Rummel circles the wagons
February 6, 2010, 8:49 am
Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
Francis J. Beckwith’s blog offers as a contribution to Black History Week some notes on the decision and efforts of Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans to desegregate Catholic schools and on his excommunication of the leaders of public Catholic opposition to his decision. (They would appeal from the archbishop to the pope but received no satisfaction from Rome.) The archbishop clearly believed that this was a case in which it was important that Catholics show a united front.
As my colleague Vincent Rougeau pointed out in an article in this very magazine several years ago, Rummel was talking about desegregating CATHOLIC schools–not public schools. They weren’t excommunicated because they challenged his views on segregation. They were excommunicated because they, as Catholics, challenged his authority over his own parochial school system.
From their quotes they challenged him because they believed he was mistaken on segregation. He thought it sinful; they didn’t.
As I remember it, many people were extremely disappointed that the Archbishop did not base his action on the fact that they were morally wrong, but, rather he did it on the basis of their challenging his authority.
Sounds like a brave and good man.
I haven’t seen the text of the excommunication, so I don’t know.
For some years prior to Archbishop Rummel’s action, Jesuits at Loyola University, New Orleans pushed hard for the cause of integration both of Catholic Churches and of Catholic schools. Fr. Joseph Fichter published aVol 1 of his sociological study “Southern Parish.” If I’m not mistaken, he ran into trouble from the diocese and had to delay publication of Vol. 2.
Clearly, the dissent of Fr. Fichter and fellow Jesuits like Fr. Louis Twoomey (sp.) were crucial in moving the Archdiocese and its Archbishop to change policies.
None of my remarks should be taken as a criticism of Archbishop Rummell, but rather they do indicate the importance of the possibility of vocal dissent to prevailing diocesan practices.
Even if we interpret Rummell’s actions in the broad way you suggest, there are counter-examples, both hypothetical and actual. What about “circling the wagons” about religious liberty pre-Vatican II? What about the Mass. bishops circling the wagons to keep contraception illegal in the 1930s and 1940s?
There is no pat answer, though there is a way to formulate the question: How does a good Catholic, who also wants to be a good citizen, respond when he or she thinks the Church is circling the wagons on a QUESTION OF PUBLIC LAW AND POLICY on an issue about which a) it is mistaken either morally or jurisprudentially; and b) about which its mistakes will harm the common good?
If you think the church is right, no problem. If you think the church ‘s institutional integrity and long-term well being in a society doesn’t matter, no problem the other way. You run into problems if you think the church is wrong ,and you think the church matters.
Big on CAPITAL LETTERS today, eh?
I’m not sure what broad interpretation I’m suggesting… The website has this: “”In another pastoral letter in February of 1956, he [Rummel] wrote that “compulsory racial segregation is morally wrong and sinful.” That sounds to me like something more than concern about CATHOLIC institutions, maybe even a QUESTION OF PUBLIC LAW AND POLICY.
Of course, there are no pat answers–who’s suggesting there is one? Let’s just remember that there can be moments when it’s quite appropriate for Church leaders to want to circle the wagons. They may be wrong about a particular case. Those who oppose them may be wrong. There are no pat answers.
I don’t know how to do italics in comments. When I do control i it brings up my webmail. Caps were my default option. I’m sorry if they rattled you.
Fr. K
The first point I would make is that circling the wagons generally refers to how the Church (or any collective body such as school, political party, even a family) respond when feeling under siege.
But there is a lot we don’t know. For example, there may have been a fairly broad based consensus among the leadership and the laity that desegregation of schools was the best way to achieve the objective racial equality. How vigorous was the dissent in his particular community? When you have achieved consensus it is far easier to trumpet more loudly.
I take your larger point though. Still, classism and racism is still prevalent. How many minorities and people from lower classes occupy graduate schools in higher ranked universities including Catholic ones? I think there still is softer forms of exclusion and subtle if not overt racism that exists.
But teaching with a consistent message is obviously important for Bishops at times.
However, in modern history when the Church has tried to mover her member speak with a united voice doctrinally the results have not been positive (e.g. Piux X and Pascendi).
There are many fine things the church did in civil rights (eg. the Spring Hill story) but the history is a mixed bag.
