Catholic Church and Desegregation: The Archbishop Rummel Story

Archbishop Joseph Rummel

Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle is remembered as an arch-conservative prelate because of the exceedingly harsh way in which he suppressed dissent from Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae condemning artificial contraception.  But what is often overlooked is that one of his first acts on becoming Archbishop of Washington was to desegregate Church institutions in the Archdiocese.  Washington and the surrounding Maryland counties had a long tradition of racial segregation and O’Boyle’s acts preceded the Supreme Court decision desegregating Public Schools, Brown vs. The Board of Education, by six years. 

The next story to consider is Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans who face a showdown with segregationists in Louisiana in the early ‘60’s.  Joseph Rummel’s family immigrated from Baden Germany when he was six years old and settled in New York City.  He entered seminary as a high-schooler and, after having done his theological studies in Rome, was ordained for the Archdiocese of New York on May 24, 1902.  From 1928 until 1935 he served as Bishop of Omaha and in 1935 was translated to New Orleans.   His tenure in New Orleans was marked by a great expansion of the population due to the urbanization that marked the Great Depression and Rummel built Catholic institutions: parishes, schools, high-schools and other facilities to better serve the Catholic population of a very Catholic city.  Rummel was slow to embrace desegregation but in 1948 he admitted two African Americans to the Archdiocesan  seminary as candidates for the priesthood.  In 1951 he mandated the removal of “white” and “colored” signs from the churches and schools.  And in 1953 he wrote a pastoral letter mandating an end to segregation in Archdiocesan institutions but was not very stringent about enforcing it.  He did close a parish in 1955 when parishioners refused to accept a Black priest. 

The desegregation of the Catholic schools was a major challenge.  The Archbishop clearly wanted the schools desegregated but was hesitant to take on the local school boards that resisted the changes to the status quo.  Moreover, Catholic Schools were peaking in enrollment precisely because as public schools had to be desegregated after Brown vs. The Board of Education, many parents were putting their children in parochial schools to avoid integration.  However, on March 27 1962 Archbishop Rummel announced that of the following autumn term the Catholic schools would be integrated. 

As far back as 1954 Catholic segregationists had been organizing to resist desegregation.  They had even written Pius XII asking for a papal encyclical supporting racial segregation; to their chagrin the Pope issued a statement condemning racism as a major evil in our world. 

Archbishop Rummel wanted a conciliatory approach towards desegregation but that was impossible in the heat of the Civil Rights Movement.  Catholics organized White Citizens Councils and other groups to resist change.  Parents took their children out of Catholic Schools. Letter-writing campaigns deluged the chancery with countless letters asking for the policy to be rescinded.  Patience exhausted the Archbishop said there would be no reversal and anyone standing in his way would be excommunicated. Three dissenters, Judge Leander Perez, Jackson G. Ricau, and Una Gaillot, were put under a ban of excommunication.  And in the end, resistance collapsed and the schools were integrated. 

I relate this story because I have received several comments objecting to my having written in a previous post:

The issue today is the sovereignty of conscience.  In forming our conscience we must pay serious attention to the teaching of the Church—but the teaching of the Church cannot take the place of conscience nor can we be expected to give blind obedience to the teaching of the Church as that would be equivalent to resigning our personal responsibility for making moral decisions.  We need personally and seriously to consider the choices that face us in life.  The Church provides guidance, but it must be our interior adherence to the Holy Spirit that sets our course.   

Readers have brought up the segregationist protesters and asking if my above statement doesn’t justify their resistance.  In a word, yes.  If they were truly following their conscience, believing that segregation was part of the Divine Law, they would be bound to resist it.  Given the clarity of the magisterium on the issue however, it is highly unlikely that the three excommunicates had seriously considered the teaching of the Church in forming their consciences.  But at the end of the day, it is our conscience that must determine our action.  Plenty of saints were excommunicated in their day for standing their ground against bishops and even an occasional pope or two.  Conscience is sovereign and sometime we have to pay the price for our convictions. 

