European Immigrants and the Catholic Church in Connecticut

List of Tables 1. Ethnic Background of Seminarians, by Time Periods 67 2. Occupations of Fathers of Seminarians, by Time Periods 72 3. Occupations of Fathers of “New Immigrant” Seminarians, Period IV ( 1915-1921), by Categories 73 4. Geographic Background of Seminarians, Old and New Immigrant, by Time Periods 76 5. Old Immigrant and New Immigrant Seminarians, by Time Periods and Place of Origin 79 Acknowledgements Many have made this book a reality. As my doctoral dissertation from the University of Connecticut (1978), the work was first guided by Bruce M. Stave of the Department of History. I wish to express sincere gratitude to Dr. Stave for his steady, sound direction at that time. Special thanks are also due to my religious congregation, the Sisters of Mercy, Hartford, Connecticut who encouraged, and still encourage, my historical vocation. Especially am I grateful to Mary Healy, RSM, DSW, whose continuous support and assistance as she worked in her own field of social work actually enabled me to keep my work in progress. Finally, I wish to thank Archbishop John F. Whealon, and all those at the chancery office of the Archdiocese of Hartford, who saw the importance of developing the archives and history of the Church in Connecticut. Without the oppor- tunity freely to work with the important archival holdings, this book would have been impossible. In the process of revising this study, I have continued to be in the debt of some who have helped me from the start. Important among these is the Reverend William Wolkovich-Valkavicius, now pastor of St. George, Norwood, Massachusetts. At both phases I was a privileged recipient of much of his scholarly research and writing on Lithuanian Americans; during the revisions, his generous contributions to my ethnic store of knowledge made an important difference. I must also thank the Reverend Silvano Tomasi, C.S., whose own fine work in Italian-American historical studies made the enthusiasm and support he rendered my work all the more important. The Scalabrinian Fathers are to be thanked as well for fostering my writings. I would like to express gratitude to one other religious congregation, the Marian Fathers and Brothers of Stockbridge, X European Immigrants and the Catholic Church in Connecticut Massachusetts. It was their interest in affirming research in Catholic topics and in publishing scholarly works that made it possible for me to find time and resources to work at the revising of the text. To my family, especially to my brother David, and to my friends I am, most assuredly, especially in debt. Regardless of my own feelings of inadequacy, they were always there to verbalize encouragement, somehow surer than I that the work begun a dozen years before would somehow find successful completion. May, 1987 Washington, D.C. Introduction Those who have surveyed the story of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States generally have summarized the major developments that contributed to the rise of each Catholic diocese in the country. They also have studied the Church as a struggling institution that de- veloped from a relatively insignificant numerical position at the begin- ning of the nineteenth century to represent 14 percent of the total population by 1890 and to account for approximately 20 percent of the nation’s population during the twentieth century. Approaches that con- centrate upon the Church‘s struggles, while more interesting in them- selves, have produced an array of similar historical monographs. Thus, readers of American Church history, until very recently have been fur- nished with studies relative to “the impact of nativism”, the struggle between public and private school education, internal conflicts such as those arising from “trusteeism” and the “German-Irish” struggle among Church leaders, and, finally the emergence of “liberal Catholicism” and the so-called heresy of “Americanism”. Such repetition of topics seems to suggest that little new analysis about the nature of the Cath- olic Church and its experience in American history has been at- tempted; on the whole, the record reflects only routine reevaluations of the available historical data (See, Shea, 1886-1892; Maynard, 1941; Noonan, 1938; Barry, 1953). Regardless of theme, most discussions of the American Catholic Church have tolerated a certain amount of mythology- the unwitting work of both defenders and critics of the Church. Yet two recurring assumptions that have served to unify Catholic Church history have become targets of a more recent development in historical revisionism. One entails the notion of the Catholic Church as a strong, monolithic 2 European Immigrants and the Catholic Church in Connecticut structure safely enclosed within still another uncomplicated, tightly knit international organization whose headquarters are in Rome. The other views Catholicism in the United States almost as if it were a theological ethnic byproduct of an “immigrant religion” (Schaff, 1855). America, published over a hundred years ago, exemplified the first assumption. Philip Schaff, wrote in opinionated, unfriendly terms con- cerning the organizational strength of the Catholic Church. He de- scribed the Church as using its concentrated power to “mix in politics and control the elections” and went on to warn: But this very effort for power and political influence may prove extremely dangerous to her, if not fatal. Quite lately, at the insistance of the National Council of Baltimore, she [the Church] has made systematic attacks, in the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio and Michigan, on the public elementary schools, conducted by the state, and mainly subject to Protestant influence. She has at- tempted, though thus far without the least success, to destroy them.. ..