I think the New Orleans story was somewhat of a mixed bag as well.
Now, 40+ years on, as Black History month moves forward, where is the Church in the US at in regard to minorities?
Beyond fine statements, is service in the inner city, both Churches and schools, on the rapid wane?
And as many here are New Yorkers, I’d ask what really is left of the Catholic community in Harlem and is the picture there enough?
An African-American priest from New Orleans told me recently that the Church is losing many many African-Americans, and that perhaps already the majority of black Catholics in the US are not African-Americans but immigrants.
However, you slice it it is clearly extraordinary for any leader in 1950s New Orleans to be promoting integration. Until MLK came around Protestant Ministers, especially white, were practically unanimous in thwarting integration. They did not have the courage to oppose their congregations. As the ministers told Ted Hesburgh, “the people would throw us out.”
Italics in comments:
first then
text in italics
then
try again:
http://www.developingwebs.net/html/lesson3.php
Prof. Kaveny – in the past have worked in the NO Archdiocese and have many friends in NO today. Would suggest a different analysis of Rummel’s decision and actions – would compare to Lincoln and slavery. His over-riding concern pre 1860 election and upto 1863 was to focus on federal unification vs. states rights/succession. Historicans disagree on this but he slowly moved his own position on slavery to the moral principle that they are free human beings – but, his public policy did not lead with that.
Would suggest that Rummel led with his own appeal to his authority first (because he could) but underlying that was his moral principle that desegregation was necessary because of the gospel imperatives.
My memory is that most of his priests and school administrators did not agree with his decision – using many of the typical excuses of that time and even today. Communities and culture were not ready for this; they would lose donations; it would cause folks to leave the church, etc.
Rummel’s actions do set him apart – not only in the public arena but also in the church arena – he was years ahead of his time especially for a member of the hierarchy. What is interesting is to study the history of New Orleans; understand what Katrina made so evident – despite all of these public, legal changes New Orleans basically existed in the early 21st century as a city on two levels – public one of wealth, pretty old neighborhoods, laid back, tourist and unique city. Katrina revealed that NO was actually a segragated city (not legally but in reality) – the minorities lived and worked below poverty level in segragated neighborhoods (e.g. Ninth Ward); the education system was corrupt and broken as was the political city system. The comfortable lifestyle was enable by the tens of thousands who lived below poverty; received little education; and rarely moved into the middle class. Given this, where are the Rummel’s of today?
So did the African-American priest from New Orleans have any thoughts as to why the Church is losing black Catholics? I imagine there are many factors, but I wonder if one might be the complexion of our leadership? I went to the Archdiocese of New York website; I looked at the bios & photos in the “about us” section under “our bishops”. Nine bishops were listed (though some were retired) and they were all white and, I think, non-Hispanic. There was one that was born in Basque country. No Blacks, Asians or Latins that I could tell. I found that a little startling.
Regarding dissent, if in this case clamping down on it it led to quicker desegregation of schools, than I guess history proved the Archbishop right on that one.
Actually, there are some remarkable highlights for Catholic African-Americans in NO. The Augistinians have staffed a famous high school near St. Benard Parish for years successfully taking kids from the Ninth Ward, giving them a college prep education, and a chance to go to college with scholarship support.
Xavier University is majority African-American and noted for its history, accomplishments, and ability to move blacks into professional ranks and the middle or upper middle class.
There are some very active majority black parishes in the NO Archdiocese.
That being said, there are few Catholic clerics who are in leadership and are African-American – that would be true across the US but in a city and archdiocese that has been majority black for years, it does bear to be highlighted.
Would hazard a guess that the church in NO has had its hands full just addressing their physical plant needs, realigning schools/parishes, etc. without the personnel, talent, or energy to move into areas such as the Ninth Ward to support an outreach to African-Americans vs. evangelical groups that have always been there and now have an active groundswell as they support rebuilding efforts.
Here’s a similar incident that, as far as I know, has never been publicly reported anywhere. And it involves public schools, not Catholic schools.