A Colonial Williamsburg Approach To The Paschal Sacrifice

A reader asked me about the Rites of Holy Week prior to the 1955 revision by Pius XII.  Let me refer anyone interested to a fascinating (fascinating to those of us who love the arcane) series of articles by Gregory DiPippo on the Blog New Liturgical Movement.  As I have pointed out in previous postings New Liturgical Movement has definitely gone down the rabbit hole into ecclesiastical surrealism, but the historical research can actually be quite good.  Mr. DiPippo’s series of articles begins with the Palm Sunday offices http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/03/compendium-of-1955-holy-week-revisions_28.html and will lead you to the subsequent articles as he gives an extraordinarily detailed description of both the pre-1955 rite and the revisions of Pius XII. 

Let me first explain the importance of the 1955 revisions in preparing the way for the extensive liturgical changes that have followed the Second Vatican Council.  The earlier rites were taken from the 1570 Missal of Pius V which was accompanied by a Papal Bull known as Quo Primum.  Quo Primum declared that

"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world" Pius V went on to say: "By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it…. No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."   In other words, Pius allegedly fixed the Roman Liturgy unchangeable for all time and in all places.  No liturgical changes.  Or so it was held. 

Despite Pius’ monitum to the contrary, over the centuries from the Pius V to Pius XII various minor alterations had, in fact, been made to the Liturgy.  New propers were composed and new feasts were added as saints were canonized.  Prayers were appended to the end of the recited or low Mass.  The communion of the faithful was re-introduced into the body of the Mass rather than more usually being a separate rite before or after Mass.  But none of these changes were nearly as drastic as the revisions to the Holy Week rites that Pius XII introduced in 1955 and yet there was no claim that Pius lacked the authority to change the rites established by his predecessor.  The changes proceeded smoothly but in many respects they were the Fort Sumter of our current Civil War of Liturgical renewal.  Neo-Trads are beginning to identify the original villain of Liturgical Reform of Vatican II as Pius XII and Holy Week as his Trojan Horse. 

Mr. DiPippo goes into great detail about both the pre and post 1955 rites and it would take me, as is did him, a long series of turgid postings to go over them in detail.  Let me just outline a few for you.

1. In the pre-1955 rites only the priest received Holy Communion on Good Friday.  At the Holy Thursday Mass the priest consecrated two large hosts, one for Holy Thursday and one to be reserved in the altar of repose for Good Friday.   The Good Friday host was placed in a chalice covered by an inverted paten and pall and then veiled.  The veil was ties securely around the knob of the chalice and it was carried beneath a humeral veil in solemn procession to the altar of repose where  it remained until the Communion Rite of the Good Friday “Mass of the Pre-sanctified.”   It was then carried in solemn procession back to the main altar of the church where it was placed on the corporal.  Wine and water were poured into the chalice and the priest celebrant communicated.  The other ministers and the laity did not communicate.  In the 1955 revision, Pius XII mandated that sufficient hosts be consecrated for the faithful to also receive on Good Friday

2. In the pre-1955 rites the Thursday Mass of the Lord’s Supper, the Friday “Mass of the Pre-Sanctified,” and the Saturday Easter Vigil were all celebrated about 9 a.m.  The Vigil was a totally separate liturgy from the First Mass of Easter, which was to be celebrated at, or about midnight of Saturday into Sunday.  This Saturday morning vigil led to the perception that “Lent is over at noon on Holy Saturday—pass the chocolate.”  Similarly, Tenebrae (the offices of Matins and Lauds) which should have been said in the final hours of the night before dawn had shifted to early evening of the day before. 

3. The pre-1955 rites required at least six sacred ministers in Holy Orders: a priest, four deacons, and a subdeacon. (It was common for priests to take the liturgical roles of deacon and subdeacon so you didn’t have to have four actual deacons or an actual subdeacon, six priests would do.)  The unavailability of sufficient clergy in most churches led to a bit of cheating where the priest/celebrant, the deacon, and the subdeacon of the Mass of the Pre-sanctified removed their chasubles and assumed diaconal stoles to stand in as deacons for the chanting of the Passion. 

