia
he
gifts,
junior
to
and
a
Charles
arrival.
his
attempted
ministry
for
the
himself.
shall
easy
clear the
received
rector
Jesuit,
on
general
in
teach
fragments
for
Though
the
a
his
XVI
O’Connor
bishop a
write
different
situation
to
diocesan
St.
became
he
at
for
Irish
his
increasingly
come
over
never
career.
but
before
October
to
after.”
O’Connor’s
where
at
or
in
coming
been
him
and
far
an
“You
vicar
mattered.
life
In
Beset
not
The
difficult
O’Connor’s
could
O’Connor
years
today.
after
desperate
became
is organizing
would
gian his
scholarship
lems,
anti-Catholic
and
spread
Pennsylvania, earlier industrialization,
mostly debates was
Pittsburgh.
after month
became
14
ing, Jesuit
Gregory it
sible
Rome,
bishop, O’Connor
return did
become him pare
O’Connor’s academics
quickly Gathered
ly
in that
place
becoming
have He tion,
not O’Connor
Seminary teach
looking
America. jumped Gathered Fragments from unquestioned Church tradition or candidate in the mayoral race just a have been taken to mean that church an ecumenical council. Here, though, week before. tradition created, rather than confirmed, the pope himself was pronouncing James Hennesey’s summary of the the teaching. dogma ex cathedra—literally “from the Americans’ participation in the deliber It is important not to overestimate chair” of St. Peter. As the article ations shows how they brought these O’Connor and Kenrick’s role in the revealed, the fact that the dogma was to experiences to bear. Discussion focused deliberations. They were playing the be pronounced was not up for debate. on justifying the dogma, particularly part of copyeditors on a text that had The bishops were merely to debate how the selection of supporting texts and on already been decided. Yet, as Hennesey the dogma would be justified and com the theological issues involved in defin has argued, the presence of the two municated. ing dogma in the first place, and here American bishops showed the world Of course, the pope acted with the the Americans were frank. “O’Connor that America had theologians of its own near unanimous consent of the faithful reminded his fellow bishops that and began the unique relationship and, no doubt, shared their sentiment. Protestants would also study the text of between American prelates and the Yet, the Immaculate Conception, taught the Bull,” he larger Church that would come into full for centuries but never formalized, also wrote, “and flower during Vatican I. O’Connor and seems to have been an incredibly popu he saw no Kenrick represented an American lar experiment in papal power. In addi reason why church led by eminently practical men tion to responding to the deep devotion supporting who needed to defend the faith against al feelings of the faithful, Pius IX could arguments prejudice. be seen as making a first move toward should be a uniquely modem and powerful under used which Conclusions standing of the papacy in response to were harder As the deliberations ended, an increasingly secular European cul to defend O’Connor had only six years until the ture. than the end of his episcopacy. In 1860, suffer YoungMichael 0 ‘Connor dogma itself.” ing from ill health, O’Connor resigned The American Response Photos appear courtesy of We should his post, and he was finally able to Archbishop Kenrick and his hastily Diocesan Archives. not immedi enter the Society of Jesus. He would assembled band of American bishops, ately conclude teach at Boston College and serve the though, were dealing with a completely that O’Connor and Kenrick objected to order in other ways until his death in different set of anti-Catholic pressures the dogma. O’Connor himself had dedi Woodstock, Maryland, in 1872. and concerns. If European anti- cated the Diocese of Pittsburgh to Mary In December 1854, though, Catholicism was essentially political, under the Immaculate Conception at the O’Connor showed what he had become. American anti-Catholicism was deeply diocese’s founding. Instead, it is better While his erudition gave him the ability personal. In the United States, to see O’Connor and Kenrick as practi to speak to the scholarly issues Catholics in the pew were humiliated, cal men who knew that while European involved in the dogma, he was no shunned and harassed for their faith and Catholics would accept the dogma as a longer the academic of his youth. And were deemed by a hostile Protestant matter of course, a weakly justified though O’Connor’s presence at the def culture to be defective, superstitious, dogma would not satisfy American inition was a high honor, it is to his stupid, traitorous and sexually perverse. anti-Catholic Protestants, who would credit that the Church of Pittsburgh The political power of the priest was have seen it as an example of the papa remembers him for much more. He had not the problem for American anti- cy run amok. Their intervention seems nurtured an infant diocese, recruited Catholics; it was Catholics themselves. to have been an attempt to raise the priests, faced funding crises, weathered The Pittsburgh Catholic, first pub standard of scholarship to give the anti-Catholic prejudice, built schools, lished in 1844 with O’Connnor’s dogma the best defense possible. orphanages and hospitals, and mediated approval, responded to this everyday O’Connor, for instance, focused on often intense conflicts. He spent him anti-Catholicism, and one can see its the inclusion of two quotations from self laying the groundwork for every efforts even in the issue commemorat Augustine and Ambrose that could have thing that has come ever since in the ing the definition of the Immaculate been misinterpreted by Protestants. church of Pittsburgh. Conception. Amidst the articles praising “His basic principle was that no author In other words, he had become a the definition, the local coverage ity should be cited unless it was beyond bishop. demonstrates the day-to-day battles criticism,” Henessey wrote. “The text occurring in Pittsburgh’s streets. One from Augustine spoke of actual sins The author Craig Maier is article aims to dispel the myths perpet and not of original sin, while the Coordinator of Special Projects at St. uated “by political tricksters” that Ambrose was not referring to Mary at Paul Seminary, Crafton. This article is Catholics were traitors held in the thrall all, but to the virginal flesh of Christ.” adapted from a paper he presented Oct. of the pope. Another, entitled “Know He was also concerned with language 19 as part of the Historical Society’s Nothingism Knocked in the Head,” dis that seemed to suggest that the teaching annual lecture series. cusses the defeat of a Know-Nothing had evolved over time, which could CHS Board Members Spotlighted at National Event
29 at the University of Scranton. Joseph, Bates and Washy served as the panel on “An Overview of Pittsburgh Catholic History.” Joseph, who teaches at Duquesne Univeristy, Point Park College, and Community College of Allegheny County, presented a paper on “Saints of Pittsburgh.” Washy, archivist at Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh, spoke on “Catholic Health Care and Urban Renewal: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania’s Mercy Hospital, 1953-1978.” Bates, an independent scholar, considered “Urban Redevelopment and Its Impact on the Catholic Church in Pittsburgh. Also presenting at the convention was Three members of the Historical The three presenters (shown above, former board member Father Joseph Society’s board of directors were selected left to right) were board president Linck (now working in the Diocese of to present papers at the close of the annu Anthony P. Joseph; Kathleen M. Washy; Bridgeport, Conn.), who spoke on St. al convention of the American Catholic and John C. Bates. John Neumann’s promotion of Forty Historical Association (ACHA). The convention was held March 28- Hours devotion in Philadelphia.
JOIN US OR RENEW TODAY! Historical Society Your Membership Makes Our Work Possible Board of Directors Anthony P. Joseph, President Blanche McGuire, Vice President Sustaining Member $25 Mike Aquilina, Treasurer Institutional Member $15 John C. Bates Individual Member $10 Paul Demilio Individual Vowed Religious $5 Msgr. Russell A. Duker Paul Dvorchak Additional donations help the society to complete research, publishing, and Father James Garvey preservation projects in local Church history. To find out more, contact us at Regina Kelly Catholic Historical Society of Western Pa., Synod Hall, 125 North Craig Street, Father David J. Kriss Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1510. Kathleen M. Washy
Catholic Historical Society of Western Pa. Synod Hall 125 North Craig Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213