In 2007, I went to a local event commemorating the 50th year of the first high school in the entire South to graduate an integrated class in 1957. During a Q&A period, an elderly woman stood up and said that when she was growing up in Hoxie, Arkansas (a small town) during that time period, she was a Catholic. At the local church, the priest — a Rev. Joseph King — told the parishioners that “if he caught anyone going to the White Citizen’s Council meetings, it would be a matter for confession and they wouldn’t be able to come to communion.”
Any sign that Rummel listened to the voices of the actual faithful of his diocese? As was pointed out in the “wagons” thread below, one problem with, e.g., the US bishops’ recent doc on marriage is that it is devoid of reference to anything like the experience of the faithful. It cites secular science only as “proof-text” when it agrees with what’s already asserted, but pays no attention to the body of evidence that mounts against others of its positions. The voices of the laity have no authority in their world. (I’d cite the doc’s slavish re-hashing of the very problematic Theology of the Body as another problem, but that’s for another day…)
OK, yes, there were lots and lots of racist Catholics in NO. Perhaps even a majority pro-segregation–I’m not saying Church leadership should operate according to opinion polls. But if the archbp wanted to lead his followers to agree that segregation is wrong, he’d have had to do the hard work of building a convincing (to heart and mind) case of the wrong of segretation. Perhaps speakers, perhaps invitations to leaders to join him for meet-and-greet breakfasts, maybe he’d move to a majority-black neighborhood, and move the cathedral there, promote African-Americans conspicuously in his leadership circle, get the rugby team to win—oops, that’s a different setting–but you get the idea It’s harder work, and slower work. It’s leadership that transforms people, rather than just pushing them around.
Lincoln’s mind, I’m told, was swayed to the abolitionist side by his personal encounter with W.E.B. DuBois. It’s widely thought that attitudes about gay relationships are shifting in large part due to gay folks coming out and being willing to talk.
Perhaps–just perhaps–the results would have stuck better if he’d tried that kind of leadership instead.
I should add that the White Citizen’s Council was opposing the integration of the Hoxie public schools.
Plus, Rummel did this 8 YEARS after Brown vs. Board.
According to the website I cited, Rummel had ordered the desegregation of parishes a year before Brown, and that he began preparing to desegregate the schools in the wake of Brown and that it was eight years afterward that the crisis of public opposition broke out. Could it not be that he was involved in the sorts of things Lisa favors during that period. Perhaps. Perhaps. There are no pat answers.
Francis Beckwith’s blog cites a Time Magazine article, but there is a second article from slightly later that is quite dramatic and fascinating.
I think this would make a great scene in a movie:
One lesson a propos of another discussion: Don’t be too quick to see the influence of Satan in something you disapprove of.
I wouldn’t want to take away from what Rummel did, but it seems clear to me he was more of a follower than a leader in integrating the schools.
The biography on the website of Archbishop Rummel High School does not mention the excommunications or the actual integration of the schools.
Also, it is clear that the excommunications were of those who directly challenged his authority. He did not excommunicate anyone because of their immoral stand. He excommunicated people who were taking direct, practical steps to get in the way of his order to desegregate. I don’t think he can be criticized for that, and indeed, it would be questionable, in my opinion, for a Church official to excommunicate American Catholics purely for expressing their political views. (It’s a very complex question, though.)
In any case, he appears to me to have been a good man who did the right thing, but rather slowly, rather than a crusader against racial segregation whose heroic actions brought glory to Catholic bishops.
In 1951 Jesuit University Of San Francisco had an undefeated season with great African American stars but the team was not invited to Bowls like the NO Sugar Bowl unless they ‘ditched their Negro’ players’. Of course the team said no go. Would it not have been a huge crack in Southern desegregation with such a football game… with Ollie Mattson running through an all white line.? 1951-1952.
I live immediately next to Oakland, CA. The population is about 36% African American. (http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) This is a decrease from earlier years when the black population was even higher. Oakland has always been a political and population stronghold for African Americans.
According to the 2007 statistics for the diocese of Oakland (covering Alameda and Contra Costa counties — http://www.oakdiocese.org/2007_map.pdf): “Between 2007 and 2012 — The Black population is projected to decrease by 14,350 persons and to decrease from 11.2 to 10.3% of the total.”
