The life of Cardinal Humberto Medeiros of Boston : whatever God wants 2021035562, 2021035563, 9781793651013, 9781793651020, 1793651019

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Notes
Part I: Early Life and Ministry in Fall River, 1915–1966
Chapter 1: The Early Years: Azores and Fall River
Background: The Azores and Saint Michael
Early Years on Saint Michael
Immigrant to the United States
The Road to Ordination
Notes
Chapter 2: A Priest in Fall River
The Diocese of Fall River
Early Assignments and Doctoral Education
A Priest in the Diocese of Fall River
Notes
Part II: Advocate for the Poor
Chapter 3: Brownsville, 1966–1970: Building the Diocese
The Diocese of Brownsville: Background and History
Arrival in Brownsville
Organizing the Diocese
Medeiros and the Broader Community
Notes
Chapter 4: Advocate for the Poor in Brownsville
Humberto Medeiros: His Understanding of Poverty
Migrant Workers in Brownsville
Medeiros Acts to Resolve the Strike
Brownsville: Other Projects to Aid the Poor
Notes
Chapter 5: Working with the NCCB in Brownsville
California Farm Workers
The California Grape Boycott and Strike
The NCCB and Latin America
Other NCCB Activities
Notes
Part III: Turbulent Years as Archbishop of Boston, 1970–1983
Chapter 6: The New Adventure of Boston
Assignment to Boston
The Archdiocese of Boston—Background
Medeiros’ Arrival and Installation in Boston
Reaction to Medeiros and First Actions
Notes
Chapter 7: Diocesan Affairs in Boston
Reorganization of the Archdiocese
Archdiocesan Programs
Medeiros Joins the College of Cardinals
Resolving the Diocesan Debt
Notes
Chapter 8: Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy
Medeiros’ Pastoral Approach
Medeiros and Women in the Church
Medeiros’ Relationship with the Clergy
Medeiros and “Problem” Priests
Notes
Chapter 9: Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis
Catholic Schools in Boston
The Busing Crisis: The Boston Public School Desegregation Plan
The Desegregation of Boston’s Public Schools: Phase I
The Desegregation of Boston’s Public Schools: Phase II
Aftermath and Evaluation of the Controversy
Notes
Chapter 10: Vatican II in Action
The Post-Vatican II Church
Ecumenical Initiatives
Vatican II in Other Applications
The Visit of Pope Saint John Paul II
Notes
Chapter 11: Serving Those on the Margins
Efforts to Assist the Poor in Boston
Low-Income Housing
Prison Reform
Racial Justice
Notes
Chapter 12: Issues of Church and State in Boston
The Church and State Issue in the 1970s
Medeiros Tackles the Issues
Medeiros on Specific Life Issues
The 1980 Election Controversy
Notes
Chapter 13: Ministry Beyond Boston
Extra-Boston Appointments
Ministry with the NCCB
Notes
Chapter 14: Final Years, Death and Legacy
Health Issues and Death
The Legacy of Cardinal Medeiros
Notes
Archival Sources
Personal Interviews
Books and Articles
Index

Citation preview

The Life of Cardinal Humberto Medeiros of Boston

The Life of Cardinal Humberto Medeiros of Boston Whatever God Wants

Father Richard Gribble, CSC

LEXINGTON BOOKS

Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Published by Lexington Books An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www​.rowman​.com 86-90 Paul Street, London EC2A 4NE Portions of Chapter 4 previously appeared in Catholic Southwest. Used with permission. Portions of Chapters 5 and 11 previously appeared in Catholic Historical Review. Used with permission of Catholic University Press. Copyright © 2021 by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Gribble, Richard, author. Title: The life of Cardinal Humberto Medeiros of Boston : whatever God wants / Father Richard Gribble, CSC. Description: Lanham : Lexington Books, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021035562 (print) | LCCN 2021035563 (ebook) | ISBN 9781793651013 (cloth) | ISBN 9781793651020 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Medeiros, Humberto Sousa, 1915–1983. | Cardinals— United States—Biography. Classification: LCC BX4705.M48155 G75 2021 (print) | LCC BX4705.M48155 (ebook) | DDC 282.092 [B]—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021035562 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021035563 ∞ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

The inspiration to accomplish goals in our life is found in many avenues. We are inspired by the accomplishments of people of history, over the events of our life, and the people who cross our path. Cardinal Medeiros, the subject of this study, was an inspirational figure to many. He came to the United States as a youth, experiencing poverty and isolation. Through hard work and dedication, he was able to achieve greatness and make his mark on the history of the Church in the United States. The inspiration that prompted me to begin this project and to see it to completion was provided by another immigrant to the United States, my dear friend Sister Tania Santander Atauchi, CDP. Like Cardinal Medeiros, Sister Tania played an inspirational role in the lives of many that she served at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, St. Paul Parish in Hingham, Massachusetts, her work with the permanent diaconate in Boston, and her many years of teaching at Stonehill College in North Easton, Massachusetts. On a more personal level, she was the one who inspired me to continue to work on this project over a long period of time, continually asking me about my progress encouraging me to keep at the task. On September 26, 2019, Sister Tania returned to God after a short battle with cancer. She would be very happy that this project was completed. Unquestionably, it is appropriate that this book be dedicated to her memory. Requiesce in pace.

Gribble_9781793651013.indb 5

13-09-2021 08:12:24

Contents

Acknowledgmentsix Introduction1 PART I: EARLY LIFE AND MINISTRY IN FALL RIVER, 1915–1966 1 The Early Years: Azores and Fall River 2 A Priest in Fall River

7 9 23

PART II: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR: BISHOP OF BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS, 1966–1970

47

3 Brownsville, 1966–1970: Building the Diocese

49

4 Advocate for the Poor in Brownsville

77

5 Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

95

PART III: TURBULENT YEARS AS ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON, 1970–1983

117

6 The New Adventure of Boston

119

7 Diocesan Affairs in Boston

135

8 Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

159

9 Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

195

10 Vatican II in Action

225 vii

viii

Contents

11 Serving Those on the Margins

249

12 Issues of Church and State in Boston

277

13 Ministry Beyond Boston

301

14 Final Years, Death and Legacy

313

Epilogue: Humberto Medeiros: A Life of Service and Fidelity

325

Bibliography329 Index341 About the Author

353

Acknowledgments

This monograph was long in generation and could not have been completed without the assistance of many people. The efforts and assistance of those who have helped with the research and editing of this book must be acknowledged. I wish to acknowledge and thank the ordinaries in Fall River, Bishop Edgar de Cunha, Brownsville, Bishop Daniel Flores, and Boston, Cardinal Sean O’Malley for granting me access to their diocesan records. In Fall River the efforts of Deacon Alan Tadeau, were invaluable. The archival staffs in Brownsville and Corpus Christi, Texas made records available for my perusal. The staff at the Texas Catholic Archives in Austin, Texas, especially, Dr. Marian Barber was extremely helpful. In Boston, the archives staff led by Thomas Lester and MaryJo Mandavawala were not only extremely helpful but provided a welcoming and very pleasant atmosphere in which to conduct research. I also wish to thank and acknowledge the four primary readers of this manuscript, Dr. Jim O’Toole, Thomas Lester, Fr. George Evans, and Father Robert O’Grady. Last, I would like to acknowledge the John A. McNeice Jr. Charitable Foundation and the work of Mr. Edward Casey, a member of the Foundation Board for their financial contribution that allowed me an extended sabbatical leave to complete this writing of this book in a timely manner.

ix

Introduction

Historical figures have generally been labeled as heroes or villains based on actions that have been determined by history to be acceptable or unacceptable to society. From the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther, who can rightly be called the purveyor of the Protestant Reformation, is seen as a sinner or a villain, not only for his arguments against the Church but for starting his own Christian community of faith. However, other sincere Christians view Luther as one who pointed out abuses that needed to be resolved, forming the Church more in the image of Jesus Christ. The majority Christian population views Jesus Christ and his initial band of apostles, including Saint Paul, as great heroes. However, from the perspective of the Jewish community of which all these men were originally members, they were heretics and villains. Why was Jesus Christ executed as a common criminal? While many fine answers could be proffered in response, his constant violations of the sacred Jewish law led to his crucifixion. Jesus’ hero status dominates due to the majority Christian view. Thus, designation as heroes and villains is rather arbitrary depending on the verdict of history and the perception of people. Cardinal Humberto Medeiros, the subject of this biographical study, can be historically characterized in categories very similar to those mentioned above. An immigrant from the Azores to the United States who rose to the highest levels of the Roman Catholic Church’s hierarchy, Medeiros was a tragic figure who, due in large measure to his absolute fidelity to God and the magisterium of the Church, experienced much opposition, especially during his tenure as the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston. He was a man who was unwavering in his positions, a characteristic that can indeed be judged critically in hindsight from an historical position. Additionally, Medeiros’ total confidence in his priests, leading at times to hesitation and indecisive action, 1

2

Introduction

especially with respect to problem priests and those known to have sexually abused children, clouds his legacy. During his life, he was not fully appreciated. He accomplished many significant goals in his priestly and episcopal life, yet many of them were rather quietly achieved. That was consistent with his humble and self-effacing personality. The more public face of Cardinal Medeiros, the one that most knew, was the countenance that some historians have suggested was inadequate for the issues of the period in which he had to deal. Medeiros was a rather shy man who held authority but utilized it in ways that were not like his predecessors and many of his contemporaries. Medeiros expressed his ideas on authority in the Church: Those who share in the teaching authority of the Church must always be Christ -like; they must always be humble, sincere, and open to the inspiration of the Spirit. For someone like myself the purpose of authority is primarily to inspire, to encourage, to direct, and to challenge others to new levels of Christ-likeness; seldom should authority be used to rebuke and never to oppress.1

In a similar vein, Medeiros envisioned the role of the bishop—not so much to please and bring smiles to the faithful but much more to carry out the Gospel message and the will of God, as one understands it. This monograph seeks to fill a lacunae in the historical record of the Catholic Church in Boston and the United States. Both of Medeiros’ immediate predecessors, the first two Cardinal Archbishops of Boston, William O’Connell and Richard Cushing, have justly received biographical narratives that describe not only the subjects of the studies but the history of the Church in Boston as well. James O’Toole in Militant and Triumphant: William Henry O’Connell and the Church in Boston 1859–1944 and Douglas Slawson in Ambition and Arrogance: Cardinal William O’Connell of Boston and the American Catholic Church have analyzed O’Connell’s life, portraying him with the iron fist with which he ruled the archdiocese and the scandals that plagued the latter part of his tenure as archbishop. While not as celebrated as the former works on Cardinal O’Connell, John Henry Cutler in Cardinal Cushing of Boston has chronicled the life of Richard Cushing. To date, however, only limited serious scholarship has been published with respect to Humberto Medeiros. A doctoral dissertation completed in 1992 by Michael Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season: the Boston Years of Humberto Cardinal Medeiros, 1970-1983,” is unquestionably the most detailed chronicle and analysis of Medeiros’ ministry, but it presents only his time as Archbishop of Boston. Several other authors have offered comments about his administration of the archdiocese in monographs and articles. One article, penned by this author, details the story of the federally court-ordered busing crisis of the mid-1970s and the response of Cardinal Medeiros. Medeiros

Introduction

3

has been mentioned briefly in some scholarly articles and monographs that address the work of César Chavez and the United Farmworkers, in their campaign for workers’ rights and just compensation during the California grape strike of the latter 1960s. This author has contributed two scholarly articles that address Medeiros’ work with migrant farmworkers, both as Bishop of Brownsville, Texas, as well as his work with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (NCCB) Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor, supporting those living on the margins of society, both in Brownsville and in Boston. No book or scholarly article to date has been published about Medeiros’ early life or his time as a priest in Fall River, Massachusetts. Medeiros was a significant figure in a difficult time of transition both for the Roman Catholic Church in the wake of Vatican II and American society during the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s. Overshadowed by the “iconic status” of his two immediate predecessors in Boston, Medeiros’ shadow existence needs to be brought into the light, assessing his contribution to the Church. This study explores his life and ministry in three parts: (1) Early Life and Ministry in Fall River, 1915–1966, (2) Advocate for the Poor: Bishop of Brownsville, Texas, 1966–1970, and (3) Turbulent Years as Archbishop of Boston, 1970–1983. Humberto Medeiros was a priest and prelate who sought to bridge the gap between the Church in transition and American society, which was being transformed by world and national events. As theologians during the transition between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries sought to build a bridge between an advancing “modernist” theology and a more staid magisterium-guided Church, so too Medeiros sought to bridge the apparent disconnect between the post-Vatican II Church, seeking to modernize, and a third-quarter twentieth-century American society that was challenging all traditional norms, including those held by the Church. Part I of this monograph, “Early Life and Ministry in Fall River, 1915– 1966,” describes the foundation upon which Medeiros’ more public life was built. Chapter 1 describes Medeiros’ childhood in the Azores, his transition to the United States as an immigrant and his education, culminating in his ordination as a priest in 1946. His status as an immigrant and his life experience of poverty clearly formed in him the need to reach out to the poor. Chapter 2 presents the story of his rather meteoric rise to significant positions of authority in the Diocese of Fall River, including service as secretary to Bishop James Connolly, and later ministry as chancellor of the diocese. Additionally, as a peritus (expert) for Connolly at Vatican II, Medeiros gained valuable experience while being transformed by the Council. The event served as a guiding light for his future ministry as a bishop. Part II, “Advocate for the Poor: Bishop of Brownsville, Texas, 1966– 1970,” chapters 3 through 5, chronicles Medeiros’ efforts as the second bishop of this southern Texas border diocese. Chapter 3 describes his

4

Introduction

appointment as Bishop of Brownsville in the spring of 1966. Medeiros’ organized and, for all practical purposes, built the diocese. His predecessor, Bishop Adolph Marx, had served as bishop for only two weeks before he traveled to Rome for the fourth session of Vatican II. He died suddenly on November 1 while on a home visit to Germany. Thus, Medeiros was tasked to secure Brownsville financially. He formed the diocese’s administrative arm and advanced parochial and educational institutions. He creatively organized the laity to enhance the spiritual life of the diocese. Chapters 4 and 5 detail the bishop’s ministry with migrant workers, on both local and national levels. Upon his arrival in Brownsville, Medeiros found himself amid a strike that pitted migrant workers against local farmers over the issue of just compensation. Chapter 4 describes how Medeiros’ sense of justice required a resolution for the strike that would be amenable to both sides. Still, as some of his local priests commented, “We were very fortunate that he [Medeiros] was a champion for the farmworkers. He was in solidarity with them.”2 Chapter 5 describes Medeiros’ ministry with the NCCB, most prominently through his membership on the Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor that in 1970 helped resolve the infamous California grape strike. Additionally, as Chairman of the Allocations Subcommittee of the NCCB’s Latin American Bureau, Medeiros was tasked to solicit and allocate monies to support the ministerial efforts of local ordinaries in Latin America. Part III, “Turbulent Years as Archbishop of Boston, 1970–1983,” chronicles the many activities of Medeiros during his thirteen-year tenure as Archbishop of Boston. Presented topically, this third and largest section of the monograph presents Medeiros’ efforts, sometimes successful and other times not, to bridge the gap between Church and society. The historian Thomas O’Connor has written of Boston during Medeiros’ tenure: Boston was a badly divided city throughout the 1970s and the agonizing issues that disrupted homes, alienated families, and ended friendships were also reflected in the membership of the Catholic Church itself.3

Medeiros wanted the Church and society to work together, but he held and promoted the view that the ultimate judge of right was the Church. Chapters 6 and 7 detail Medeiros’ arrival and initial initiatives in the archdiocese. Central to his ministry in Boston was the reality that he was considered an outsider by many and, therefore, not welcome, by some clergy and laity. While extant data is inconclusive to explain why Medeiros was chosen to lead the archdiocese, nevertheless it is clear that, as the first non-Irish American to serve as diocesan bishop since the founding Bishop, Jean Cheverus, left for Europe in 1823, he received a mixed reception from the start. As an archdiocese that contained approximately five times the number of churches and

Introduction

5

priests as he experienced in Brownsville, Medeiros chose a governance structure that divided the archdiocese into initially three and later four regions, each with a regional auxiliary bishop as overseer. Unquestionably the issue that was most significant and dominated his entire tenure as archbishop was an oppressive $45 million debt that he inherited from his predecessor. Using a combination of fundraising, cutting of budget, and the sale of a few Church properties, Medeiros virtually eliminated the debt by the time of his sudden death in September 1983. Chapters 8 and 9 describe two of Medeiros’ greatest challenges as archbishop. Chapter 8 presents his association with his priests. Medeiros was a great champion for the clergy and supported them in every conceivable way. As archbishop, he was always available to his priests. However, his general humility and self-effacing disposition led to conflicts with some of his priests. While in the end, the archbishop secured his authority, his delay in acting was problematic, especially concerning Fathers Paul Shanley and John Geoghan, where his inaction and lack of foresight failed to adequately address a serious situation, thus allowing the cancer of sexual abuse to continue. Chapter 9 presents an updated and more detailed account of my previous work on the busing crisis of the mid-1970s and how Medeiros’ support for busing and his policy with respect to admission of students to Catholic schools proved to be his most severe trial as archbishop. Chapter 10 outlines the many innovative ways in which Medeiros actively promoted the teachings of Vatican II. Within the Church structures, he inaugurated the Permanent Diaconate program and instituted extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist and promoted the creation of local parish councils. He was a strong supporter of ecumenism and inter-faith dialog. Chapters 11 and 12 demonstrate two lesser-known sides of Medeiros’ ministerial life. Consistent with his work in Brownsville, chapter 11 describes the many ways in which Medeiros was an advocate for the poor in Boston, both economically and in other ways. A great champion of low-income housing, his advocacy led to the construction of homes in four regions within the archdiocese. Additionally, Medeiros was also a great advocate for prison reform, especially a furlough program for life-sentence inmates. The monograph concludes with two chapters that describe his ministerial efforts beyond the archdiocese and also his last days and legacy. While not extensive, chapter 13 outlines Medeiros’ work on boards of educational institutions, including The Catholic University of America, and his limited, but important work with the NCCB, most prominently with the Ad Hoc Bicentennial Committee. Chapter 14 concludes this study by describing Cardinal Medeiros’ last days and the legacy he left to history. Humberto Medeiros was a tragic figure who sought to do God’s will, as he understood it. When experiencing conflict, people often today say “Choose

6

Introduction

your battles.” It can be rightly concluded that Humberto Medeiros could have chosen other battles in order to keep greater peace in the archdiocese and within his person. Out of love for his priests, he was at times hesitant to act swiftly and decisively when significant problems arose. However, he chose to fight when he believed that the principles articulated by the Gospel message of Jesus Christ were in jeopardy. Some people might refer to this as foolishness, but others might refer to it as holiness. Historians and readers of this monograph can arrive at their own judgment. NOTES 1. Quoted in Lawrence Riley, Homily, September 23, 1983, in “Cardinal Medeiros Remembered,” n.d. [1983] Personal Papers of Gerry Silvia (hereafter PPGS), Tiverton, Rhode Island. 2. Pat Doherty and Amador Garza, Interview with Author, March 8, 2017. 3. Thomas O’Connor, Boston Catholics: A History of the Church and Its People (Boston, Northeastern University Press, 1998), 303.

Part I

EARLY LIFE AND MINISTRY IN FALL RIVER, 1915–1966

Chapter 1

The Early Years Azores and Fall River

Humberto Sousa Medeiros was born on the island of Sao Miguel (Saint Michael) in the Azores on October 6, 1915. He entered the world in the home of his grandfather and Godfather, Antonio de Sousa, in the village of Arrifes, only a few miles from Punta Delgada, the capital of this volcanic island paradise. Humberto was the eldest of four children, two brothers, Leonel and Manuel, and a sister, Natalie, born to Antonio Sousa Medeiros and Maria de Jesus Masse Flor. He was baptized three weeks later on November 1, 1915, in his home parish, Our Lady of Health, by Father Manuel Pereira.1 BACKGROUND: THE AZORES AND SAINT MICHAEL The Azores, an archipelago of nine volcanic islands, situated in three groups, lie between 700 and 800 miles west of the Portuguese coast. The archipelago was discovered in 1427 by the Portuguese explorer Goncalo Velho Cabral. The first documentary evidence of the islands’ existence, however, is found in a royal letter on July 2, 1439, stating that there are several (not specifically nine) islands that lie 260 leagues (832 nautical miles) “into the Ocean Sea.”2 The islands were named for the prevalence of hawks, Acores in Portuguese, that populate the land. Settlement of the islands began on Santa Maria (one of the easternmost islands) in 1432. Settlers arrived on Saint Michael, the largest in the chain (measuring 50 miles in length and 18 miles at its greatest width), in 1444. Terceira, visited in 1492 by Columbus on his return to Spain from his discovery of the New World, was the third island discovered and settled. By 1500, all the islands were populated.3 9

10

Chapter 1

The Church was established in the Azores in the early sixteenth century. The bull Inter Caetera, issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1493 to divide New World lands between Spain and Portugal, placed the Azores under the jurisdiction of the latter. Catholicism has been dominant in the archipelago from the land’s first settlement. On January 31, 1533, Pope Clement VII officially erected the Diocese of Sao Miguel with its cathedral on that island. However, Clement’s sudden death delayed an official promulgation of the decree until November 3, 1534, when his successor Pope Paul III issued Aequum Reputamus which created the Azores Diocese of Sao Salvador with the Cathedral on the island of Terceira.4 Overall jurisdiction for Church activities in the Azores remained with the Archbishop of Lisbon.5 Association of the Azores with the United States began in the mid-nineteenth century through the whaling industry. The desire for various products derived from whales led to a growing and profitable industry, especially in New England. Thus, Massachusetts became the new home for many men who sought work and perhaps the possibility of fame and fortune. World War I exacerbated the diaspora from the Azores when German submarines threatened the islands. The risk of war and the fewer opportunities for work on Saint Michael created the necessary recipe for Antonio Medeiros, Humberto’s father, to emigrate to New England in search of work to make ends meet for his family. EARLY YEARS ON SAINT MICHAEL Saint Michael features warm temperatures, gentle breezes, and sandy beaches and it attracts thousands of tourists each year for relaxation. In the days of Humberto Medeiros’ childhood, the island provided a welcoming but generally poor environment. The Medeiros’ home setting was typical for most on the island in the first decades of the twentieth century. The family home in the village of Arrifes, only a few miles from the capital, Punta Delgada, was a modest dwelling with one main room. There were beds on the periphery of a large cast-iron stove in the middle. Medeiros’ parents occupied the one bedroom while he and his siblings slept on the periphery of the main room. There was no electricity and thus the Medeiros children did their schoolwork at night by candlelight or kerosene lamp. The family lived next door to the maternal grandparents, who occupied a home that was much larger and surrounded by a high fence.6 Faith was certainly central to the Medeiros family. They attended Nossa Senhora de Saude (Our Lady of Health) parish, where Medeiros had been baptized shortly after his birth and received his First Communion. Medeiros’ grandmother attended daily mass and generally took Humberto with her.

The Early Years

11

Church festivals were common on the island, usually experienced through three days of religious rituals, combined with music and dancing.7 Humberto Medeiros’ days as a youth on Saint Michael were typical for his day, but his intellectual ability was noted, foreshadowing his future academic accomplishments. As was typical for the time period, the Medeiros family started its day at about 6 am. Generally attending mass with his grandmother, Humberto returned to a breakfast of warm milk, which had to satisfy him until a sandwich was served at about 10 am. Medeiros attended Candido Alfonso elementary school in Arrifes, which doubled as a private home. Students in various grades studied together under the tutelage of Maria Aurea de Sousa Calouro. School hours were long, running from 8 am to 5 pm with one hour set aside for recreation. After school, Medeiros and his siblings returned home to the only large meal of the day.8 From his earlier days, Medeiros’ superior intellectual ability stood out. He was given additional academic opportunities, including night classes and special tutors. In an effort to help the family make ends meet, Medeiros’ grandfather was able to secure a job for the youth in a wholesale grocery in Punta Delgada. However, the physical work was too strenuous for Medeiros. He was fortunate to obtain a position as an assistant to Jose de Oliveira San Benito, a local attorney. Benito almost immediately recognized Medeiros’

Figure 1.1  Medeiros with a Group of People in the Azores. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

12

Chapter 1

superior intellect and encouraged his parents to enroll him in the Escola Industrial Night School in the capital city. His intellectual capacity was matched by artistic talent. Soon Humberto considered a vocation as a painter. He admired the work of the Azorean artist Domingo Rebelo and was fortunate to be able to study with the artist.9 Years later, Medeiros commented about his experience, “All my thoughts then were of art—that and the hope of joining my father in America. If there were ideas of priesthood, they were not uppermost in my mind” (see figure 1.1).10  While faith was central and the pull to exercise his creative side was strong, the economic poverty of the Medeiros family and the region could not be avoided. Indeed, many men left the Azores to find more regular and profitable work. The economic depression that followed World War I hit the Medeiros family directly. By 1923, the Medeiros family was on the verge of economic ruin. Thus, between 1923 and 1928 Antonio Medeiros made three trips to the United States, finding work in Fall River, Massachusetts where he took up residence, working in the cotton mills and a nearby farm.11 IMMIGRANT TO THE UNITED STATES Confident that he was financially stable and ready to welcome his family, Antonio Medeiros sent for his wife and children. After a seven-day voyage on the Sinai, the Medeiros family arrived in Providence, Rhode Island, on April 18, 1931. They were met by Domingo Massa, Maria’s brother and uncle to the Medeiros children. He was residing in Somerset, Massachusetts.12 Antonio joined his family and they proceeded to a small apartment he had rented on Davol Street in Fall River. The oppressive poverty and misery of the Great Depression stared the Medeiros family in the face. Many years later, Medeiros wrote about his initial impression of the United States: “I found out as a ‘green horn’ teenager that the land of plenty which we had eagerly sought was also a land of poverty and unemployment for many— even a land of ethnic discrimination.”13 The city of Fall River that became the Medeiros family’s new home had developed in significant ways from its humble beginnings. On April 2, 1659, English settlers purchased land that eventually became Fall River from the Algonquin nation. In the early nineteenth century, the municipality of Fall River was formally established. On February 26, 1803, the Governor of Massachusetts, Caleb Strong, signed a bill that divided the town of Freetown into two sections, the southern section being incorporated as Fallriver (one word). However, people disliked the name and thus petitioned that the new town be called Troy. This name remained for thirty years until 1834 when the present Fall River moniker was adopted. By 1854, Fall River

The Early Years

13

had become a city, boasting a population of 12,000 and adopting the moto, “We’ll Try.”14 The city’s development was largely dependent on local industry and the job opportunities they produced, which encouraged people to move to the area. The New England whaling industry brought many immigrants, including many from the Azores to the shores of Massachusetts. Before long, Fall River developed its own job market. The establishment of textile mills brought the city to prominence in southeast Massachusetts. In 1846 and 1847, two large new mills were constructed, the first of their type in the city. In 1859, the Union Mill Company opened. This was the first corporation in the city for which capital was secured by public subscription, allowing many similar mills to open as well. By 1923, there were 111 cotton mills in full operation representing an investment of $50 million.15 The explosion in construction of textile mills generated the need for workers, leading to a second great wave of immigrants, especially from Portugal and the Azores, between 1870 and 1890.16 While Fall River had developed and industry was booming in the first quarter of the twentieth century, the city, like the nation, could not avoid the ravages of the Great Depression that blanketed the country in the first years of the 1930s. Antonio Medeiros was able to keep his job, allowing his eldest son, Humberto, to continue his education from his initial training on Saint Michael. In April 1931, shortly after his arrival in Fall River, Humberto matriculated at the Lindsay School but quickly transferred to the Border City School. In the fall of 1932, due to the closure of Border City, he transferred to the Danforth School. At Border and Danforth Medeiros was fortunate to encounter Sadie Kerrigan, who worked with him personally to teach him English.17 Medeiros once commented about Kerrigan: “She made a special effort to help the immigrant children learn English, and I remember her bringing in kitchen utensils and other common items to go over the basic words we needed to become familiar with.”18 At Danforth, Medeiros met another teacher, Margaret Flanagan, who was also highly influential in his education. Flanagan was in charge of special classes in the Fall River public school system. She recognized his artistic skill and encouraged him to take classes and to display his work.19 This led to a brief stint at the Swain School of Design in New Bedford. A local priest, Father Joseph Silvia, arranged for Medeiros to attend the school. He paid the $25 semester tuition fee and arranged for transportation with another teacher. Medeiros once commented about Flanagan: “She was a friend to all the poor in the city, but especially the Portuguese poor. She helped me a great deal and I will never forget her.”20 Unfortunately, Medeiros’ initial entrée into American education was shortlived for the grip of the Depression and the illness of his father kept him from

14

Chapter 1

working. This forced the young man, as the eldest child, to leave school and work so that the family could make ends meet. For the next two and a half years, Medeiros labored as a sweeper at the Sagamore Mill in Fall River. He wrote of his experience, “In the winter of ’32 we didn’t have a cent in the house. My father was very sick and we couldn’t afford a doctor. I made 61 cents a day—that was when I worked. But the job was not steady and my brothers were too young to work. As bad as it was, though, we were never hungry.”21 His experience in the mills taught him significant lessons about workers, and the relations between workers and employers. He would draw on this experience later in his episcopal career in Brownsville, Texas.22 In order to keep up with his education, he took some classes at night, mastering English and preparing himself for high school.23 In many ways, Medeiros’ experiences as a youth in Fall River molded his future outlook and affected how he dealt with the poor. He knew from his personal experience what it meant to be poor and he learned about the necessity to interrupt activities, in his case his education, in order to meet familial needs. Years later, when writing a pastoral letter to youth, Medeiros summarized his experiences of these early days in the United States: As an immigrant from the Azores, I experienced much of the confusion that you experience almost daily in your lives, even though the times were different. Moreover, I had to deal with other problems as well. I moved into a culture and an environment with which I was very unfamiliar, to say the least. I knew no English and had to adjust to rather new circumstances and surroundings. Each of these experiences of my youth, coupled with the ordinary pressures of daily life, was difficult and painful for me as a young man.24

Experiencing the deprivation of financial insecurity and the prejudice that is often felt by immigrants,25 Medeiros could personally relate to the poor, who were significant benefactors of his later ministry as priest and bishop. Despite the family’s economic woes, their practice of Catholicism remained strong. Portuguese families were fervent in their faith and highly active in their local parishes. The historian Belmira Tavares has commented, “Devotion to family and church runs deep in the Portuguese character along with a feeling for traditions.”26 The Medeiros family attended Saint Michael parish in Fall River (where Humberto would later become pastor). He was active in this parish as a youth, serving as a member of the Sao Pedro (Saint Peter) and Saint Vincent de Paul Societies. He was also a member of the Church choir. On October 26, 1932, he was confirmed by Bishop James Cassidy.27 Eventually the family’s financial situation improved,28 allowing Medeiros to return to school. Monsignor Augusto Furtado, who had first met Medeiros

The Early Years

15

when he was a student at the Swain School of Design, took great interest in the youth. As a fellow Portuguese American, he had a natural connection. More importantly, however, Furtado was impressed with Medeiros’ intellect. Additionally, it was Furtado who first gained insight that Medeiros was considering a vocation to the priesthood. Thus, he became the youth’s advocate in his efforts to enter high school. The priest took great interest in Medeiros and tutored him in French and Latin. When he thought Medeiros, now 19, was properly prepared, Furtado took him to Charles V. Carroll, principal of Durfee High School, who tested him. Based on his knowledge and potential, Medeiros matriculated at Durfee29 as a sophomore, starting classes at midyear in January 1935.30 Medeiros thrived at Durfee, becoming involved with and excelling in all activities, both curricular and extra-curricular. He was very active in the drama club and was chosen for the lead role in the play “Monsieur Beaucaire.” He was also featured in “Sing Sing Scandals,” a variety review, and played the role of DeGuise, a French nobleman in “Cyrano de Bergerac.”31 Teachers at Durfee noted his oratorical skills. In his talk, titled, “The Factory Worker,” he demonstrated that the laborer was as much a hero as any one for participating in the humble task of working long hours for little pay to support a family. A classmate, John McAvoy commented, “He spoke with a heavy accent, but possessed star quality—a good voice, superb content and an excellent delivery.”32 Upon his graduation in 1937, Medeiros received many accolades. In the “Who’s Who” section of the annual, “The Record,” Medeiros is listed as the recipient of several awards: “Most Original,” “Most Talented,” “Most Dignified,” “Most Brilliant,” “Most Interesting,” “Most Promising,” and “Most Studious.”33 He won several academic awards including the Class of 1920 prize for excellence in American History, and three scholarships. He also was awarded a medal for the outstanding performance in the school play and a public speaking medal. Most significantly, Medeiros was the valedictorian of his class achieving the highest academic average of any student who had graduated from Durfee to that date.34 Speaking of Medeiros, his classmates at Durfee commented: “We knew he would set his mark in the world; that in whatever career he chose, he would be a success. But even then, you knew becoming a success was unimportant to him.”35 Years later, while attending the 75th-anniversary celebration for Durfee’s foundation, Medeiros gave a speech that autobiographically described his high school experience: “It was here that I received an education which contributed immensely to fit me, such as I am, for the work of life . . . Divine Providence made it possible for me to receive a high school education second to none in our public school system.”36

16

Chapter 1

THE ROAD TO ORDINATION Medeiros’ graduation from Durfee placed him in a position to initiate his education that led to his ordination as a priest. His vocation had been circulating in his mind for several years since his arrival in the United States, and meeting Monsignor Augusto Furtado. Medeiros chose The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. for his undergraduate education, matriculating with the intention of eventually entering the seminary. He was fortunate to receive the assistance of Florence Hutchinson of Fall River. Having read in the paper of Medeiros’ achievements at Durfee, she offered to give him $300 toward his initial college tuition. When Hutchinson learned that Medeiros wanted to become a priest, she also sent $10 per month for the first year he was at Catholic University, to assist with his personal expenses.37 Medeiros actively engaged the academic program while reporting regularly to his bishop, James Cassidy of Fall River. Shortly after arriving at the University, he wrote to Cassidy, “With God’s help I hope to profit the most from the marvelous opportunities at my disposal.”38 During his first semester, the program included courses in religion and Latin, modern European history, biology, and physical education and advanced classes in English and French poetry. He achieved high marks in all his classes and was inaugurated into the Phi Eta Sigma Honor Society, as signified by his reception of a bronze plaque.39 Medeiros’ initial demonstration of academic excellence led to his invitation to attend the Sulpician Seminary’s Basselin College, a three-year course in philosophy and preaching. He wrote to Cassidy, asking for his recommendation to the program.40 Meanwhile, Medeiros continued to excel in his second year, taking courses in German, and Greek, continuing Latin and adding Renaissance and Reformation history. Referring to the new semester, he commented to Cassidy, “I am sure I am going to enjoy it.”41 Medeiros’ application to Basselin was endorsed by a Sulpician official who commented: “His record at the University is outstanding and after my conversation with him I feel certain he has the highest ideals of the priesthood.”42 In the summer of 1939, after his second full year, Medeiros was informed of his acceptance by the Basselin Foundation. Upon entry into the program, he chose courses in logic, ontology, cosmology, the history of philosophy, mathematics, experimental psychology, public speaking, German, chemistry, and English. In the spring of 1940, he took the oath to become a U.S. citizen.43 Eventually in 1941 and 1942, respectively, Medeiros earned a B.A. and a M.A. in philosophy. His master’s thesis explored the political philosophy of the Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio de Oliveira Salazar.44 After completing, as was the norm, his summer ministry at Saint Vincent’s (Cathedral) Camp in Massachusetts, Medeiros entered Theological College, the seminary program associated with Catholic University, in the fall of 1942.