(p.185) From this, Schaff concluded that Protestants must expect to lose mem- bers to the Roman Catholic Church because of its “truly imposing organization” as well as its other impressive features. Since Schaff‘s time, many authors working from the same assumption have discussed the Church, namely, that it could somehow be seen within that narrow framework of unified power without reference to any of its significant differences as expressed from diocese to diocese. Recent historians and sociologists have pointed out that this assumption of strong organization and unity has become increasingly difficult for serious students of Catholic Church history to support. For exam- ple, when the Reverend Thomas T. McAvoy, C.S.C. (1953), wrote of the Church, he consistently pointed out that the American Catholic Church experienced little real social or cultural unity well into the twentieth century. Other historians have reaffirmed the same in their writings. Contemporary sociologists have also acknowledged how erroneous it is to attach the “monolithic” label to the Church. (See, Glea- son, 1970 and Abramson, 1977) The “immigrant religion” description of the Catholic faith in the United States setting has also come under attack. Father McAvoy (1966) has challenged the notion that Catholicism is essentially immigrant faith by making a careful distinction between, on the one hand, the Catholic Church in its Anglo American origins during colonial times and in the early national period and, on the other hand, the Church during the Introduction 3 nineteenth century immigrant influx, when its constituency was com- pletely altered. As McAvoy pointed out, despite the fact that the Cath- olic Church, even in colonial times, was suspect for its being “different”, and despite the fact that the Catholic Church today can be called an immigrant institution, it is important to recognize that the original reasons for “difference” and the ensuing developments that altered this situation should not be confused. To argue that the Catholic Church was essentially different from other indigenous religious organizations because it was a “foreign religion” adhered to by a “foreign element” is to emphasize some historical facts while ignoring others. Although it is erroneous to consider the Catholic Church as a monolithic structure preaching an immigrant religion, it is also incorrect to argue that phrases like “immigrant institution” and “minority religion” should be totally discarded as descriptive of the American Catholic Church of either the nineteenth or twentieth century. Indeed, most historians of the Church in the United States have quite correctly de- picted it as an organization drastically altered as it evolved throughout the last two centuries; consequently, they see it as a Church that, as the years passed, grew to have less and less in common with Protestant America, at least with respect to its history or membership. Often these historians, notably Sydney E. Ahlstrom in The Religious Histosy ofthe American People (1972), have gone beyond a narration of the Catholic Church’s difference from mainstream America and have even found grounds to commend the Church for being a chief instrument in the integration of minority groups within the Church structure, within American society, and especially within urban society. Unfortunately, some of these authors have tended to underestimate the difficulties that accompanied such plans or have not studied closely the complex struggles necessarily involved in the integration of many diverse groups (See, Dorn in Mohl and Richardson, 1973; McAvoy, Barry and Cuddy in Gleason, 1970; Cross, 1962). Other historians, such as Colman J. Barry and, Jay P. Dolan (1977; 1975), have recognized that the internal conflict that existed among strong ethnic groups within the Church had much to do with reinforc- ing the perception that the Roman Catholic Church was a minority institution. These authors consequently have seen the disputes among certain ethnic groups within the Church as major episodes in them- selves and, in some cases, have made the disputes the basis of their own specialized studies. Their investigations have, however, been based upon “old immigrant” constituencies. Unless subsequent studies con- centrating upon later struggles among “new immigrant” groups com- plement such research, certain misleading impressions may be allowed to persist.

Load more