The overall diocesan population is expected to grow by 3.8% during the same period, with primary growth in the Latino (21.0 – 23.1%) and Asian/Other (24.6-27.2%). The White (non-Hispanic) population will decrease the most: 43.2-39.5%.
Why these numbers? The face of the Catholic church is still overwhelmingly white, primarily due to the growth of the suburbs, but that is changing very quickly. There are 2 vibrant A-A churches within Oakland, but the parishioners tend to be older, more conservative people.
I submit that the church has been woefully inadequate in reaching out to the African American population for many years (decades, most likely). For the past 3 or 4 years I have watched the diocesan paper when it profiles the seminarians. They are overwhelmingly Hispanic, Filipino, Vietnamese and other Asians. I haven’t seen an Anglo face for at least 3 years and no black faces whatsoever for as long as I can remember. I could be wrong, but I think that there are no more than 6 black diocesan priests in active service.
It appears that future growth will be in spite of the church’s efforts, with immigration the primary source of new Catholics. The staff of the new Cathedral of Christ the Light are almost all Vietnamese, including the rector. Services are in English, Vietnamese, Filipino and Hispanice. A continued lack of a minority bishop in face of the rapidly changing demographics reflects a lack of consideration for the future face of the Oakland church. An impression, valid or not, that the church is not interested in having the leadership reflect the population will continue to drive certain groups away. This may be a reason for the decrease in African American Catholics in a diocese with a strong black population.
Peter Nixon resides in the same diocese and may have a different take on what is happening
Bill DeHaas above refers to “moving into the Ninth Ward.” How about St. David’s and the awesome friendliness and spirit of its parishioners? Link to parish website:
http://www.josephite.com/parish/la/sd/
Mr. McMahon – I mentioned a couple of outstanding parishes but did not name them. You have now cited one example.
Picking up on the earlier blog and Prof. Kaveny’s thoughts (circling the wagons), I again repeat the comparison to Lincoln and abolition. Rummel took almost 8 years to reach this action plan; 7 years after the law was changed and in a city where 50% of all white children attended catholic schools. So, it appears that he finally was forced to use his authority to uphold the church’s moral principle.
Mr. Nickols – interesting quotes about the health of Rummel and the co-adjutor, Cody. As we all know, Cody was opinonated, strong-willed, and would have supported any directive from Rome. Now, if someone has historical documents about that relationship and its impact on Rummel’s decision, that would be interesting.
The other points: Rummel’s decision supported what had been federal law 7 years earlier; he was not the first church leader to do this but I would argue that he was the first southern Catholic leader to take this step. Comparing this to circling wagons by some of today’s bishops – some significant differences…..folks such as Burke, Finn, Vasa, etc. are not making decisions to implement current federal law – they are trying to hinder or repeal current laws; Rummel’s decision supported a group of folks who were being segregated and held back; whose human dignity was being diminished – Burke and company seem to actually attack certain segregated groups because they do not fit neatly into their interpretation of church law or the natural law as they define it; Burke and company have attacked and called for public moves against US catholic political figures (Rummel never did that except for Perez who was not in compliance with federal laws in St. Benard Parish); finally, Rummel’s decisions were restricted to his own archdiocese – he did not threaten state officials or others in the US. So, I see significant differences between Rummel’s “Circling the Wagons” and the likes of Burke, Finn, Tobin, etc.
Lisa–
Just a quibble re your comments about Lincoln…
Lincoln was never an abolitionist. Right up until his assassination five days after Lee’s surrender, Lincoln favored resettlement of the slaves, initially to Africa, and later in the war to Central America. I think it’s fair to say that he never believed that whites and blacks in the South would be able to live and work as equals.
And I think you meant Frederick Douglass rather than W.E.B. Du Bois, who was not born until after Lincoln had died. Though Lincoln met Douglass and admired him, Douglass
later wrote that he did not believe that Lincoln would press for full equality between whites and the freed slaves.
Wm…Oops–thanks for the corrections–I should have checked before posting. Indeed, Douglass. And, re: Lincoln, I didn’t know that at all. Again, thanks.