The Early Years

17

During his first year, Medeiros studied Latin, Scripture, fundamental and moral theology, catechetics, Hebrew, Greek, ancient and American Church history, sacred eloquence, liturgical art, and canon law. In the spring semester, while continuing with many of the subjects from the fall, he also took a course in the Old Testament prophets. Over the next three years, Medeiros completed his seminary education.45 How did Medeiros’ contemporaries view him as he stood on the verge of his ordination that would catapult him to a life of service in the Church as priest? It was clear to all who knew him that he was a very reserved person, but at the same time extremely gracious and possessive of a good sense of humor. He was broad based, open to a wide range of views and personalities he was not rigid. He attracted others to him like a magnet; he loved to be with people and they, in turn, wanted to be with him. Additionally, he was always concerned about others’ feelings.46 One of his closest personal friends, Father John Driscoll commented: “He was brilliant and didn’t realize it; he was holy and didn’t realize it. He had a good sense of humor. He had qualities that everyone could admire.”47 Commenting a few years after his death, one paper captured how Medeiros struck people: He was always himself—that was his charm, his special charisma. He had a delightful wit and sense of humor. He possessed a wonderful free hearty laugh and his eyes would dance in his head when you told him something amusing. He was brilliant and high-minded, but warm and compassionate. He was humble, and completely unaware of his many talents.48

The road to minor orders, extensive during the pre-Vatican II period, accompanied Medeiros as he completed his academic preparation for the priesthood. In March 1943, he formally petitioned Bishop Cassidy to receive tonsure and his initial minor orders.49 Approval was readily granted based on the excellent reports received from the seminary staff. In 1943, after his first year in the seminary, Medeiros received high marks as a descriptive report shows: His manner is dignified and friendly. He is priestly in his ways and very serious about all his duties. He is very intelligent; one of the most talented and best workers of this class. [He] is very pious and can always be relied on. [He] has in a high degree the esteem of the students and members of the faculty. He is very promising. [He is] always trying to give and to do his best to be a saint.50

In March 1945, in a laudatory report prior to his ordination to the subdiaconate, both the rector and vice rector of the seminary testified “to the soundness

18

Chapter 1

of his faith.”51 One month later, the staff added, “He gives splendid promise for the priesthood.”52 Having received all the minor orders, as well as his ordination as a deacon in October 1945, Medeiros petitioned for ordination to the priesthood.53 The rector of the seminary provided a highly complementary endorsement: “Mr. Medeiros has been an excellent seminarian. He has fine priestly virtues and a very good mind which he uses well. He is pleasant, affable, courteous, [and] charitable. He is well-liked by all. His interests are wide, and he has a fine zeal for souls. He gives splendid promise for the priesthood.”54In June 1946, Medeiros was awarded the Licentiate in Sacred Theology. A few months earlier, when considering his options for ministry, Medeiros wrote Cassidy, “My friends seem to be unanimous in favor of a teaching career. Still, I do not feel fully convinced that I belong here rather than [with] the people at home.” He asked to have the summer to reflect upon his decision. Cassidy, however, quickly answered, disavowing any thought of an immediate academic career for his talented protégé: “It is my judgment, and I might say my decision, that you abandon all thought of teaching for the present as we have dire need of Portuguese priests in the Diocese.”55 Having completed his education and with his initial assignment to work in the diocese determined, Humberto Medeiros was ready for the culmination of his many years of training. On June 15, 1946, he was ordained to the priesthood, together with ten of his classmates, by Bishop Cassidy at St Mary Cathedral in Fall River. He was now ready to serve the Church, God’s people, as a priest. His future was bright and full of possibilities.

NOTES 1. Background Sketch. Register of Clergy, n.d. Medeiros Personnel File, Archives Diocese of Fall River (hereafter ADFR), Fall River, Massachusetts. 2. Belmira E. Tavares, Portuguese Pioneers in the United States (Fall River, MA: R.E. Smith Printing, Co., 1973), 17; James Guill, A History of the Azores Islands (Tulare, CA: Golden Shield International, 1993), 124–25. While the 1427 date is claimed by some historians, local tradition says that the date was August 14, 1432. A map drawn by Gabriel de Valseca in 1439 shows seven islands. The transcription says the islands were first encountered by Goncalo Velho in 1432. 3. Frances R. Karttunen, The Other Islanders: People Who Pulled Nantucket Oar (New Bedford, MA: Spinner Publications, 2005), 111–12. 4. Guill, History of the Azores, 427. Although the cathedral originally was established on Terceira, the intent was for Sao Miguel to be the see island. 5. Karttunen, Other Islanders, 112. 6. Boston Globe, October 6, 1970; Natalie Sousa, Interview by the author, September 20, 2014.

The Early Years

19

7. Ibid., Sousa Interview, September 20, 2014, Michael Walsh Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season: The Boston Years of Humberto Cardinal Medeiros, 1970–1983.” Diss. Providence College, 1992, 184. 8. Boston Globe, October 6, 1970. 9. Brownsville Herald, June 28, 1966, Medeiros Papers, ADFR; Fall River Herald News, September 23, 1937, Medeiros Papers, ADFR 10. “Luso-American of the Year, 1979” The Anchor, September 23, 1983, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 11. Lesault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 2; J. Anthony Lukas, Common Ground: A Turbulent Decade in the Lives of Three American Families (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985), 391–92. The 1921 and 1924 immigrant acts were enacted to curb the flow of immigrants to the United States. The 1921 law was seen by Catholics to be equitable, since restrictions were placed on all national groups based on the most recent census (3% of each nationality in the United States based on the most recent 1910 census). The 1924 National Origins Act, however, was viewed by Catholics, including the National Catholic Welfare Council (NCWC) as highly prejudicial and anti-Catholic (2% of each nationality based on the 1890 census—clearly chosen because there were far fewer Eastern and Southern European immigrants at this time as opposed to 1920, the census now available) as it targeted immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, largely Italians and Poles, most of whom were Catholics. For more details on the work of the NCWC to stop passage of this law see: Richard Gribble, CSC, “The Immigrant Restriction Debate, 1917–1929: Church and State in Conflict.” Journal of Church and State 60(3) (Summer 2018): 398–425. 12. Humberto Medeiros, “Stewards of this Heritage,” July 5, 1983, in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants: Pastorals and Addresses by His Eminence Humberto Cardinal Medeiros Boston: Saint Paul Editions, 1984, 407. 13. Ibid.; Sousa Interview, September 20, 2014. 14. Henry M. Fenner, ed. History of Fall River Massachusetts (Fall River, MA: Fall River Merchants Association, 1911), 9, 15–16, 18–26. 15. Ibid., 28, 31–32, 74. 16. Tavares, Portuguese Pioneers, 31–32. 17. Fall River Herald News September 23, 1937, Medeiros Paper, ADFR William Helmick, Interview with the author, October 12, 2018. Kerrigan and Flanagan used an interesting method to teach Medeiros English. Rather than using a traditional method of grammar, books, and verbal repetition, these women would perform an action and then say in English what they were doing. For example, a door would be opened and the teacher would tell Medeiros, “I am opening the door.” Quite obviously Medeiros was a gifted linguist for as an adult he had command of several languages including his native Portuguese, Spanish, Latin, and French. 18. Luso-American of the Year, 1979” The Anchor, September 23, 1983, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 19. Medeiros’ chief artistic medium was charcoal. One of his paintings, “Christ on the Cross,” was displayed behind the main altar at Saint John of God Parish in Somerset.

20

Chapter 1

20. Luso-American of the Year, 1979” The Anchor, September 23, 1983, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 21. Ibid. See also, Boston The Pilot, January 18, 1980. 22. Brownsville Herald June 28, 1966, Medeiros Paper, ADFR. 23. Fall River Herald News, September 23, 1937, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 24. Humberto Medeiros, “Show Us the Way,” Pastoral Letter to Youth, Easter 1979, in Whatever God Wants, 195. 25. Humberto Medeiros to Martha L. Heath, July 13, 1973, Correspondence with Laity, He-Hn File, Box #72, Boston Medeiros Papers, AABo. 26. Tavares, Portuguese Pioneers, 39. 27. Fall River Herald News, September 22, 1937; Joseph Cabral, Memorandum, June 26, 1941, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 28. Medeiros wrote that his father was making $12.00 per week, but that was sufficient to make ends meet, pay off debts incurred during his illness and re-pay the family’s passage to the United States. See The Pilot, January 18, 1980. 29. B.M.C. Durfee High School opened in 1887. The historian Henry Fenner described it as “the finest gift ever made to the city.” See Fenner, History of Fall River, 80. 30. Fall River Herald News April 19, 1937; Luso-American of the Year, 1979” The Anchor, September 23, 1983, Medeiros Papers, ADFR; Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 3. 31. New Bedford Times Standard, October 4, 1970, Episcopal Consecration Folder, ADFR. 32. “What’s Happening?” Fall River Herald News, April 19, 1987, 1983 File Cardinal Medeiros, ADFR. 33. “The Record,” Durfee High School 1937, Medeiros Paper, ADFR. 34. Fall River Herald News, September 23, 1937 and April 19, 1987, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 35. Fall River Herald News, April 19, 1987, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 36. Humberto Medeiros, Speech, June 15, 1962, Durfee High School File, Box #1, Boston Medeiros Papers, AABo. 37. Fall River Herald News, April 19, 1987, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. Although Hutchinson was a Protestant, she was very impressed with Medeiros’ credentials and she had also seen his drawing in Saint John of God Church in Somerset. 38. Humberto Medeiros to James Cassidy, October 10, 1937, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 39. Humberto Medeiros to James Cassidy, March 9, 1938, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. Medeiros tuition for his first year was $150; room and board was $135. 40. Humberto Medeiros to James Cassidy, October 1, 1938, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 41. Ibid. 42. A. Vieban to James Cassidy, December 15, 1938, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 43. Press Release, Boston Archdiocese, n.d. [1983], Medeiros Papers, Catholic Archives of Texas (hereafter CAT), Austin, Texas. Medeiros wrote, “It was out of grateful love that I embraced my new country and decided to become a citizen.” See

The Early Years

21

Humberto Medeiros, “Stewards of This Heritage,” July 4, 1983, in Whatever God Wants, 408. 44. Maureen Connolly, “Humberto Cardinal Medeiros,” Boston Today, December 1978, 7. Some of the other classes that Medeiros took were Christology, metaphysics, social philosophy, theodicy, ethics, economic philosophy, and a history of philosophy seminar. He achieved grades of “pass” or “A” in all subjects. 45. CUA Grade reports, February 25, 1942, June 25, 1943, February 22, 1944, June 15, 1945, March 1, 1946, and June 25, 1946, Medeiros Papers, ADFR As a mark of Portuguese heritage and personal piety, in his spare time Medeiros, working with a fellow seminarian, translated into English a short book Jacinta: The Flower of Fatima, a text that highlighted one of the three seers of the 1917 apparitions of Mary at Fatima. 46. Wall, Interview, August 3, 2019; Gerry and Lillian Silvia, Interview with the author, January 12, 2017. 47. John Driscoll, Interview with the author, October 24, 2016. 48. Fall River Herald News, April 19, 1987, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 49. Humberto Medeiros, Petition, March 3, 1943, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. Medeiros received the minor orders as follows: Tonsure, May 26, 1943; Doorkeeper/ Reader, May 27, 1943; Exorcist and Acolyte, May 19, 1944; Subdiaconate, May 19, 1945, and Diaconate, October 9, 1945. All of these were received at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. 50. Memorandum about Humberto Medeiros, 1943, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 51. Ibid. 52. Memorandum about Humberto Medeiros, n.d. [April 1945], Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 53. Humberto Medeiros, Petition, March 9, 1945, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 54. L.P. McDonald, S.S. Memorandum n.d. [1945], Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 55. James Cassidy to [H]umberto Medeiros, March 12, 1946, Medeiros Papers, ADFR.

Chapter 2

A Priest in Fall River

The sacrifices of those classified as members of the immigrant Church in the United States have produced an inspiring narrative. It shows the rapid growth of Catholicism from a mere 1 percent of the national population in 1785 to the largest single religious denomination in the country by the mid-nineteenth century. Along the road, numerous immigrants have made significant contributions to the American Church. As the first Bishop of Charleston, South Carolina, John England, an Irish immigrant, was responsible for the initiation of periodic meetings of the American Catholic hierarchy. John Hughes, also from Ireland, the first Archbishop of New York, championed Catholic education in its fight against the state. Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini came from Italy to establish foundations initially in New York and other locations that serviced the poor. While historically the Portuguese had not made a significant mark on the Church in the United States, nevertheless, Humberto Medeiros was on his way to making a name for himself. In a humble and selfless way, and remaining faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ, Medeiros continued the work of many predecessors along the road, starting with his service in Fall River, Massachusetts. THE DIOCESE OF FALL RIVER The area of southeast Massachusetts which today comprises the Diocese of Fall River was from the first arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans a stronghold of the Reformed tradition. Thus, people in the region were highly prejudicial against Catholics. This anti-Catholic sentiment was codified in 1647 through the Massachusetts Bay anti-priest law. The law stated that any priest found 23

24

Chapter 2

in the colony would be banished. If a priest attempted to enter a second time, and was lawfully convicted of such an act, he would be put to death.1 This general anti-Catholic sentiment was strong and broad based throughout the original thirteen colonies, even in Maryland, a palatinate founded as a safe haven for Catholics. Catholics, however, continued to arrive, settling principally in Maryland and New York. Eventually, in November 1789, John Carroll, a member of a prominent Maryland family, was elected by his peer priests to be the first Roman Catholic Bishop in the newly independent United States of America. Some twenty years later, in 1808, four new dioceses were established—New York, Philadelphia, Bardstown (today at Louisville), and Boston. Jean Cheverus was appointed as the first Bishop of Boston, although he was not installed in his see until 1810. Catholics arrived in southeast Massachusetts and the confines of the present Diocese of Fall River in the early to mid-nineteenth century. Under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Boston, the Church in this region developed slowly. The first structure for Catholic worship within the confines of the future Diocese of Fall River was built in 1820 by Father Philip Lariscy, an Augustinian priest. The Church was dedicated as St. Mary by Bishop Cheverus in 1821. A second Church, erected in Sandwich in 1830, was dedicated on September 19, by Bishop Benedict Fenwick, who succeeded Cheverus in 1825. In August 1837, Father John Corry spearheaded the effort that led to the establishment of Saint Mary Church in Taunton. By 1840, there were four churches in what is now the Diocese of Fall River—St. Mary in New Bedford (1820), St. Peter in Sandwich (1830), St. Mary in Taunton (1837), and St. John in Fall River (1837).2 The period from 1820 to 1860 saw significant numbers of immigrants come to the United States from northern and western Europe, principally Germans and Irish. As mentioned previously, many Irish came to southeast Massachusetts, increasing the numbers and percentages of Catholics in the region. The influx necessitated the construction of additional parish churches. St. Mary of the Assumption in Fall River, the Cathedral today, was completed and opened in 1856. Four additional parishes in Fall River, Sacred Heart, St. Patrick, St. Joseph, and St. Anne were soon added.3 A major move forward toward the establishment of the Church in southeastern Massachusetts was the creation of the Diocese of Providence. Originally placed under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Hartford, established in November 1843, Providence was broken off and erected as an independent diocese in 1872. At the same time, the area now known as the Diocese of Fall River was placed under the umbrella of Providence. Between 1872 and 1876, under the first Bishop of Providence, Thomas Francis Hendricken, the Massachusetts section of the diocese experienced rapid growth in the number of Catholics, generating the need for new parishes. In 1887, Matthew

A Priest in Fall River

25

Harkins, a priest from the now (since 1875) Archdiocese of Boston, was appointed Bishop of Providence. When he took the reins as bishop there were twenty-four parishes in eleven cities and towns in the diocese. During his seventeen years as bishop, Harkins established twenty new parishes in the region which is today the Diocese of Fall River.4 Under Harkins, as well, in response to the decrees issued by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), the first Catholic schools opened in the area: St. Mary in Taunton in 1884 and Sacred Heart in Fall River in 1885.5 On March 12, 1904, a new diocese was carved from Providence with William Stang appointed as the first bishop (see figure 2.1). The diocese encompassed 1194 square miles and encompassed the counties of Bristol, Barnstable, Dukes, Nantucket, and a small part of Plymouth.6 Bishop Stang’s tenure as ordinary was quite short as he died on February 2, 1907, but he served long enough to establish Saint Anne Hospital.7 The next three bishops solidified already existing institutions and catapulted the Diocese forward with new institutions, especially schools and parishes. Daniel Feehan, a priest from Springfield, Massachusetts succeeded Stang, serving as bishop for the lengthy period of twenty-seven years. Feehan

Figure 2.1  Map of the Diocese of Fall River. Source: Courtesy Archives Diocese of Fall River.

26

Chapter 2

established thirty-six new parishes. Concerned with education, he sought to implement the aforementioned 1884 plenary Council decree. In May 1930, Monsignor James Cassidy was ordained as the coadjutor bishop in Fall River; he succeeded Feehan in 1934. In Fall River, he founded homes for the elderly that became models for similar initiatives in several other dioceses throughout the United States. In 1945, one year prior to Medeiros’ ordination, James Connolly was ordained as coadjutor bishop in Fall River; he became the bishop on May 17, 1951. Like Feehan, he was a great builder, constructing seventeen schools including four diocesan high schools, and establishing thirty-three new parishes.8  EARLY ASSIGNMENTS AND DOCTORAL EDUCATION For the first couple of years of his priesthood, Medeiros may have thought he was on a merry-go-round of ministry. Immediately after his ordination he was assigned to Saint John of God Parish in Somerset, where Augusto Futado, his former mentor was pastor. Only a few months later, Medeiros was reassigned to his home parish, Saint Michael in Fall River, under the tutelage of the pastor, Father Joseph Silva. Seven months later in June 1947, he moved again, this time to be the assistant to Father Joao Resendes at Our Lady of Health in Fall River.9 Medeiros’ many assignments gave him pastoral and parochial experiences that proved to be invaluable later in his future role as a pastor and eventually bishop. Medeiros’ almost circuit-riding existence during his first year of priesthood may have been intentional on his bishop’s part. Perhaps he was attempting to equip the young priest with a wealth of experiences in a short amount of time. This becomes clearer when in April 1947 Bishop Cassidy approved Medeiros for doctoral studies at The Catholic University, beginning in the fall.10 Recall that just prior to his ordination Medeiros hinted at his desire for higher studies when he contemplated an academic career. While in studies, however, he clarified his rationale for additional education in a letter to Cassidy: “My only ambition, if I may speak of ambition in this regard, is to be a learned and holy priest.”11 Over the next three years, Medeiros moved between taking classes at The Catholic University and returning to Fall River for summer assignments. Medeiros continued to minister at St. Vincent (Cathedral) Camp during the summers. After three semesters of classes, he was assigned in January 1949 as the curate at Mount Carmel Church in New Bedford. While his tenure was short, he obviously made a significant impression. One of his fellow curates, Father Laureano C. dos Reis recalled his impressions of the young priest: “Medeiros was a priest’s priest. He loved to work with different parish

A Priest in Fall River

27

organizations.”12 Sister Dorothy Costa, principal at the parish school, recalled Medeiros’ good work with adult education classes in Scripture, stating “People spoke very highly of him.”13 In September 1949, after concluding his brief tenure at Mount Carmel and summer ministry at St. Vincent, Medeiros petitioned Cassidy for permission to go to Rome to conduct research for his dissertation. When approval was granted, Medeiros left New York for Naples on September 23, 1949.14 Once he arrived and settled into his room at the Saint Joseph House of the North American College (NAC),15 Medeiros wasted no time, focusing on his research. Faithful to his task, Medeiros was unaware that his father, Antonio, was desperately ill. The elder Medeiros eventually died on February 9, 1950. Having completed his research, Medeiros returned home in July 1950 and was immediately assigned as a part-time assistant at Holy Name Parish in Fall River. Additionally, he was asked to assist the chancellor of the diocese, Father James Gleason, with his duties.16 Back in Fall River, and now with the required research completed, Medeiros completed his dissertation while simultaneously meeting his parochial duties in the parish. Eventually, in the fall of 1951, Medeiros was ready to submit and defend his doctoral magnum opus. “The De Mysteriis and the De Sacramentis of Saint Ambrose.”17 At his dissertation defense, Medeiros, as his previous academic record on all levels indicated, greatly impressed his board. Father John Driscoll recounted an incident the morning that Medeiros was scheduled to defend: “Going to take the oral exams for his doctorate at Catholic University, he [Medeiros] asked a priest friend to pray for him. The friend replied that he would rather pray for the poor professors who had to give him the exam—they would need it more.”18 Medeiros returned to Fall River in possession of his Doctorate in Sacred Theology and continued his duties at Holy Name Parish. With completion and defense of his doctoral dissertation, and being back full-time in Fall River, Humberto Medeiros had reached a plateau in his early priesthood. Insight into his theological and spiritual world can be gained through an analysis of a series of sermons he preached during his first years of ordination. Archival records hold several notebooks of Medeiros’ sermons in both English and Portuguese. He often commented on the state of the contemporary world describing it as a “world without leaven.” He elaborated, “[I]t [the world] lacks that which makes it good, which gives it real value, it lacks the spirit of the gospel of Christ.” He analogized the world to yeastless dough that is useless and can be discarded.19 Complementing his theme of leaven was his insistence that the world needed Christ and the Church. He once proclaimed, “Only the truth of Christ can free us from tyranny of error, only the grace of Christ can heal our wounded nature and free us from the choking chains we forged by our

28

Chapter 2

own sins.”20 Medeiros insisted that since sin was at the doorstep, seeking to clutch us away, it was absolutely necessary to invoke Christ: “He is the only one who can save us from Hell and the only one who can teach us how to love God.”21 Medeiros proclaimed that since Jesus Christ was its initiator, the Church was also integrally necessary. He proclaimed, “It is so wonderful to have the true faith; it is so tragic and baneful not to have it; it is so horrible to have it and lose it.”22 Personal responsibility was also a significant theme for Medeiros. He insisted that one of the great challenges is to stand against the world and to be renewed daily through the spirit of the Gospel in the light of Christ. In a baccalaureate address in 1963, he stated, “Those around you will change because of you; but the quality of the change will depend in great measure upon you. They will change from darkness to light, if you so live as to show that you love your brothers, that Christ’s love is the driving force of your wife [siclife].”23 Medeiros proclaimed that personal responsibility could be found by observing the commandments of Christ, which are works of love with which humanity moves from darkness to light. In other words, it is essential to set good example, which might mean our willingness to suffer for Christ as he suffered for us. Self-discipline is equally important, for seeking to take a definite course of action against things that would draw one away from Christ, and for willfully choosing Christ and Christ alone.24 For Medeiros, freedom and personal responsibility are integrally linked. Medeiros understood that another proper use of our personal freedom was to exercise charity toward others. He believed and professed that charity is a very special and beautiful virtue that had “slipped through the cracks” in our daily practice of the faith. He stated in one sermon, “Charity is so wonderful, so excellent, so beautiful, that we can never speak enough about it.”25 He also suggested that charity and love of Christ were closely connected. In this same sermon, he challenged his listeners: “Charity brings us to Jesus. Jesus loves us because he has charity; we love Him when we have charity. Since charity is the love of God and neighbor, if we have charity, we do things that love makes people do.”26 Medeiros certainly believed in the need for charity, but he also understood the notion, especially popular in his early years as a priest, that sin and death require reflection. Medeiros saw sin as the evil that separates humanity from himself and God: “Sin kills the spiritual in a person, allowing passions to run wild. Sin generates evil in society because society is good or evil depending on the goodness of its makers. The sinner cuts himself off from society, although remaining visibly one of its members.” He wrote, “I am sure that the cause of all unrest and fear, distrust and suspicion in souls, in nations, in the world, is due to sin and [the] despair of forgiveness.”27 Sin leads to death in this life, but also the loss of our soul. Medeiros asked whether his listeners

A Priest in Fall River

29

were ready to face the judgment of Christ. He bluntly assessed the situation that everyone must face: What should make us shrink and should frighten us all a bit is not that we have to die someday, but that we have to face the Judge who will sentence us to heaven or to hell, according to what we have done in this life. That is what we should be afraid of. Unless we are ready to face that Judge, we should be terribly afraid to die. But if we are friends with the Judge, then death should not frighten us.28

A PRIEST IN THE DIOCESE OF FALL RIVER After his return from Rome in July 1950, Humberto Medeiros served the Church in Fall River through a multi-dimensional ministry. While serving as a curate at Holy Name Parish, and completing his dissertation, he also served as an assistant to the chancellor. On May 17, 1951, Bishop Cassidy died. James Connolly, his coadjutor, succeeded him as the new diocesan bishop. As one of his first actions, Connolly appointed Medeiros to be his secretary. Thus, in June 1951, Medeiros moved from the rectory at Holy Name to the bishop’s residence to take up his new duties.29 As secretary, Medeiros accompanied the bishop to most all events.30 As secretary for the bishop, Medeiros was certainly busy, but he actively engaged in other ministries, including serving as chaplain to the Sacred Hearts Academy, a girls’ high school administered by the Sisters of the Holy Union. In this capacity, he was actively present at the school, giving many addresses to the students, celebrating numerous Masses with students and alumnae. Many times, he challenged the students to be responsible to their scholastic duties, school, classmates, and themselves.31 However, he viewed his role more directly as a coach in the spiritual realm. He once addressed the students, “As your chaplain I have special interest in your spiritual achievement. In fact, I have no other purpose here then to help you to climb to God and look upon His Holy Face with joy and gladness.”32 He was also chaplain to the Sucordium Club, an organization of past and present Sacred Hearts students. He once reminded them “to try their very best to be better women of prayer for themselves and their children.”33 Additionally, Medeiros wrote a regular column, “Chats with Our Chaplain,” for most issues of the school’s monthly newspaper, Shacady.34 As busy as Medeiros was, serving in numerous capacities, he always made time for important people in his life, especially his friends and family. Unquestionably, Medeiros’ closest friend in the clergy was Father John Driscoll. The two often shared days off together. With Driscoll as the driver

30

Chapter 2

and Medeiros as passenger, the two clerics often took day trips to simply “get away” from the local environment. Trips to New Hampshire or other points north, especially during the beauty of the fall, were annual events.35 Medeiros never neglected his familial duties. For example, family members recalled how each Wednesday afternoon Medeiros walked from the chancery to the family home to spend time with his siblings and their children. During his visits, he often introduced his nieces and nephews to great literature and classical phonograph records. As members of his family once said, “He wanted us to taste a little of the world.”36 He loved family functions and was always present whenever it was possible. Medeiros’ high ministerial profile in the diocese continued to expand with time. In April 1953, after serving for two years as an assistant to Father James Gleason, Medeiros was appointed vice chancellor. Less than one year later, on February 17, 1954, he was appointed as chancellor of the diocese. The promotion was celebrated by many, but especially members of the Portuguese community, as Medeiros was the first of their nationality to serve in such a high position.37 Medeiros’ appointment was not surprising. John Driscoll characterized the relationship between Connolly and Medeiros as like that of “father and son.”38 As coadjutor, Connolly had been able to observe Medeiros closely for some time and, therefore, recognized his talent and potential to serve the diocese in an administrative position. Medeiros’ duties as chancellor were many and significant. In essence, he ran the day-to-day operations of the Church in Fall River. He often functioned as master of ceremonies at various events, especially liturgical celebrations, such as confirmations in local parishes. His direct work in ministry to his fellow clergy was crucial and most significant. Connolly consulted with Medeiros about clergy assignments, trusting the opinion of his young chancellor. Medeiros enjoyed excellent rapport with his peers. When accompanying Connolly to various events, he spent significant time speaking individually with them. Describing Medeiros’ relationship with his fellow priests, Driscoll commented, “They [the clergy] opened their hearts to him and he opened his heart to them.”39 Significant insight into how Medeiros understood the important role priests served in society can be gleaned from a graduation speech he gave at St. Thomas Minor Seminary, then located in Waterbury, Connecticut: I have chosen to speak to you this afternoon on the priest as the light of the world because you are going to pursue higher studies to prepare for the priesthood in the world. It is my conviction that if priests fail to be the light they should be, the world will perish in the darkness which threatens it now. There is no salvation provided for man except in Christ who is the light of the world, and priests by vocation, by character and by profession are bearers of that light.40

A Priest in Fall River

31

As Bishop Connolly’s “right hand man,” it was appropriate for Medeiros to accompany his bishop for his periodic ad limina visits with the Holy Father.41 In the fall of 1959, Medeiros sailed with Connolly to Europe on the SS Constitution. Connolly made his mandated visit and report, but Medeiros was pleasantly surprised to be received by Pope John XXIII as well. Since he was already in Europe, Medeiros took advantage of the situation and visited Fatima, Naples, and Monte Cassino. During his return, he detoured for a short visit to Ireland.42 In his role as chancellor and advisor to the bishop with respect to priestly assignments, Medeiros most assuredly was aware of many problematic situations. The most serious situation was the case of Father James Porter. Porter attended Saint Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland and was ordained to the priesthood in 1960. A popular priest, he was especially well-liked by youth. However, twice in 1963, Henry Viens, a North Attleboro resident and parishioner at Saint Mary Parish where Porter had been assigned after ordination, met with Medeiros informing him of the alleged sexual abuse of his nephew by Porter.43 In a 1993 interview with the Boston Globe, Viens stated that Medeiros assured him at the time that the matter would be “taken care of immediately,” and that Porter would be removed from the parish and sent for “rehabilitation.” However, despite these assurances, Porter was transferred to Sacred Heart Parish in Fall River where he supervised altar boys and other children. Viens was angered when he learned of the direct transfer with no apparent rehabilitative action taken. He asked Medeiros why Porter had been transferred to a bigger parish, but only received an empty response, “I can’t answer you.”44 Tragically, the Porter saga continued in Fall River for three more years. In March 1964, Father Armando Annunciato verified the accusations made against Porter in an interview with Bishop Connolly.45 That same month, Connolly wrote to Porter about his “problem” and provided an initial way forward: “My best recommendation to you now is that you make a good retreat of a week or so and bring me some proof that this has been done before thinking of coming down to Fall River to see me . . . Remember that we are not concerned about trivial matters.”46 In August Porter received inpatient treatment at Wiswall Hospital, under the care of Doctor Norris Flanagan. Connolly’s auxiliary, Bishop James Gerrard, wrote to the former about Porter’s treatment following his initial removal from ministry: The doctor said: “I am not sure whether he is better or not.” He is overactive at times. [He] went after a woman here at the clinic some weeks ago threatening to choke her because of some remark she made which was displeasing to Father. He is not ready for discharge. It appears that it will take a long time for his recovery . . . The Doctor did say that the case is not hopeless, otherwise I would not be treating him.47

32

Chapter 2

The only extant response from Connolly is that the diocese was willing to pay for Porter’s medical expenses.48 In 1965, Porter was once again accused of sexual abuse at his new parish of Sacred Heart, leading to another transfer to Saint James Parish in New Bedford.49 Records show that in late 1965 Porter was sent to St. Luke Institute in Silver Springs, Maryland and remained there until April 1967 when Connolly suspended the priest and sent him to the Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs, New Mexico. Later that year in August he continued treatment at another Paraclete facility Via Coeli in Albuquerque.50 Medeiros was not ultimately responsible for Porter’s transfers and the general way his conduct was handled, but he was well aware of the situation. He and Connolly followed the assumed rehabilitative treatment of the day for a cleric accused of sexual misconduct with minors. However, why Porter was transferred from St. Mary to Sacred Heart with no apparent immediate treatment cannot be excused. In their exposé Betrayal, the Boston Globe “I-Team” reporters suggested that Medeiros was advised of the situation and that Porter was shuffled from parish to parish “in an effort to convince his victims that something had been done.”51 Beyond his duties as chancellor, Medeiros was engaged in several other ministries in the diocese. One of the responsibilities that he enjoyed most was his appointment as Vicar for Religious, basically the liaison between the diocese and various religious communities. Most of his time was spent with the numerous groups of women religious present in the diocese. He often gave them spiritual conferences. Medeiros continued in this position for several years until he was replaced by Father Alfred Gendreau in August 1961.52 Medeiros also served on several boards, including the Diocesan Board of Consultors and the Diocesan Commission on Sacred Art.53 Medeiros was also a great supporter of Catholic education. He was elated when Bishop Stang and Memorial (today Bishop Connolly) High Schools opened in September 1959 and September 1966, respectively. Medeiros articulated his philosophy of Catholic education in an address to graduating students: “In a Catholic school everything is or should be taught with an eye on God. God is or should never be left out of the classroom or the lesson.”54 He suggested that Catholic education must transform students, making them more Christ like in their daily lives. Medeiros’ active ministerial life, serving as chancellor and engaged in many other activities, and his favored status with Bishop Connolly, led to his designation as a domestic prelate, a monsignor, on February 3, 1958. The move was certainly not unexpected and might have been seen as a prelude to his selection for the episcopacy only seven years later.55 Medeiros’s assignment as a pastor came on October 3, 1960, when he was appointed to lead his childhood home parish, Saint Michael in Fall

A Priest in Fall River

33

River. Saint Michael opened in 1896 as a mission of Santo Christo Parish to serve the Portuguese American community in the North End of Fall River. It became an independent parish in 1902. Father Francisco Jose Constatino Flores was assigned as the first pastor but died in less than a year; he was succeeded by Father Manuel Cipriano Grillo.56 In 1922, a new and more spacious Church was constructed and blessed on December 3. The parish school, originally opened in 1931, was rebuilt and received students in September 1957. A 75th parish school anniversary program stated, “Monsignor Medeiros was a staunch supporter of the school.”57 When Medeiros arrived, the parish census listed 4500 parishioners.58 As a priest for the people, Medeiros was in his element as pastor and he relished the new ministry. Medeiros was loved by the people of Saint Michael. He was described as “a holy man.” His concern for the poor and the newly arrived immigrants was at the center of his priestly ministry.59 Longtime parishioners described how he was always present at events and encouraged participation by individuals and groups. One couple commented, “He listened and was cooperative with everyone. He always had kind words.”60 Still, as pastor he understood the need, when necessary, to challenge his parishioners to meet their responsibilities. Toward the end of his tenure as pastor, he expressed disappointment, while encouraging his parishioners to meet their responsibilities to assist others. Writing in a general letter to the parish he stated, We must never consent again to let our parish [Catholic Charities Appeal] Drive fail to reach a new goal every year. Last year’s appeal was not successful in our parish. Whatever the cause for failure may have been we must never let it happen again. It is unthinkable that Christian hearts should grow weary in the work of charity. Our bodies may weaken but never our hearts on behalf of our neighbor, no matter who he is.61

Medeiros led the way by demonstrating good and strong leadership. He manifested an ability to raise money, for example, in the renovation of the parish rectory. He initiated a parish newspaper and organized a series of dialogues with parishioners. Members of the community were asked to participate in weekly discussions at various times. Again, challenging his parishioners, he asked them to sign a pledge which in part read: “I am FULLY AWARE that in this day and age I must be INFORMED and be a USEFUL member of the PEOPLE OF GOD. Therefore, I PLEDGE to take part in a discussion group, activities designed to help me learn and practice the teachings and directions of the SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL.”62 He was also the leader when special events needed to be observed, ones both celebratory and sad. In 1962, the parish celebrated its 75th anniversary