4. The deacons and subdeacon(s) for the various ceremonies did not wear dalmatics and tunicles but the planetae plicatae

or folded chasubles—a chasuble—usually in the “fiddleback” style pinned up over the chest.  (I remember seeing these as late as an ordination in 1964 and they were pinned both front and back, but Mr. DiPippo speaks only of them being pinned in front.  I suspect the ordination folded chasubles were of a different symbolism than the ones in the Holy Week rites as this particular ordination was held a good nine years after the folded chasubles of Holy Week had been abolished.)  At certain times the deacon also wore the chasuble folded over the left shoulder and caught at the right side below the hip so as to give the impression of the “broad stole.”  This was worn over the deacon’s proper stole.  The 1955 revisions did away with all this and replaced the planetae plicatae with tunicles and dalmatics. 

5. The Blessing of Palms on Palm Sunday was an especially curious custom as while it preceded the Mass of the Palm Sunday it was a rite of its own that in many ways paralleled the Mass.  The congregation met ideally in a church or chapel distinct from the sanctuary where the Mass was to be offered.  The rite is a bizarre parallel to the Mass.  The palms awaiting the blessing were placed flat on the altar.  As the sacred ministers entered there was a sung introit followed by collect, epistle, gradual and gospel.  This was followed by a prayer that corresponds to the “Prayer over the Gifts at Mass,” and that, in turn was followed by a preface, Sanctus, and a pseudo-canon consisting of five prayers over the palms.   The palms were the distributed and a prayer, corresponding to the post-communion prayer is said before the procession leaves for the main church where the Mass was to be said.  Violet vestments were used throughout both the Blessing of Palms and the Mass.  (In the 1955 Rite, Red vestments are used for the Rite of Palms, Violet for the Mass.  Similarly the Good Friday Service is done entirely in Black Vestments but in the 1955 revision, violet is substituted for black during the communion rite.  This required   more changes of vestments in the 1955 Rite than in the previous rites, especially for Palm Sunday, Good Friday, and the Vigil of Easter.) 

I could go into far more detail about the pre-1955 rites but the point that strikes me most about both the 1570 Rite and the 1955 Rite is how little it incorporates the faithful.  Other than for the Procession of Palms, there is no point in a congregation gathering—they are entirely irrelevant to the Sacred Action.  It is, at best, an elegant ballet carried out by the corps des prêtres; often it was more of a “Chinese Fire Drill” of confused clergy, obtuse chierichetti, and unmarried men of a certain age and a seminary background who just like to hang around inside the altar rail fussing over burses, discarded copes, and the occasional humeral veil.  I have seen a lot of this crap (carefully chosen word) lately on some neo-trad blogs about how one can have “full, active, and conscious participation” in the Liturgy simply by being present attentively.  I understand that.  That is how I fully, actively, and consciously participate in La Boehme as I don’t think I can any longer hit the higher notes and besides I would lose my season tickets if I even tried.  But La Boehme is not the Mystery by which I am saved.  Popes going back to Pius X have encouraged direct participation in the liturgy by the assembly.   There have always been those liturgical mandarins who have wanted to restrict the liturgy to their own private preserve.  Some are priests.  (You know the pathology: “It’s my Mass!!!  We will do it my way!!!) Others are choir directors.  And now we have “liturgists.”  It can be Father’s “friend” who has his or her hand in every pie.   It can be any combination of people but in the end we must remember that the Liturgy is the work of the entire Church and it belongs equally to every member of the Church. 

So I was delighted to participate in the simple and reverent rituals of my parish church with beautiful music, devoid of pomp, prayerful and solemn but not stilted with our women getting their feet washed alongside the guys, our altar girls and boys, lectors and catechumens.  The only drama it encouraged was to walk the way of the Cross interiorly, in one own’s heart, as we accompanied Christ from the Upper Room of Thursday to the Empty Tomb of Easter Morn.