I risk repeating what has been said already, but I find the connection between Lisa Fulham’s earlier post on “Benedict Circles The Wagons”‘ and Archbishop Joseph Rummel “Circles The Wagons” not at all comparable. The Pope was speaking of current national debates in a pluralistic society on matters that may or may not become law. Pope Benedict encouraged the hierarchy of E/W to take a united and consistent position. Archbishop Rummel was, on the other hand, dealing with an issue not only of settled Catholic morality, but also a matter of settled US law following upon the Supreme Court’s decision in May 1954 overturning the previous “separate but equal” decision (s) of the Court. The Catholic position and the State’s position were not at variance when the Archbishop excommunicated three people who publicly (and that’s important) defied his authoritative decision to integrate the Catholic schools in the diocese of NO, of which he was then Ordinary. (I am not at ease calling it HIS diocese. I once heard a bishop say, “The diocese to which I belong.” I wanted to stand up and cheer.)
It is interesting that Abp. Rummel was not from the South. His family emigrated to NYC from Germany. He was ordained a priest of NY. Another priest of NY, Patrick A. O’Boyle, on becoming Archbishop of Washington in 1948, very quickly integrated the Catholic schools in what was a very southern city. (I was born and grew up in Washington and its suburbs.)
There was, and continues to be, a strong African-American Catholic community in Washington. Perhaps it is no longer true, but I recall reading that the number of Black Catholics in Washington is the second largest of any diocese in the US. (It is the only US diocese to have had an African American auxiliary bishop consistently since the mid-1970s, with the exception of NO, which from 1965 has had an African American auxiliary bishop.) Did Abp. O.Boyle face opposition? Yes, even from some of his priests. But he did not back down. And this, fourteen years before Abp. Rummel’s decision.
A couple of asides on the Washington situation in the 1940s/50s.
In 1954, the esteemed pastor of the Washington suburban parish in which my family lived was named a monsignor. The venerable (and beloved) auxiliary bishop came to confer the honors. During his remarks, he said, “I see a lot of people here who used to live in St.X (the Washington parish of which he was pastor). We would love to have you back. I said to one of my assistants a few days ago that many people were moving out of the parish.” He replied, “But, Your Excellency, many are moving into the parish.” And I said, “Yes, but they are of a different kind.” After almost a gasp from the assembly, he quickly added, “But they are all good people.”
Then, the story that appeared in the diocesan paper a few years ago when the extraordinary Oblate Sisters of Divine Providence were celebrating their 150th anniversary of founding. They were founded to provide religious life for African American women, who often could not find acceptance in other communities. (Dioceses and men’s religious orders, with the notable exception of the Josephites and SVDs, were also slow to accept African American candidates.) In the diocesan paper’s account of the anniversary, an Oblate Sister recalled that, newly assigned to Washington in 1943, when she presented herself for Holy Communion (and the Sisters wore a very full habit) in a DC parish, the priest told her to go to the end of the line, which was the expected custom for Black Catholics at that time. I speak of the mid-20th century.
Bernard; “For some years prior to Archbishop Rummel’s action, Jesuits at Loyola University, New Orleans pushed hard for the cause of integration both of Catholic Churches and of Catholic schools.”
Ann replies: Yes, some of the Jesuits worked mightily to end segregation. But AB Rummel started preaching against segregation as an evil back in the 30′s, He was controversial from the beginning.
Fr. Fichter and Fr. Twoomey were known as the “red priests” (i. e., Communists) because they were very, very loud in their condemnation of segregation. As I remember, the reason Fr. Fichter got into trouble was because he did a sociological study of one particular parish whose pastor was highly respected. The study documented the unfairness of the way the black people were treated there. Fr. Twoomey was simply a saint. I should add that there were many young diocesan priests who preached against it, no doubt influenced by Fr. Joseph Buckley, who taught at our local seminary. He later was a non-voting member of Vatican II and made important speeches there about freedom of religion. (New Orleans was extremely fortunate in the quality of its Church leadership!)
Here’s a very happy ending, in a way. One of the Loyola students influenced in racial matters by his Jesuit teachers was Moon Landrieu. As a very young State legislator he did what was considered political suicide and spoke out vehemently in favor of integration. But he it wasn’t suicide, he ended up being a fine mayor of New Orleans when it was still predominantly white.