34

Chapter 2

with a procession through the streets within the parish boundaries. Medeiros carried the Eucharist in an ornate monstrance. The celebration included a bazaar held on two successive weekends and the preparation of a souvenir booklet. Each year the parish celebrated its patron with a bazaar and a parish dance. Solemn high mass concluded this yearly parish festival.63 It was also Medeiros’ sad duty to celebrate his mother’s funeral at the parish when she died on September 26, 1963.64 Medeiros’ time as chancellor and pastor at St. Michael coincided with the Second Vatican Council, arguably the most significant event in the Catholic Church in the second millennium.65 On January 25, 1959, Pope John XXIII, who had been elected only three months prior, shocked the Catholic world in a speech made at the Basilica of Saint Paul outside the Walls. While calling for a revision of canon law and a local synod, his major proclamation concerned his summoning an ecumenical council. In his comments, the pontiff gave three specific reasons for calling the Council: promotion of ecumenism, presenting a pastoral face of the Council (and by extension the Church), and aggiornamento, or an updating of the Church. Pope John XXIII’s message was shocking for a few reasons. Historically ecumenical councils had been called only when a significant issue, internal or external to the Church, was causing problems for the faithful and needed to be clarified. However, in the post–World War II era of 1959, neither of these situations existed. From the perspective of the Church, at least from empirical data, the state of affairs seemed to be excellent. Participation in sacraments, especially Sunday Mass, was high, and enrollments at Catholic schools were never greater. The number of priests and religious was high with formation programs continuing to grow. Thus, Pope Saint John XXIII, who was considered by many to be an “interim Pope” due to his advanced age, created quite a stir, especially among more traditional Catholics who may well have lived by the adage, “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.” Pope John’s clarion call for Vatican II put into motion the initial steps, collectively called the ante-preparatory period, that eventually led to the Council’s opening in the fall of 1962. On May 17, 1959, the pontiff appointed the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Domenico Tardini, to coordinate the preparatory events. On June 18, Tardini invited bishops, nuncios, vicars, prefects apostolic, and superiors general to submit their suggestions and recommendations for issues to be discussed at the future Council. By May 30, 1960, some 2000 responses have been received. These, added to the reports from the Roman Curia and representatives of Catholic universities, formed the base of data, the Acta, to be used in the creation of working documents. On June 5, Pentecost Sunday, Pope John issued a constitution establishing ten preparatory commissions, two secretariats, and a Central Commission with its purpose to coordinate the work of the other groups. Their task was to

A Priest in Fall River

35

study the pre-conciliar Acta and to prepare schemata for the Holy Father and ultimately the Council Fathers. This preparatory phase officially opened on November 13, when the Pope held an audience with members of the preparatory commissions. Each group received a list of questions and comments for discussion, with the Central Commission serving as the focal point to which questions might be addressed. Between June 1961 and June 1962, the preparatory commissions met, generating seventy-three schemata.66  When Vatican II opened its first session on October 11, 1962, Medeiros had been engaged with the events of the Council for some time. In August 1959, he traveled to Rome with Connolly to discuss with officials their ideas pertinent to the forthcoming Council. Medeiros accompanied his bishop, not only because he was chancellor but more importantly because of his theological expertise which would translate later into his status as a peritus for all four sessions (see figure 2.2). Medeiros’ aggressive work ethic, demonstrated in many ways, eventually caught up with him as he prepared for the forthcoming Council sessions. In February 1962, he was hospitalized for two weeks and spent an additional week in a rest home for priests, due to exhaustion. He reported that his blood pressure was too high, and he was placed under a doctor’s supervision. He confessed that overwork was part of his persona. He wrote “No one asked me

Figure 2.2  Vatican II in Session. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

36

Chapter 2

to keep going all the time, but it seems that I do not have sense enough to take my rest and relaxation like all other sensible priests . . . The sacred siesta is now becoming a habit (or vice) with me! Such a waste of time, but . . . perhaps it is not.”67 Medeiros’ youth allowed him to recover quickly and he returned to his hectic pace of life as a future peritus at the Council. Vatican II historian Francois Weiser suggests that American periti played a significant role at the Council by shaping the actions of their bishops. Many held doctorates in theology or canon law. Most were seminary or university professors or held high positions in their diocese.68 Weiser wrote, “Whether [their role was] as a guide to the city, interpreter, or doing behind-the-scenes networking, gathering information or writing texts and commentaries, the periti were far from confined to a secondary role.”69 Periti were given a tessara or pass that allowed them to circulate in the Vatican. They could attend all debates and had access to all texts circulated to the bishops for their review and consideration.70 While according to the Vatican II scholar, Vincent Yzermans, Bishop Connolly made no specific interventions during the Council sessions71, this did not mean that Humberto Medeiros was idle. Father John Driscoll commented that Medeiros was helpful to many bishops at the council, and not simply to his bishop. His mastery of Latin allowed him to explain things that were said on the floor of the assembly.72 In an effort to keep up with both the news of Fall River as well as Saint Michael, Medeiros maintained a lively correspondence with diocesan officials as well as his priest associates at the parish. Almost underhandedly, Medeiros took homemade movies during some of the Council sessions. Father Barry Wall remembers watching these “movies” at clergy sessions on the Council hosted by Medeiros. Wall recalls Medeiros stating, “I put on my choir robes, pushed my way through and hoped they would think I was a bishop.”73 Connolly described Medeiros’ influence: “Monsignor . . . Medeiros has contributed to the Council. He has been there for all four sessions. He knows the mind. He expresses the details of the constitutions, decrees and declarations to the full.”74 The final session in the fall of 1965 was a different experience for Medeiros. First, he attended the sessions with his auxiliary Bishop James Gerrard. Connolly remained behind due to illness and his need to oversee the final contract negotiations for Memorial (later Bishop Connolly) High School. Nonetheless, from Rome Medeiros kept Connolly informed, telling him that he hoped that commissions would be created to devise practical methods to implement the changes decreed by the Council. Additionally, he informed the bishop that many documents were under revision and being rewritten.75 Medeiros gave his overall impressions at the outset of the Fourth Session: “The Council of revision was to be first a Council of renewal;

A Priest in Fall River

37

because only when other men see in the face of the Church the simple lines of the Holy Face will they be drawn to her saving and sacramental unity.”76 The fourth session was also unusual for Medeiros because he had opportunities to travel. He journeyed with Bishop Gerrard to Assisi for a mini pilgrimage to the Basilica of Saint Francis. He also accompanied him to the catacombs of San Calisto and San Sebastiano. He visited the Scala Santa (near Saint John Lateran), the Coliseum, and San Clemente Church. Medeiros went with several bishops on a journey to the Holy Land.77 The greatest insight to Medeiros’ understanding of and participation in Vatican II can be gleaned by a thorough review of the copious notes he kept on all the sessions he attended. One of the most contentious issues, and certainly the document which generated the most American participation in its discussion had to do with religious liberty. Discussions on the concept of religious liberty began on the Council floor during the third session in the fall of 1964. For many Council Fathers, the topic of religious liberty raised “red flags.” Encouraging people to follow their conscience, and not the Church’s traditional approach of “falling in step with the magisterium,” raised the specter of theological modernism, condemned in 1907 as the “synthesis of all heresies.” Additionally, it suggested that the Church in the past may have been in error.78 As Medeiros commented in his notes, American bishops, on the other hand, were generally supportive. Their endorsement was based quite obviously on the reality that Catholicism had matured and come to prominence in the United States where religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution. Reporting to Connolly during the fourth session, Medeiros admitted that the theological and scriptural foundation for religious liberty should be more directly addressed in the document.79 However, he concluded that Dignitatis humanae, “The Declaration on Religious Liberty,” was an essential ingredient for the Church to move forward in the more modern world. He wrote, This Declaration has seen more than 20 revisions, two of which have been presented to the Fathers in Council. All this rethinking and revising are sufficient evidence that the subject treated is most grave and complex. It is said that without this Declaration, the dialogue between the Church and the rest of the world cannot continue and that the Church will fail to remove the greatest obstacle to the fulfillment of her mission in the world today.80

Two other significant issues addressed by the Council were prominent in Medeiros’ notes. He understood the significance of the mass in the daily lives of Catholics. Thus, the Council’s deliberations on changes in the liturgy were significant in his mind. He enthusiastically supported “The Constitution on the Liturgy,” describing it as “a profound act of love for God.”81 Moreover, he suggested that the spirit of the Council could be found best in the liturgy:

38

Chapter 2

“The better to catch the spirit, we should try to see it through the eyes of the Church, and I believe the place where we can sense it most is in the liturgy.”82 The themes of ecumenism and the relationship of Catholics to non-Christians also generated his comments. Writing to Connolly, he criticized the bishops who spoke against the “Declaration on the Relations of the Church to NonChristian Religions,” especially those who rejected comments in the document that admitted historical prejudice and previous anti-Semitic attitudes: “It is a very specious and evil thing, and another strong reason for passing the Declaration. It seems that anti-Semitism is not dead among some Catholics. God help us!”83 Medeiros also commented on the only document generated from the floor of the Council, Gaudium et spes, “The Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World.” He agreed with American bishops, such as Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York, that a sincere statement of the position of the Church in the modern world was needed. More directly, as would always be his position, Medeiros professed strong support for traditional Church values and teachings, while simultaneously upholding the basic anti-Communist U.S. foreign policy. He wrote: “Today as in the past there is more than one form of atheism, but it seems that Marxism is the most dangerous that has ever appeared on earth because of its “organization,” its diffusion, its doctrine which can be popularized rather easily, its fighting spirit and the enthusiasm which animates it.”84 The Pastoral Constitution addressed atheism: “[T]aken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism.”85 Medeiros’ overall impression of Vatican II was positive, viewing it as an opportunity for both the Church and its bishops to discover greater relevance in the modern world. The theme of renewal was prominent in Medeiros’ thinking with respect to the Council, but this renewal could only happen and be efficacious through the acceptance of the cross. The changes that Council Fathers mandated through the sixteen documents they produced required a new understanding of the Church that for some might be painful. Medeiros commented: “Through renewal, the Church—Pope, bishops, religious [, and] laity need to personally, freely and willingly take up the cross of sacrifice and [the] ever more accurate and perfect reflexion [sic] of Christ.”86 He offered the idea that the Council was a manifestation of a three-full act of love for God, Church, and for all humanity. He suggested that the sixteen documents were “works of love, involving countless hours of work, prayer, and penance,”87 and concluding that the Council “is a definite stage in the constant advancement of the Church towards perfection and fulfillment in the Lord

A Priest in Fall River

39

as it wanders like a Pilgrim on earth in search of its everlasting home in heaven.”88 It is accurate to conclude, based on his overall impressions of Vatican II, that Humberto Medeiros was fully supportive of the work of the Council Fathers. Several people who knew and worked with Medeiros testify to his unwavering defense of the Council. His close friend, John Driscoll, commented that Medeiros “felt the bishops were going in the right direction. He believed his role was to follow their lead.”89 The Fall River diocesan paper, The Anchor, commented that Medeiros “lives the Council,”90 Ron Anderson, who worked with Medeiros during his time as Bishop of Brownsville, observed: “For him the Council was the new order of things. His experience of the Council informed the way he approached pastoral ministry.”91 Medeiros offered his own understanding: “Catholics are bound in conscience to listen to the living voice of the authorized teachers of the Church, and the voice of the Council is the most authorized voice of all.”92 Medeiros’ enthusiastic support for the Council and implementation of its teachings was consistent with the progressive policy of Bishop Connolly. The bishop believed the liturgical changes to be the most obvious and pressing need and it was clear that interest in this theme among Fall River Catholics was high. In the spring of 1964, Connolly wrote to his priests telling them that once the Holy Father issued the motu propio changes could be implemented.93 Medeiros’ personal interest in the implementation of the Council’s liturgical changes was clear from his actions. As chancellor, he wrote to pastors who were slow in their implementation of the changes. A typical letter read in part: “I write to inform you that your report on efforts to promote active participation in the Sacred Liturgy in your parish has not yet been received in this office.”94 Working with Connolly, he instructed priests in the diocese to prepare a series of five sermons on the Council.95 Medeiros also gave several talks to various groups, from high school students to assorted fraternal groups, to religious, all as a means to educate them in the Council’s teachings. Additionally, he personally spoke and encouraged catechists to instruct youth about the Council.96 Humberto Medeiros’ plans for full implementation of the teachings of Vatican II, as well as his priestly ministry, were radically altered in the spring of 1966. He was informed by the Apostolic Delegate to the United States, Archbishop Egidio Vagnozzi that Pope Paul VI had appointed him to be the next Bishop of Brownsville, Texas.97 Medeiros responded to the Delegate: “Since I have not as yet refused to accept any assignment given me by those appointed by Almighty God to direct me, I feel I should not refuse to accept even this one. It is, therefore, in utter and Christian obedience to the wishes of the Holy Father that I accept to be Bishop of Brownsville.”98

40

Chapter 2

Many in the hierarchy were not surprised by Medeiros’ appointment, and expressed their confidence in his selection. Cardinal Amleto Cicognani, the former Apostolic Delegate to the United States wrote a congratulatory letter to Medeiros: We are confident that you can undertake this office and that you are able with your endowments of nature, grace, and experience to rule the people of Brownsville to the great advantage of their souls.99

Father John Driscoll commented, “Quite honestly we [the clergy] all figured he would be the next Bishop of Fall River. We figured Bishop Connolly would pull strings to make sure he was the next bishop.”100 Bishop Connolly extolled Medeiros while simultaneously being saddened by the loss of his right-hand man. He stated, “Texas is carrying off one of the most distinguished Catholic clergymen in New England . . . I expect it will not be long before Texans become as proud of him as we are. Our loss is their gain.”101 Connolly asked his fellow Fall River priests to be generous in their testimonials of gratitude to Medeiros, commenting “The [Brownsville] diocese is so new that there are bound to be many demands on his personal resources. So, we all wish to send him to Texas with much more than cheers and congratulations.”102 Medeiros’ reaction to this momentous event was mixed. Both family members and his close friend John Driscoll agree that Medeiros first pulled out an encyclopedia and map to locate Brownsville.103 He informed Vagnozzi that the appointment was “truly wonderful,” and concluded, “What more can a priest ask from the great High Priest?”104 Medeiros commented in a statement to the press: While I feel a deep regret on leaving the diocese of Fall River, my faithful friends and my beloved family, I am at the same time am filled with joy at the expectation of meeting other children of God and joining with them in loving and praising Him. I already feel sentiments of pride for the opportunity afforded me to enter the old and rich Catholic tradition of Texas through which I hope to receive many blessings from the Lord for the good of the Church.105

He wrote to the faithful in Brownsville, “I send a word of joyful greeting and the solemn promise to spend myself and be spent for [you.] Our common effort in prayer should always be inspired by the blessed will of the Lord.106 Medeiros also wrote to Church officials in Brownsville, commenting “I am very simple, I think, and have one driving idea which is also very simple: the Kingdom of God.”107 Humberto Medeiros was ordained a bishop on June 9, 1966, at Saint Mary of the Assumption Cathedral in Fall River. His friend and long-time ordinary

A Priest in Fall River

41

Bishop James Connolly was the principal ordaining bishop. He was assisted by auxiliary Bishop James Gerrard and Bishop Gerald McDevitt, auxiliary Bishop of Philadelphia. A total of twenty-six members of the hierarchy from the United States and its territories were present.108 Therefore, Medeiros asked his long-time and best friend, Father John Driscoll, to preach. While Driscoll described Medeiros’ many qualities and talents, his sermon concentrated on the virtues and responsibilities of a bishop. He referred to a bishop as “above all a pastor. He is the shepherd of the flock, the father of the family of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ.” Driscoll suggested that the holiness desired in members of the hierarchy was manifested in Medeiros. He summarized his message with a fitting analogy: Often, we hear him [Medeiros] say, “I am a farmer’s son.” . . . How fitting that God has chosen a farmer’s son to tend his vineyard. For every bishop is a foundation of living water springing up to eternal life, a fountain of light and holiness causing the desert to bloom like the rose, watering the fields and making them ripe for the harvest.109

The festival day of Medeiros’ ordination was capped with a banquet for 125 guests held at White’s Restaurant in Westport, Massachusetts. At the event, Medeiros thanked Connolly for their many years together: “Just a few words to thank you from the bottom of my heart for all that you have meant to me ever since the Lord brought us together. He alone will give you the reward. I can only say thank you and work zealously in the Lord’s vineyard to prove by the way I live that your lessons were not wasted on me.”110 The night ended on a high note as Medeiros and his mentor rejoiced together on the former’s new adventure in Brownsville. NOTES 1. “Massachusetts Bay Passes an Anti-Priest Law, May 26, 1647,” in John Tracy Ellis, ed. Documents of American Catholic History, Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1962, 111–12. 2. Francis James Bradley, A Brief History of the Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts (Fall River, MA: Diocese of Fall River, 1931), 13–19. 3. Ibid., 19–27; Connolly, Diocese of Fall River, 17. 4. Bradley, Diocese of Fall River, 32, 37. 5. Connolly, Diocese of Fall River, 24. Among its documents, the 1884 Plenary Council decreed that all parishes were to have a Catholic School. While this was not possible for all parishes, nonetheless the edict was a strong incentive to advance the establishment of Catholic schools. 6. Bradley, Diocese of Fall River, 7–8. 7. Ibid., 14–15, 29–30.

42

Chapter 2

8. Ibid., 29–35, 38–49. 9. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 4; Brownsville Herald, June 28, 1966, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 10. James Cassidy to Humberto Medeiros, April 8, 1947, Medeiros Personnel File, ADFR. 11. Humberto Medeiros to James Cassidy, November 10, 1949, Medeiros Personnel File, ADFR. 12. New Bedford Standard-Times, October 4, 1970, Episcopal Consecration File, ADFR. 13. Ibid. 14. Humberto Medeiros to James Cassidy, August 29, 1949, Medeiros Personnel File, ADFR. 15. The North American College is the residence for diocesan seminarians and priests from the United States who are studying in Rome. 16. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 5; Brownsville Herald, June 28, 1966, Medeiros Papers, ADFR; Anchor, Vol #5, #17, April 27, 1961. 17. Humberto Medeiros, Dissertation, Miscellaneous Items, Box #39, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 18. John Driscoll, Consecration Sermon, n.d. [June 1966], Medeiros Personnel File, ADFR. 19. Humberto Medeiros, Sermon, November 14, 1948, Miscellaneous File, Box #39, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 20. Humberto Medeiros, “The Liberation of Freedom,” n.d. Freedom File, Box #1, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 21. Humberto Medeiros, Sermon, October 24, 1947, Miscellaneous File, Box #39, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 22. Humberto Medeiros, Sermon, October 17, 1948, Miscellaneous File, Box #39, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 23. Anchor, Vol #7, #24, June 6, 1963. 24. Humberto Medeiros, Graduation Speech, n.d. [June 1959], Graduations 1959–60 File, Box #1; Medeiros, Sermon, December 12, 1948, Box #39; Medeiros, “The Liberation from Freedom,” n.d. Freedom File, Box #1, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 25. Humberto Medeiros, Sermon, November 7, 1948, Miscellaneous File, Box #39, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 26. Ibid. 27. Humberto Medeiros, “Trust in God,” March 22, 1949, Miscellaneous File, Box #39, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 28. Humberto Medeiros, Sermon, October 21, 1948, Miscellaneous File, Box #39, Boston, Medeiros Paper, AABo. 29. Anchor, Vol #4, #39, September 29, 1960. 30. It is interesting that Medeiros never obtained a drivers’ license. 31. Anchor, Vol #1 #28, October 17, 1957. 32. Humberto Medeiros, Address, n.d., Education Clippings File, Box #1, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

A Priest in Fall River

43

33. Anchor, Vol #2, #18, May 1, 1958. 34. Shacady News, XVIII, No. 1, October 1951, Shacady File, Box #1, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 35. This annual trip north continued long after Medeiros had left Fall River. When Medeiros was serving as Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, a priest once wrote to him inquiring if he and Driscoll will go “for your annual foliage trip?” See Fr. McCune to Humberto Medeiros, September 17, 1979, Cardinal Medeiros 1979 Memos File, Box #97, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 36. Sousa Interview, September 20, 2014. 37. Daniel Resendes to Humberto Medeiros, March 15, 1954, Unmarked Correspondence File, Box #41, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 38. Driscoll, Interview, October 24, 2016. 39. Ibid. 40. Humberto Medeiros, Graduation Speech, n.d. [June 1959], Graduates 1959– 60 File, Box #1, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 41. Diocesan bishops are required to pay a formal/official visit to the pope (and visit the tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul) each five years. This is generally done when geographic regions of bishops attend at one time. 42. Ibid. 43. Boston attorney, Eric MacLeish, claimed that Church authorities and Fall River were aware of the alleged molestations of Porter before Viens met with Medeiros. See Boston Globe, June 10, 1992. 44. Boston Globe, June 10, 1992. 45. Interview of Father Armando Annunciato, Match 25, 1964, found at www​ .andersonadvocates​.com. 46. James Connolly to Father Porter, March 25, 1964, found at www​.andersonadvocates​.com. 47. James Gerrard to James Connolly, October 23, 1964, Vatican II File, Connolly Papers, ADFR. 48. James Connolly to James Gerrard, October 28, 1964, Vatican II File, Connolly Papers, ADFR. 49. See www​.a​​rchiv​​e​.bos​​ton​.c​​om​/gl​​obesp​​otlig​​ht​/ab​​use/ 50. www​ .andersonadvocates​ .com. Eventually in 1970 after several intermediate steps, Connolly recommended that Porter be laicized. This happened in 1974. In October 1993, Porter pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting twenty children in parishes in Southeast Massachusetts in the 1960s. On December 6, he was sentenced to 18–20 years in maximum-security prison. Porter died while incarcerated on February 2, 2005. 51. Boston Globe Reporters, Betrayal: The Crisis in the Church (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 2002), 44. 52. Anchor, Vol #5, #34, August 17, 1961. 53. Anchor, Vol #8, #14, April 2, 1964. The Board of Consultor, today the College of Consultors, was in the pre-Vatican II era the local bishop’s primary consultative body. Before the organization of priest senates, Boards of Consultors advised the bishop on priest assignments and many other critical diocesan decisions.

44

Chapter 2

54. Humberto Medeiros, Address, n.d. Education Addresses File, Box #1, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 55. Anchor, Vol#4 #39, September 29, 1960. 56. Tavares, Portuguese Pioneers, 97; Anchor, Vol #6 #40, September 27, 1962. 57. St. Michael School 75th Anniversary Program, n.d [2006], St. Michael Parish File, ADFR. 58. Anchor, Vol #5 #19, May 4, 1961. 59. St. Michael School 75th Anniversary Program, n.d [2006], St. Michael Parish File, ADFR. 60. Gerry and Lillian Silvia, Interview with the author, January 12, 2017. 61. Humberto Medeiros to “My Dear Parishioners,” March 12, 1966, Correspondence-Consecration File, Box #1, Boston-Medeiros Papers. AABo. 62. Vatican II Pledge, n.d. Unmarked File, Box #1, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 63. Anchor, Vol #6 #40, September 27, 1962. Vol #5 #40, September 28, 1961. 64. Brownsville Herald, June 28, 1966, Clipping found in Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 65. Many fine monographs on various aspects of Vatican II are extant. A few significant ones are: Giuseppe Alberigo, A Brief History of Vatican II. Maryknoll (New York: Orbis, 2005); Massimo Faggioli, Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2012); Rene Latourelle, ed., Vatican II Assessment and Perspectives Twenty-Five Years After (1962–1987) 5 Volumes (New York: Paulist Press, 1988); John O’Malley, S.J., What Happened at Vatican II? (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2008). 66. Aram Berard, S.J. (trans.) Preparatory Reports Second Vatican Council (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1965), 21–22; PSCB v. 33 Edward Heston Notes on Vatican II, p.8–9, AUND. The ten special commissions were: (1) Theological Problems, (2) Bishops and Government of Dioceses, (3) The Discipline of the Clergy and Christian People, (4) Religious, (5) Sacraments, (6) Liturgy, (7) Studies and Seminaries, (8) Oriental Churches, (9) Mission Activity, and (10) Apostolate of the Laity. The two Secretariats set up were: (1) Christian Unity and (2) Press, Radio and Television. The latter was not intended as a publicity or press office for Council activities. 67. Humberto Medeiros to Cecilia Gachler, March 9, 1962, Vatican II File, Connolly Papers, ADFR. 68. Francois Weiser, “The Periti of the United States and the Second Vatican Council: Prosopography of a Groups of Theologians,” U.S. Catholic Historian 30 (3) (Summer 2012): 74. 69. Ibid., 88. Weiser provides some interesting statistics about the Vatican II periti. In total, 480 priests were appointed periti with 20 of them selected to be bishops. None of the 87 U.S. periti was selected a bishop during the Council. 70. Ibid., 75. 71. Medeiros kept meticulous notes of his daily attendance at the Council sessions, especially the latter three sessions. This material verifies the idea that U.S. bishops in general were not major participants in the discussions. Exceptions to this general comment were debates on religious liberty and the drafting of the Declaration

A Priest in Fall River

45

on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christians. Periodic interventions were noted by Medeiros from Cardinals Meyer, Ritter, O’Boyle, Sheehan, and Spellman. See Humberto Medeiros, Notebooks, 1963–1965, Miscellaneous Materials, Box #39, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 72. Many bishops were not conversant in Latin and thus literally only remotely understood the details being discussed on the Council floor. Driscoll, Interview, October 24, 2016. In a letter to Connolly, Medeiros described his basic daily schedule: “We do not go out much to eat. We have breakfast in our room like last year. Two or three times Bishop Gerrard and I have had some bouillon in our room, prepared by me (!) because we want to go to the press conference at 3 pm. As a rule, we eat lunch in the hotel, a bowl of soup with fruit. At night we have dinner in the hotel, but have gone several times to the Caminetto, which is much cheaper and almost better.” See Humberto Medeiros to James Connolly, October 3, 1965, Vatican II File, Connolly Papers, ADFR. 73. Wall, Interview, August 3, 2019. 74. James Connolly, Statement, Anchor, Vol #10, #16, April 21, 1966. 75. Humberto Medeiros to James Connolly, September 25, 1965, Vatican II File, Connolly Papers, ADFR. 76. Anchor, Vol #9, #41, October 14, 1965. 77. Humberto Medeiros to James Connolly, September 25, 1965, Vatican II File, Connolly Papers, ADFR; Anchor, Vol #9 #45, November 11, 1965. 78. In 1907, St. Pope Pius X issued two encyclicals on Modernism. Lamentabili sane exitu presented sixty-five propositions that attacked the twin pillars of Theological Modernism: (1) Historical-Critical method of the study of Scripture and (2) The Development of Doctrine. The Holy Father considered these errors. Pascendi Dominici Gregis, written in a narrative format continued the attack describing Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies.” 79. Humberto Medeiros to James Connolly, September 25, 1965, Vatican II File, Connolly Papers, ADFR. 80. Humberto Medeiros, “Reflections on the Council,” n.d. Reflections on the Council File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 81. Anchor, Vol #10 #17, April 28, 1966. 82. Humberto Medeiros, “Reflections on the Council,” n.d. Reflections on the Council File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 83. Humberto Medeiros to James Connolly, October 15, 1965, Vatican II File, Connolly Papers, ADFR. 84. Anchor, Vol #9 #47, November 25, 1965. 85. Gaudium et Spes, #19. 86. Ibid., Vol #10 #17, April 28, 1966. 87. Humberto Medeiros, “Reflections on the Council,” n.d. Reflections on the Council File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 88. Humberto Medeiros, “Restlessness and Life,” n.d [1965], Education Addresses File, Box #1, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 89. Driscoll, Interview, October 24, 2016. 90. Anchor, Volume #10, #17April 28, 1966. 91. Ron Anderson, Interview with the author, March 10, 2017.

46

Chapter 2

92. Humberto Medeiros, “Our Common Mission,” n.d. [July 1967] Our Common Mission File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 93. James Connolly to “Reverend Dear Father,” January 24, 1964; James Connolly to “Reverend Dear Father,” March 3, 1964,” Bishops Correspondence 1963–64, Moderator/Chancellor Papers, ADFR. 94. Humberto Medeiros to “Dear Reverend Father,” April 2, 1964, Bishops Correspondence Moderator/Chancellor Papers, ADFR. 95. The topics for the five sermons were: (1) The Church is a Mystery and The people of God, (2) The Structures of the Church, (3) The Church’s Mission—Her Inner Growth, (4) The Church’s Mission—Her Extension in Time and Space—That All May be One, and (5) The Church’s Mission—Her Extension in Time and Space— Go Make Disciples of All Nations.” See Vatican Jubilee Sermons, February 2, 1966, Bishops Correspondence Moderator/Chancellor Papers, ADFR. 96. Anchor, Vol #10 #5, February 3, 1966, Vol #10, #10, March 13, 1966, Vol #10 #3, January 20, 1966. 97. Egidio Vagnozzi to Humberto Medeiros, April 9, 1966, Medeiros Personnel Fil, ADFR. 98. Medeiros Personnel Fil, ADFR. 99. Amleto Cardinal Cicognani to Humberto Medeiros, n.d. [June 1966], Medeiros Personnel File, ADFR. 100. Driscoll, Interview, October 24, 2016. 101. James Connolly, Press Release, n.d. [May 1966], Medeiros Papers, CAT. 102. James Connolly to “Dear Reverend Father,” April 15, 1966, Bishops Correspondence 1966 File, Moderator/Chancellor Papers, ADFR. Connolly was suggesting that the priests provide economic support to Medeiros. 103. Sousa, Interview, September 21, 2014; Driscoll, Interview, October 24, 2016. 104. Humberto Medeiros to Egidio Vagnozzi, May 6, 1966, Correspondence Consecration File, Box #2, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 105. Humberto Medeiros, Statement to the Press, April 20, 1966, Consecration Fall River File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Writing to the editor of the Fall River Herald News, Medeiros had mixed emotions about his appointment: “This is a really trying time for me because of my deep love for Fall River and the bewilderment in which I find myself due to the charity of my wonderful friends. I am very happy to do God’s will and to accept the Holy Father’s invitation and carry out his wishes, but the greater the honor the heavier the burden.” See Humberto Medeiros to Edward Delaney, April 23, 1966, Appointment to Brownsville File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Paper, AABo. 106. Valley Morning Star, n.d. [June 1966], Medeiros Papers, CAT. 107. Humberto Medeiros to Victor W. Ralph, April 24, 1966, Correspondence Consecration File, Box #2, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 108. News Clipping, n.d. [June 1966], found in Consecration and Installation File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 109. Fr. John Driscoll, “Consecration Sermon,” June 9, 1966, Consecration Bishop Medeiros Driscoll File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 110. Humberto Medeiros to James Connolly, July 7, 1966, Correspondence 1966, Box #41, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Part II

ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR BISHOP OF BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS, 1966–1970

Chapter 3

Brownsville, 1966–1970 Building the Diocese

Humberto Medeiros had certainly made a significant mark on his adopted country of the United States and the Catholic Church. After his record-setting academic achievement in high school, he matriculated to The Catholic University of America and was eventually ordained to the priesthood in 1946. Bishop James Connolly recognized the talent Father Medeiros possessed and thus appointed him as his secretary and then within a few years, chancellor of his diocese. Responsible for its day-to-day administration, he served from 1960 to 1965 as pastor of Saint Michael Parish, and for much of that time as a peritus at all four sessions of Vatican II, Medeiros’ rise to the episcopacy was not surprising. This immigrant from the Azores was well-suited for the challenges that would come his way over the ensuing four years as Bishop of Brownsville. THE DIOCESE OF BROWNSVILLE: BACKGROUND AND HISTORY Although it can be argued that Southern Texas first came under Spanish influence shortly after Hernando Cortez arrived in Mexico in 1519,1 no serious efforts to colonize or evangelize the region were made until the late sixteenth century. Due to fears of possible French intrusion in the region, Spanish soldiers eventually came to Southern Texas in 1686. The historians Gilberto and Martha Cruz have commented: “At this same time Franciscan friars established a series of missions in and around what is today the city of San Antonio.”2 To neutralize French interference in the region, Spanish colonization of Southern Texas began in the mid-eighteenth century. By the first years of the 49

50

Chapter 3

nineteenth century, there were some 15,000 people in southeast Texas that received the name of New Santander after a region in northern Spain.3 Formal organization of the region by the Church began in the late eighteenth century. While Pope Paul III had authorized formation of the Diocese of Guadalajara in 1548, it was not until 1777, when the Diocese of Linares (Monterey in 1792) was created, did Southern Texas receive much attention from the Church. The event that sparked significant efforts towards evangelization of Southern Texas was the victory of Sam Houston in the battle of San Jacinto. On March 2, 1836, after Houston’s forces defeated the Mexicans, Texas declared its independence from Mexico; independence was not achieved, however, until April 21, 1836, when Houston’s forces defeated the Mexican army. The historian Bernard Doyan has commented, “The phenomenon that most prominently marked the early history of Texas and lends color and significance to it is the shift from Latin-American to Anglo-American sovereignty and political and cultural influence. This is true of the hole Southwest, but Texas was the pivotal point of this development.”4 The evangelization effort was championed by the Vincentians. Starting in 1838, and led by Father John Timon, C.M. Vincentian priests came to the region. In October 1840, the Propagation of the Faith created the Prefecture Apostolic of Texas; Timon was appointed the first prefect apostolic. Two years later, the Holy See raised the Republic of Texas to the ecclesiastical rank of vicariate apostolic with Bishop Jean Marie Odin, another Vincentian, as the first vicar apostolic. Eventually, in 1847, the Diocese of Galveston was officially formed with Odin as the first bishop.5 Bishop Odin realized that his mission diocese was woefully lacking in priests. Thus, from the outset, he made efforts to recruit clergy to come to the region. In 1849, he attended the Fifth Provincial Council of Baltimore and then continued on to Montréal where he met Oblates of Mary Immaculate. He convinced them to send priests to Galveston. The Oblates arrived at Port Isabel on December 3, 1849, but they were immediately moved to Brownsville, a town that at the time of 2500.6 However, the harsh environment was problematic for these Canadian-born men. Thus, by January 1851, the Oblates had already abandoned Texas. Not to be deterred, however, in his mission to secure clergy, Odin almost immediately left to recruit in Europe. His successful efforts to obtain both Vincentians and Oblates led to a return of the latter community to Galveston in May 1852. In October, Father JeanMarie Verdet arrived in Brownsville with three other priests and a lay brother. Verdet initiated visits to local ranches, most owned by Mexicans. The region comprised eight counties that covered 15,000 square miles. Most of the local commerce was found on the southern side of the Rio Grande in Matamoros.7 The restored Oblate mission was active when Medeiros arrived in 1966 and continues today.