For What Did Christ Die?

As many of my regular readers know, one neo-trad site that I find worthwhile is New Liturgical Movement.  While those contributors whose focus is on the philosophical merits of restoring the pre-conciliar rites are generally not worth the time, there are frequent articles on historical points that give interesting insights into the history and development of our Catholic, indeed our Christian, faith.  In our storehouse of Catholicism’s two millennia of treasures there are more than some old gilt chairs that broke under the weight of the fat arse of some doddering prelate.  We have Chartres and the In Paradisum and blue as a liturgical color.  (In fact we have yellow as a liturgical color which is really a bit outré.)  We have Mozart’s Ave Verum Corpus and the Canon of Addai and Mara, and the Easter Sepulcher and the hymns of the Roman Breviary.   Some, many, of the old things are probably best left in the storeroom, but some really need to be taken out a bit more often and polished-up and used.  But in doing so we always need to ask ourselves: What is the Church for which Jesus gave his life? 

There was a great video of the coronation of Pius XII (March 12, 1939) on the site.  It led me to a host of other old videos of the old days of prelates clad in silks and furs like Hollywood starlets or the San Francisco Gay Pride parade. (C’mon boys, even Cardinal Burke says that men should dress like men. Not that he practices what he preaches.) It is a reminder that to work on reinforcing our liturgy with elements both old and new is the work of wise stewards, but to build kingdoms other than the Kingdom of God is to make a mockery of the Cross.  

The Church That Francis Built

Pius XII--each pope in
his own papacy remakes
the Church 

There is no doubt that in two and a half years Pope Francis has effected a radical change in Catholicism—creating a very different Church than the one he inherited from his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI.  The Franciscan Revolution has not yet been complete and its thoroughness will depend, to some extent, on how much longer Francis continues in the papal ministry, but once again the toothpaste is out of the tube and will not successfully be put back, at least in its entirety. 

The most notable change in this papacy is from an emphasis on objective moral norms to a much stronger personalist appreciation for the vagaries of human behavior, most particularly regarding human sexuality.  As practically every commentator has pointed out, Francis has not changed any Church teaching on sexual morality but his openness to encounter and willingness to dialogue with transgendered individuals, the divorced and remarried, people in same-sex relationships, has done far more than change a tone.  It has torn down the barriers that isolated non-conforming individuals from the larger Catholic community.  It has put sexual behavior in its proper context and not let it be any longer the overriding defining characteristic of a person’s moral quality.  Francis doesn’t claim that non-marital sexual relationships are not sins but he treats them like any other area of moral fracture and doesn’t impose some sort of Scarlet Letter on individuals who don’t measure up to our somewhat strict Catholic codes.  Consequently people once seemingly isolated from full participation in the life of the Christian community are finding the Church a comfortable spiritual home and learning to integrate themselves back into the community.  More and more are even taking responsibility for their spiritual integrity and deciding for themselves questions about whether their individual choices are indeed serious fractures in their relationship with God and how to handle their taking responsibility for their moral integrity vis a vis participating in the Eucharist and other sacraments.  There is nothing really new in this except for the scale on which it is proceeding.  Some individuals have long had that maturity and spiritual depth to plumb their own consciences and act accordingly, but it is now almost becoming normative.  This does drive some people of the old Scribe and Pharisee Club ‘round the bend however.  Always did.  Even back in the day when the disciples picked corn on the Sabbath.  But that is another story.