His daughter is now a U. S. Senator, and today his son Mitch Landrieu was elected Mayor of New Orleans by a huge majority, over 60 per cent of the vote. What is notable about this election is that the city is now over 60 per cent black. The best of the local political commentators said, “Perhaps we are at the cusp of post-racial politics”. That bishop and those priests — and many, many nuns — had a great deal to do with its coming to pass.
Well, I guess the votes are in, and Archbishop Rummel has been kicked off his pedestal. Interesting the turn this thread took.
I thought the real value of this thread , beyond a historical view of Rummel, is the current issue of the way hierachy deals with teh ever browning American Catholic Church.
Bill D. made some good points on how leadership remains white (and I’d add mainly conservative.)
I still think back to Msgr. Bob Stern’s talk of last year of the succesful latino ministry developed by Fr. Fox et al under Cardinal Spellman and then tamped down under Cardiinal Cooke (due to fear of lay power?)
The issue of black Catholicism still strikes me as one that is quite tenuous.
Beside new York, have we heard from Chicago yet with its large black comunity? Not to mention Detroit?
And how is Atlanta fairing?
Ann, thanks for filling us in some important details.
Fr. Komonchak, in my eyes, Archbishop Rummel does deserve some praise for his leadership. Given the hand he was dealt, I think he acted cautiously, perhaps more cautiously than he could have. But he was certainly a good man and does deserve being remembered as such. I’d agree with Bill De Haas’s Feb. 6, 1:27 pm post.
One final comic note, reported, if I recall by the late A. J. Leibling. The Louisiana arch-segregationist Leander Perez trued to get Gov. Earl Long to call out the state’s national guard to block federal troops from enforcing integration in Perez’ bailiwick, Plaquemines Parish. Long refused to do so, reminding Perez that ” the Feds got the H-bomb!”
In light of history, I do think it was a mistake to excommunicate, and the episode highlights in a very different context the limits of authority in dealing with strongly held personal convictions that run contrary to Church doctrine.
I don’t say this lightly, but the belief in the rightness of segregation in the South was so deep and irrational as to amount to something of a mental illness. Segregation was the means by which the South soothed itself for having lost the Civil War and became a way of life so fused with cultural identity that alternatives seemed unthinkable — perhaps a little like being Catholic in Ireland as a reaction to English rule. In many respects it became the badge of autonomy that it was denied through defeat and losing the battle of segregation was like rolling up all the other lost battles for one final humiliation.
In the 30s, my mother in law accepted a teaching position in the South, moving from Massachusetts, where hardly anyone spoke about the Civil War anymore. As an outsider she was completely struck by the obsession with the Civil War and she once asked another teacher why they couldn’t move on, and she was told: “If you had lost you wouldn’t forget either.”
These disobedient people were wrong by all conventional measures — in the rightness of their beliefs, in the way in which they imposed segregation and in the way in which they opposed authority — but as in many other things, the failure to win their hearts and minds had awful consequences, and all the heavy handed Church fiats couldn’t change that. Which is not to say that the schools should not have been desegregated, they should have, but excommunication was the wrong response.
Barbara: Just to clarify: the excommunications affected only the three people who were openly defying the archbishop’s decision and trying to organize resistance to it.
A lot of talk about changing “hearts and minds” here, but in the thread on the Teabow ad, its failure of logic was all that mattered. What the ad says to the heart was not enough.
Barbara, how do you suppose one can change minds that hold an irrational belief?
How did people learn to let go of segregation? Well, some still haven’t is one answer. The other is, they travelled outside the space that allowed the belief to exist. I once read that more people of Irish descent in America are Protestant than Catholic. This isn’t a perfect analogy by any means, I only use it to illustrate that cultural truths that seem unalterable are often broken when the conditions that elemented them, so to speak, change. Thus, “stupid” Italians became talented doctors and lawyers within a generation of their parents’ emigration to the U.S.
It’s hard to change in place, but to a lesser extent, many people from outside of the South have moved in and made it more difficult to overtly maintain the same social construct.
All of the above now co-exist, sometimes quite uneasily, in the South.