Brownsville, 1966–1970

51

As a center for the expansion of Catholicism in the region, Brownsville took some significant steps forward. In 1856, the cornerstone of Immaculate Conception Cathedral was laid. When it opened in 1859 it was acknowledged to be “the finest public building in Texas and the ornament of the Valley.”8 The cathedral was important for physical witness value to the establishment of the Church, but the arrival of religious women was much more significant for the region’s Catholic development. Ursuline Sisters came to Galveston in 1847 and San Antonio in 1851. French Sisters of the Incarnate Word and Blessed Sacrament arrived in Galveston in 1852, only months after the return of the Oblates. After mastering English and Spanish, they moved to Brownsville and opened a school, Villa Maria. Sisters of Mercy came to the Vicariate in 1875. A convent was constructed and a school for boys and girls was opened. Their efforts marked them as pioneers in Catholic education in Southern Texas.9 The appearance of religious women coincided with a change in the hierarchical administration of the region. In February 1861, Odin was sent to New Orleans. That see’s new archbishop, Claude Marie Dubuis, who had been involved in ministry in the region since 1847, was appointed the new Bishop of Galveston. It was obvious to the new bishop, however, that such a vast land (the diocese was the present state of Texas) was far too large to oversee. Thus, the bishops of the region, meeting in 1873 at the Third Provincial Council of New Orleans, recommended a new episcopal see at San Antonio and a new vicariate apostolic of Brownsville. In response, on September 18, 1874, Pope Pius IX issued the bull In Futuram Rei Memoriam creating the Vicariate with Immaculate Conception Church selected as the cathedral.10 The vicariate comprised the land between the Nueces and Rio Grande Rivers, what later became the dioceses of Corpus Christi and Brownsville.11 The first vicar apostolic of Brownsville was Bishop Dominic Manucy, a priest from the Diocese of Mobile, Alabama. He was formally installed at Immaculate Conception Cathedral on February 14, 1875, by Bishop Dubuis of Galveston. Manucy immediately took a three-month journey to visit all parts of his vicariate. His visitation prompted Manucy, after consultation with Propaganda Fide, to move the see city to Corpus Christi. He rebuilt Saint Patrick’s Church (originally constructed in 1854) for use as his cathedral. In 1875, the Catholic population of the Vicariate was listed as between 30,000 and 40,000, mostly in the four counties of Cameron, Willacy, Hidalgo and Starr, all rural regions of southeast Texas.12 A pontifical brief of July 21, 1877, slightly redefined the boundaries of the Brownsville Vicariate.13 After ten years there, Manucy was assigned as the new Bishop of Mobile. Manucy’s departure left the vicariate without a bishop for over five years. In 1890, Father Peter Verdaguer was appointed Bishop of the Brownsville Vicariate. He arrived in Corpus Christi in 1891, but quickly moved his episcopal residence to Laredo.14 Verdaguer made many improvements to the

52

Chapter 3

Vicariate by building hospitals and establishing parishes.15 He was well-liked, and he conducted extensive pastoral visits during his tenure as bishop. He was a strong proponent of popular devotion and made significant efforts to secure retreats for his priests.16 The historian James Moore described Verdaguer as “a tireless missionary [whose] . . . long tenure provided the stability the vicariate needed to experience the kind of development its sizable Catholic population required.”17 Verdaguer’s death in 1911 prompted the Province of New Orleans to recommend to the Holy See that Brownsville become a diocese (see figure 3.1). Thus, on March 23, 1912, Pope Pius X issued Sapienti Consilio, which converted the vicariate into the Diocese of Corpus Christi with Saint Patrick Church to serve as the cathedral. Father Paul Nussbaum, a Passionist priest from Philadelphia, was appointed as the first bishop. He was formally installed on June 8, 1913. He was a strong promoter of Catholic education and moved forward with the formation of new parishes.18  After a series of bishops, the Church in the lower Rio Grande Valley experienced its most recent transition. Prior to Medeiros’ arrival, in June 1966, Pope Paul VI, through the bull Ad Perpetuam Rei Memorium, split the Diocese of Corpus Christi, thus, formally establishing the Diocese of Brownsville. The new diocese comprised the four-county area of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy, the southern-most regions of Corpus Christi. The Church of the Immaculate Conception, which had served on its construction in 1859 as the cathedral, once again gained this distinction for Brownsville. Adolph Marx, an auxiliary in Corpus Christi, was appointed the first Bishop of Brownsville.19Only two weeks after his installation, Marx traveled to Rome to attend the Fourth Session of Vatican II. On November 1, 1965, while on a home visit to Germany, Marx died suddenly. For the next eight months, the

Figure 3.1  Map of Counties that Comprise the Diocese of Brownsville. Source: Courtesy Catholic Texas Archives.

Brownsville, 1966–1970

53

diocese was administered by Monsignor Victor Ralph, who was granted the necessary faculties to meet the day-to-day needs of the newly formed diocese. ARRIVAL IN BROWNSVILLE Shortly after his ordination as bishop, Medeiros journeyed to Brownsville with a party of approximately thirty friends and relatives. Upon arrival, Medeiros expressed his thoughts as he looked toward his future ministry in the diocese. He addressed peoples of all stripes and religious persuasions, offering his services to all and pledging to serve the people to the best of his ability (see figure 3.2). Acknowledging that he would need the assistance of his brother priests and religious sisters who had been laboring in the diocese for some time, he commented: “I pledge myself anew, together with all the people He has entrusted to me, to advance His Kingdom of truth, of love, of justice, of freedom, of peace and joy throughout the territory of the Brownsville diocese and even beyond, because charity knows and accepts no earthly boundaries.”20

Figure 3.2  Medeiros’ Arrival in Brownsville. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

54

Chapter 3

Prior to his installation, Medeiros received the welcome of many local Church officials as he visited a few of the prominent sites in the diocese. The Brownsville clergy were overjoyed when Medeiros arrived. Not only did they once again have a bishop, but he was considered “Hispanic” by many of the local citizens.21 Bishop Laurence DeFalco of Amarillo praised Medeiros for his intelligence, knowledge of Spanish and sympathetic nature. He commented, “Texas is mighty fortunate to have this man, as he is one of the most humble, most charitable men I have ever met in my life.”22 His metropolitan, Archbishop Robert Lucey of San Antonio, welcomed Medeiros, extolling him as “eminently qualified for the office to which our Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, has assigned him.”23 Others assured Medeiros that he would be welcomed and that he would find a cooperative spirit in the diocese. Bishop Thomas Gorman of Dallas told Medeiros, “I know you will find it a very interesting area to work in. It is very Catholic in its population . . . much more than most other parts of Texas.”24 Monsignor Ralph earlier wrote to Medeiros with similar sentiments: “I know you will be delighted with the people of Brownsville—they are very friendly and most hospitable. In the city and other areas in the Valley, you will find men and women of outstanding ability and they will give you the fullest cooperation.”25 The dean of American Catholic historians, John Tracy Ellis, a former teacher of Medeiros at The Catholic University of America, writing in retrospect on his selection as Bishop of Brownsville, described Medeiros’ appointment as “a striking example of the right man in the right place.”26 On a more personal note, he spoke of Medeiros as a man of “deep faith, seriousness of purpose, unflagging industry, and a concern for others that was conspicuous.”27 After his initial introduction to his new diocese, Humberto Medeiros was installed as the second Bishop of Brownsville on June 29, 1966, at the Immaculate Conception Cathedral. Archbishop Robert Lucey presided at the mass, joined by thirteen other members of the hierarchy. Medeiros’ immediate family, his two brothers, Manuel and Leonel, and his sister, Natalie, and their spouses attended.28 The sermon was preached by Bishop Thomas Drury of Corpus Christi. At the celebratory dinner following the installation, Medeiros spoke of the responsibility he felt, now in a post-Vatican II Church, toward the faithful in Brownsville. He referred to an ongoing labor dispute between migrant farmworkers and growers that would dominate his four-year tenure as bishop: There is a great need in our time for the bishops and priests to teach and inspire the rest of the faithful that they will take courageously their rightful place in the Church and bring the spirit of the Kingdom of God into every walk of life. An excellent opportunity is offered to them at this moment in the Magic Valley to bring to bear the urgent and complex problems which trouble both management and labor the full light and understanding of the Gospel of Christ.29

Brownsville, 1966–1970

55

Medeiros clearly revealed his spiritual approach to ministry through his chosen motto: “Thy Kingdom Come.”30  As he entered a new phase of his priestly ministry, how did Humberto Medeiros understand his role? He clearly understood the necessity to feel connected to his flock and to provide them with the best examples of a life well lived. He saw himself “not as a second-rate citizen of this community; on the contrary I must become a citizen of the community so that our Christian American Heritage may prevail in all phases of American life.”31 He could never remain aloof from the social and economic realities of his people. He understood his primary example to be a shepherd, knowing his flock and allowing the flock to know him.32 He must be a good listener to those for whom he was responsible.33 Most especially, Medeiros understood his primary role to preach the message of Jesus Christ: “A bishop must first be ‘a herald of the gospel’. To preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, this is what a bishop must do first. Then he must sanctify those who gathered together, guide them and govern them with sacred authority in charity.”34 Medeiros’ good friend, John Driscoll, presented a synthesized portrait of how Medeiros viewed his new role: Bishop Medeiros is a shepherd who walks the streets to smell and taste the life [of] the people; a pastor of courage backed by intellectual integrity avoiding aesthetic and political clichés; a priest who despite his seemingly mild demeanor is ready to fight social, economic and political battles [as] necessary to improve the lot of his people.35

Medeiros began to settle into his new role, but he had to do so in temporary quarters. Because Marx had occupied the see for less than a month, there was no episcopal residence. Therefore, Medeiros initially took up residence in Mercy Hospital. Eventually, he moved into a nice home in a well-established Brownsville neighborhood. However, he found his rather elaborate living situation to be problematic. He devised a solution by opening his house to other groups in the diocese to use for meetings, recreation for priests, and certain diocesan celebrations. Medeiros occupied only a small portion of the house, allowing religious sisters to reside in a larger portion of the home in a section separated from his quarters.36 ORGANIZING THE DIOCESE Medeiros wasted no time establishing himself as a pastoral presence in the diocese. His secretary, Father Ron Anderson, stated that his “emphasis was always pastoral.”37 He loved to be with people, clergy, or laity, and relished the opportunities to serve in many priestly functions, as he had done recently

56

Chapter 3

as pastor at Saint Michael Parish in Fall River. For example, on many occasions if a priest was unable to celebrate mass, especially at a distant parish, Medeiros often went as a substitute. He was willing to take upon himself the tasks of his priests.38 Upon his death in 1983, L’Osservatore Romano editorialized: “Bishop Medeiros quickly established himself through his personal contacts and his pastoral zeal as the friend of the people, especially the poor.”39 He was characterized by all as a very humble and prayerful man. From a more business perspective he was described as “a stern administrator,” a quality which led many bishops and other Church officials to seek his guidance.40 What was the institutional status of the Diocese of Brownsville when Medeiros arrived in June 1966? Extant sources give different numbers but, succinctly put, diocesan clergy and parishes were few in number. There were eighty-two priests operating in the diocese, but only sixteen were secular clergy; sixty-six were religious. Additionally, ninety-seven religious sisters and fourteen religious brothers served the diocese. There were thirty-eight parishes and fifty-nine missions. Educational institutions were also lean, with seventeen elementary schools and two high schools. Over the next four years of his tenure, however, while the number of educational institutions remained the same, that of diocesan priests increased to twenty-nine; many former missions were transformed into parishes, thus increasing the number to fifty-seven.41 On November 10, 1966, after he completed a visitation of the diocese and a thorough review of all relevant documents, Medeiros held a meeting with his priests at the San Juan Shrine to present his plans for organizing the diocese. The structure was to be based on the teachings of Vatican II. His plan was divided into four sections: (1) duties of the bishop, (2) duties and rights of diocesan priests, (3) duties and rights of religious, and (4) duties and rights of the laity.42 In early March 1967, he set guidelines for how the diocese’s various offices were to function. (1) All offices and commissions were to report their activities in writing monthly; no meeting minutes were to be published without the bishop’s permission. (2) The bishop would meet monthly, generally on the first Monday of the month, with the heads of all main offices and commissions including social action, schools, CCD, Saint Vincent de Paul, census, vocations, Legion of Mary, CYO, the John Newman Apostolate, liturgy, and music. (3) The bishop would attend priest senate meetings in order to listen and learn.43 The organizational process was slow and a bit frustrating to Medeiros, and thus he came to realize patience was essential. Medeiros’ first great challenge in Brownsville was to settle the division of assets and other financial matters pertinent to the separation of the diocese from Corpus Christi. This discussion had begun in August 1965, when Bishop Marx met with Archbishop Lucey and Bishop Drury in San Antonio.

Brownsville, 1966–1970

57

Marx suggested a 55–45 percent Corpus Christi to Brownsville split of the monetary assets. While there seemed to be no objections, both Drury and Lucey wanted a few days to consider the proposal, with Drury promising an answer by August 24.44 The promised response, however, never arrived, prompting Marx to write to the Apostolic Delegate, Egidio Vagnozzi. He expressed his frustration at the lack of resolution: I have not been able to receive an answer from Bishop Drury regarding my proposed division of the assets of the Diocese of Corpus Christi in accordance with the prescriptions of Canon 1508. As a matter of fact, I have not received any funds whatsoever, not even those funds which I think belong to the Diocese of Brownsville. I have heard that Archbishop Lucey and Bishop Drury intend to discuss the matter of the division of the assets with someone in the Roman Curia on their arrival in Rome for the fourth session of the Council. I sincerely hope the Curia will not decide the matter without giving me an opportunity to be heard.45

Almost one year passed from these initial discussions until Medeiros was installed as bishop. Ignorant of much of the background of this financial dilemma, and in need of monetary resources for his cash-strapped diocese, Medeiros acted rather precipitously to secure funds. Extant data, while incomplete, indicates that Medeiros signed an agreement with Drury that Corpus Christi would pay Brownsville three million dollars over three years.46 With a financial footing established, Medeiros could address other organizational tasks. In February 1967, Medeiros ordered a general census of the diocese in order to better understand the faithful in his charge and to make plans for future needs. He explained his rationale for the census: “The census will reveal to all of us, but especially to me, who have the responsibility of the whole flock, what our people need, what they want, what they are thinking about concerning their religion, how they practice it, [and] what I must do to help them become better Catholics.”47 Father Harry Schuckenbrok, OMI, was placed in charge of the census effort.48 The results of the census provided guidelines for future programs. Data from the census revealed that only 71 percent of households were permanent residents; migrant workers who “follow the crops” comprised the majority of the other 29 percent. It was also revealed that weekly mass attendance, which had been common practice prior to Vatican II, was beginning to become less normative for many. The high percentage of youth nineteen years and under (almost 64 percent of the Catholic population) and their dearth of Catholic catechesis of any nature was striking. Thus, it was clear to Medeiros that significant efforts to enhance religious education and support social programs were imperative.49

58

Chapter 3

The census also revealed quite dramatically the challenge that Medeiros faced with respect to his lack of clergy. Brownsville had the lowest ratio of priests to Catholics in the nation: one priest for 800–900 people.50 Little effort had been made in the past to foster diocesan priestly vocations in the Rio Grande Valley. Religious, primarily Oblates of Mary Immaculate, had served this region of the country for many generations. Throughout his tenure as Bishop of Brownsville, Medeiros struggled to promote priestly vocations. As late as February 1969, he wrote to a fellow priest: “We are slowly getting a few more priests but certainly not enough for our present needs.”51 Quite obviously Bishop Medeiros wore the shepherd’s hat for all in his diocese, but he showed special affection for his fellow priests, his lieutenants who operated on the front lines of Christ’s mission. At his installation banquet, he expressed his understanding of the role of the priest within the Church: “This, then, is our mission, to draw the world to Christ to His Kingdom of love and justice for all, of liberty and peace for all the Children of God.”52 He clearly stated that priests were to teach and inspire the faithful so that they can courageously live out their responsibility as Christians. In order to carry out this duty, however, the priest must be stalwart in following Christ. He stated, “A priest is and must always be a man of strong faith. He cannot be a reed shaken by the wind. He must ever rely upon the words of the Master who made him a shareer in the sacred service of the priesthood for the extension of the Kingdom upon earth.”53 Indeed, while knowledge of theology was important, Medeiros claimed that there was no substitute for faith, calling it “a divine light and a divine strength.”54 Faith was the base for all followers of Christ, but Medeiros described a broader picture for those privileged to be in persona Christi. Medeiros stressed the critical nature of setting a good example, stating, “Only when the world sees reflected in the face of the Church, in the face of each one of us, the image of the Savior; only then will they [the faithful] come to Him through us.”55 The best example that could be set is through service to others. He once commented: “You should feel that your life is useless unless it is spent in the service of others. By spent I mean exactly that: SPENT. Every ounce of your energy, both of body and mind, truly and selflessly SPENT for the sake of others.”56 Another significant quality for the priest was availability to all people, rich and poor, young and old. He commented, “A minister of the Church must be totally available, without bias.”57 Because the qualities and responsibilities for the priesthood were high, Medeiros firmly believed this vocation was not for the fainthearted but rather for “strong souls deeply in love with God, souls which yearn to serve Him and their brothers without thought of their privileges or rights or anything of that sort.”58 The priest was never to allow the turmoil of the world or the Church to interfere with one’s ministry: “Remember always

Brownsville, 1966–1970

59

that the wonderful ship of the Church, being the barque of Peter, has the Lord in it. He may be asleep, but the Church is safe because He is there. It may be crossing rough seas, but the Lord is in it. He is aboard.”59 Last, Medeiros encouraged priests never to be bashful about their ministry, but rather to proudly profess and to celebrate their special vocation.60 Medeiros’ obvious affection and support for his priests was manifested in his relationships with them. At the outset of his tenure in Brownsville, when articulating his plan to organize the diocese, priests were to play a key role that required the local bishop’s support. Medeiros always held a close relationship with his priests, considering it a great joy to work with them, going so far as to apologize if some of the clergy considered him “less than zealous or charitable,”61 in his role as a new bishop. As he asked priests to be available to the faithful, so he placed himself at the service of his brothers. He wrote, “Always I am at your service at any time. You are fully aware, I am confident, that one of my greatest joys is to receive you and to assist you, if I can, with your problems and to share in your joys as you spend yourself lovingly in the advancement of God’s Kingdom among us.”62 An additional manifestation of the support was found in organizing retreats and workshops for his priests.63 Medeiros also engaged the question of priestly celibacy. This became a prominent topic of discussion after Vatican II. He noted that in the wake of the Council more people were questioning the need for clerical celibacy. He allowed a questionnaire on priestly celibacy to be distributed to his priests. He insisted that Pope Paul VI’s recent encyclical on priestly celibacy,64 affirming the Church’s traditional understanding, did not obviate continued discussion of the matter (see figure 3.3). He wrote “[I]t is still good to continue to study the subject not with the view to change our minds, but to deepen our understanding of it and thus come to appreciate it better and better.”65 Medeiros’ interest in priestly formation prompted him to accept an invitation to preach a retreat at Saint Mary Seminary in Baltimore, the oldest in the United States. His talks and especially his presence were well received by the seminarians. He entertained questions on liturgical innovation, politics and Humanae Vitae. While extant letters and comments about the retreat are abundant, one highly illustrative missive from a seminarian read in part: Bishop Medeiros came to our seminary to learn about the seminarian of the “new” generation. He was a simple man, not a naïve man. He came to our seminary to learn but he was the teacher. He came here to learn from us and was sought after by us. He was a humble man and gave us an example of humility. He was a man of faith and gave us faith. He was a man of hope and gave us hope. He was a man of love and gave us Christ.66

60

Chapter 3

Figure 3.3  Medeiros with Pope St. Paul VI. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

The seminarians could clearly tell that Medeiros was sincere; for many he became an image of Christ. The loss of clergy and religious and the loss of vocations in the wake of Vatican II were significant themes for Medeiros. In 1969, the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops issued a pastoral letter that summarized the current challenges in the Church: These four years have been a period of extraordinary testing for the Church. Most of us expected a gradual, orderly process of change and renewal after the Council came to an end in December 1965. Instead, we have seen controversy, dissension and turmoil become very much a part of our lives during the postconciliar years. It would be unrealistic, if not naïve, to interpret the complex problems confronting the Church in our day as a passing phase which will soon disappear. The problems are real, profound and vitally crucial. They must be viewed with grave concern.67

Medeiros noted the unrest and confusion, leading to inconsistent behavior on the part of many priests and religious. His main concern during this time of transition was the rise of dissent in the Church. Writing to his friend John

Brownsville, 1966–1970

61

Driscoll, he commented: “I think we have to keep on clinging with all our strength and the grace given to us through the Lord Jesus Christ in order not to deviate one iota from Him and from what He said and what He is. We will let the theologians muse and speak out as bravely and as sincerely as we can and let the Lord do the rest.”68  Medeiros’ concern and support for clergy was clearly pointed toward their central role as leaders in the parish life of the diocese. When Medeiros arrived in Brownsville, parishes were defined by ethnicity, not by geographic boundaries as was typical in the American Church. Anglo parishes, served for the most part by diocesan clergy, were generally economically prosperous; Hispanic parishes, served by religious congregations, were generally poor. Many of the “Mexican” parishes were actually missions of larger Anglo communities. Almost immediately Medeiros established parish boundaries, seeking to bring the Anglo and Hispanic communities together. This move did not make any headlines, but priests who lived through this era, calling the policy “his crowning achievement,” have commented: “His [Medeiros’] establishment of new parishes and integration of parishes has had more long-lasting impact on Brownsville than his work with farmworkers.”69 All parishes established during Medeiros tenure as bishop were founded with this guiding principle of social integration as absolute. Not surprisingly, Medeiros took an approach to parish life that was inspired by Vatican II. He commented, “Vatican Council II clearly expressed a desire that Catholic lay men and women take a more active part in the affairs of the Church both temporal and spiritual.”70 Medeiros thus directed each pastor to establish a lay parish board “to assist him in the spiritual and temporal administration of the parish.”71 In support of these lay councils, the first annual Congress of Parish Councils was held at the Fort Brown Memorial Center on March 2, 1969. The keynote address was given by Father George Edward Uricheck from the Diocese of NatchezJackson, Mississippi.72 Medeiros promoted other parochial functions. He established a Parish Diocesan Advisory Assembly, comprised of two men and two women from each of the four diocesan deaneries. They were to be elected by their peers in the parish to serve for one year, with the possibility of re-election for two more successive years.73 As a mission diocese, he was able to secure significant assistance from the Catholic Church Extension Society74 in the physical construction of new parish churches and missions. Extant sources differ on specifics, but Medeiros was responsible for the establishment of at least eighteen new parish churches and some missions, although several former missions were renovated and opened as parishes. Medeiros usually celebrated the particular Church’s mass of blessing.75

62

Chapter 3

One of the most significant general developments from Vatican II was the active role of the laity in all aspects of the Church. In his comments and writings, Medeiros routinely references the need for active lay participation. He took the lead role in Brownsville to assure that lay men and women had an active voice in Church affairs. Referencing Vatican II’s Apostolicam autuositatem, “The Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity,” Medeiros spoke of the importance of every person’s role in the Church: “Each one has a place assigned in the Church by Christ Himself . . . And no one of us, pope, bishops, priests, religious, or layman or a laywoman, no one of us can abandon our assigned post. Each one has a place which no other person can take. Each one is important in the Church of God and what you do not do, no one else will do.”76 He acknowledged that the hierarchy, priests, and religious have specific rules in the Church but praised the special role that the laity played in bringing Christ’s message and the Church’s values to society.77 Believing in the integral nature of lay participation in the post-Vatican II Church, Medeiros instituted the Visitors for Christ program, which became one of his signature accomplishments as Bishop of Brownsville. The census of 1967 had convinced Medeiros that action was necessary to revive parish life, and he believed that Vatican II’s call for greater lay involvement was the key. Therefore, he envisioned the Visitors for Christ program to be a means of evangelization. The program’s goal was for every Catholic home in each parish of the diocese to receive a personal visit from a team of fellow parishioners. He envisioned the program as an ideal way to increase lay involvement and thereby to assist the clergy with all sorts of parish-based activities, including census-taking, religious education programs, and visitations to the elderly and sick. As one religious sister recalled, “He felt this program would enable the laity to be involved and would present personal experience of God’s love to those who are being visited.”78 Invoking the words of Jesus that “the harvest is great but laborers few” (Matthew 9:37), Medeiros challenged the faithful in Brownsville to be responsible to their fellow Catholics, assisting them to become more involved and, thereby, creating a greater and more active Catholic community.79 The program was parish based and structured in such a way as to create a division of labor but simultaneously to give supervisory control to the pastor and lay colleagues with whom he would work. Each parish was asked to have Visitors for Christ chairman, co-chairman, and zone captains to ensure that all homes in any particular parish would be scheduled for visitation. Responsibilities were divided such that visitation teams were assigned a reasonable number (generally five to ten) of individual homes to visit. Visitation teams were urged to share their faith with their fellow parishioners. After several weeks of preparation, including organizing on the parish level and

Brownsville, 1966–1970

63

seminars to instruct all involved, especially visitation teams, the target date of November 17, 1968, was set for visitors to fan out throughout the diocese in an effort to visit all Catholics.80 Bishop Medeiros was extremely pleased with the initial effort of his new program as it drew attention far beyond the limits of the diocese. In October 1970, an internal memorandum in the Diocese of Brownsville read in part: “As the undisputed father of the Visitors for Christ [Program], Bishop Medeiros has seen his movement gain national respect and attention, spreading the ‘loving-through-doing’ message from home-to-home and neighborto-neighbor.”81 Grateful for the efforts of so many, Medeiros extolled the many volunteers in a Pastoral Letter, “Visitors for Christ are Christian stewards. They love and so they give of what they are and of what they have. They gave their ability or talent; they gave their time and whatever of the material possessions they can sacrifice for the good of their neighbor.”82 The Visitors for Christ initiative sought to correct the lack of participation by the laity in various parish-based programs, but there was also a need to increase revenue. The separation of Brownsville from Corpus Christi created a financial burden that became a significant concern for Medeiros. Thus, in November 1967, Medeiros instituted a diocesan-wide stewardship program. Beginning on the First Sunday of Advent, a series of four “talks” were given by clergy in lieu of the normal Sunday homily. The program had three major objectives: (1) to develop an awareness of material and spiritual needs of the parish, (2) to encourage parishioners to take a more active part in parish life, and (3) to increase offertory collections. Through the vehicle of the diocesan newspaper, Valley Catholic Witness, he explained that any expansion of facilities and services for parishes required the time, talent, and monetary resources of the faithful. He wrote: The “Christian Stewardship Program” of this diocese is of vital importance to our life. It is of vital importance to all of us as God’s People and as American citizens who wish to improve the conditions of our beloved country and our beloved diocese.83

The campaign moved into a second phase in early 1968. In February, the diocese offered a three-day seminar on Christian stewardship, led by Doctor Gilbert Stout, that was attended by over 1000 people representing every parish within the diocese. From this meeting, direct solicitation to parishioners, following the pattern of the Visitors for Christ program, was initiated. In August, Stout was again invited to the diocese to hold training sessions on stewardship for clergy and lay leaders. Extant data shows that the program was successful; revenue from the first quarter of 1969 was up 143 percent over the previous year.84

64

Chapter 3

Active participation by the laity and the securing of necessary revenues provided support structures for Catholic education. When he arrived in Brownsville, there were seventeen Catholic elementary schools in operation serving slightly over 4000 students. There were also two diocesan high schools, Villa Maria for girls and Saint Joseph Academy for boys, serving 590 students, as well as the private Incarnate Word Academy, sponsored by the Sisters of the Incarnate Word and Blessed Sacrament.85 Humberto Medeiros was very supportive of Catholic education. He firmly believed in the integral role of Catholic schools in the teaching mission of the Church and the fostering of dialogue between the Church and society, to the benefit of both. In an address to pastors with parish schools he stated: Indeed the Catholic school, while it is open, as it must be, to the situation of the contemporary world, leads students to promote efficaciously the goal of the earthly city and also prepare them for service in the spread of the Kingdom of God so that by leading an example of apostolic life they become, as it were, a saving leaven in the human community.86

Medeiros always maintained a very positive and supportive posture toward Catholic schools. He greatly resisted closing a school, even in the challenging post-Vatican II environment. He once commented, “I did not come to the Valley to assist at the funeral of our Catholic School System. As bishop I am committed along with the entire Church to the positive value which can be found only in a good Catholic school.”87 It seems that in an effort to deflect any possible anger away from himself, Medeiros ordered that should any school be considered for closure or merger for financial or other reasons, the parish as a whole must be consulted and vote. This placed responsibility for such decisions on all people. He continued to tell people that he was never in favor of closing a school, but rather of opening new ones. However, he pragmatically realized that Catholic education was becoming increasingly more out of range for his largely poor flock. Additionally, he acknowledged that some Catholic schools were deficient in secular offerings and, that if parents chose to send their children to public schools, he had no right to interfere.88 Generally, Medeiros’ efforts were successful; while no new school was created, none of the schools in operation upon his arrival closed during his tenure as bishop. Medeiros’ advocacy for Catholic education was broad based, as he came to realize that the vast majority of children in the diocese did not attend Catholic schools. He thus placed significant effort into supporting for parishbased religious education programs. One religious sister commented: “He [Medeiros] was very supportive of Catholic Education while at the same time always trying to find ways to evangelize the many who do not have the

Brownsville, 1966–1970

65

opportunity to attend Catholic schools.”89 Prior to Medeiros’ arrival, religious education programs were, for the most part, conducted in private homes. Almost all catechists were volunteer women who would gather a group of children in their home, generally for the purpose of preparing them for the sacraments; religious catechesis was minimal.90 Medeiros addressed this situation in a few ways. Specifics as to the prevailing status of religious catechesis were revealed through the Visitors for Christ program. He formalized a program of the Confraternity for Christian Doctrine (CCD) under the direction of Father Harry Schuckenbrock, OMI. Medeiros was optimistic about the future: “A great spirit is developing throughout our Diocese among our CCD workers.”91 Medeiros’ efforts bore fruit almost immediately. During the 1968–1969 school years, the number of children in CCD was 30,041, more than doubling the numbers (12,000) since his arrival.92 Medeiros was also supportive of other educational programs in the diocese. He championed, along with his Chancellor, Father Emmanuel Ballard, OMI, an effort to raise sufficient monies to build a permanent Newman Center at the Pan-American College in Edinburg. In support of this effort, he commented: “We do not want our youth to leave college to face the problems of life without the firm conviction that Christ is with them, if they wish to be with Him. We work and pray that they come to believe that the man who is not with Christ is against Him.”93 In a more secular vein, Medeiros also supported the establishment of a state-run technical and vocational school in Harlingen as a partial solution to the problem of unemployment in the region. In his efforts to establish the institutions of the diocese, Bishop Medeiros rightly placed priority on clergy, religious, finances, and education, but he certainly did not ignore other areas. He set up a Diocesan Tribunal to adjudicate various canon law cases, especially marriage. He was fortunate to obtain the services of Father Joseph Galante, a canon lawyer from Philadelphia to head the Tribunal. Understanding the need for good communication within the diocese, he started a diocesan paper, Valley Catholic Witness, choosing the title because it expressed the diocese’s purpose and policy. The first issue was published on June 25, 1967. Published biweekly, the paper had no paid advertising, operating on free-will donations. By September 1970, the paper had a circulation of 55,000.94 Medeiros’ tenure as Bishop of Brownsville coincided and at times collided with changing societal norms. A strong advocate of the letter of Vatican II and not its “spirit,” he upheld traditional Church and episcopal authority at a time when questioning authority, both in society and the Church, was becoming almost commonplace.95 Medeiros’ position, when Church and society collided, was articulated clearly in a Pastoral Letter: “It is to this living voice of the teaching office or magisterium of the Church that all the People of God

66

Chapter 3

are bound to listen, and not to the alluring but confusing voices of those who set themselves up as ‘Masters in Israel,’ with only their scholarship, real or presumed, to back the ‘peculiar ideologies’ they preach.”96 The publication in 1968 of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on artificial birth control, provides the best example of the collision between Church and society that Medeiros encountered in support of the Pope’s teaching. Medeiros wrote a letter to be read at all parishes in the diocese on August 18, 1968. In part the letter read, He [Pope Paul VI] did not make new laws for God’s People, but as the Chief Shepherd of the flock he interpreted for all of us the will of God . . . He has not changed the teaching of the Church on this point [artificial contraception] because it is the teaching of God Himself . . . But strident, distant, and angry voices have been heard within and without the Church, openly defying the teachings expressed by the Holy Father, or criticizing his manner of expressing the Faith which the Lord commanded him to teach His flock. These voices only add to the confusion which they have already created by presenting for belief mere human wisdom, with little regard for the wisdom of the cross which is the wisdom of God.97

For Medeiros, the controversy associated with Humanae Vitae was a crisis of faith, but the Church could grow and prosper through this trial. He wrote, The Church of God is growing through the process of purification and all of us have to suffer for it . . . Do not be disturbed by what some of the clergy are doing. The poor things are also confused because of the turmoil in the whole world. The Lord in His good time will bring peace and more unity to His Church because it is His Church. He is the head of it and watchdog over it.98

Medeiros fully believed and practiced his understanding that the role of the bishop was primarily to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to guide the faithful along similar lines. MEDEIROS AND THE BROADER COMMUNITY Humberto Medeiros was the Catholic Bishop of Brownsville, but through his own personal desire and his position in the community his concerns and efforts went beyond the needs and issues associated with the Church. He believed in his role of preaching the Gospel, but also to sanctify society at large. Consistent with his strong advocacy for the poor, Medeiros was

Brownsville, 1966–1970

67

a strong supporter of urban renewal programs. He based his advocacy on human rights. In a prepared statement given before the City Commission of Brownsville, he stated, It is recognized nowadays that the society of man must not only be organized, but must also provide men with abundant resources which certainly require that man observe and recognize their material rights and duties. It also requires that they collaborate together in the many enterprises that modern civilization either allows, encourages, or even demands.99

He believed that urban renewal in general fosters the relationship between civil authorities and individual citizens. He advocated an active response to the needs in the region, which were many. In his same presentation to the City Commission he stated, Here in Brownsville, as well as in most of the Valley, the numerous slum sections of our cities and towns are truly a sorry blight to be attacked with intelligence, prudence and courage. We cannot condone their existence and permit a large number of our citizens to live in sub-standard housing with all the grim consequences so evident today. In Brownsville alone at least 20 per cent of the homes are not fit for animals, yet our people have no other place to live.100

Medeiros answered critics who felt that Church officials had no business entering into the secular realm: “It [his response] springs from the very nature of the Church of which even many Catholics are so blissfully but disgracefully unaware.”101 For Medeiros actions in the secular realm were simply acts of patriotism, something that he held very dear from his immigrant status.102 Engaging peoples of faith, those beyond Catholicism, was an outgrowth of the teachings of Vatican II. He actively took part in the Texas Conference of Churches (TCC), the state’s ecumenical organization. The Conference was established in 1954 as the Texas Council of Churches, but in 1969, in the wake of Vatican II, it was reconstituted as the TCC with Roman Catholic participation. The organization sought to assist with the development and training of local leaders, to aid in the establishment of new industry in the Valley. Such action would enhance job opportunities. Additionally, the TCC developed better education programs, including bilingual adult education utilizing both public and private funds. Initiatives aimed to have active churchmen and community leaders listen to the needs of citizens so as to better understand and move toward resolution of the various problems they faced in their local communities.103

68

Chapter 3

Humberto Medeiros was a strong supporter of the TCC. He challenged those who criticized his engagement with non-Catholics.104 In a deeply ecumenical spirit, he commented. While there is no cause for alarm or confusion, there is much reason for rejoicing because believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, though different painfully among themselves on some essential points of the Faith, have come together, led by the Spirit of the Lord Himself and His love to work together, pray together and even worship together whenever this is possible without compromise to the faith of any church and the conscience of its members.105

He viewed the TCC as “a brave and new attempt to advance the cause of true ecumenism.”106 Medeiros opined that ecumenism might be a rocky road but it was the solid path that Christianity in the post–Vatican II era needed to follow: “[I]t is a positive reality that contributes to the fruition of each one’s effort by living the Christian life to work toward the realization of that petition which we so often addressed to God, our Father: ‘Thy Kingdom come’.”107 The sociologist of religion Robert Wuthnow summarized Medeiros’ contribution in the field of ecumenism in his role as Bishop of Brownsville: “[D]uring four years he spent in South Texas, [Medeiros] worked to bridge the gap separating Anglo and Chicano Catholics and to cultivate relationships with representatives of non-Catholic organizations such as the Texas Council of Churches and the American Jewish Committee.”108 Medeiros’ active participation in the local community was also manifested at the time of a natural disaster, Hurricane Beulah in September 1967. For the first time since 1922, the Rio Grande Valley received a direct hit from a hurricane. The storm brought devastating winds and between 15 and 20 inches of rain in a very short period. When Medeiros heard that the storm was headed directly toward the valley, he returned immediately from a meeting in Austin and jumped into action. During the storm, and for several days after it, he spent almost every waking moment organizing emergency centers and visiting families, many of whom gathered at parish centers and other Church facilities. Traveling by National Guard transportation in a four-wheel drive vehicle, he traversed an estimated 1700 miles within the diocese in a weeklong trek. He visited all seven relief supply centers set up in the diocese.109 In the aftermath of the hurricane, Medeiros opened his home to eleven families and to many stray animals that had been lost or abandoned during the storm. Additionally, he volunteered to distribute relief supplies and money to those in need. Father Harry Schukenrock, OMI, the diocesan director for all CCD programs, commented, “Bishop Medeiros was extraordinary. He would have invited everybody in the world into his home if they needed a place to stay.”110

Brownsville, 1966–1970

69

NOTES 1. Gilberto R. Cruz and Martha O. Cruz, A Century of Service: The History of the Catholic Church in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (Harlingen, TX: United Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1979), 14. The authors state that in 1519, shortly after Cortez arrived, four vessels under the command of Alvarez de Pineda arrived in the Rio Grande area and spent forty days mapping the region. However, because of the crown’s desire to concentrate its evangelization efforts in New Spain (Mexico)\, nothing was done in the Rio Grande Valley. 2. Bernard Doyan, OMI. The Cavalry of Christ on the Rio Grande, 1849–1883 (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956), 1–3. Missions were institutions of Church and State. The purpose of the mission was two-fold: (1) Convert the native peoples and (2) Extend the frontier of Spanish domination and law. While the system worked well for some time, when the nineteenth-century revolutions occurred in South America and with the concurrent loss of Spanish power and influence, the missions were secularized. The Franciscans eventually abandoned the missions and returned to Mexico. 3. Doyan, Cavalry of Christ, 4–6. 4. Ibid., 1. 5. Gilberto Cruz, “The Vicariate Apostolic of Brownsville, 1874–1912: An Overview of Its Origins and Development, in From Mississippi to the Pacific: Essays in Honor of John Francis Bauman,” Russell M. Magnaghi (Marquette, MI: Northern Michigan University, 1982), 80; Doyan, Calvary of Christ, 7–9. 6. Ibid., 13, 15–24; Cruz and Cruz, Century of Service, 17. The Oblates were led by Fathers Pierre Telmon and Alexander Soulerin. 7. Doyan Cavalry for Christ, 60–65. 8. Ibid., 70. 9. Ibid., 678, Cruz, “Brownsville Vicariate,” 86–87; Cruz and Cruz, Century of Service, 25. 10. Cruz, “Brownsville Vicariate,” 81; Cruz and Cruz, Century of Service, 81. 11. Anchor, Vol #10, #17, April 28, 1966; “Catholic Diocese of Brownsville, Texas State Historical Association https​:/​/ts​​haonl​​ine​.o​​rg​/ha​​ndboo​​k​/onl​​ine​/a​​rt​icl​​es​/ic​​c01 12. James Talmadge Moore, Through Fire and Flood: The Catholic Church in Frontier Texas, 1838–1900 (College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press, 1992), 185–87, 190–93. 13. Carlos Castaneda, Our Catholic Heritage in Texas (Seven Volumes), (Austin Texas: Van Boeckmann-Jones, 1932–1958, re-published by New York: Arno Press, 1976), Vol #6, 133–34. 14. Cruz and Cruz, Century of Service, 24. Verdaguer was born in Spain, but ordained in San Francisco in 1862. He was serving as a pastor in Los Angeles when he was appointed Bishop. 15. Ibid., He established Saint Peter Parish (Laredo-1896), Our Lady of Guadalupe (Laredo-1899), Saint Anthony of Padua (Raymondville-1908); Our Lady of Mercy (Mercedes-1909), and Sacred Heart of Mary Immaculate (Harlingen-1910).