The second way in which the change is becoming effective is a move away from the triumphant style of recent years.  Towards the end of the reign of John Paul II there was a very notable shift in sartorial style in Vatican circles.  Cappae Magnae had not been seen in years but were suddenly popping up at all these “traditional” Pontifical Masses in the “Extraordinary Form.”  Silver buckles and violet and scarlet stockings began appearing on prelatial feet.  JPII kept his ox-blood loafers for everyday, but began wearing some vestments, especially copes, that were exceptionally beautiful but also quite different from the more simple style set by Paul VI and used by JPII himself in the first two thirds of his reign.  Then Benedict hit the scene with a fury that can only be compared to a confused six-year old allowed to raid his Gramma’s attic for dress-up.   I mean he was giving Maggie Smith as the Dowager Countess of Grantham a run for her money in period costume.  I don’t mean to be unkind or demeaning but frankly, it was embarrassing.  It was certainly hard to explain to people who live in the everyday world.  And it was threatening to turn the Church into a bizarre fantasyland as the enthusiasm for vintage costuming trickled down through Bishops Burke and Finn and Slattery and Morlino et al to local clergy.  Francis’ return to the more simple style of vesture as well as his Ford Focus and apartment in the Vatican Guest House has set a standard of normalcy. 

I suppose there are other ways in which Francis has changed the Church.  One would certainly be the reduction of bureaucracy and the levels of transparency, especially in financial matters.  There is still a long way to go in these areas, but more progress has been made in these areas in the last two years than in the previous thirty-five.  Another is the move away from a juridical mentality where every canon and each liturgical rubric was noted and enforced.  Francis is not one for allowing his agenda to be snared by minor points.  Francis’ willingness to speak off the cuff is a huge difference from his predecessors and witnesses to his concern for the broad picture rather than sweating the small stuff.  His permitting free and open discussion at the Synod of Bishops witnesses to this same point.  And of course his willingness to take on the issues of the day—Climate Change, Income Inequality, Migrants—is notable.  His predecessors brought up these issues as well but always heavily veiled with abstractions.  Francis is very specific and concrete in his approach. 

We must remember however that the Church Francis inherited was not the Church as it came down from the Apostles.   John Paul II, along with Cardinal Ratzinger—later Pope Benedict XVI—had done much to create the Church as it stood on March 13, 2013.  It was not the Church John XXIII and Paul VI had left.  Francis’ predecessors re-centralized authority in the Roman Curia at the expense of the local bishops whom Christus Dominus at Vatican II recognized as heads of the local Churches.  Ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue had largely gone into a stall.  Liturgical development had taken an ugly turn with “The Reform of the Reform” and even worse with Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum.  There was a serious attempt to re-interpret the Second Vatican Council in a minimalist fashion.  In fact, much of what Francis has done, has been to restore the Church to the track envisioned at the Council. 

And John XXIII and Paul VI themselves had radically reshaped the Church that Pius XII had left at his death on October 9, 1958.  Few popes have had the opportunity to shape the Church in their papacy as had Pius XII.  His years as a diplomat gave him the skills to exploit the WWII period and the post-war period to extend papal control at the expense of local bishops and cathedral chapters as well as traditionally autonomous religious communities.  Resistance to Communism required the surrender of local independence to centralized Papal authority.  With henchmen like the American Francis Spellman, the French Maurice Feltin, British Bernard Griffin, and Spaniard Enrique Pla y Deniel Pius was able to control the Church throughout Western Europe and the Americas.  He was uncompromising with the Communist Regimes of Eastern Europe and Asia even though it meant the imprisonment and death of numerous bishops, priests, religious and faithful.   He created a political alliance with the United States government to check the spread of Communism, especially in Latin America and placed the resources of the Church at the disposal of the CIA in their joint efforts.  He was the most powerful pope since the 13^th century apex of papal power and, at least until is health problems began in 1954 was able to concentrate all power, curial and diplomatic, in his own hands.  His failing health and loss of ability to manage the Curia is in great part responsible for creating that behemoth that has plagued every pope since. 

We could go back further and see how Church has morphed to fit the vision of each Pope, some simplifying and others aggrandizing the Church and their own office.  But for this posting suffice it to say that while Pope Francis has done remarkable work, substantially he has done nothing other than what each of his predecessors has done in his reign.