Also, regarding “only three people” being excommunicated: their sympathizers, I am sure, felt the sting.
Barbara —
I agree with all you say, except that I’m not sure that acceptance of segregation as a way of life was madness. Neurosis and sin, no doubt, but insanity? Yes, in some cases. I have known a couple of people who actually had a deep hatred of black people without any special reason for it, except maybe irrational fear. But I think that many Southerners didn’t so much dislike black people as consider them inferior. And there was some basis for that — if you couldn’t read and write and had never gone any further than you could walk, you too would probably appear as not too bright. The lack of opportunity for the black people was with few exceptions absolute. In my experience, non-Southerners don’t realize how just bad in practice the system was. I’m not talking about plantation life, I’m talking post-Civil War.
Except in New Orleans (always, for good and ill, the exception) there was a black middle class that even had its own newspapers and were well-off enough to travel. I think it is no accident that some of the most important court cases originated here and that integration here was accomplished without the physical violence that happened when other Southern cities integrated their schools. We had yelling and screaming when the public schools were integrated, but I don’t think that happened at the Catholic ones.
Make no mistake == Archbishop Rummel, along with Mrs. Edgar Stern (heiress to a huge Sears fortune) were the the chief reasons that people began to change their hearts to the extent that they realized that black people had been treated extremely unfairly. That didn’t mean that most people thought that integration was the solution to that injustice. It’s just that by the 60′s many, many people, especially the young, had come to see that justice required some real change. Mrs. Stern spent a considerable portion of her big fortune supporting black causes here, including helping Dillard University. It has the most beautiful campus in the city thanks to the buildings she bought for it. And there were others. St Katherine Drexel started Xavier U. with her fortune. And the Ursulines and some other nuns took AB seriously and preached againt segregation, and add to them the aforementioned Jesuits and Fr. Buckley.
Also, my local college, Newcomb, had faculty members all the way back to the 20′s who taught their students that segregation was wrong. (I’m named after one of them.)
Yes, education of both black and white was terribly important. But education takes years and years. it was when when white people saw that black people *could* learn that they were forced to change their minds somewhat.
If you were my age (born in 1930) memory would convince you, I think, that it was the relentless preaching of AB Rummell beginning as early as the mid-1930s on that sparked the movement the change. He didn’t just make declarations to the general public (he did do that), but his letters to the parishes, required to be read at Sunday Mass, also awakened consciences. He also built many, many new schools which educated white people who came from functionally illiterate families, and there were many, many of those.
It took years to educate a population, and as Barbara says, some Southerners *still* want segregation, but it seems to me we are, with some exception, beyond longing for a return to segregation. With most young people it’s a total non-issue. Yes, I’d say that most people here don’t want inter-marriage. (It does cause problems for the children from outside the family), but in my parish there are often inter-racial couples at Mass and nobody seems to even notice. We have a black bishop in residence in the parish and everyone seems to love his sermons. (I can’t hear him, sigh.) After Mass white and black (about a third of the congregation, I’d say) go to greet him.
ln the economic sphere there has been great progress. The black middle class here has grown enormously since the Civil Rights laws. And now black workmen even have white ones working for them. My black plumber, for instance, has white assistant plumbers, and James, the black neighborhood jack-of-all-trades, also had white men working for him. (You have no idea what a victory that is!)
Most significant, as of this week black New Orleanians felt so comfortable with a white politician that they just gave overwhelming support to our new mayor — 60 percent voted for Landrieu! Even I was surprised. Yes, that does seem to be the beginning of the end of race-based politics. I hope it’s starting nationally.
More recently, Katrina had something to do with that, I think. People started to be more aware of our common humanity.
I should add that the Saints had something to do with it too. You want irrationality? There it is. But they did bring black and white together in common cause. Maybe sports are important after all? Geaux, Saints!
Maybe AB Rummel could have integrated the schools sooner. But I doubt that the results would have been as good — it would have been Little Rock all over. It was a prudential judgment, and maybe it was wrong, but I’m still convinced that AB Rummel was a great and holy man.
Thank you, Ann. It’s good to have the local perspective. Do you think that the confrontation between Abp. Rummel and the three leaders of the opposition could have been avoided?