70

Chapter 3

16. Cruz, “Brownsville Vicariate,” 88. 17. Moore, Through Fire and Flood, 36, 196. 18. Cruz and Cruz, Century of Service, 28. When Nussbaum took the reins of the Diocese, there were 83,000 Catholics in the area, 70,000 of whom are Mexicans. At the end of his tenure as bishop, Nussbaum left forty-six priest, thirty-one churches with a resident priest, and eighty-three missions and chapels. 19. Cruz and Cruz, Century of Service, 35. 20. Humberto Medeiros, “Reception at Airport,” n.d. [June 1966], Addresses and Statistics on Labor File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 21. Doherty and Garza, Interview, March 8, 2017. 22. Quoted in West Texas Register, n.d. [June 1966], Episcopal File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 23. News Clipping, n.d. [June 1966], Medeiros Papers, CAT. 24. Ibid. 25. Victor W. Ralph to Humberto Medeiros, April 28, 1966, Correspondence Consecration File, Box #2, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 26. John Tracy Ellis, Catholic Bishops: A Memoir. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983, 132. 27. Ibid., 131. 28. Brownsville Herald, June 30, 1966, Episcopal File, Texas Catholic, July 2, 1966. Consecration and Installation File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 29. News Clipping. n.d. [June 1966], Consecration and Installation File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 30. Pastoral Plan, March 9, 1969, Medeiros Correspondence File, Archives Diocese of Brownsville (hereafter ADB), Brownsville, Texas. 31. Quoted in Valley Catholic Witness, April 28, 1968, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 32. Driscoll, Interview, October 24, 2016; Pastoral Plan, March 9, 1969, Medeiros Correspondence File, ADB. 33. Humberto Medeiros “Address to Priests,” December 16, 1968, Address to Priests File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 34. Texas Catholic Herald, September 18, 1970, Consecration and Installation File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 35. Quoted in Texas Catholic Herald, June 18, 1966, Consecration and Installation File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 36. Victor Ralph to Humberto Medeiros, April 29, 1966, Correspondence and Consecration File, Box #2, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo; Sr. Judith Saenz to Author, May 21, 2017; Silvia Interview, January 12, 2017. 37. Anderson Interview, March 10, 2017. 38. Ibid.; Doherty and Garza, Interview March 8, 2017. 39. “Death of Cardinal Medeiros of Boston,” L’Osservatore Romano (English Version) 39 (September 26, 1983): 2. 40. Valley Morning Star, August 7, 2015; Texas Catholic Herald, June 18, 1966, Consecration and Installation File. Medeiros Papers, CAT. 41. Kennedy Directory, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, and 1970. A Fact Sheet published by the Diocese of Brownsville in 1970 listed 14 diocesan clergy in 1966 and 31 in 1970.

Brownsville, 1966–1970

71

42. Organizational Meeting of the Diocese of Brownsville, November 10, 1966, Decree of Erection and Organizational Meeting File, ADB. 43. Humberto Medeiros to Priests of Brownsville, March 1, 1967, Letters to Priests of the Diocese File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 44. Adolph Marx to Egidio Vagnozzi, August 19, 1965, Appointments of Bishops File, ADB. 45. Adolph Marx to Egidio Vagnozzi, September 4, 1965, Correspondence Marx File, ADB. 46. Memorandum June 2, 1983 Box #218. Consultor Minutes, 1965–1972, Archives Diocese of Corpus Christi (hereafter ADCC) Corpus Christi, Texas. Medeiros was unaware of significant assets that had come to Corpus Christi from the Sarita East Oil Estate. Years later, after his move to Boston, Medeiros admitted that he was operating in the blind and under duress. He stated, “I was willing to believe that we knew all the facts. Perhaps we did, but I was not sure in my mind, in spite of appearances and statements to the contrary.” This financial controversy, prompting Medeiros to respond, arose in 1971 when Bishop John Fitzpatrick, Medeiros’ successor in Brownsville, petitioned the Apostolic Delegate, Luigi Raimondi, to reopen the case, believing that Brownsville had not received just compensation. While not casting any aspersion on Medeiros, especially because this matter occurred at the beginning of his tenure as Bishop, Fitzpatrick nonetheless did state that his predecessor was negotiating from a position of weakness as he needed financial assistance to operate the diocese and was completely in the dark as to the real value of the monies to be split between the two dioceses. See John Fitzpatrick to Luigi Raimondi June 28, 1971, Brownsville Secret File, Box #50, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 47. Humberto Medeiros, TV Broadcast, February 10, 1967, Miscellaneous labor File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 48. Doherty and Garza, Interview, March 8, 2017. 49. Cruz and Cruz, Century of Service, 36; Pastoral Plan, March 9, 1969, Medeiros Correspondence File, ADB. 50. Pastoral Plan, March 9, 1969, Medeiros Correspondence File, ADB. 51. Humberto Medeiros to James Clark, February 11, 1969, CICOP Conference File, Box #131, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 52. Humberto Medeiros, Installation Banquet Speech, n.d. [June 29, 1966], Addresses and Statements on Labor File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 53. Humberto Medeiros, “The Servant’s Vocation” n.d. The Servant’s Vocation File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 54. Ibid. 55. Humberto Medeiros, Installation Banquet Speech, n.d. [June 29, 1966], Addresses and Statements on Labor File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 56. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(27) (July 21, 1968), CAT. 57. Texas Catholic Herald September 25, 1970, Episcopal File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 58. Humberto Medeiros to Romeo Romero, May 4, 1966, CorrespondenceConsecration File, Box #2, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

72

Chapter 3

59. Humberto Medeiros to Sr. Jeanne Regis, April 25, 1969, Rehabilitation File, Box #49, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 60. Texas Valley Catholic, September 25, 1970, Episcopal File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 61. Humberto Medeiros, Letter to Priests of Brownsville, March 1, 1967, letter to Priests of Diocese File, Box #7, Brownville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 62. Ibid. 63. Brownsville priests recall how Medeiros opened up his residence to allow priest to use his swimming pool. He often hosted barbecues, providing all the food and refreshments. He also set up educational seminars. For example, in February 1968 he offered a three-day seminar led by Doctor Gilbert Stout. In a letter he encourages priest to attend, “These three days may well be among the most important of the year for our Diocese. For this reason and many others, you [the clergy] are asked to make every effort to be present for the entire seminar.” See Valley Catholic Witness, 1(17) (February 4, 1968), CAT. 64. Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, issued on June 24, 1967, was written in the wake of Vatican II when questions on priestly celibacy arose. The document presents “Objections Against Priestly Celibacy” and counters with “Reasons for Priestly Celibacy.” 65. Humberto Medeiros to Father Warren Welsh. OFM, Conv., August 17, 1967, Bishops’ Committee on Priestly Formation File, Box #51, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 66. Tony Gagliano, “Comments on Retreat Given by Medeiros,” Baltimore Retreat File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 67. USCCB “Pastoral Statement 1969,” Miscellaneous Correspondence File, Box #49. Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 68. Humberto Medeiros to John Driscoll, January 29, 1969, Miscellaneous Correspondence File, Box #49. Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 69. Doherty and Garza, Interview, March 8, 2017; Anderson, Interview, March 10, 2017. 70. Valley Catholic Witness, 1(7) (September 17, 1967), CAT. 71. Humberto Medeiros to Priests of Brownsville, letters to Priests of Diocese File, Box #17, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 72. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(14) (March 9, 1969), CAT. 73. Valley Catholic Witness, 1(22) (May 12, 1968), CAT. 74. The Catholic Church Extension Society was established in August 1905 by Father (later Bishop) Francis Clement Kelley. The Society provide ministry in many rural areas where Catholic churches were few and far between, especially in the rural South. For more information on the founding of this Society see: James Gaffey, Francis Clement Kelley and the American Dream (Bensenville, IL: Heritage Foundation, Inc., 1980), 73–130. 75. Using the Brownsville Diocesan directory as a principal source, the new parishes established during Medeiros tenure were: 1966: Holy Family–Brownsville, Our Lady of Good Counsel–Brownsville, Our Lady Queen of Angels–La Joya; 1967: Saint Martin de Porres–Alton, Mary Mother of the Church–Brownsville, Holy

Brownsville, 1966–1970

73

Family–Edinburg, Saint Ignatius–El Ranchito; Sacred Heart–Escobares, Queen of Peace–Harlingen, Sacred Heart–Hidalgo, Holy Family–La Grulla; Prince of Peace– Lyford, Our Lady of Perpetual Help–McAllen. St Joseph the Worker-McAllen, Our Lady of St John of the Fields–Mission, St, Mary–Santa Rosa, Saint Martin de Porres– Weslaco; 1968 Good Shepherd–Brownsville, Our Lady of the Holy Rosary–Mission; 1969 Sacred Heart–Mercedes, Holy Spirit–Progreso; 1970 Saint Joseph the Worker– San Carlos. 76. Humberto Medeiros, “Pastoral Plan,” March 9, 1969, Correspondence File, ADB. 77. Humberto Medeiros, “Post-Council Christian,” n.d. Miscellaneous Labor File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 78. Sr. Judith Saenz. Letter to the Author, September 4, 2017. 79. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, August 6, 1970, Labor Disputes Statement File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 80. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(7) (November 17, 1968), CAT. 81. Memorandum, n.d [October 1970], Correspondence Medeiros File, AAB. 82. Humberto Medeiros, Pastoral Letter, “On Christian Stewardship,”, October 15, 1968, Christian Stewardship File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Medeiros’ gratitude for those in the Program was also expressed in a letter to all participants: “I wish to rejoice with you and congratulate you for your growing Christian awareness of our existence as a family, one holy people under God. Your response to the Visitors for Christ movement and to the needs of the poor among us is becoming livelier and more encouraging every day.” See Humberto Medeiros to “Dear Beloved in Christ,” May 20, 1969, Visitors for Christ File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 83. Valley Catholic Witness, 1(14) (December 25, 1967), CAT. 84. Ibid., 1(27) (July 21, 1968), 2(18) (May 4, 1969). The paper also reported the Diocesan Development Fund in the second quarter of 1969 increased from $12,000 to $19, 812. See Valley Catholic Witness, 2(27) (September 7, 1969), CAT. 85. Anchor, Vol #10, #25, June 23, 1966; Valley Catholic Witness 2(2) (September 15, 1968), CAT. Villa Maria High School was started by the Sisters of the Incarnate Word and Blessed Sacrament On March 7, 1853. A new high school was opened in 1926. Saint Joseph School for boys originally opened on November 10, 1862, under the guidance of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. A new Saint Joseph High School was constructed in 1926 and for the third time in 1959 the new campus. See Milo Keaney, Alfonso Gomez Arguelles and Yolanda Z, Gonzalez, A Brief History of Education in Brownsville and Matamoros (Brownsville: The University of Texas Pan American, 1989), 5–6, 12. 86. Humberto Medeiros, Address to Pastors of Catholic Schools, April 17, 1968, Catholic Schools File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 87. Ibid. 88. Ibid. 89. Sister Judith Saenz, letter to Author, September 4, 2017. 90. Doherty and Garza, Interview, March 8, 2017. 91. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(21) (June 15, 1969), CAT.

74

Chapter 3

92. Ibid. Three factors were seen as reasons for this rapid and significant increase: (1) the intense concern of the Bishop and priests for youth, (2) the increased willingness of the laity to give of their time inability in the CCD program, and (3) the Visitors for Christ program. 93. Humberto Medeiros, Speech “Christianity versus Complacency,” Correspondence Medeiros File, ADB. 94. Ibid. 1(1) (June 25, 1967), 2(51) (September 20, 1970), CAT. 95. During the ensuing half-century since the close of the Council, two understandings of the changes brought by this historic event have arisen. One idea, held by more progressive and liberal Catholic thinkers, suggests that Vatican II was a revolution, moving the Church in a completely different direction. Additionally, this perspective generated what many today refer to as “the spirit of Vatican II,” suggesting that the bishops in generating the documents advocated a spirit of change that intended to go beyond the letter of the documents. Another view, held by Pope Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as examples of a more traditional Catholic perspective, views the Council as “continuity with change.” In this view, the documents must be read on face value; they should not be interpreted beyond what was specifically stated.” The two basic perspectives are represented by the opposing opinions of James Hitchcock and John O’Malley, SJ. See James Hitchcock, “Interpreting Vatican II: Version One—A Continuum in the Great Tradition,” America 128 (5) (March 9, 2001): 16, 18–19 and John O’Malley, SJ. “Interpreting Vatican II: Version Two—A Break from the Past,” America 128 (5) (March 9, 2001): 17, 20–22. 96. Humberto Medeiros, Pastoral Letter year of Faith, June 20, 1967, Pastoral Letter Year of Faith File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 97. Humberto Medeiros, “The Voice of the Pope,” Transfiguration [August 6] 1968, The Voice of the Pope File, Box #7 Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 98. Humberto Medeiros to Ermelinda Rezendes, December 11, 1969, Mass Stipends File, Box #47, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 99. Valley Catholic Witness, 1 (8and 9) (October 15, 1967), CAT. 100. Humberto Medeiros, Statement to the City Commission, Labor Disputes Statement File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 101. Humberto Medeiros Talk to Texas Businessmen, April 16, 1968, Harlingen Businessmen’s File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 102. Humberto Medeiros, “Patriotism,” Speech, June 3, 1968, Patriotism Speech File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. In this speech, he stated, “Patriotism for the American must mean that he is willing to sacrifice so that all his fellow citizens may enjoy the rights given them by God and guaranteed by law.” 103. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(22) (June 29, 1969), CAT; Resolution n.d. [February 1969], TCC Constituting Assembly File, Box #8, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. The TCC was organized in four groups: (1) Division of Education, (2) Division of Church and Society, (3) Division of Special Ministries, (4) Division of Christian Unity. 104. Cruz and Cruz, A Century of Service, 36.

Brownsville, 1966–1970

75

105. Humberto Medeiros. “The Texas Catholic Conference,” The Texas Catholic Conference File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 106. Humberto Medeiros, “Ecumenism: Encounter or Escape,” n.d. Texas Conference of Churches File, Box #10, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 107. Ibid. Medeiros’ support for the TCC notwithstanding, he understood the theological differences between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant groups. Thus, he placed emphasis in areas of agreement and in location where various Christian groups could work together toward the betterment of society. 108. Robert Wuthnow, Rough Country: How Texas became America’s Most Powerful Bible-Belt State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014): 311. 109. Brownsville Herald, September 20–22, 1967; Valley Catholic Witness, 9(2) July 2017 2(52) (October 4, 1970), CAT. Relief supply centers were organized in Brownsville, Harlingen, Rio Grande City, Raymondville, Mission, and San Juan. 110. Valley Catholic Witness, 9(2) (July 2017), CAT. Medeiros’ experience with Beulah prompted him to volunteer to chair the National Catholic Disaster Relief Committee, created by the USCCB in April 1968. See Joseph Bernardin to “Your Excellency,” October 30, 1968, National Catholic Disaster Relief Committee File, Box #6, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Chapter 4

Advocate for the Poor in Brownsville

Humberto Medeiros, in his roles as priest and bishop, took seriously the challenge and exhortation of Jesus, to offer support, bring relief, and serve as an advocate for many groups in society. Throughout his ecclesiastical career, beginning in Fall River and then continuing in Brownsville (and later still in Boston), he took up the challenge of Jesus, in word and in action to alleviate the suffering of others. When he arrived in Brownsville, he immediately encountered an ongoing strike that pitted migrant workers against local growers. Ever a man to seek justice for all concerns in any dispute, Medeiros was forced immediately to enter the fray that in many ways brought him national notoriety. His focus was to apply the basic lessons of Catholic social justice in service to the materially and spiritually poor. HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: HIS UNDERSTANDING OF POVERTY Medeiros’ personal experience as an immigrant whose family had struggled to make ends meet dictated his personal belief in the preferential option for the poor. Reflecting on his youth, Medeiros once commented, “I am no stranger to the problems of poverty. Money was never plentiful in my immigrant family. Like so many others, I had to interrupt my education in order to work because my family simply needed my help.”1 While Medeiros’ position as bishop demanded he rub elbows not only with religious and civil leaders, people of prominence, wealth, and influence, he most enjoyed the company of simple people. He had special concern for the poor and underprivileged. His experience growing up amid poverty and discrimination greatly 77

78

Chapter 4

influenced his interest in the plight of the poor, a concern that would never be merely academic.2 During his tenure as Bishop of Brownsville, Medeiros expressed advocacy for the poor in both word and action. In a graduation speech at Rio Grande High School, he stated, Only the blind citizen is unable to see the injustices which exist in certain sectors of our society. Only the most obstinate and unpatriotic American can have the shamelessness to deny that there is unwanted and undeserved poverty in our country. Only the basest and vilest American will close his eyes to the plight of the ignorant and helpless citizen around him and refuse to give him a hand so that he can eventually help himself to a better and more human life.3

In comments proclaimed at his post-installation banquet, Medeiros referenced Matthew Chapter 25, in the need “to treat every man as a child of God, as our brother.”4 He synthesized his general creed in a 1969 Christmas message to the faithful in Brownsville: “The Christian who lives his Faith finds Christ the Son of God in himself and in every one of his brothers and sisters because Jesus said that whatever we do for the least of His brothers we do it for Him.”5 Medeiros fully believed that in American society, the concept of “the poor” was broad. Speaking at the National Assembly of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, Medeiros challenged the group “to concern themselves with the aged, the lonely, the sick in mind and body, the addicts and alcoholics, the prostitutes and prisoners, the fatherless and homeless, the undesirable and unemployed.”6 Belief that this broad range of Americans should be treated with equal dignity, prompted him to call for society at large to address the situation. He was troubled that many, especially in America’s cities, lack the basic material, intellectual, and spiritual necessities of human decency. He stated that “all who are apathetic or indifferent to their plight”7 needed to more directly address issues of poverty. He pressed government officials not to reduce social services to the poor, by making short-term or short-cited decisions that could have unforeseen and undesirable effects on those who stand in the margins. He summarized his need for society to respond to the scourge of poverty in an address to a local Rotary Club: “Why the richest country in the world, the most advanced technologically, supposedly the most efficient cannot eradicate the slums of our cities is hard to understand. Perhaps the only truthful answer is that we have not really been willing to try.”8 He called upon all to “repudiate the false assumptions still common in our day that a poor man is less than good and that a successful man is always better.”9

Advocate for the Poor in Brownsville

79

MIGRANT WORKERS IN BROWNSVILLE The farm-labor situation in Brownsville must be understood in a broader context. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), passed in 1935 as part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s sweeping “New Deal,” did not place farmworkers under its protection. Thus, it was suggested by farm labor leaders that Congress right this past injustice and bring farmworkers under the NLRA has been added as suggested. umbrella.10 The absence of the government’s ability to address this situation directly made effective dialogue between large agricultural corporations and poor Mexican-American farmworkers a difficult proposition at best. Moreover, the general poverty of the lower Rio Grande Valley was another hurdle that exacerbated an already difficult and tense situation between workers and employers. This situation was noted in a published proclamation of the day: The point of these few basic statistics is that there is a significantly large group of people in the southern part of Texas, particularly along the border, who do not enjoy meaningful social and economic participation in our affluent society. Such poverty and deprivation, while tolerable in a situation where there is a lack of resources to meaningfully address the problem, represents alienation and social disorganization of the worst kind in a land which is as beautiful and full of opportunities as our own . . . One of the most unfortunate aspects of poverty in an affluent society is the degrading and abrasive effect it has on the human spirit.11

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) also addressed this lacuna in the laws that failed to protect farmworkers. In November 1968, the bishops published their “’Statement on Farm Labor,” challenging the government to act: For the past thirty years the disadvantaged field workers of this nation have stood by helplessly and listened to other Americans debating the farm labor problem . . . We urge the 91st Congress to provide the legislation necessary to both protect the rights of farmworkers and provide peace and stability so essential to the well-being and prosperity of the agricultural industry.12

While clearly advocating for government protection for farmworkers, the bishops expressed “sympathetic awareness to the problems faced by the growers and, more specifically, by family farmers. Seeking to promote reconciliation between workers and owners the bishops “pledge[d] [their] united efforts to achieve this objective.”13 Medeiros’ appointment to Brownsville, which was unexpected and unplanned in many ways, thrust the new bishop into a major conflict

80

Chapter 4

immediately. In a foreshadowing of the firestorm that Medeiros would inherit upon his arrival, one Brownsville woman religious raised a warning flag: We are patiently and eagerly awaiting your arrival and will be so happy and so relieved to again have our Father in Christ in our midst. You have many problems facing you and we are confident that with your knowledge, experience, and already discernible love of God, deep concern for His Church, you are God’s envoy to bring a great union of charity to all in your infant diocese.14

The principal challenge that awaited Medeiros was an ongoing fieldworker strike in Starr County. The strikers, who voted to affiliate with César Chavez, who had successfully organized grape pickers in California through his United Farmworkers, demanded a minimum wage of $1.25 per hour; the present rate of pay stood at $.85. The strike had drawn national attention before Medeiros arrived through a march of workers and their supporters from Brownsville to Austin. The trek of some 400 miles sought to draw attention to the demand for a wage of $1.25 per hour.15 While he did not participate in the march, Medeiros was aware of the situation, and wisely offered a cautious response that became his mantra: “We must admit these are times of change. But we must analyze the whole situation and until we do, it would be very foolish to make any definite decisions.”16 As a bishop, Medeiros held a clear direction in his response. Applying the Gospel message, he suggested: “Our labor-grower problem will be resolved with the help of God, with justice and love for both parties involved.”17 Medeiros continued to proclaim his belief that justice could only be secured by addressing and listening to both sides of the controversy: At present, there is unrest within the Church in the Diocese of Brownsville, because some of our brothers are convinced that others are dealing unjustly with them. Both sides must come to realize that they are brothers and must bring their differences to the judgment of the Lord. They must seek to settle their differences in a Christian manner.18

Medeiros’ personal dedication to the plight of the migrant farmworkers in his new diocese was clear, but he insisted that a solution to the dispute must be the concern of all. Approximately one year after arriving in Brownsville he called for action: For those laymen who are complacent about or indifferent to present conditions and would not change them for the better because it might cause them some inconvenience; for those laymen who are indifferent about the plight of workers and smaller farmers and businessmen who live in deadly fear

Advocate for the Poor in Brownsville

81

of losing their property and means of income which have cost them painful labor and concern, for such as these the Lord Jesus Christ has nothing but contempt.19

The pressure on Medeiros to act to resolve the strike mounted from the day of his installation. In his sermon at Medeiros’ installation Mass, held in the Immaculate Conception Cathedral in Brownsville, Bishop Thomas Drury of Corpus Christi challenged the new bishop: “My dear Bishop Medeiros, you and I and every Bishop of the Catholic Church must align ourselves with this fundamental teaching of justice and charity as enunciated by the Church. We have no other choice.” Drury continued, You will find them [migrant workers] to be a gentle people who prefer to live in peace, that they continue to turn the other cheek rather than demand that which is just and right. There are today persons in high places who have not heard the good news that slavery was outlawed in this land more than a century ago. There are some today who would raise their voices against the teachings of the Church as she continues to proclaim the dignity of the human.20

Additionally, Archbishop Lucey, the presider at the mass, although not scheduled to speak, assailed Catholics who do not believe that it is “the clear and constant teaching of the Church that labor must be organized and strikes are sometimes necessary.”21 At this very early stage of his tenure, Medeiros, while obviously favorable to workers, addressed both parties of the conflict as well: There is a great need in our time for the bishops and priests to teach and inspire the rest of the faithful that they will take courageously their rightful place in the Church and bring the spirit of the Kingdom of God into every walk of life. An excellent opportunity is offered to them at this moment in the Magic Valley to bring to bear the urgent and complex problem which troubles both management and labor, the full light and understanding of the Gospel of Christ.22

Medeiros also responded to Lucey that day, suggesting that in some cases settlement of labor issues would be best left to laymen, allowing bishops and priests to concentrate their efforts in spreading the Gospel and ministering to the spiritual needs of the people.23 For Medeiros, the bottom line to any resolution required both sides of the conflict to be heard and their positions mutually acknowledged. Justice could not be achieved unless an equitable and fair solution to the conflict could be found. Still, he believed that workers had the right to strike, but only as a last recourse. He wrote,

82

Chapter 4

We also believe and teach that when disputes arise between management and labor, as they arise now between farmworkers and growers here in the Magic Valley, that every effort must be made to establish a dialogue or conversation between parties so that they may settle their differences in a human, civilized, just and Christian way. If such a solution cannot be arrived at, then those who consider themselves unjustly treated have a right to resort to the strike. They should always be the last recourse because the strike is very costly; it always upsets the peace of citizens.24

While Medeiros initially sought to address both sides in resolving the strike, his immediate attention was required to address clergy who were actively involved as advocates for the workers. Priests from San Antonio, Houston, and Amarillo were vocal supporters of the strike, viewing it as a local manifestation of the ongoing Civil Rights Movement. Others, however, such as Fathers Dan Lanning and Victor Ralph, were not sympathetic to the workers. Thus, Medeiros was forced to set guidelines for priests who were actively supporting strikers. He told these clergymen that as American citizens they had the right to protest, but he refused to support them and took no responsibility for their actions. One contemporary report about his policy stated, “His decision on the issue could have far-reaching effects on the role priests from outside the diocese will play in the future of the protest movement.”25 MEDEIROS ACTS TO RESOLVE THE STRIKE During the ensuing months of 1966, Medeiros settled in as bishop, allowing him the opportunity to investigate the migrant worker situation more fully and to seek answers. An analysis of the local population demonstrated the poverty of the region. Utilizing the United States’ standard of an annual income of $3000 as the poverty line, he realized that 51.5 percent of Mexican families in the Rio Grande Valley were found in this category. The educational level for Spanish-speaking people in the four-county diocesan region ranged from a low of 2.8 years to a high of 4.3 years.26 Compared with the Texas level of 11.5 years for whites, it was clear that the Mexican population was poor, both economically and educationally. Medeiros decried the huge gap that existed between the opportunities available to some and the capabilities of people in most need. He suggested that the culture of poverty develops into a system of powerlessness that completely deprives its victims of any hope for self-improvement. He often wondered why people seem to have the least concern for those upon whom society depends, those who work in the fields.27

Advocate for the Poor in Brownsville

83

The situation as Medeiros found it prompted him to become a strong advocate for a legislated minimum wage. He proclaimed that a fair wage should be determined by the needs and conditions of the area where one lives. Thus, for Brownsville, he suggested that, “a minimum wage necessary for a citizen to live like a human being is $1.25 per hour.”28 A joint inter-faith and ecumenical statement on the plight of the migrant workers went further, stating, “In so far as wages are concerned then, social justice requires that a just wage be paid to those who labor . . . A minimum [emphasis original] living wage is not always or necessarily a just wage.”29 Medeiros perceived the present plight of migrant workers as a critique to American society and its way of life. In a pastoral letter he proclaimed: Who is unaware that the present plight of the migrant farm worker of America is a constant reproach to our way of life? Yet they do not ask for charity. What they demand is what is theirs by natural right. When the affluent farmers pay a just wage to the migrant worker, when they make it possible for him to support himself and his family in frugal comfort, and to provide education for the whole family, they are not making a gift of their possessions to the farmworker, by no means! They are simply handing over to him what is his, for they had appropriated for themselves by good or evil means what has been given in common for the use of all by the beautiful Creator.30

Medeiros suggested that workers must have a place at the table when negotiating their rate of pay, working conditions, and associated grievances. Citing Pope John XXIII, he labeled any other approach as unjust.31 He told his priests that they must avoid the old clichés about migrant workers and appreciate them for who they are: “Love them, Father, with all your heart . . . Understand them, please; do not force your personal views or mode of piety on them. They have a culture of their own, thoroughly Catholic at heart. There are various ways of expressing the Catholic Faith, since the Church is so rich in her variety.”32 Striking his more conciliatory tone, Medeiros suggested that migrant workers were not passive, but rather had young and vigorous spokesmen who realized that some middle-of-the-road solution was possible “realiz[ing] that the farmer’s [success] is also their own.”33 Medeiros’ advocacy for migrant workers remained consistent with earlier Catholic social teaching as seen in his support for unions.34 Yet, he continued to maintain that workers and growers needed to work together toward an equitable and just resolution for both sides. Any just decision could only be found by addressing the concerns of both workers and growers: We know that every man has a basic natural right to form and join workers’ unions which contribute to economic progress by defending his rights, but the

84

Chapter 4

circumstances of the times the world over indicate that for the common good of peoples it is also a duty for both migrant farmworkers and for the farmers [emphasis original] to form associations proper to themselves and so advance together in harmony, justice and peace, and so make a substantial contribution to the whole human family.35

Medeiros’ support for migrant workers placed the Church at the forefront of a controversy that was not precisely religious. As he stated regularly throughout his episcopal career, however, religious figures had every right to speak on such salient issues. In one speech he proclaimed, “The mission of the Church is not limited to bring the message and grace of Christ to man but also in partaking and perfecting the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel.”36 Moreover, as a moral issue of justice, he suggested that the bishops can and must speak. Echoing his position that a just resolution could only be found by addressing the needs of both workers and growers, he insisted that bishops and priests must “preach the justice and charity of the Gospel and urge both sides to listen to the voice of reason and faith and adjust their differences in a friendly way for the good of all.”37 He later elaborated on his position: “Without wishing to go into the complexities of the problems of agriculture in our country and abroad, I can safely assert that justice requires that the farmer derive a just profit from his work and investment without being unjust to the farmworker. I want justice for the farmer as much as I do for the farmworker.”38 Medeiros’ active involvement in the Rio Grande Valley migrant worker strike was given a huge boost and official recognition through the Texas Catholic Conference, the Church’s episcopal organization in the state. In March 1967, Medeiros reported to the Conference members of the various programs that had been launched in Brownsville “to educate people and deal with the specific situation present between farmers and farm workers.”39 That same spring, in an effort to bring more public notice and add the voice of the official Church to the migrant worker strike, Medeiros requested that the Social Action Department of the Texas Catholic Conference investigate the situation in the lower Rio Grande Valley.40 The Conference’s resulting report recommended that the bishops bring to bear the full moral force of Roman Catholicism to bear in Texas in seeking a resolution. The document included a call for Americanization of farmworkers, passage of a minimum wage law by the Texas Legislature and workers’ adherence to a policy of nonviolence.41 The Texas bishops concluded, “The Church in Texas must work with the government and private sectors of the economy to alleviate the plight of the farmworkers of the Rio Grande Valley.”42 Medeiros’ advocacy also found support from the NCCB. In a 1968 “Statement on Farm Labor,” the bishops called for action on an issue that

Advocate for the Poor in Brownsville

85

had been ignored for far too long. They acknowledged “with sympathetic awareness of the problems faced by the growers and more specifically, by family farmers.” However, they were clearly equally sensitive to the needs of workers renewing their call for federal legislation to extend the coverage of the NLRA to farmworkers. Medeiros continued his support in a more overt way by participating in two “follow the crop” tours, beginning in the summer of 1969. Between June 28 and July 11, Medeiros journeyed to North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, following the migratory path of workers, many of whom called Brownsville home. During his trek, he visited with workers and growers, celebrated mass in the fields, and in general sought to observe the general conditions of life for migrant workers. His pilgrimage convinced him that the migrant system needed to be phased out. In its place, he suggested a twofold development: (1) the need to retrain migrant workers, and (2) a move toward a total mechanization of farms.43 Upon his return, he penned a new pastoral letter “The Corn Was Green,” that addressed the situation from his own personal experience: “A visit to migrant camps anywhere and a good look at the migrant ‘system’ within our society should convince any Christian or a man of goodwill that it is an evil we need to strive with all our ingenuity to eliminate from the face of this fair land.”44 Several years later, he reflected on this pilgrimage: “The entire experience was a very moving one for me. I prayed with the migrant workers—followed them into the fields, and celebrated Mass. The poverty I saw is unequalled—much worse than the Azores.”45 His experience prompted him to suggest that such trips be an annual event. One year later, between July 13 and 25,46 Medeiros again journeyed north. Accompanied by Father Ruben Alfaro of Lansing, Michigan, one of the two clerics who had organized his 1969 journey, Medeiros’ twoweek trek retraced some of the previous year’s territory but moved also into new areas as well in Wisconsin and Iowa. He described his journey as “a mission of a priest to his people.”47 He reported his thoughts on the trip: “The experience was tremendous, just like last year, and shows me clearly that sections, huge segments of our population, are so neglected by our society.”48 He suggested that if fair wages were actually paid, there would be no need for workers to leave their homes and follow the crops. Calling for greater justice for the oppressed, he encouraged the clergy of these Midwest dioceses to be more attuned to and favorable toward the plight of workers.49 Upon returning from the trip, Medeiros voiced his perspective on the lessons learned from the migrants. Stating that “they gave me far more than I could ever give them,”50 he spoke how these farm workers lived the Christian example others should follow:

86

Chapter 4

Here we have the rigid spirit of wonderful, hard-working, honest and simple people, with a Christian faith that would put many a scholarly “theologian” to shame, forced by a “system” or whatever one may wish to call it to live on the margins of society when that same society needs precisely their kind of simplicity to redeem itself before God and to borrow time to repent, open its eyes and accept the truth that all men are brothers and must serve and not use one another.51

Medeiros’ efforts on behalf of migrant workers received the support of other bishops and warm congratulations from the well-known labor priest, Monsignor George Higgins, who was working with Medeiros to settle the California grape boycott.52 Higgins’ support for workers’ rights was nationally known through direct action and his weekly syndicated “Yardstick” column. He wrote to Medeiros, “May I take advantage of the opportunity to congratulate you very sincerely on your visitation to the various migrant camps in the Midwest. As you undoubtedly know, a number of diocesan papers have covered your trip very extensively. More power to you. I admire your apostolic zeal on behalf of the migrants.”53 Medeiros inspired other bishops, including Gerald O’Keefe of Davenport, Iowa, Arthur O’Neill of Rockford, Illinois, and John Franz of Peoria, Illinois. They formed the “Board for Migrant Aid” to serve migrant workers in Iowa and Illinois.54 The support Medeiros provided to the migrants, as can be imagined, received both support and criticism. Some suggested that the Church had been far too passive in its response to racism, bigotry, elitism, and other special economic interests and that Medeiros should be stronger in his words and actions. Others, however, criticized the bishop for his association with “militant organizations in Brownsville.”55 Defending his stance, Medeiros stated, “If there is one man in the whole Valley who has been trying to do this [remove racism, elitism, etc.] for years it has been the bishop of the diocese with very little assistance from the outside, that is from the laity who should be engaged in this.”56 Writing to his former bishop in Fall River, James Connolly, Medeiros expressed the difficulty of the situation he faced, but optimistically was confident that all would be well: “All kinds of things are going on down here, trouble brewing, trouble getting settled, problems coming, problems going, and it keeps me sometimes wondering just where it will all end. But we trust in the Lord, and I am sure He will guide us out of our troubles.”57 An additional critique of Medeiros’ stance arose from some who considered the strikers to be a radical fringe and disrupters of society. People close to Medeiros at the time recognized the obstacles that he faced and the pushback he received from certain sectors of the community, and especially from those who felt the bishop needed to be fair to all sides. He rejected completely

Advocate for the Poor in Brownsville

87

those who criticized him for his support of the poor and minorities, stating that it was his task to stand with the marginalized, as did Christ.58 BROWNSVILLE: OTHER PROJECTS TO AID THE POOR Humberto Medeiros was clearly a strong advocate for the migrant farmworkers and their plight, but his understanding of the social dilemma in society was much broader. Social disorder and secularism were prominent in society and needed to be addressed. Calling for greater emphasis on the values of Christianity, Medeiros commented, “Christianity [today] has the appearance of losing its relevance to the issues ‘out where the action is’. Human secularism seems to be the driving force behind the social and scientific and political revolutions of our time.”59 The social disorder that he observed in Brownsville was reminiscent of his personal experience of poverty during his youth. Blaming no one for this situation, Medeiros nonetheless did “call upon every citizen of goodwill to cooperate fully with the government in the discharge of its great duties towards the country, especially those who need help to help themselves.”60 To this goal, he pledged the support of the Church: “The Church of God in Brownsville is squarely behind every honest effort of private individuals or of local state or federal governments to eradicate the causes of the degrading poverty which God does not want for His children whom He created in his image and likeness to serve him in knowledge, freedom and love.”61 Medeiros believed that social degradation and unchecked poverty were symptomatic of a society that had lost focus. As a proud American who had chosen his citizenship, Medeiros decried that loss of the spirit of the Founding Fathers and of the cultural norms that they initiated and promoted. He feared that the American spirit was in trouble: “In these latter days it seems that we have neglected our duty and that the [American] tree is beginning to show signs of sickness and its fruits are not abundant and some are not good to eat.”62 In this same speech, he detailed his view: Unfortunately . . . the clear voice of our valid traditions is not being heard today as it seems to me that there has been a break with our heritage and that we are no longer growing on the healthy roots of our Founding Fathers. We are forgetting God, ignoring God, denying God or living as if we did not believe that he existed.63

The general malaise in addressing social issues, noted by Medeiros, was tackled more directly in programs that he championed. In 1966, the Texas Council of Churches (TCC), the ecumenical group of prominent Christian

88

Chapter 4

Church leaders, including Medeiros, formed the Valley Ministry Project64 to assist the economically poor in southeastern Texas. One summary report outlined the Project’s purpose: The role of the Valley [Ministry] Project should be a continuous “proclaiming away,” continually trying to educate the churches on the social implications of the Gospel, enabling persons of the various ethnic, religious, and economic groups to listen to each other, informing congregations of the Valley’s basic problems and possible solutions, encouraging clergy and congregations to visit colonies and barrios, helping them to listen [emphasis original] to these residents and see them as persons instead of permitting them to assume that they “know what these people are like.” The ministry then must be to all: the churched and the unchurched, the have and the half-not, the minority and the majority.65

Unfortunately, the TCC was dissolved in December 1968,66 prompting the Valley Ministry Project to die as well. Thus, in order to fill the gap and provide for local need, Methodist Bishop Kenneth Pope, president of the Texas Conference of Churches, the new manifestation of the former Texas Council, which formed in February 1969, appointed an interim committee with Bishop Medeiros and two Protestant ministers, Sam Fiore, who was appointed chair, and Howard Blake. In the appointment letter to Fiore, Pope wrote, You and your committee are to have full authority to direct the Valley Service Project Program. This authority includes the staff of the Valley Service Project as well as the final word concerning our relationship with VISTA.67

This smaller committee accepted the name change from Valley Ministry to Valley Service Project with headquarters placed at Saint John Roman Catholic Church in San Juan, Texas.68 The Valley Service Project was directed to assist churches in the Rio Grande Valley to fulfill their united mission to assist the people of their area. The interim committee met for the first time on March 28, 1969, and then again two weeks later. Regular meetings were held at various locations throughout the Valley. In these initial meetings, concerns were raised that the new Valley Service Project needed to work in conjunction with the efforts of the Colonias de Valle, a local citizens relief group. The interim committee set out to accomplish three specific projects: the creation of a mobile medical clinic, the securing of low-cost housing for those in need, and the provision of leadership training for those in the local region. Unfortunately, some significant obstacles and hurdles were experienced in seeking to accomplish these goals. Local Valley residents were somewhat mistrustful of the Texas

Advocate for the Poor in Brownsville

89

Conference of Churches and of the ecumenical movement in general, especially Catholics. Additionally, some who were working with the Project did not fully appreciate or recognize the social and economic problems existent in the area, especially for the Mexican migrant workers. Last, there was a lingering belief that the churches should “stick to the gospel” and not get involved with secular and controversial issues.69 Nevertheless, in June 1970, as it would turn out only a few months before Medeiros left the area to become Archbishop of Boston, a much more positive report on the Project’s effect on the region was reported: Good is occurring in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, just as quickly, however, I must add that the Conference’s program there, the Valley Service Project—is just getting into gear. We are muchly blessed with the leadership of Father Flores and the knowledgeable and dedicated consultation afforded us by Sam Fiore, Howard Blake and Bishop Medeiros.70

The Valley Service Project was a local version of the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) project that was initiated through President Lyndon Johnson’s Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. VISTA began one year later (becoming AmeriCorps in 1993) and came to Brownsville as a program designed to incorporate poor Mexican Americans as volunteers to help themselves to better their community politically, economically and educationally.71 VISTA was originally associated with the TCC, but the dissolution of the latter placed the program in jeopardy. Medeiros was petitioned to keep the program alive when he wrote to Bishop Arturo Garcia: We have been deprived of an equal opportunity not alone [sic—only] because we are a minority, but largely because our group has for so long been politically uneducated and disorganized. As a result of being so disorganized, we have very few “true” representations of our own people in government. For too long our needs and desires have been neglected and ignored. We are beginning to have a gleam of hope as seen in such organizations as the VISTA workers, who are trying to unite and organize us.72

Fortunately, the interim committee on which Medeiros sat, recommended that VISTA Minority Mobilization Project be continued in Hidalgo County for another year. Bishop Medeiros concluded his work with the Valley Service Project in June 1970, not realizing at the time of his impending transfer to Boston, by calling an ecumenical meeting of religious and business leaders to address concerns in the region. The meeting was intended to inform business, government, and religious leaders about the Project and “to dialogue and explore the

90

Chapter 4

means of working together, within the churches and in the churches, with a common end of bettering the condition of the people in the lower Rio Grande Valley.”73 Some of the specifics Medeiros hoped the meeting would address were the high school dropout rate, and the needs for bilingual education, and for assisting parents to understand the importance of education for their children. It also addressed the lack of communication that prevented some from understanding the present conditions that many in the valley faced. The meeting was well received by its participants who wrote to Medeiros with positive reactions to his proposals.74 Medeiros responded to one participant stating, “It was a wonderful experience to have you with us,” and concluding “I believe the meeting was very fruitful.”75 Again, while assisting with the Valley Service Project, Bishop Medeiros initiated an effort to build low-income housing, a project that brought much joy yet considerable consternation. In March 1968, Medeiros announced that the Diocese of Brownsville would sponsor the construction of 200 lowcost homes. Set to cost $10,000 each, these units (100 in each town) were to be constructed in two locations, La Merced Homes in Mercedes, and El Rosario Homes in Mission. Both projects sought to meet the needs of migrant workers, “moving . . . [them] away from shanty quarters to better homes.”76 Families with incomes of less than $3000 annually would qualify as new residents. The homes were ready for occupancy by late June 1969. In September 1970, shortly after returning from his second migrant tour, Medeiros received surprising news of his appointment as the Archbishop of Boston. With mixed emotions, especially his feeling of loss in moving from a population he had grown to love, he could reflect on the measurable success achieved when the Texas legislature passed a minimum wage law in the summer of 1970, mandating $1.25 per hour, the wage demanded by the strikers. Celebrating Medeiros’ contribution, Newsweek in its September 21, 1970 issue provided a fitting tribute to his years in Texas: “In his four years as Bishop of Brownsville, Texas, a small, dirt-poor diocese in the Rio Grande Valley, Medeiros has proved a real father to Mexican-Americans.”77

NOTES 1. Humberto Medeiros, “Men’s Cities and God’s Poor,” August 15, 1972, Pastoral Letter in Medeiros Whatever God Wants, 583. 2. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 37. 3. Humberto Medeiros, Rio Grande High School Graduation Speech, June 3, 1968, Miscellaneous Labor File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 4. Humberto Medeiros, “Installation Banquet Speech,” n.d. [1965], Addresses and Statements on Labor File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Advocate for the Poor in Brownsville

91

5. Humberto Medeiros, Christmas Message, 1969, Christmas Message 1969 File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 6. Humberto Medeiros, News Clipping, June 22, 1971, Bishops Correspondence 1971–1974 File, Box #96, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 7. Humberto Medeiros, “Men’s Cities and God’s Poor,” August 15, 1972, Pastoral Letter in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 519–20. 8. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, May 14, 1981, Governor King’s Office File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABO; Humberto Medeiros Medeiros, Address, June 13, 1973, Rotary Club Talk File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 9. Humberto Medeiros, News Clipping, June 22, 1971, Bishops Correspondence 1971–1974 File, Box #96, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 10. Marco G. Prouty, César Chavez, the Catholic Bishops and the Farmworkers’ Struggle for Social Justice (Tucson: University of Arizona Prwess, 2006), 28. 11. “The Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” n.d. [1967] Labor Disputes File, Box #19, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 12. NCCB Statement on Farm Labor, November 13, 1968, Social Development and Farm Labor File, Box #126, NCCB Papers, Archives of The Catholic University of America (hereafter ACUA) Washington, D.C. 13. Ibid. 14. Sr. Mary George, RSM to Humberto Medeiros, May 4, 1966, Correspondence Consecration File, Brownsville, Box #2, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 15. Houston News, March 18, 2016. 16. News Clipping, n.d. [June 1966], Episcopal File Medeiros Papers, CAT. 17. Humberto Medeiros to A.J. Kearns, July 11, 1966, Installation, Brownsville File, Brownsville, Box #2, Medeiros Papers, AABo. In another place Medeiros stated, “In the present dispute between workers and growers, the role of the bishops and priests is clear. It is to preach the justice and charity of the Gospel and urge both sides to listen to the voice of reason and faith and adjust their differences in a friendly way for the good of all. We can act as mediators, as conciliators; we can meet as I have met with labor union leaders representing labor and with growers representing management and bring to them the light of the gospel, in the hope that they will meet and bargain for what is just for all and not just for one side.” See The Anchor, Volume #10, #28 July 14, 1966. 18. Humberto to Medeiros, “Statement,” n.d. [1966], Addresses and Statements on Labor File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 19. “The Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” n.d. [1967] Labor Disputes File, Box #19, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 20. Corpus Christi Daily Caller June 30, 1966, Consecration and Installation File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. Drury also stated, “Certain nice people in the Catholic Church are shocked that the Church in the person of a priest should associate with the little people today. Some Catholics do not agree with this. Their ignorance is equaled only by the evil they do in the work they leave undone. Any church which tries to be neutral will be ignored and forgotten in the forward march of humanity.” 21. Clipping, Brownsville Herald, n.d. [June 29, 1966], Medeiros Papers, CAT.

92

Chapter 4

22. News Clipping, n.d. [June 1966]. Consecration and Installation File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 23. Brownsville Herald, June 29, 1966, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 24. Humberto Medeiros, “Our Common Mission,” n.d. Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 25. Corpus Christi Daily Caller June 29, 1966, Consecration and Installation File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. Nes Clipping, n.d. [June 1966], Medeiros Papers, CAT. 26. Specific percentages for educational level for Spanish-speaking people were: Starr County, 4.3 years, Hidalgo County, 3.3 years, Cameron County 3.9 years and Willacy County, 2.8 years. 27. “The Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” n.d. [1967]. Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABO; Humberto Medeiros Pastoral Letter, “Food for the Table of the World,” April 20, 1967, Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABO; Humberto Medeiros, “The Corn Was Green,” n.d. [1969], The Corn Was Green File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 28. Valley Catholic Witness (Brownsville), 2(10) (January 12, 1969), CAT. 29. Joint Statement American Jewish Committee (South West Region), Texas Council of Churches and Texas Catholic Conference, n.d. [1967], Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 30. Humberto Medeiros, “Food for the Table of the World,” April 20, 1967, Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 31. “The Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” n.d. [June 1967], Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Quoting Pope John XXIII, Medeiros wrote, “If the organization and structure of economic life be such that the human dignity of the workers is compromised, or the sense of responsibility is weakened, or his freedom of action is removed, then we judge such an economic order to be unjust.” 32. Humberto Medeiros, “Statement,” August 6, 1970, Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 33. Humberto Medeiros, “The Corn Was Green,” n.d. [1969], The Corn Was Green File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 34. Although traditionally the Church was wary of unions and even proscribed same, the breakthrough with Rerum Novarum in 1891 changed Church teaching to be supportive of unions. 35. Humberto Medeiros, “Food for the Table of the World,” April 20, 1967, Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville Medeiros Papers, AABo. 36. Humberto Medeiros “The Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” n.d [June 1967], Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #19, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 37. Humberto Medeiros, “Our Common Mission,” n.d. [July 1967], Our Common Mission File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 38. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(43) (May 17, 1970), CAT. 39. Minutes of the Board of Directors, Texas Catholic Conference, March 28–29, 1967, Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownville, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Advocate for the Poor in Brownsville

93

40. Valley Morning Star, Harlingen, Texas, June 21, 1967, Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 41. “The Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” n.d. [1967], Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 42. Valley Catholic Witness, I(4) (August 6, 1967), CAT. 43. Texas Catholic Herald, July 25, 1969, Special Works File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 44. Humberto Medeiros, “The Corn Was Green,” n.d. [1969], The Corn Was Green File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 45. The Pilot, January 18, 1980. 46. Doherty and Garza, Interview, March 8, 2017. 47. Texas Catholic Herald July 17, 1970, August 7, 1970, September 11, 1970, Special Works File, CAT. 48. Humberto Medeiros to Father Louis Colonnese, July 20, 1970, Appointments Active-1970 File, Box #48, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 49. Humberto Medeiros to “Dear Reverend Father,” August 6, 1970, Miscellaneous Labor File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 50. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, August 6, 1970, Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 51. Ibid. 52. Chapter 5 presents the story of the committee and Medeiros’ role with it. 53. George Higgins to Humberto Medeiros, August 4, 1970, Grape Boycott File, Box #50, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 54. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(49) (August 2, 1970), CAT. 55. Texas Catholic Herald, July 17, 1970, Special Works File, CAT. 56. Humberto Medeiros to Raymond McCrony, June 17, 1970, Miscellaneous Correspondence 1970 File, Box #47, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 57. Humberto Medeiros to Bishop James Connolly, October 31, 1969, Miscellaneous Correspondence File, Box #49, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 58. Humberto Medeiros to Raymond McCrony, June 17, 1970, Correspondence File, Box #47, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 59. Humberto Medeiros, “Post Council Christian,” Miscellaneous Labor File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABO. 60. Humberto Medeiros, “Speech at AFL-CIO Meeting,” January 12, 1967, AFL-CIO Role in the War on Poverty File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 61. Ibid. 62. Humberto Medeiros, “Address to the Junior Chamber of Commerce,” Harlingen, Texas, October 5, 1968, Labor File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 63. Ibid. 64. The members of the Valley Service Project Committee were: Rev. Sam Fiore (Chair), Dr. Howard Blake and Bishop Medeiros. 65. Final Summary Report, September 13, 1968 to July 30, 1969, Staff Reports, Valley Service Project Committee, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

94

Chapter 4

66. Resolution n.d. [1968] TCC Assembly File, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABO. In a final summary report, the TCC gave specific reasons for its inability to fulfill its stated mission: (1) Mistrust of the Conference of Churches, (2) Mistrust of the ecumenical movement in general, and (3) Believe that efforts to aid MexicanAmericans was misguided. See Final Summary Report, September 3, 1968 to July 31, 1969, Staff Report Valley Service Project, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 67. Harold Kilpatrick to Edward de la Rosa, March 31, 1969, Texas Catholic Conference Valley Service Project Miscellaneous Meeting File, Box #8, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) was a federal government program designed to assist local communities that were poor. 68. Committee to Study Programs of Texas Conference of Churches, June 12, 1969, Report File Box #8, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 69. Ibid. 70. Report of Executive Director, Texas Conference of Churches, June 8, 1970, Executive Director Reports to Board of Directors File, Box #8, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 71. Efrain Fernandez to “To Whom it May Concern,” December 10, 1969, VISTA Minority Mobilization Project, Grass Roots File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 72. Arturo Garcia to Humberto Medeiros, October 7, 1969. VISTA File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 73. Special Meeting of Judicatories, June 4, 1970, Judicatories Meeting File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABO. 74. Carl A. Heckmann to Umberto [sic] Medeiros, June 8, 1970, Judicatories Meeting File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 75. Humberto Medeiros to Howard Blake, June 6, 1970, Judicatories Meeting File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 76. Texas Catholic Herald, August 7, 1970, Special Works File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 77. Quoted in Valley Catholic Witness, 2(51) (September 20, 1970), CAT.

Chapter 5

Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

As a member of the hierarchy who was the shepherd of a frontier diocese on the southern border of the United States, and as a man of his native culture, immigrant history, and linguistic gifts, Humberto Medeiros was a natural choice to work in Latin Affairs within the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB). The geographic proximity of Latin America to the United States and the former region’s traditional Catholic faith have historically generated a significant bond between Catholics in these adjacent areas. This relationship was manifested primarily through the work of the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC), the pre–Vatican II era name for the current U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). In the 1930s it was the NCWC, mostly through the work of its general secretary, Father John Burke, CSP, that the persecution of the Mexican Church by its own government ended. Thirty years later, the U.S. bishops collectively answered the call of Pope John XXIII to assist the Church in Latin America by sending priests and religious to minister in various ways to the local populations. Led by the work of Archbishop Robert Lucey of San Antonio, the American Catholic bishops became increasingly more aware of the mistreatment and intolerance toward Latin American immigrants, especially Mexicans. As Bishop of Brownsville, Humberto Medeiros was an active member of the NCCB, especially in Latin American affairs. Domestically his work with the Ad Hoc Committee for Farm Labor, and internationally through his participation in a wide range of programs, Medeiros maintained a constant and faithful commitment to assist the Church in Latin America.

95

96

Chapter 5

CALIFORNIA FARM WORKERS Migrant farmworkers and the California agricultural industry have had a long and at times tumultuous relationship. The Chinese were the first large group of foreign workers who were specifically imported to work the vast farms in California’s rich agricultural settings. These farmworkers came with their compatriots who were hired to build the western section of the transcontinental railroad. However, with the end of that project in 1869 and with the growing sense of xenophobia in the United States during the Gilded Age, many began to call for some law to exclude new arrivals, especially those from China. Thus, Congress in 1882 passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which ended immigration from that land for ten years. After an extension of ten years in 1892, the law was made permanent in 1902. The law forced California growers to search for other workers leading to a huge influx of Japanese laborers between 1898 and 1908. However, these workers soon demanded higher wages, and some became rather entrepreneurial, starting their own farms that became competitors with the long-standing California growers. Thus, the Alien Land Acts of 1913 and 1920 sought to keep property out of the hands of the Japanese. Eventually, passage of the 1924 National Origins Act (Johnson-Reed Immigration Act) barred all immigration from Japan.1 The need for workers to pick and gather California’s bountiful harvest required growers to search in other regions of the world. The Mexican Revolution of 1910 created many economic migrants who came north seeking a better life in the United States. Between 1919 and 1930, an estimated 10% of Mexico’s population crossed the border to find gainful employment in the United States. Growers did all they could to ease any restrictions and foster ways to encourage Mexicans to come and work the fields. While European peoples were restricted due to the aforementioned 1924 Act, Congress made frequent exceptions for Mexicans. Assurances that Mexicans would stay only for the harvest, and the promise of cheap food, allowed officials to “look the other way” with respect to Mexican migrants. However, the Great Depression again placed pressures on officials to shut off Mexican immigration and give jobs to Americans. However, on August 4, 1942, as World War II raged and workers became soldiers, the U.S. government instituted the Bracero Program.2 As with other groups, these Mexican workers were generally docile, hard-working people who were an inexpensive labor force used to harvest crops. As early as 1946, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) sought to organize workers affiliated with the National Farm Labor Union (NFLU). However, the fledgling Farm Union did not receive sufficient support from its parent organization. This led to various versions of the NFLU. Only after the demise of the Bracero

Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

97

Program on December 31, 1964, was any formal union effort of migrant workers successful. The migrant worker story in California began to take on significance with the rise to prominence of César Chavez. A native of Arizona, Chavez was associated with Saul Alinsky’s Community Service Organization; by 1958, he had become the group’s general director, staying in this position until 1962. His standing allowed him to work toward eliminating the Bracero Program and to organize workers. Fighting against the importation of workers, Chavez led a series of sit-down strikes at some farms to secure domestic workers for the fields and to remove Braceros.3 In 1959, working in some form of tandem effort, the AFL-CIO established the Agricultural Workers’ Organizing Committee (AWOC) as a means to advance the effort to organize agricultural workers. In 1962, Chavez organized the first National Farm Workers’ Association (NFWA) convention in Fresno, California. Elected president, Chavez spent the next three years working with other advocates to organize a union.4 Throughout his work in support of agricultural workers, Chavez made overt efforts to link his movement and laborers to his Catholicism and to the Church as institution. The historian Marco Prouty commented, “Chavez consciously integrated Catholic faith into his movement. By doing so, he endowed the union with a strong sense of collective identity, and he brought a powerful moral and spiritual force into the organization.”5 THE CALIFORNIA GRAPE BOYCOTT AND STRIKE What became known in history as the California Grape Boycott commenced quite suddenly on September 8, 1965, when some 800 members of the AWOC walked off their jobs as grape pickers in Delano, California. The AWOC was angered that growers in the Coachella Valley, southeast of Los Angeles, had imported Braceros to work the fields, despite the expiration of Public Law 78 (in December 1964), a statute that was originally enacted in 1951 to protect Bracero Workers. The AWOC action forced Chavez to make a decision: would his own group the NFWA also strike? Braceros were paid more than domestic workers, but growers collectively agreed to accept a higher pay for workers as insurance against the unionization of domestic workers. This loomed as a distinct possibility with the expiration of Public Law 78. It did not take long for Chavez to decide, for on September 16, the NFWA joined the action. Within one year of this joint strike, the two groups, the AWOC and the NFWA, merged and became the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC) with Chavez as its president.6

98

Chapter 5

Although they had not previously met, Chavez’s rise to prominence in the battle for migrant workers’ rights brought him to the attention of Humberto Medeiros, who from his first days as Bishop of Brownsville had been dealing with a similar strike. In August 1968, Chavez wrote to Medeiros informing him that during the harvest season of 1968 the UFWOC had launched a nationwide boycott of all California grapes “in order to gain nationwide awareness of our problems, as well as to convince agricultural employers by our determination to attain the basic right now freely enjoyed in every other American industry.” He went on, asking that the Diocese of Brownsville refrain from purchasing California table grapes, stating, “Such action would help hasten the day when all farmworkers in our nation will enjoy equal employment benefits alongside the rest of our brothers and sisters in industry.”7 Medeiros’ response to Chavez signaled his basic philosophy that seeking justice for all was the only way to find the proper resolution: “I know that while working for the disadvantaged campesino, you have equally at heart the prosperity of the farmer, especially the family size growers without which the campesino himself cannot make a living . . . I know that justice for the farmworker cannot mean injustice for the farmer.”8 Medeiros’ evenhanded, justice-for-all approach, which became a trademark of his method in all contentious issues, was obvious. Yet, he clearly held that farm workers were being unjustly treated. He wrote to his former bishop, James Connolly, in Fall River, Massachusetts, No matter what one may think of César Chavez and his union, it is true that the poor workingman in the field is not getting a fair shake. We do not want to work any injustice on anybody, but certainly the poor farm worker has been dealt with injustly [sic] for many, many years, and it is high time that our society does something for him.9

Medeiros’ support for Chavez was not welcome by all. In a letter to a friend, Medeiros explained the situation he faced: “Here in our diocese, it seems that all we have is poor. Of course, I have to be Shepherd of the entire flock and not just the poor or simply the rich who are very few. I have had my share of criticism for taking up the cause of César Chavez and his union and for starting other movements to bring unity into the diocese and peace.”10 Others still complained that the Church, especially bishops, had no right to speak on labor issues. Medeiros defended himself, however, by speaking of the Christian virtues Chavez manifested: “I always preface my remarks by saying that I cannot read any man’s heart. Only God can do that. We can only judge what we see. [Chavez] is a good Christian; he espouses nonviolent means to obtain justice for farmworkers; he seems to be a charismatic person.”11

Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

99

While Chavez and his lieutenants and supporters, including such notables as Monsignor George Higgins,12 continued to rally support for the grape boycott, the NCCB remained on the sidelines of the dispute. In an interview thirty years after the boycott, then Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, who had closely observed the events, recalled that the Church’s problem was that there were Catholics on both sides of the Grape Boycott dispute. He commented, “It was a terrible, terribly difficult situation because virtually all the growers and all the farmworkers were Catholics. So what happened almost overnight was both sides said, ‘Well since we are Catholics, the Church must be on our side’. Well, the problem was we had both sides saying the same thing.”13 The NCCB’s silence and apparent inaction was broken, however, in 1969. That year the legendary president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, who had been rather ambivalent on the issue of farm labor, began to change, viewing the issue not as one dealing with products, but of human dignity and economic well-being. His new mindset led him to become a convert to La Causa14 and the UFWOC. Thus, Meany wrote to Cardinal John Dearden, President of the NCCB, suggesting “a possibility that a third party intervention with the grape growers could be a value in achieving a just peace in the grape fields” and that the Catholic bishops might “use their good offices to persuade the grape growers to adopt a sense of social responsibility and treat their employees as human beings.”15 At the same time, Chavez himself pushed the bishops to make a statement in favor of the grape boycott. Realizing the middle position that the bishops had taken in seeking to build a bridge between the workers and the growers, Monsignor Higgins went to “Plan B,” suggesting that the hierarchy form a committee that would seek to secure a resolution in the long-standing boycott. Higgins met with Bishop Hugh Donohoe of Fresno and William Kircher, an official of the AFL-CIO, and the three suggested that the bishops form a committee to “mediate the dispute.” Thus, in November 1969, when the bishops met in San Francisco, an Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor was formed. The five official members of the committee were: Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Donnelly, of Hartford, Connecticut, who served as chair, Archbishop Timothy Manning of Los Angeles, Bishop Hugh Donohoe, of Fresno, California, Bishop Walter Curtis of Bridgeport, Connecticut and Medeiros. The aforementioned George Higgins and Roger Mahony served as consultant and secretary, respectively.16 Dearden charged the group with “investigating the California grape dispute with the hope of persuading the two parties to resume their negotiations.”17 The formation of the Ad Hoc committee was significant for the ultimate resolution of the boycott while making a statement for the work of the American hierarchy in seeking social justice. The bishops saw themselves as an instrument to bring together the parties who had been divided in a dispute

100

Chapter 5

for some five years, a row that had left in its wake much anguish, strife, and bitterness on all sides.18 In a letter to a Jesuit priest, Medeiros revealed that the committee was authorized “to study the situation in California and to take whatever action they deemed proper.” The historian Marco Prouty has commented on the significance of the committee: “The Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor, ironically, became the American Catholic hierarchy’s greatest contribution to the cause of social justice during the first [sic-second] half of the twentieth century.”19 The committee began its formal work in February 1970. At the request of the chair, Bishop Donnelly, all members gathered in Fresno for a series of formal and informal meetings with the leaders of the UFWOC and more than forty growers in the Coachella and San Joaquin Valleys. A report from the Ad Hoc Committee stated, “On the whole the meetings were friendly, but neither constructive nor encouraging.”20 The National Catholic News Service quoted Bishop Donnelly: “The committee was not completely satisfied with the Fresno meetings, and planned to invite union and grower representatives to another meeting in the middle of March.”21 While the initial February meetings were not robustly successful, dialogue had been initiated and at least a path forward could be seen. In early March, Bishops Medeiros, Donnelly, and Curtis, accompanied by Monsignor Higgins, traveled to California again on a fact-finding mission. Medeiros was optimistic, writing to Chavez, “I do look forward to seeing you with our friends, the growers, on March 18, so that with the help of Almighty God, we can be of assistance in solving this long and difficult problem.”22 Yet, Medeiros was realistic and cautiously commented during one meeting with strikers, “Christians should avoid the use of violence. Violence cannot help your struggle for justice. You must be careful to avoid it, loving one another, deepening your faith and hope and trust in God.”23 Beginning on March 23, a series of meetings was held between the Ad Hoc committee and workers; a separate set of consultations with the growers also took place. There were some joint meetings, including an all-day meeting between the three parties, held in Palm Springs on March 25. On March 30, negotiations running into the early morning of March 31 yielded the first contracts between the union and growers.24 This initial agreement, announced on April 1, 1970, was in large part the work of the Committee and moved the settlement process in a much-needed positive direction. Donnelly commented on the work of the Committee: “Our only interest has been to promote social justice for both growers and workers. We have always been acutely aware of the fact that the industry is faced with a number of serious economic problems. But we have also been conscious of the basic moral issues involved in the dispute. It is to these issues that the Committee has directed its most urgent attention.”25 Chavez was appreciative

Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

101

of the bishops’ efforts. In a more personal tone, most probably due to their past association, the UFWOC president wrote to Medeiros expressing his gratitude: “For myself and all the strikers and members of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, I wish to express to you our grant [sic-great] appreciation and our deeply felt thanks for your help and your part in this great breakthrough for us.”26 Lionel Steinberg, President of David Friedman Company, one of the major growers was also highly complementary: “The bishops’ committee had a significant role in our efforts to reach agreement with the union. I doubt we could have arrived at an equitable solution without [their] counsel and encouragement.”27 The efforts of Medeiros and the Committee were favorably acknowledged by those inside and outside the Church. David Finks, director for Information and Training on Urban Problems for the USCCB wrote to Medeiros: “Congratulations on the success of your mission of reconciliation. I hope your good example in this advocacy role will be imitated by Catholics in other areas where social change must be advanced.”28 The breakthrough in negotiations and the April 1 announcement of the first contracts precipitated a flurry of activity between the UFWOC and the growers, but tension remained. Several large growers negotiated contracts, including the Bianco Fruit Company and the Bruno Dispoto Company, both of which settled on May 21. These two companies employed 2000 workers on farms that produced 1.1 million boxes of table grapes annually.29 Still other growers demanded that the union call off the boycott before proceeding further. The complicated situation led the Ad Hoc Committee to come to California again to jumpstart new negotiations. Medeiros reported, “We are in many of the negotiations which led to contracts, either as observers or mediators.”30 Initially, a stalemate occurred between the two parties, but growers found themselves harvesting grapes with no markets for their sale. Thus, financial pressures forced them to return to the bargaining table. Eventually, on July 29, 1970, the Delano Grape Boycott finally came to an end with an overall settlement. Growers representing 50% of the grape growers signed with the UFWOC. Proudly, Bishop Donnelly, who presided at the settlement signing, commented, “The work of the Bishops’ Committee has been credited as a major element in getting growers and workers together to negotiate their troubles.”31 The settlement drew accolades and praise from many fronts. Bishop Joseph Bernardin (the future Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago), who at the time served as general secretary for the NCCB, wrote to Medeiros: Heartiest congratulations on the historic signing between the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee and 26 Delano growers representing 50% of

102

Chapter 5

the California table grape industry. The Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor, has fulfilled well the mandate given to it last April when the entire body of bishops endorsed the work of the Committee and supported it.32

Similar congratulatory messages were received by the Committee from clerics and laity alike. One woman wrote to Medeiros suggesting that the success of the Ad Hoc Committee needed to be replicated in Brownsville: “I have deep faith that as SHEPHERD [emphasis original] of our own diocese you can lead us toward a most desirable solution.”33 While many were supportive of the Ad Hoc Committee and its role in settling the strike, not all parties were pleased. While most bishops and priests supported the Committee’s work, there was opposition. One primary challenge arose from two Jesuits writing in Twin Circle, a conservative magazine published independently of the Catholic hierarchy. The principal antagonists, Fathers Daniel Lyons and Cletus Healy, did not challenge the workers’ right to organize, but the apparent bias the Committee had toward Chavez, who, they claim, did not represent most workers. The UFWOC president was attacked as a Communist sympathizer. Monsignor Higgins did not take the Twin Circle critique sitting down, but rather aggressively rebutted both priests in their attacks, saying that their rhetoric was “totally reprehensible” and concluding that these two Jesuits had gone “off the deep end.” The Ad Hoc Committee was also attacked by numerous members of the laity, perceiving bias toward the farm workers in their deliberations, and being aghast that the bishops would support Chavez, whom these dissenters continued to label a communist sympathizer. One typical attack read: “I found your explanation of the Bishop’s [sic] Committee activity in support of Chavez interesting but completely unrealistic. Chavez is the worst type, a wolf in sheep’s clothing who will use force and coercion to attain control of the California (and Texas) farmworkers, regardless of the will of the majority of the workers.”34 In response to another critical letter, Medeiros wrote: You may be assured that none of the Bishops are communists, nor defenders of communism. We are trying to help the poor organize themselves into some kind of position of strength so they can live with greater dignity. This is by no means to oppose the farmers. The Bishops of the country are as much concerned about the farmers as they are about the farmworkers.35

Medeiros wrote of his pride as a member of the Committee and defended its work: “This Committee has been faithful in carrying out its task and great hope for mutual understand[ing] and cooperation between growers and

Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

103

workers has been engendered.”36 Overall, Medeiros reflected upon the settlement, viewing it as an effort to seek justice for both sides and all peoples: It is to be lamented . . . But not a few of our fellow citizens and even fellow Catholics, look at our mission of reconciliation with the growers and farmworkers union as meddling in matters which do not pertain to our ministry . . . We want justice for the farmer as much as we do for the farmworker.37

THE NCCB AND LATIN AMERICA Humberto Medeiros’ participation with the Ad Hoc Committee was high profile and made his name known among his fellow bishops, but the Bishop of Brownsville was active throughout his tenure in additional programs, associated with the NCCB, that supported the Latin American Church. As a member of the Bishops’ Committee on International Affairs, especially its Latin American Bureau, and more specifically his participation with an alphabet soup of organizations that sought to aid his brother and sister Catholics in Mexico, Central and South America, Medeiros applied his talent and everpresent fidelity to seek aid for those in need. One of Medeiros’ initial forays into assisting the Latin American Church came through the Papal Volunteers for Latin America (PAVLA). This organization was mandated by the United States hierarchy in 1961 in response to a request by Pope Saint John XXIII to recruit, train, and place competent lay men and women volunteers from the United States “to provide collaborative service to the people of God in Latin America.”38 While in existence in embryonic form since 1961, by 1967 PAVLA was organized locally and nationally. The national office was headquartered in Chicago; 114 diocesan offices throughout the country as well as a national advisory board and international planning committee, were also created. Records indicate that in this same year PAVLA volunteers were working in 18 countries in services such as teaching, healthcare, community development, youth work, and social service projects, including credit unions and cooperatives. A total of 278 people were in the program at that time.39 At a meeting held on July 25–26, 1967, the National Director, Father Raymond Kevane, noted that PAVLA was not simply an aid program to Latin America, but one in which both the United States and Latin American countries benefited: The Papal Volunteers program must keep in mind the principle of reciprocity— service to Latin America can never be one of condescension, but it must be one of quality and love. Through collaboration with Latin America, the program and all its members must recognize that Latin America has a mind to give to us as

104

Chapter 5

we to give them, so that there can be a true exchange of values without imposition on our part of our persuasions and opinions.40

At this same meeting, it was decided that a planning committee would be formed to consist of U.S. regional representatives, volunteers who had previously served and now were field representatives in Latin America. This committee met annually after the regional and national PAVLA meetings were held, in order to allow input for future projects.41 As a member of the Bishops’ Committee for Latin America, Medeiros worked on the subcommittee for PAVLA, together with Bishop Glennon P. Flavin of Lincoln, Nebraska, and with Bishop Joseph L. Hodges, of Wheeling, West Virginia, who served as the chair of the subcommittee. This subcommittee met for a two-day meeting in July 1967 to give new life to PAVLA and to plan a forward-looking agenda for the program. Medeiros wrote to Hodges: “I hope I can learn something about PAVLA so I can be of some help to you in the Bishops’ Commission on Latin America.”42 Apparently, Medeiros learned rapidly, for he was asked at the meeting to be the chief recruiter for the program. Thus, in October 1968, he wrote to the laity in Brownsville and across the country, asking them to consider this ministry: “Your brothers in Latin America are calling you at this time of special crisis for them. They appeal to your Christian faith and love to come to their assistance with the gifts which God has given you.”43 In the ensuing years, Medeiros continued to work as a member of the subcommittee which often gave reports at various episcopal meetings, both of the United States hierarchy and a combined group of American and Latin American bishops. In February 1970, the subcommittee recommended that PAVLA concentrate its work on the formation of local leaders. In a report authored in part by Medeiros, the subcommittee told a meeting of the InterAmerican Bishops Conference, We are not trying merely to plug empty holes, but to further what is advantageous locally. The basic purpose behind the whole program of assistance is to produce Latin American leaders who can then take over responsible tasks . . . After all, even with the help of foreign personnel, it is the local church that must ultimately solve its own problems.44

In order to accomplish this, skilled people in areas of leadership, as well as those in the ministerial needs of the people, needed to be recruited and sent to various Latin American countries. Another program sponsored by the NCCB that engaged Medeiros, but was more domestically based, was Priests Associated for Religious, Educational

Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

105

and Social Rights (PADRES), which formed in the fall of 1969. Headed by Father Ralph Ruiz, the group was composed mostly of Spanish-speaking Mexican American priests. It sought to make “the Catholic hierarchy in the United States more aware of the deep hunger which our people feel to participate more fully in the central life stream of our fellow countrymen and fellow Catholics.”45 PADRES’ first national convention was held in October 1969. At that meeting, the group passed several resolutions asking the bishops for action. First, PADRES suggested that Spanish-speaking bishops and priests be selected to serve in those geographic areas with a high concentration of Spanish-speaking people. PADRES called upon the NCCB to aid poor Spanish-speaking parishes and suggested that priority be given to inner-city projects. The group asked that greater emphasis be placed on better education for low-income children. Last, the group asked that the liturgy be adapted to Spanish-speaking and Mexican American culture. In this initial convention, as well, it was hoped that a liaison committee could be formed to maintain communication between PADRES and the NCCB. Initially, Ruiz was told that such a committee was not possible. However, PADRES was informed that Archbishop Timothy Manning of Los Angeles and Bishop Medeiros “would be pleased to meet with you informally.”46 The NCCB’s initial rejection of a permanent liaison committee did not stop Medeiros from his strong support for the group. Speaking to the bishops at their November 1969 meeting in San Francisco that established the Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor, Medeiros argued for the adoption of the above-mentioned suggestions made by PADRES. Eventually, in February 1970, a select group, consisting of Archbishop Francis Furey of San Antonio, Archbishop Timothy Manning of Los Angeles, Bishop Francis Green of Tucson, and Medeiros, was created47 to work with the NCCB. This body created teams of priests with specialized skills to work with lay and religious professionals in parishes and to set up programs relevant to the needs of Mexican American Catholics. A mobile team concept was to serve parishes, “bringing together ideas, information, and money and the people who actually do the work at the grassroots.” These groups were only to operate with the permission of local pastors and bishops.48  Medeiros’ participation with PAVLA and PADRES was complemented by his support for the Catholic Inter-American Cooperation Program (CICOP), formed in 1964 “to bring U.S. and Latin American Catholics together in mutual understanding and friendship based on the principle that, regardless of social or economic circumstances of life, Christian peoples, indeed all peoples, should know and accept each other as people.”49 In August 1968, CICOP clarified a plan of action that included an annual conference bringing together Latin American and U.S. leaders in all walks of life to discuss issues,

106

Chapter 5

encourage regional and local conferences and workshops, promote Latin American studies in colleges and universities, and to diffuse knowledge about Latin America through all channels of communication and mass media.50 Medeiros supported CICOP through his presence at various meetings, but he was not uncritical. Wanting to point the group in a direction that would increase its efficacy, he suggested that CICOP needed to do more to inform the American public concerning issues in Latin America. He felt that while the hierarchy and clergy understood the issues and problems, the group’s work could be greatly enhanced if more education was conducted on the ground level.51 In the end, however, Medeiros was encouraging, voicing one of his common themes that Christians must aid their less fortunate brothers and sisters: We are the hands of Christ on earth and we must set about the task of doing His bidding because the hour’s late. The oppressed people of underdeveloped countries such as those in Latin America have exhausted their patience. They have grown weary of waiting for their Christian brothers in the wealthy nations of the world to hear their cry and extend a helping hand in brotherhood, not paternalism. They ask only what is owed them in Christian charity.52

The various programs of the NCCB which were oriented toward the assistance or use of domestic personnel to assist the people of Latin America, were only half of the U.S. bishops’ efforts. They were complemented by a strong international program of assistance. The NCCB Committee on International Affairs served to direct the American hierarchy’s efforts toward assistance in Latin America. The Committee, headed by Bishop (later archbishop in 1968) Coleman Carroll of Miami, sought to develop new attitudes to achieve international peace and justice. Like PAVLA, the Latin American Bureau of the Committee was formed in 1959 in response to the call of Pope Saint John XXIII. Specifically, the Bureau was formed “to cooperate in Christian solidarity to aid the Church in Latin America.”53 Its long-range goals were threefold: to develop a relationship between the United States and Latin American Church in order to bring greater unity to the universal Church, to encourage bishops to develop collegial relationships, and to establish a bond of friendship between the United States and Latin America.54 Medeiros was an integral cog in the operation of the Latin American Bureau. He was welcomed as a member of the Committee on International Affairs in 1967 but centered his work on the Latin American Bureau. Orienting his work toward the subcommittee on Latin America, he enthusiastically accepted his appointment: “I am happy to accept the nomination and promise I will do my best to be of use to the Committee in the service of the Church.”55 Father Louis Colonnese, director of the Bureau, was equally elated that Medeiros agreed to serve: “I need not report to you how wonderful it is to

Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

107

work with a bishop such as yourself, especially because of your interest and because of the homework you do.”56 Medeiros’ primary work with the Latin American Bureau was on its subcommittee for allocations, which he joined in 1967; he became chair in April 1969. Realizing the significance of his appointment, Medeiros asked for prayerful support: “Please keep me in your prayers [for] the work of the Latin American Bureau because it is becoming more and more important as the days go on.”57 The criteria for allocating funds was established only after very extensive consultation and study of similar programs in the United States and those of other nations, and after consultation with ecclesiastical and lay leaders in Latin America. The first priority went to projects related to the ideas promoted by Vatican II. There was also a strong effort to stimulate and awaken latent forces of Latin American Catholicism.58 In his capacity as chair, Medeiros wrote to Archbishop Carroll, chair of the Committee on International Affairs, suggesting that the need for economic assistance in Latin America continued to be great: “As you know, they [Latin American Bishops] continue to need our help, and we hope that we will be able to increase it, at least so long as they need it.”59 In February 1970, he provided an update to the subcommittee’s work: We are doing all we can at the present time to supply priests and financial assistance and lay assistance to Latin America. We know that it is slow. I feel very impatient about it all because much more can and should be done. I can assure you that on my part I will try my very best to enlighten those around me and those with whom I talk on the urgent necessity of assisting Latin America in a variety of ways . . . However, I can assure you that much is being done and a great deal of understanding is being generated between hierarchies of both North America and South America.60

During his first two years as chair of the allocations subcommittee, more than $1 million was distributed annually to twenty-one different countries plus the Episcopal Conference of Latin America (CELAM).61 In his role as chair of the allocations subcommittee, Medeiros experienced two additional challenges. First, it was of greatest importance to him that the Latin American bishops not lose their autonomy with respect to allocation of funds. Thus, he was concerned that allocated resources were too often given to direct projects, rather than to the diocese in need. He wrote, “The current proportion represents a serious allocations imbalance, contradicting the fund’s original priorities and having the compound negative effect of eroding the autonomy of [the] Latin American bishops.”62 Additionally, Medeiros needed to convince his fellow bishops to utilize the NCCB in its support for the Latin American Church. In an effort to assist their Hispanic brothers and sisters,

108

Chapter 5

many dioceses in the United States directly supported specific projects in various countries. Addressing his fellow prelates candidly, he stated: My fellow bishops and I who serve on the NCCB Committee for the Church in Latin America, which administers the allocation of assistance for the Latin American Fund, hope this diocesan allocation imbalance does not reflect a loss of confidence in our efforts to authentically respond to the needs of the Latin American church . . . Please reconsider the value of centrally administering such funds through the U.S. Bishops’ Latin American Fund functioning in collegial solidarity with the Church in recipient countries.63

Medeiros’ work as chair of the allocations subcommittee was his domestic effort to assist the Church in Latin America, but he was equally if not more involved through his participation in the Inter-American Episcopal Committee. It dealt with international issues and found him traveling widely and frequently in support of Church efforts in South America. The committee was formed in May 1967 through the suggestion of Bishop Carroll. Meeting with representatives of CELAM at Saint John Vianney Minor Seminary in Miami, Carroll suggested that a joint meeting of representative bishops from the United States and Latin America be held every six months, exchanging locations between North and South America. Along this new collaborative effort, its bishop members stated its intention: The purpose of the Inter-American meeting is primarily to promote dialogue among the participants, to provide an opportunity for them to share ideas regarding matters of mutual concern.64

In support of this committee’s work, Medeiros and three other U.S. bishops traveled to South America between November 18 and December 7, 1967 (see figure 5.1). Medeiros articulated the purpose of the trip: “The journey we are making through a few Latin American countries is intended chiefly to make stronger, more intimate and more visible that unity which Christ has given to His Church . . . I believe that our unity will grow more easily if we meet personally to know one another better and thus love one another as Christ has loved us.”65 The group, which included Bishops Joseph Green (Reno), Joseph Breintenbeck, and Joseph Bernardin (auxiliaries in Detroit and Atlanta, respectively), made several preliminary stops including Sao Paulo, Brazil, Montevideo, Uruguay, and Buenos Aires, Argentina, before meeting other U.S. bishops in Santiago, Chile for the Committee’s second meeting and its first in Latin America. In Buenos Aires, Medeiros was invited to address the Argentine bishops. In his remarks, he spoke of the openness of the United

Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

109

Figure 5.1  Medeiros with Crowds in South America. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

States bishops to the needs of their fellow prelates in Latin America: “We want and need to know what your spiritual and material needs are and what your pastoral plans and projects are so that we will be able to carry out the mission of the Church of God, a mission of which we are part, together with the Holy Father. We want to know how you want us to cooperate with you.”66 After the meeting, Medeiros visited Lima, Peru, Bogotá, Colombia, and Mexico City, Mexico, before returning to Brownsville. Upon his return, Medeiros commented about the trip, noting that it helped to solidify his position within the American hierarchy: I am now much surer of my place in the Bishops’ Commission for Latin America since visiting the few countries to the South on the way to Santiago. I think that our visit has already accomplished a great deal of good and I certainly hope that a meaningful and fruitful dialogue between the Church in North American [sic] and in Latin America will continue to progress for the advancement of the Lord’s Kingdom in the Americas.67

The successful 1967 trip to South America was reprised the next year (see figure 5.2). On this occasion, Medeiros traveled to attend the Eucharistic Congress in Bogotá, Colombia and to represent Bishop Carroll at the CELAM

110

Chapter 5

Figure 5.2  Medeiros in a Peasant Home in South America. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

meeting held at Medellín. The Congress was held from August 18–25; the CELAM Conference followed in late August and early September. At Medellín, Medeiros was invited to participate and vote as a member of the Commission on Education of the Faith. Additionally, he was given the privilege to preach at Lauds (morning prayer) one morning. Upon his return, Medeiros provided an impression of his Medellín experience: “I was really impressed with the work done and the spirit that animated the entire conference in Medellín. I feel that the Church leaders in Latin America are for the most part very much aware of the problems and are doing their very best to find the right solutions.”68  Once again in June 1969 Medeiros again traveled to South America, this time to Caracas, Venezuela, to attend the Inter-American bishops meeting. He and Archbishop Carroll attended as representatives of the NCCB’s Latin American Bureau. As fate would have it, this was Medeiros’ last major international foray as Bishop of Brownsville,69 before his appointment to Boston.

OTHER NCCB ACTIVITIES Medeiros’ primary work with the Ad Hoc committee and the numerous organizations under the umbrella of the NCCB Latin American Bureau was

Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

111

complemented by his contributions in less visible but nonetheless important endeavors as part of the American hierarchy. In November 1966, at the annual meeting of the NCCB in Washington, D.C., a Commission on Canonical Affairs was established, with Bishop Ernest Primeau of Manchester, assigned as chair. The new commission was assigned the task of reviewing several key canonical questions: (1) Alienation of Church property, (2) Mixed marriages, (3) Imprimaturs (4) Special faculties for Sunday Mass, (5) Restoration of the permanent diaconate, (6) Solicitation of funds by religious communities, (7) Simpler processing for “Privilege of the Faith” annulment cases, and (8) A uniform questionnaire for “Defect from Form” annulment cases.70 Primeau invited Medeiros to be a member of the commission. He accepted the appointment and was assigned by Primeau to head the response to the issue of mixed marriages. Primeau asked for a report by February 7, 1967. Two questions were specifically addressed: (1) What changes should be made to the pre-nuptial inventory for the promises to be made by the non-Catholic party in a mixed marriage? In the same light, should any change be made to the guidelines for uniform procedures for mixed marriages? (2) What is the opinion of the hierarchy on the Conference’s suggestion that marriage vows professed in an Orthodox ceremony be repeated?71 With his usual zeal, Medeiros engaged the task assigned to him. He prepared a questionnaire that was sent to seventy bishops in sixty-six dioceses located in thirty-seven states. After receiving fifty-five responses, Medeiros summarized the opinions expressed on the question of the obligation of the non-Catholic party: And so that the obligation [to raise children as Catholics] may be guaranteed, the non-Catholic spouse should be invited to promise openly and sincerely that he will not create any obstacle in the fulfillment of that duty. If then the nonCatholic party thinks he may not formulate the promise-without violating his conscience-the ordinary must refer the case with all its particulars to the Holy See.72

Medeiros provided Primeau his input on two other pertinent issues. Responding to questions from the Committee on Pastoral Research and Practice, Medeiros suggested that the Sacrament of Confirmation should always be administered by a bishop unless it is impossible to obtain the services of a member of the hierarchy, noting that “This situation seldom if ever arises in this country.” Addressing the question of the age of a child to be confirmed, he said that pastorally he had been forced to confirm children at the time of their baptism. Failure to so act could lead people to cross the Rio Grande and receive their sacraments in the Diocese of Matamoros. He commented that if the Holy See mandated not to confirm until later except in

112

Chapter 5

danger of death or in situations in true mission lands, “it would be a great help to me and other bishops on the Mexican border.”73 Similarly, he opined that children should receive reconciliation at the age of reason. Foreshadowing his work in Boston, Medeiros also responded to the possibility of the laity distributing Holy Communion. Taking his general Vatican II position on the sacraments, he stated: At present I see no reason why this permission could not be granted, under particular circumstances [emphasis original] to be spelled out by the Bishop who requests it and to be considered and voted upon by the body of bishops . . . Although I cannot bring up any theological argument against a layman’s distribution of Holy Communion, I would still prefer to see a cleric perform this very holy service of the Church’s ministry.

Medeiros’ service with Canonical Affairs was twined to his membership on the related NCCB Commission on Doctrine. In 1968, this group was tasked to review such issues as Eucharistic ministers, imprimaturs and censorship, and reaction to the publication of Humanae Vitae.74 An ad hoc committee attached to the Commission on Doctrine reviewed the possibility of transferring Holy Days of Obligation. Save the Octave of Christmas, January 1, most bishops recommended that the Assumption, Ascension, All Saints and Immaculate Conception be transferred to Sunday, although a significant number of the episcopacy suggested that the obligation be eliminated in total.75

NOTES 1. Prouty, César Chavez and the Bishops, 7–8. 2. The Bracero Program was a series of laws and agreements made between Mexico and the United States that allowed Mexican workers to work in the United States with guaranteed decent living conditions and a mutually agreeable minimum pay scale. The agreement was extended with the Migrant Labor Agreement of 1951, which set the official parameters for the bracero program until its termination in 1964. 3. Prouty, César Chavez and the Bishops, 22–25. 4. Ibid., 23–24, 26. 5. Prouty, Chavez and the Bishops, 23–24. 6. Ibid., 27–37. 7. César Chavez to Humberto Medeiros, August 9, 1968, Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville-Medeiros Papers, AABo. Support for the boycott of table grapes was not universal in Brownsville. There were several small farmers in the area who did not use migrant workers. Thus, they were angry when Medeiros suggested that no one should buy non-union produce. These farmers felt betrayed by Medeiros and those who supported both Chavez’s boycott and the local strike.

Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

113

8. Humberto Medeiros to César Chavez, November 30, 1969, Labor Disputes Statements File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 9. Humberto Medeiros to James Connolly, October 20, 1969, Miscellaneous Correspondence File, Box #49, Brownsville-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 10. Humberto Medeiros to John Antoya, April 29, 1970, Emmanuel College File, Box #48, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 11. Texas Catholic Herald, September 18, 1970, Consecration and Installation File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 12. In 1955, George Higgins became the head of the Social Action Department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Eventually, he became known as the Catholic priest associated with labor and workers’ rights. In 1958, Higgins testified to Congress against the Bracero program, believing that it ultimately exploited Mexican laborers for low wages and poor working conditions. 13. Quoted in Ibid., 31. 14. In the late 1960s, La Causa was a movement that supported César Chavez and the UFWAOC. 15. Quoted in Prouty, Chavez and the Bishops, 52. 16. Dalton, Moral Vision, 57; Memorandum, April 9, 1970, Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor, NCCB, United Farmworkers Grape Strike File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 17. Dalton, Moral Visions, 54–55. 18. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(41), April 26, 1970, CAT; Austin, Texas; Statement by Bishops of the Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor April 1, 1970, Labor Dispute File, Box #50, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 19. Prouty. Chavez and the Bishops, 58. 20. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Farm Labor Dispute, April 1970, Labor Dispute File, Box #50, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 21. National Catholic News Service, February 13, 1970, Labor Dispute File, Box #50, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 22. Humberto Medeiros to César Chavez, March 4, 1970, United Farmworkers Grape Strike File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 23. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(38) March 8, 1970, CAT. 24. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor Dispute, April 1970, Labor Dispute File, Brownsville, Box #50, Medeiros Papers, AABO. The first contract was signed between the United Farmer Workers and the David Freedman Company, the Wonder Palms Ranch and the Travertine Ranch. These growers produced 1/8 of the Coachella Valley crops, but only 1% of the California table grape crop. See Valley Catholic Witness, 2(41), April 26, 1970, CAT. 25. Statement of Bishop Joseph Donnelly, n.d.[April 1970], Grape Boycott Fresno File, Box #50, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 26. César Chavez to Humberto Medeiros, April 7, 1970, United Farmworkers Grape Strike File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 27. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(41). April 26, 1970, CAT. 28. David Finks to Humberto Medeiros, July 30, 1970, Grape Boycott File, Box #50, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

114

Chapter 5

29. The settlement agreement gave workers a base wage of $1.75 per hour plus $.25 per box incentive. Additionally, specifics concerning funds for union health care and development were negotiated. It was agreed that base pay would rise to $1.90 per hour in April 1971. See Valley Catholic Witness, 2(44) May 31, 1970, CAT. 30. Report Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor Dispute, September 14, 1970, Miscellaneous Papers, Box #51, Brownsville. Medeiros, Papers, AABo. 31. Patrick Mooney and Theo J. Majka, Farmers’ and Farm Workers’ Movements: Social Protest in American Agriculture (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), 163; NC News Service, July 30, 1970, Grape Boycott Fresno File, Box #50, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 32. Joseph Bernardin to Humberto Medeiros (Telegram), July 30, 1970, Grape Boycott File, Box #50, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 33. Dolores Longuria to Humberto Medeiros, August 8, 1970, Grape Boycott File; Box #50, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 34. James Chambliss, M.D. to “The Bishop” [Medeiros], May 25, 1970, United Farmworkers Grape, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 35. Humberto Medeiros to Mary Clarke April 20, 1970, United Farmworkers Grape Strike File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 36. Humberto Medeiros to George Higgins, July 7, 1970, Labor Dispute File, Box #50; Medeiros, “Statement On Family Size Farms in America,” n.d. [1070], Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 37. Humberto Medeiros, “Statement On Family Size Farms in America,” n.d. [1970], Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 38. “Points on the Nature of the Papal Volunteers Program,” n.d. [June 1967], Miscellaneous Papers, Box #3, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 39. “The Papal Volunteers for Latin America,” A Report to the United States Bishops, November 1967, Meeting Minutes, Report of Bishops, Box #131, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Since 1961, 800 lay men and women from the United States had served in the program. 40. Memorandum Toward Policy for PAVLA, July 25–26, 1967 Meeting Minutes July 1967 PAVLA File, Box #5, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 41. Ibid. 42. Humberto Medeiros to Bishop Joseph Hodges, July 5, 1967, Inactive Apostolates 1968 File, Box #49, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 43. Humberto Medeiros to “Dearly Beloved in Christ” October 5, 1968, PAVLA Letter File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 44. CELAM Document, 5th Inter-American Bishops Conference, February 3–5, 1970, PAVLA File, Box #5, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 45. Memorandum, PADRES to Bishops of the United States, November 11, 1969, PADRES File, Box #51, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 46. Joseph Bernardin to Francis Furey, January 13, 1970, PADRES File, Box #51, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. The original members suggested for the liaison committee were: Archbishop Francis Furey of San Antonio, Archbishop Timothy Manning of Los Angeles, Bishop Charles Buswell of Pueblo, Colorado, Bishop Francis Green of Tucson, and Medeiros.

Working with the NCCB in Brownsville

115

47. NC News Service, February 9, 1970, PADRES File, Box #51, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 48. Mobile Team Ministry Concept—Statement, n.d. [1970] PADRES File, Box #51, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 49. Statement of Goals and Objectives, August 1968 Statement of Goals and Objectives File, Box #4, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 50. Ibid. 51. Humberto Medeiros to Father Louis Colonnese, February 12, 1969, CICOP Conference NYC File, Box #131, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 52. Humberto Medeiros, Closing Address, March 30, 1969, Miscellaneous Papers File, Box #51, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 53. Statement of Goals and Objectives, August 1968, Statement of Goals and Objectives File, Box #4, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 54. Ibid. 55. Humberto Medeiros to Archbishop John Dearden, June 24, 1968, Membership File, Box #131, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Medeiros also served on the Committee of World Justice and Peace, another wing of the NCCB Department of International Affairs. 56. Louis Colonnese to Humberto Medeiros, February 24, 1970, Allocation Guidelines File, Box #4, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 57. Humberto Medeiros to James Clark, June 17, 1968, General File, Box #131, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 58. Statement of Goals and Objectives, August 1968 Statement of Goals and Objectives File, Box #4, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo; Coleman Carroll to Humberto Medeiros, June 29, 1967, Membership File, Box #4, Brownsville-Medeiros Papers, AABO. The other members of the allocation sub-committee were: Bishops Joseph Marling (Jefferson City, Missouri), Jerome Hastrich (Auxiliary in Madison, Wisconsin), and Gerald McDevitt (Auxiliary in Philadelphia). 59. Humberto Medeiros to Coleman Carroll, October 7, 1968, Medellin File, Box #5, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 60. Humberto Medeiros to James Shanahan. February 17, 1970, Personnel Committee on Lay Volunteers File, Box #131, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 61. Report Allocations for 1968 National Collection for the Church in Latin America, n.d. [1969], 1968 Allocations Report File, Box #4, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Statistics show the following allocations: 1966$1,172,890; 1967-$1,246,100; 1968 $1,042,286; 1969-$1,013,709. See also Report Allocations for 1969 National Collection for the Church in Latin America, n.d. [1970], 1969 Allocations Report File, Box #4, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 62. Humberto Medeiros, “Statement of NCCB Committee for the Church in Latin America,” n.d. [1972], Latin American Bureau File, Box #102, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 63. Ibid. 64. “The Inter-American Meetings,” n.d. [1970], Fifth Inter-American Bishops Meeting File, Box #131, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

116

Chapter 5

65. Humberto Medeiros, Our Apostolic Journey to Latin America, Part III, January 7, 1968, Apostolic Journey to Latin America File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 66. Humberto Medeiros, Speech to Plenary Assembly of the Argentine Bishops, November 27, 1967, Addresses of Episcopal Conferences File, Box #7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 67. Humberto Medeiros to Edmund Leising, March 15, 1968, Tour Latin American File, Box #131, Brownsville, Medeiros Paper, AABo. 68. Humberto Medeiros to Archbishop Coleman Carroll, October 7, 1968, Medellin Conference File, Box #5, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 69. Commission Conclusions of the Inter-American Meeting of Bishops, June 3–5, 1969, Fourth Inter-American Bishops Meeting File, Box #131, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 70. Ernest Primeau to Bishops’ Commission for Canonical Affairs, n.d. [1966], General File, Box #6, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 71. Humberto Medeiros to “Your Excellency [Ernest Primeau], January 7, 1967, General File, Box #6, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 72. Humberto Medeiros, Report on Promises for Mixed Marriages and Repetition of Vows in Orthodox Ceremonies, n.d [1967], Review of Code of Canon Law File, Box #6, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 73. Humberto Medeiros to Ernest Primeau, October 18, 1967, Sacrament of Confirmation File, Box #6, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 74. Summary report NCCB Commission on Doctrine, 1968, Reports File, Box #6, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 75. Diocesan Survey on Holy Days, n.d. Holy Days of Obligation File, Box #6, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Part III

TURBULENT YEARS AS ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON, 1970–1983

Chapter 6

The New Adventure of Boston

Arriving in the United States as a teenager, Humberto Medeiros in many ways exemplified the Horatio Alger story, not in his economic and worldly success, but through his accomplishments as priest and bishop. Medeiros started from scratch, living in poverty and without an understanding of the language and culture in America. He chose to make this new land his home and quickly demonstrated his ability. Moving from valedictorian of his high school class to his selection as a Basselin Scholar at The Catholic University of America, he was eventually ordained for the Diocese of Fall River. Serving in positions of responsibility as secretary to the bishop, chancellor, and pastor, he was selected to be a bishop, a move that many of his fellow priests believed was inevitable. As bishop, he led efforts to assist the poor, both locally in the struggle of migrant farm workers for a just wage and internationally through his work with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) in its efforts to assist the people of Latin America. However, God through the Church was now calling him to a new and much greater challenge as the Archbishop of Boston. ASSIGNMENT TO BOSTON While many in Brownsville and elsewhere were not surprised that Humberto Medeiros was chosen to lead a larger diocese,1 most were struck with amazement at his appointment as Archbishop of Boston. The Boston Herald reported in late January 1970 that a thirteen-member committee had been formed to recommend a successor to Cardinal Richard Cushing who had served as archbishop since 1944 but was in poor health. In keeping with the concept of open participation encouraged by Vatican II, the committee consisted of three auxiliary bishops, three members of Boston’s priest senate,2 119

120

Chapter 6

four other priests, as well as plus two laymen and one laywoman. The newspaper reported that this was the first such consultation outside the Roman curia.3 Possible candidates who emerged were Bernard Flanagan, Bishop of Worcester, and Daniel Cronin, an auxiliary bishop in Boston. The most likely, however, was John Cardinal Wright, Prefect for the Congregation of the Clergy in Rome, and a native of Massachusetts.4 Wright might have been a local favorite but in the opinion of the historian J. Anthony Lukas, strong personalities clashed in the selection process. He suggests that Wright wanted the position, but Cushing did not like him and sought to keep the See out of his grasp. Still, as a cardinal in Rome, Wright had power. According to Lukas, he exercised it to make certain that none of his enemies were selected for Boston. Lukas further postulates that Wright, a theological conservative, worked with like minds, including Archbishop Terence Cooke of New York and the Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Luigi Raimondi, to assure that a more orthodox prelate was assigned to Boston after the whirlwind of Cushing. Medeiros was not only appreciated by conservatives, but also agreeable to many liberals as a result of his strong stance for Mexican migrant workers in Brownsville. Moreover, the Vatican had long desired to break down the ethnic monopolies in American dioceses. Medeiros as an Azorean immigrant could break the cabal of Irish dominance in the archdiocese.5 Raimondi wrote to Medeiros in late May 1970, asking him to come to the Apostolic Delegation in Washington, D.C. stating, “I have something personal and important to discuss with you.”6 The joint announcement of Medeiros’ appointment as the next Archbishop of Boston and Cushing’s resignation came on September 8, 1970. Obviously aware of the news before the public announcement, Medeiros wrote to Pope Saint Paul VI: “It is with holy joy and obedience which is free because it is prompted by love that I have accepted your decision to transfer me to the Metropolitan See of Boston.”7 Reportedly, however, Medeiros confessed to Raimondi that his appointment would be for him “Gethsemane,” a comment that in many ways foreshadowed his future.8 When he left Brownsville, Medeiros could proudly state that he was responsible for the establishment of at least seventeen new parishes, an increase in approximately thirty priests, and the construction of thirty-nine buildings, including new churches, CCD centers, rectories, and parish halls.9 Medeiros’ appointment brought congratulations from far-reaching fronts, including former classmates at The Catholic University and many clerics, both domestic and international. One of his fellow periti at Vatican II, then Father (later Monsignor) Robert Trisco, wrote: “I know that you will continue to foster there [Boston], but on a grander scale, the ideals of pastoral leadership and service that we were so moved to hear at the Second Vatican Council.”10 Many congratulatory letters acknowledged the

The New Adventure of Boston

121

challenges Medeiros would face. One former Catholic University classmate wrote, “I do not exactly know whether to congratulate you or to commiserate with you. I will simply say this, your salvation has been assured.”11 Another classmate commented, “Your following Cardinal Cushing will not be easy as you well know.”12 What were Medeiros’ thoughts on his appointment to Boston and the need to leave Brownsville? In a general letter to the faithful in Brownsville, Medeiros expressed his belief that he did not deserve to be their shepherd, nor did he feel qualified to be shepherd in Boston, but that he will “joyfully accept the will of the Lord, even if the acceptance entails the deep sorrow of leaving those who are such a living part of my being a brother, father, priest and bishop.”13 He admitted that it would be painful for him to leave Brownsville, acknowledging the great blessings it had been for him to be the chief Shepherd of the people for four short years. He was proud that he had defended the rights of farmworkers and hoped that he could address the needs of the poor in Boston. He concluded, “I came to the Valley a poor man because I was born that way. I leave the Valley poor, but I leave it so much richer in spirit.”14 He realized that Boston would be a challenge but also a fascinating opportunity. The faithful in Brownsville, while greatly disappointed with Medeiros’ departure, were at the same time very grateful for what he accomplished for the diocese. Because of his humility and language skills, many saw him as the perfect fit for the Rio Grande Valley, and feared that in Boston he might become lost.15 Medeiros’ transfer drew sympathetic reactions from many. One religious sister wrote: “Since you are leaving I want to relate to you my total admiration and respect for you and my desire to serve Mother Church more fully because of having known you.”16 Several suggested Medeiros was highly influential in shaping the character of the diocese. It was clear that his time in Texas was marked by concern for the needs of the underprivileged. The editor of Texas Catholic suggested that Medeiros’ period of ministry in Texas could rightly be called a time of “reconciliation”: He was assigned to a strife-torn diocese that had been divided against itself. Catholics against Catholics in the labor-management dispute over farm labor, Catholics against Protestants in the bitterness over the role of the Texas Council of Churches in the Valley. As he leaves the Diocese for his new post, he leaves behind him farmworkers and farm owners who still have disputes but have found new respect and understanding for each other.17

Despite their disappointment, the people supported Medeiros’ move as evidenced when a chartered plane carried 150 people from Brownsville to Boston for his installation.18

122

Chapter 6

The challenges Medeiros faced, as expressed in some of his initial congratulatory letters, have also been noted by historians. His former teacher, John Tracy Ellis, spoke in general of the challenge faced by all bishops in the wake of Vatican II: Accustomed as they were to a generally docile and obedient flock of priests, religious and laity, the new mood of questioning authority, public demonstrations of dissent, and in certain cases messy and angry exits from the priesthood and religious life, to say nothing of the rising rate of divorce and remarriage among many laypersons, made the bishop’s lot an unenviable one.19