JAK –
I didn’t know any of the three, so I can’t say. But if they hadn’t confronted the AB I would not have been surprised if others had.. There was organized opposition from the Whiite Citizens Council. It was supported by Leander Perez, a very rich man from down the river, one of those excommunicated, and a ruthless politician as well.
By the way, the story is told that one of the Loyola Jesuits, Fr. Montecino, used to go to meetings of the White Citizens Council meetings at the big city auditorium and heckle Perez:-) Brave man.
The Archdiocese includes a lot more than New Orleans, including at the time large rural areas which were more conservative than the city. No doubt there were others, both from inside and outside of the city, who would have risked excommunication if those three hadn’t.
Excommunication was a big stick, however. Eventually Perez asked to return to the Church. The AB at the time, Hannan, as I remember, was criticized for his handling of that too, especially some black Catholcs. To have the excommunication lifted, the person was required by Church law to recant publicly. Perez was permitted to recant in an obscure park in the country where there were very few people around. Was that an imprudent decision too? I look at it this way: eventually Perez was the one who lost the battle, not the Archbishops.
Archbishop Hannan is still alive by the way, and he is very well respected, even beloved by many . (He justxwent to the Super Bowl game :-)
Good book that gives you a great feel for St. Bernard Parish & Plaquemines Parish and the people who inhabit this area – http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94176213
Best book of these parishes, their history, and Hurricane Katrine: by Ken Wells of the Wall Street Journal: “The Good Pirates of the Forgotten Bayous”
This will give you some idea of Judge Perez – even more powerful than Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago. And in an era of state politics that can best be described as organized anarchy following the governship of Huey Long. Yet, Ms. Olivier’s memories and the fact that Hannan and Perez reached some type of forgiveness also tells you how important the catholic church was in New Orleans.
Wish that someone could write the history of Archbishop Rummel during this time period; the context and world he lived in; as Ann says, you can still travel to Natchez and hear people talk about the “War of Northern Aggression” as if it happened yesterday.
Even now, some new writers are beginning to see the effects of Katrina in St. Bernard – an effort to restrict any relocation of African-Americans into the parish. A continued belief of many parish residents that New Orleans city officials purposefully blew the Mississippi levees during Hurricane Betsy to save the Vieux Carre (French Quarter). In fact, most folks in St. Bernard had just paid off their second mortgages from the 1960′s Hurricane Betsy when Katrina struck. Why did it devastate the parish – because the federal government – Corps of Engineers – built the Mississippi Gulf Outlet canal back of the parish and straight into the lake and city. Katrina’s swell actually breached this canal destroying St. Bernard. Only about 25% of the parish residents have returned.
It would be interesting to have the memories of folks likd Ann recorded for posterity – many things have changed but many attitudes have not. The history of Rummel, Cody, his pastoral letters on week-ends, his notes from diocesan meetings, interfacing with Rome during this period; his priest council minutes, etc. would shed a remarkable light on his bravery. Wonder if his ultimate poor health was not a result of the stress of these years and his desegregation decision. A brave man; a brave catholic bishop – despite what may have happened elsewhere and earlier in the US or the US Catholic Church. The role of Dillard and Xavier and Loyola Universities during this time….etc.
New Orleans is a world unto itself – it is a state of mind.
Bill –
Someone could do an American Church history doctoral thesis just collecting the data you suggest and making a few preliminary observations. I’m sure the Historic New Orleans Collection, which is a repository of mounds of historical data would, be a treasure trove, though it would not have all the data you mention. Getting some oral histories is an excellent idea, and I’ll bet the HNOC already has some about it.
I would like to add one thing. My Olivier ancestors were from St. Bernard. They had been there since 1732. The family house went down in the 1918 (?) hurricane. They finally left. It seems to me that it is obvious that the area all the way to the Industrial Canal (where the Lower Ninth is) cannot be protected from a hurricane surge unless the whole of south Louisiana is walled off from the Gulf == the lowlands, the swamps and marshes, are all interconnected. Yet people used to return hurricane after hurricane. The call of one’s home land and neighbors is an extremely strong one.
Complexity, complexity.