Ellis also stated that Medeiros’ Portuguese background was in many ways a poor fit to the heavily Irish enclave of Boston.20 More critically, J. Anthony Lukas questioned if Medeiros had the administrative skills necessary to move from a small rural diocese like Brownsville to a massive urban archdiocese such as Boston, one with ten times the number of parishes and more than twenty times the number of priests.21 It is important at this stage to entertain an important question: Why was Medeiros appointed to Boston? Historians and various scholars, as well as those who knew him well, collectively describe the appointment as a surprise. The journalist Robert Ellsberg accurately described the situation: “Medeiros, at the time of his appointment, was a popular inconspicuous Bishop of the Brownsville, Texas diocese.”22 Still, Medeiros’ work in Brownsville had been positively noted. His Visitors for Christ program received affirmative reviews and was implemented in other parts of the country. Additionally, Medeiros’ ministry of social justice in Texas was acclaimed, suggesting that he was sent to Boston “to respond to the need for strong church leadership on social problems facing the city and to take an outsider’s fresh look at the institutional problems of the Boston church and its clergy.”23 During the last few months of his tenure in Brownsville, Critic magazine named Medeiros one of the twelve bishops with the most promise for their future in the American Church.24 Some Boston priests recall that many in the archdiocese at the time thought that Medeiros was selected specifically to liquidate the huge debt that Cushing had generated and that was crippling the Boston Church.25 While the precise rationale behind Medeiros’ appointment is not extant,26 it is clear that his move to Boston was no mistake. Robert Ellsberg and the historian Michael Lescault have suggested in separate works that Medeiros’ appointment was a “deliberate intention of the Vatican to break down the ingrown and clannish hegemony of Irish community in the Boston church.”27 Medeiros’ friend, Father John Driscoll commented, “He had what Boston needed. He had the language and was a spiritual man.” The historian

The New Adventure of Boston

123

Thomas O’Connor succinctly summarized the rationale expressed by various individuals: Whether it was his success in reconciling ethnic tensions in Brownsville that made him an attractive candidate for a city where racial tension was reaching the boiling point; whether it was an effort by the Holy See to promote new bishops who would better reflect the growing ethnic and racial diversity in American cities; whether it was to provide one of the nation’s renowned academic centers with an archbishop known for his intellectual attainments—or for all of these reasons—many religious observers felt it was a wise appointment made at an appropriate moment in Church history.28

THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON—BACKGROUND The Church in Massachusetts was slow to develop due to a strong anti-Catholic bias present in the region from the time of the pilgrims. Despite the animus, as early as 1646, a Jesuit missionary, Father Gabriel Druillettes, came to Boston as a representative of the French government to solicit the aid of the Puritans against hostile Iroquois Indians. He was generally well received, and it seems permitted, despite the injunction, to celebrate mass in a private room reserved for such a purpose.29 As with Boston specifically, so the American Church generally grew slowly. Eventually, however, in June 1784, Father John Carroll was appointed Superior of the American Mission with faculties that allowed the growth of Catholicism. He proposed that the first pastor in Boston would be Father John Thayer, a native Bostonian. Thayer was originally a Congregationalist minister but, after a trip to Europe and influenced by his experiences, he converted to Catholicism and entered the Seminary of Saint Sulpice in Paris, where he was ordained a priest on June 2, 1787. However, his long delay in returning to Boston allowed a French priest, Claude Florent Bouchard de la Poterie, to become the founder of the Church in Boston. He celebrated the first public mass in Boston on November 2, 1788, in a small Church built by French Huguenots, certainly an ironic event of history.30 The first baptismal record in the city is listed on April 11, 1789, with Father de la Poterie as the celebrant. In mid-year 1792, Father Francis Matignon arrived in Boston to replace Father Thayer who eventually left Boston for ministry in other parts of the new country.31 Matignon was described as a “saintly priest with a very keen and delicate appreciation of his sacred ministry.”32 By 1795, Matignon had nourished the small but burgeoning Catholic community to the point that he needed an assistant. Thus, he invited Father Jean Lefebvre Cheverus to come to Boston; he arrived on October 3, 1796. In the autumn of 1798, Matignon

124

Chapter 6

petitioned Bishop Carroll requesting permission to build a new Church in Boston. Carroll unhesitatingly approved and thus a committee was formed to raise funds. Monies were collected from all fronts, Catholic and nonCatholic, including a donation from former President John Adams. A lot on Franklin Street was purchased for $2500. Carroll consecrated the new Church on September 29, 1803.33 When Carroll came to Boston to dedicate the new Church, he brought important news. He informed the faithful that he had petitioned the Vatican to divide his immense diocese and that he had received “all the authorization necessary for the division; that his own See of Baltimore would be made an archdiocese; that he could erect as many [suffragan] sees as he deems necessary, fixing them where he wished and choosing the bishops to fill them.”34 Thus, in 1806, Carroll suggested to Pope Pius VII that four new dioceses be created in the United States: New York, Philadelphia, Bardstown (now Louisville, Kentucky), and Boston. He hoped that Matignon would be appointed as Bishop in Boston because he was “outstanding as regards age, maturity and longer residence here [Boston].”35 When Matignon strongly expressed his sense of being unfit for the position, Carroll proposed Jean Cheverus. A series of incidents prevented the new dioceses from moving forward. Although authorized by the Holy Father in 1808, the official documents establishing the four dioceses never arrived in United States. Documents had been given to Bishop Richard Luke Concanen, O.P., selected as the first Bishop of New York, but he could not obtain passage to the United States. Carroll did not want to act without the original documents but when it was learned that Concanen had died, Carroll agreed to move forward, ordaining the new bishops. On November 1, 1810, Carroll eventually consecrated Cheverus in the Pro-Cathedral of St. Peter in Baltimore (see figure 6.1). He arrived in Boston on December 19 and was installed as bishop on December 22. Cheverus served in Boston until October 1823 when he was recalled to France, eventually serving as Archbishop of Bordeaux and later a Cardinal. During the nineteenth century, the Church in Boston experienced a series of highs and lows. Beginning with the administration of Benedict Joseph Fenwick (1825–1846), a series of Irish or Irish American prelates were assigned to Boston, starting a pattern that continued until Medeiros’ appointment. One positive note for the diocese was a rise in Catholic population. The Boston Recorder reported that the numbers grew from approximately 3500 in 1820 to “at least 32,000,” in 1846. Yankee antagonism and a strong antiCatholic bias in Boston were significant hurdles that the Church was forced to endure. The infamous Charlestown convent burning of 1834 and the rapid rise of the Know-Nothing Party in the first half of the 1850s served as clear and strong manifestations of the challenges faced by Fenwick and his successor John Fitzpatrick (1846–1866).

The New Adventure of Boston

125

Figure 6.1  Map of the Archdiocese of Boston. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

The long tenure of Bishop (Archbishop in 1875) John Joseph Williams (1866–1907) solidified the Church in Boston, but not without challenges. An important development was the construction of a new cathedral. Bishop Fitzpatrick had approved the design for the new Church, but it was during Williams’ initial years as bishop that the cornerstone was laid on September 15, 1867. The cathedral was dedicated on December 8, 1870. That same year the western portion of the diocese was separated and became the Diocese of Springfield. Another significant accomplishment of Williams was his establishment of Saint John Seminary, which enrolled its first students in 1884.36

126

Chapter 6

While it is true that Yankee antagonism toward Irish Catholic immigrants remained strong and caused significant unrest throughout the diocese, nonetheless the Irish began to assert themselves in many aspects of life. In 1884, Hugh O’Brien was elected the city’s first Irish Catholic mayor; in 1913, David Ignatius Walsh became the first Catholic governor. He was followed by a series of other Irish Catholics who held prominent political positions, including James Curley, Charles Hurley, Maurice Tobin, and Paul Dever.37 The almost complete “about-face” experienced by the Church, moving from being a despised and simply tolerated group to being largely in control in the city was manifested most prominently in the administrations of Medeiros’ two immediate predecessors Cardinals William O’Connell and Richard Cushing. Both were political animals as well as Church figures. In both the ecclesiastical and civil arenas, O’Connell ruled with an iron fist, viewing Church and state as antagonists. Rather than seeing Church and state as natural enemies, Cushing saw a direct connection between the national destiny and the purpose of God.38Cushing was a charismatic and very popular archbishop who became well known for his philanthropy and building projects.  MEDEIROS’ ARRIVAL AND INSTALLATION IN BOSTON Humberto Medeiros arrived in Boston under the banner of a general welcome, but he fully understood the challenges ahead. Church and state leaders greeted Medeiros, noting his past strong advocacy for the poor and disadvantaged. The rabbi affiliated with the largest Jewish congregation in New England acknowledged Medeiros’ work in Texas: “It pleases me particularly to learn from the newspaper that you have been extremely active in Texas in what we Jews call social action.”39 Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy welcomed Medeiros but stressed the challenges he would face: We of the Boston archdiocese are indeed fortunate to have such a worthy successor to our beloved and revered Cardinal Cushing. In these times of social upheaval, a man of your deep social conscience—a man dedicated to the oppressed and deprived—a man of your spiritual resolve is called upon to give inspiration and leadership.40

Father Thomas Corrigan, founder of the Association of Boston Urban Priests, also welcomed Medeiros and described him as “a unique and exciting choice.”41 The challenges Medeiros faced were multiple and many were generated by coincidental changes in society and the Church. One might say that there

The New Adventure of Boston

127

was a “perfect storm” of social, political, and religious transformations. The historian, Thomas O’Connor, notes that several of the issues that greeted Medeiros had been growing during the last years of Cushing’s administration, but were now reaching crisis proportion. He writes that the combination of the ongoing Vietnam War, stagflation in the economy, and rising unemployment “produced a climate of anger, bitterness and uncertainties that made the Medeiros’ years very difficult ones.”42 Simultaneously, the Church was in its post-Vatican II metrics slide, as measured by lowering mass attendance, fewer priests, student enrollment dropping in Catholic schools, and a radical drop in the number of seminarians.43 Besides the social, political, and religious climate that greeted Medeiros, he also faced some significant physical and fiscal challenges. The greater number of institutions—churches, schools, and assorted archdiocesan ministries—than he had known in Brownsville, the broad diversity of the region, and a particularly troublesome archdiocesan debt were realities that Medeiros could not avoid. His friend Father John Driscoll claims that Medeiros was “overwhelmed,” but as an obedient man of the Church, he did what he was told to do. In a resigned tone concerning his future in Boston, Driscoll quoted Medeiros: “I was sent here; it was God’s will. I will do my best.”44 Medeiros was officially installed as the fourth Archbishop of Boston on October 7, 1970, by Archbishop Luigi Raimondi, the Apostolic Delegate to the United States. A total of seventeen bishops, joined by hundreds of priests from the archdiocese and other locales (especially Fall River) concelebrated the mass. In true Vatican II style, one of readers at the mass was Mother Mary Catalina, CSJ, the leader of the largest religious order in the archdiocese and the first woman to serve as a lector in Boston.45 Cardinal Cushing addressed the congregation and Medeiros directly, assuring him of the cooperation of all facets of the archdiocese and the fervent prayers of all the faithful.46 Medeiros’ homily on this auspicious occasion was broad in scope and highly revelatory in its content. His concern for all people in the archdiocese was a primary theme. He commented, “It is impossible to be a Christian without being concerned for every man, without being involved in the new real-life situation of every brother.” While there was some sense of fear and trembling, he placed his ministry into the hands of God. With a great sense of humility, he proclaimed: I do not know how to serve you as your Bishop, your Shepherd, your father and your brother, with any show of oratory or philosophy. I cannot rely on any power of my own. Personally, I feel too weak and too small for the task entrusted to me by the Holy Father. But I believe I can do all things in Him who is my strength and with your indispensable and loving cooperation.47

128

Chapter 6

REACTION TO MEDEIROS AND FIRST ACTIONS In order to understand Medeiros’ ministry in Boston, it is essential to explore the overall reaction of the local Church to his appointment. While he received the welcome of significant religious and state officials, nonetheless almost from the outset Medeiros faced significant backlash and widespread criticism. He started from a negative position by having the misfortune of succeeding a figure who was very popular, one might even say iconic and charismatic. Cushing was an extrovert, an innovator, and a man possessed of a missionary orientation in his ministry. Additionally, Cushing was a native Bostonian and continued the long line, beginning with the appointment of Bishop Fenwick in May 1825 of a string of Irish or Irish American prelates. Thus, in many ways, Medeiros, a Portuguese immigrant who was natively quiet and shy, studious and self-effacing, presented a striking contrast to his predecessor. Some perceived Medeiros’ gentle nature as a sign of weakness. The historian Thomas O’Connor suggested that in many ways the deck was stacked against Medeiros.48 Writing about ten months after his installation, Medeiros noted his challenges: “The awesome responsibility and duties of the Archbishop of Boston weigh heavy at times. Without God’s grace and wisdom and courage, it would be most difficult to fulfill the duties of the Office.”49 From the outset and throughout his tenure as local ordinary, Medeiros faced rejection as an outsider. Boston religious scholar, James Glinski, cogently summarized the response of many to Medeiros: “The reaction of both clergy and laity, which ran from burning crosses on the chancery lawn to anticipation of the chance to breathe some fresh air into the Archdiocese, made it clear that the new Archbishop would lack a consensus, making it difficult for him to solve many problems facing the Archdiocese.50 To a large swath of Boston’s Irish community, both religious and political, Medeiros was viewed as the ultimate outsider. O’Connor has commented.” After a succession of prelates who came from the Boston area and were of Irish parentage, the appointment of an archbishop born in the Portuguese Azores and who had no previous connection with Boston came as a complete surprise to most Bostonians.51 Medeiros was the victim of racial and ethnic animosities due to his dark-colored skin and foreign accent, prompting some to suggest that he simply did not belong. His aforementioned fears were not unfounded. In his seminal work, Common Ground, the sociologist Anthony Lukas commented: When his appointment was announced, the city’s Irish Catholics were stunned . . . Shockwaves from his appointment were felt first in rectories and convents throughout the diocese where much of the Irish clergy saw it as a threat to their historic prerogatives . . . The clergy’s astonishment was echoed by the

The New Adventure of Boston

129

congregations. Grumbling could be heard particularly in the city’s workingclass districts, about “that little Portagee” or the “spic Archbishop.”52

John Tracy Ellis simply stated, “His Portuguese background ill-fitted him for the heavily Irish enclave of Boston wherein he did not feel at home.”53 Even his longtime secretary, Monsignor William Helmick, acknowledged that Medeiros non-Irish ancestry “caused a stir among some people and among some priests.”54 Many people simply did not understand him and his general belief that his role was to carry out the will of God.55 Upon his arrival in the archdiocese, how did Humberto Medeiros view Boston society and his role as bishop in this environment? He saw these rather pessimistically, stating, “[O]ur current malaise is a kind of neo-hedonism that might be called the philosophy of fulfillment. This philosophy presents the attainment of personal satisfaction as a goal to be directly sought.”56 Such a self-serving attitude challenged the faithful to express a greater commitment to God. As the shepherd, it was his role to lead people to greater commitment by advancing the spiritual life of those entrusted to him. He stated, “The purpose of [my] authority is primarily to inspire, to encourage, to direct and to challenge others to new levels of Christ-likeness.”57 As the religious leader of some two million Catholics, Medeiros believed that his task first and foremost was to provide proper example. He once commented, “I am only one priest, one man, and I can only lead by example and by teaching the way of the Lord.”58 A more illustrative summary was provided in a homily preached by his secretary Monsignor Helmick a couple of months after Medeiros’ sudden-death: The Cardinal chose to carry out his responsibilities as Archbishop of Boston, not by giving orders and issuing decrees from on high, but by personal example, by teaching and explaining the Catholic faith in its integrity—in season and out of season—by encouraging others in good works and by patience and kindness in dealings with individuals.59

Medeiros’ “leadership by example” style was not the only aspect of his role as archbishop. Many viewed him as warm and friendly, yet at the same time solemn and serious. He was friendly but reserved. While his humility was appreciated, one editorial writer suggested that his preeminent position as the spiritual leader of a major archdiocese required a different style. He referred to Medeiros as an anachronism with his traditional and unbending perspective.60 Some criticized him for attempting to lead the Church of Boston as he had in Brownsville. Lukas concluded that Medeiros leadership style demonstrated weakness, that he was unwilling to follow through and/or enforce his edicts.61 Yet, others stressed that his style was conducive to total

130

Chapter 6

fidelity to the Church. One letter to Medeiros read, “Your forthright leadership in continually recalling the faithful to the Church’s teachings benefits all of us in the Church, and not only your own flock. I thank God for your ministry to us all.”62 In order to understand Medeiros’ concept of leadership, it is important to grasp his view of the Church. Central to his ecclesiology was his sense of the basic purpose of the Church, namely, to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Realizing that the message is not always easy and, possibly taking a lesson from the Pastoral Epistles that proclaimed, “Proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching”(II Timothy 4:2). Medeiros took the high road, but not necessarily the easy route. He once stated, “The Church is not here just to be popular, but to proclaim the good news of the Gospel to those who would like to hear it and those who don’t.”63 Christianity was not to be doled out in casual doses. Christians were to recommit themselves wholeheartedly to Christ’s gospel message of love and justice for all people.64 Since the Church seeks to follow the example of Christ, which means the cross, personal sacrifice will be inevitable. He wrote, “Can the Church be worthy to be called Christ’s Body, the bearers of His message, if it is not also willing to follow His same un-accommodating path?”65 Through such sacrifice, the Church can lead its members to repentance. Medeiros fully utilized his leadership skill and understanding of the Church in the initial days after his installation as archbishop. He realized that he was replacing an icon in Cushing but was wise enough to be himself and not try to imitate his immediate predecessor. He once stated “You know I was not sent here to replace Cardinal Cushing. The Holy Father sent me here to succeed him and I can only hope and pray that I am allowed to preach the will of God and tell the people the truth.”66 In an initial public venue, he pledged his loyalty to the people, stating, “A priest is a man for others. I shall be for all and shall belong to all, to all of you as your Bishop, your Shepherd and your brother.”67 He believed that the archdiocese needed an infusion of spiritual growth. Michael Lescault has commented, “His concern for promoting the holiness of his people prompted Medeiros to search continually for methods to help them respond to this vocation [call to holiness].”68 His initial outreach to the clergy included a visit to all the seven vicariates in the archdiocese, with the desire to meet with all of his priests. In a generic address to clergy and religious he struck a conciliatory tone, noting the good work they had been done and asking them to assist him in future endeavors: “I am happy to have to depend upon your precious witness to the Kingdom for the building of the Church in our archdiocese, whose name has become justly famous throughout the world, due in no small measure to your life of prayer, sacrificial work in total dedication to Christ and His mission.”69

The New Adventure of Boston

131

Clearly, Humberto Medeiros was making every effort to set a pastoral tone to his role as the new Archbishop of Boston.

NOTES 1. Wall, Interview, August 3, 2019. 2. The Priests Senate was established by Cardinal Cushing in the wake of Vatican II as an important consultative body to the archbishop. Medeiros was highly supportive of the Senate and its work. 3. Boston Herald, January 30, 1070, “Selection of Bishops File, Box #19, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 4. Lukas, Common Ground, 390–91. 5. Ibid. 6. Luigi Raimondi to Humberto Medeiros, May 23, 1970, Apostolic Delegate File, Box #19, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 7. Humberto Medeiros to Pope Paul VI, September 8, 1970, Pope Paul VI File, Box #40, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 8. Lukas, Common Ground, 372–73. See also Philip F. Lawler, The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture (New York: Encounter Books, 2008), 97. 9. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(51) (September 20, 1970), CAT. Extant sources differ slightly on the increase in new parishes and priests during Medeiros’ four-year tenure as Bishop. 10. Robert Trisco to Humberto Medeiros, September 9, 1970, Congratulatory Letters File, Box #52, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 11. Al Koch to Humberto Medeiros, September 15, 1970, Congratulatory Letters File, Box #52, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 12. Joseph McGinnis to Humberto Medeiros, September 18, 1970, Congratulatory Letters File, Box #52, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 13. Humberto Medeiros, Letter to the Diocese of Brownsville, September 8, 1970, Correspondence Medeiros File, ADB. 14. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(52) (October 4, 1970), CAT. 15. Doherty and Garza, Interview, March 8, 2017. 16. Sister Sharon Ann to Humberto Medeiros, September 12, 1970, Unmarked File Box #43, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 17. Valley Catholic Witness, 2(52) (September 20, 1970), CAT. 18. Anderson, Interview, March 10, 2017. 19. Ellis, Catholic Bishops, 121. 20. Ibid., 132. 21. Lukas, Common Ground, 398. 22. Ellsberg, “Medeiros-Self-Effacing,” 2. Writing after his death, the Boston Globe commented: “[K]nowledgeable observers still aren’t certain why a comparative unknown was named to the Boston job.” See Boston Globe October 9, 1983. 23. Boston Globe, October 9, 1983.

132

Chapter 6

24. Texas Catholic Herald, September 11, 1970, Episcopal File, Medeiros Papers, CAT. 25. Joseph McDermott, Interview with the Author, August 20, 2019. 26. The author wrote to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, D.C. requesting permission to review records pertinent to the appointment of Medeiros as Archbishop of Boston. The response received stated that such records are not available to researchers. 27. Ellsberg, “Medeiros-Self-Effacing,” 2. Another theory that circulated was Medeiros was sent to break up the Irish clergy dominance and “to clean up the clerical mafia because he was not political.” See Boston Globe, October 9, 1983. 28. Thomas H. O’Connor, Boston Catholics: A History of the Church and Its People (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998), 285. 29. Robert Lord, John Sexton, and Edward Harrington, History of the Archdiocese of Boston in rthe Various Stages of its Development 1604–1943 (Volume I (New York: Shed & Ward, 1944), 18–19. 30. Ibid., Vol. II, 375–93. 31. Donna Merwick, Boston Priests: 1848–1910. A Study of Social and Intellectual Change (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 3. 32. Ibid., 17. 33. Lord, et al, History of the Archdiocese of Boston (Volume II), 553–87. 34. Ibid. (Volume I), 633. 35. Ibid., 634. 36. Ibid., 29–48; Merwick. Boston Priests, 1, 5. 37. James O’Toole, “Prelates and Politics: Catholics and Politics in Massachusetts, 1900–1970,” in Robert Sulivan and James O’Toole, eds., Catholic Boston: Studies in Religion and Community 1870–1970 (Boston: The Archdiocese of Boston, 1985), 20–60. After his term as governor, Walsh served for nearly 30 years in the United States Senate. 38. O’Toole, “Prelates and Politics,” 44. 39. Rabbi Roland B. Gittlesohn to Humberto Medeiros, September 14, 1970, Congratulatory Letters File, Box #52, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 40. Edward Kennedy to Humberto Medeiros, September 9, 1970, Congratulatory Letters File, Box #52, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 41. Lukas, Common Ground, 391. 42. O’Connor, Boston Catholics, 288–89. 43. Ibid., O’Connor provides the following statistics: Between 1960 and 1978, attendance at mass declined from 75 percent to 55 percent. A significant number of priests left the ministry and the number of seminarians dropped from a high of 418 in 196 to 226 by 1975. Schools were also affected. In 1960, there were 72 parochial high schools, but by 1970 there were 60. In 1970, there were 211 elementary schools, but only 157 by 1975. 44. Driscoll, Interview, October 24, 2016. 45. Boston Globe, October 8, 1970. 46. Cardinal Richard Cushing, “Remarks,” October 7, 1970, Cushing Address Installation File, Box #12 Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Cushing died on November 2, 1970, less than one month after Medeiros’ installation.

The New Adventure of Boston

133

47. Humberto Medeiros, Installation Mass Homily, October 7, 1970, Homily at Installation File, Box #12, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 48. Boston Irish Reporter, October 20, 2010. O’Connor wrote, “Although his formal reception was courteous, there was no great love in the city’s hierarchy for him.” 49. Humberto Medeiros to Bishop Mark Lipa, August 26, 1971, Bishops Correspondence, 1971–74 “L File” Box #96, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 50. James Glinski, “Church in Crisis: The Role of the Archdiocese of Boston in the Effort to Desegregate Boston’s Schools,” (M.A. Thesis) University of Massachusetts, Boston, 1987: 2. 51. Thomas O’Connor, Two Centuries of Faith: The Influence of Catholicism in Boston, 1808–2008 (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2009), 39. 52. Lukas, Common Ground, 373. 53. Ellis, Catholic Bishops Memoir, 132. 54. William Helmick, Interview with the author, October 12, 2018. Bishop Robert Deeley recalls that when Medeiros was installed in Boston the guests from Brownsville sang “De Colores.” Bostonians did not know how to react. Such an event at the outset of his time in Boston in many ways set in motion a pattern of reaction and an attitude that required Medeiros to push back throughout the remainder of his life. See Robert Deeley, Interview with the author, August 21, 2019. 55. Driscoll, Interview, October 20, 2016. 56. Humberto Medeiros, Address J File, Box #79, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AAB. 57. Boston Globe March 4, 1973; New Bedford Standard-Times, October 1, 1980, Boston Installation File, Medeiros Paper, ADFR. 58. Quoted in Boston Globe, September 19, 1983. 59. William Helmick “Cardinal Medeiros remembered,” November 20, 1983, PPGS. 60. Providence Journal February 20, 1983, Boston Installation File, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 61. Lukas, Common Ground, 398–401. As you evidence for his claim, Lukas cited a statement by Medeiros: “I’m not a judge; I have no coercive powers . . . All I can do is preach it [the Gospel], proclaim it and let those who have ears to hear, hear. I can’t crack your head and stick the Book in there.” 62. Ray Ryland to Humberto Medeiros, November 14, 1979, Ru-Rz File, Box #87, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 63. “Boston’s Cardinal Medeiros Fought the Good Fight,” Our Sunday Visitor 72 (October 2, 1983): 3. 64. Humberto Medeiros, “Man’s Cities and God’s Poor,” August 15, 1972, Whatever God Wants, 548. 65. Ibid., 553. 66. Quoted in Boston Globe, September 19, 1983. 67. Boston Herald, October 6, 1970. 68. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 203–04. 69. Humberto Medeiros, Address, September 8, 1970, Unmarked File, Box #43, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Chapter 7

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

Humberto Medeiros’ selection as Archbishop of Boston may have been a surprise to many and his reception by the faithful could be described as “uneven”1; nevertheless, he believed that his appointment was a call from the Lord to go forth with his God-given gifts to bring the message of Jesus Christ to the Church in Boston. While a cursory view of the Church in Boston may not have seen any significant issues left to be addressed from the administration of the iconic Cardinal Richard Cushing, a closer look revealed some highly significant crises, most especially a crushing debt that, as time would show, often dictated diocesan policy and programs for more than a decade. Additionally, Medeiros arrived at a time when many factors in society were combining to bring a sense of unrest and turmoil that strongly affected the affairs of the Church. It would be the task of the new archbishop to address these many difficult issues and to provide a response. The institutional affairs of the archdiocese were his first and highest priority. REORGANIZATION OF THE ARCHDIOCESE As might be expected for any official of Church or state who replaces someone long in standing and of great affection in the community, Humberto Medeiros received the scrutiny of the faithful in Boston. His surprise appointment as archbishop notwithstanding, he settled into his new ministry and began to tackle the arduous task of administrating one of the largest archdioceses in the country. Observers during his tenure as archbishop commented on his administrative style. Certainly, Medeiros stood on the shoulders of some previous giants, not only his immediate predecessor, but a long string of capable prelates. But Medeiros was not a novice; he had proven his mettle 135

136

Chapter 7

in Brownsville. While it was a relatively small and rural diocese, nonetheless Medeiros in essence built the Brownsville Church from the ground up. The first bishop, Adolph Marx, had served in the diocese for less than a month before his journey to Rome for Vatican II and his eventual death. Thus, Medeiros had his own ideas that would soon become evident in his administration of the Archdiocese of Boston. When celebrating his tenth anniversary as archbishop, editors of the archdiocesan newspaper, The Pilot, provided an evaluation of his administrative style. He was described as “an able executive. He is a man of keen mind with excellent intellectual strengths and a wide and diversified background in the priesthood.” He was also described as “a pastor, the shepherd of his flock.”2 In contrast, a hindsight review of his overall administration presents a significantly harsher evaluation of his time as archbishop. The historian Michael Lescault commented, In summary Humberto Medeiros was temperamentally unsuited to the pressure and conflicts which were the lot of the bishop of a large archdiocese in the post-conciliar Church. Decisions came very hard for him. Terribly afraid of hurting people he moved with great care and caution and hoped people would work together. His slow and cautious style of decision making was frustrating to those who wanted rapid change and immediate action. What came to be seen as vacillation caused some to lose patience with him.3

This evaluation, however, fails to appreciate not only what Medeiros accomplished, in his subtle and humble way, but it ignores his inherent belief in justice for all, an attitude that required a listening heart, and the undeniable fact that he faced, as described previously, an almost perfect storm of societal, political, and religious events that simultaneously came together to create a caustic environment that would have challenged the skill of the most capable of administrators. Medeiros was unlike his predecessors and thus his approach to the resolution of issues took a different tact. The historical record demonstrates how he effectively managed the Archdiocese of Boston without bravado, but rather in a simple style, like that of Jesus Christ as opposed to the more defiant style of his predecessors. The historical evaluation of Medeiros’ administrative style serves as the perfect entrée to his aggressive plan to re-organize his unwieldy and vast diocese into more manageable regions. While breaking the tradition of his predecessors, who often conducted business by edict, Medeiros realized that, especially in a post–Vatican II era, a more decentralized approach was more effective; it allowed for greater participation by God’s people. Thus, he immediately began to study various plans being used in other dioceses as a means to assist him in developing a plan for Boston. In February 1972, after significant

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

137

research and consultation, Medeiros announced a major re-organization of the archdiocese. He erected three regions, each supervised by an auxiliary bishop. These were to have at least two vicariates, each supervised by a priest with the title of episcopal vicar. Medeiros articulated his rationale for this move: Indeed one of the main purposes of organizing the Archdiocese into regions and the appointment of bishops for these regions is to foster a greater unity among the priests by special concern for their life and ministry, and to promote the spiritual welfare of all the faithful—priests, religious and laity—within the region in order to achieve stronger archdiocesan unity.4

The regions were set up geographically. The North Region placed under the supervision of Bishop Jeremiah Minihan, encompassed 150 parishes north of Boston; the South Region under Bishop Joseph Maguire totaled 128 parishes in Norfolk and Plymouth counties. The Central or Greater Boston Region, under Bishop Lawrence Riley, held 131 parishes in and around Boston. Ultimately, each of these regions was further subdivided into four vicariates. These bishops were empowered to resolve matters that previously had been adjudicated by the chancery, allowing a quicker resolution to various issues. The bishops served as regional “listening posts,” keeping Medeiros informed of issues and problems. Additionally, Medeiros appointed vicars for various apostolates, including urban affairs, spiritual development, and pastoral development.5 Utilizing a post-Vatican II approach, Medeiros set up a consultation process for the twelve priest vicars. He stressed the urgency to proceed rapidly in the process, writing “I believe the sooner the vicariates are set up the more efficient will be the implementation of the plans for the new organization of the archdiocese.”6 Medeiros and Bishop Lawrence Riley, both suggested that the four vicars in each region should be chosen by allowing priests to vote for candidates. The names of the top five vote getters were to be submitted to the archbishop, who would make the appointments.7 Medeiros hoped that these vicars would be “pastors to the pastors.”8 Medeiros’ motivation in his re-organization plan was centered around his basic desire to serve better the people in his archdiocese. He wrote, “There is nothing I desire more than to make sure that a genuine unity, based upon a spirit of Christian charity, exists among people—especially among our priests and religious.”9 Additionally, Medeiros sought to emphasize the importance of the role of auxiliary bishops and vicars, empowering them to do more and to make decisions. Overall, as was his basic purview on ministry, Medeiros sought to enhance the pastoral relationship between the Church as institution and the people, so as to reflect the growing awareness of our common responsibility.10 

138

Chapter 7

Figure 7.1  Medeiros Working in his Office. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

In February 1975, Medeiros’ original plan of three regions was expanded to four. Anticipating this move, Medeiros announced that Pope Paul VI had appointed four new auxiliary bishops: Thomas Daily, John D’Arcy, John Mulcahy, and Joseph Ruocco. The regions, now with new names—Boston, under Lawrence Riley, Brockton, administered by Joseph Maguire, Lynn, supervised by Mulcahy, and Lowell, headed by Ruocco—contained approximately 100 parishes each, divided into four vicariates, each with approximately 25 parishes (see figure 7.1).11 Bishop D’Arcy described the new organization as “one of the best steps ever taken in the Boston archdiocese.”12 ARCHDIOCESAN PROGRAMS Whereas in Brownsville Medeiros was forced to build the diocese virtually from the ground up, many Church programs in Boston had been well established for decades. Still, one of the primary and early initiatives Medeiros attempted to implement was his highly successful Visitors for Christ program. Medeiros’ signature initiative had been established in other areas including Juneau, Alaska, and Camden, New Jersey, and as far away as

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

139

Australia. Since the program was lay driven, it was completely consistent with Medeiros’ basic Vatican II mentality. In a 1978 interview, Medeiros described the essential role of the laity in the post-Vatican II Church: “The laity’s chief importance, especially in our society, is [to] bring the Gospel into the structure of society, into the media, the world of business or the world of education, and things of this sort.”13 Medeiros believed that all people are called by Christ himself to this common apostolate through their baptism and confirmation.14 As early as April 1971, Medeiros went to the Priest Senate asking the body to review literature on his Visitors for Christ program. Later in September he again went to the Senate, urging them to adopt the program. Ultimately in May 1972, the Priest Senate voted to support and implement Visitors for Christ.15 Medeiros used his Pastoral Letter, “Man’s Cities and God’s Poor,” to introduce the program to the faithful in the archdiocese. He suggested that the plan was “to be our common pastoral approach to dissolve ghettos of hatred and mistrust which separate men from one another.”16 He provided four specific goals for the program: (1) Announce the Good News to the poor, (2) Bring Christ’s respect to those who suffer from non-recognition, (3) Reach out to those who have been manipulated, and (4) Generate material respect for all people.17 Simultaneously, he presented a personal perspective in his rationale for the program: “I have chosen the Visitors for Christ Movement . . . to dissolve the apathy and feeling of alienation which separates man from God and from one another.”18He further suggested that the need to reach out to those on the margins was more critical than ever, especially in a metropolitan area like Boston where the numbers of people who feel alienated for whatever reason are much greater than in a rural area, leading at times for this population to be forgotten. Again, invoking the spirit of lay participation so strongly promoted by Vatican II, he asserted, “We firmly hold that it is impossible to be a true follower of Christ and at the same time be indifferent to the life situation of any man. Therefore, I ask you to join an organized program of visitation to families and individuals in your own parish.”19 He warned that participants in Visitors for Christ must never act as superior to others, but rather must manifest the love of Christ by sharing their faith and, if it be possible, other treasures with the community at large.20 The program, launched in October 1973, was to be instituted in all regions and parishes by the local bishop and the priest vicars. Father Paul Donovan was appointed by Medeiros to head the program. As in Brownsville, the program was to be used for census work and catechist recruitment; it was never to be used for any reason to collect or pledge monies. Medeiros saw many challenges for parishes, especially in the area of communication, and he hoped that Visitors for Christ could help in finding solutions: “We must respond with a workable system communicating to all our people the truths

140

Chapter 7

of our faith, the whole of our salvation and the love that God our Father has for each of us.”21 Medeiros envisioned that the program would meet with the grand success it experienced in Brownsville.22 As in Brownsville, the Visitors for Christ program in Boston was organized on the parish level. The local pastor played an essential role in the success of the program. Along with the critical role of the pastor, each parish was to have a Visitors for Christ Committee to include the President of the Parish Council or his delegate, the pastor or an associate pastor at the parish, a secretary, and a few additional members.23 Medeiros commented, “The committee must work closely with the priests of the parish and with the Parish Council serving as liaison from the top of the Visitors for Christ framework downward and channeling the information from the parish upward to the priests and the Parish Council.”24 As the Committee was the hub, so the section leaders served as the spokes of the wheel. Session leaders divided their section into subsections consisting of between eight and ten homes, to be visited by one specific team. Volunteers in the program were to meet regularly (ten times per year) “as a total parish” as well as once per year with their regional bishop and the archbishop.25 All participants in the program should be properly trained through the use of workshops. It was recommended that all participants could prepare by living the popular Cursillo or similar retreat programs.26 Believing in its efficacy, Medeiros placed his heart and soul into the Visitors for Christ program, but what he experienced in Brownsville did not materialize in Boston. Michael Lescault hypothesized that the failure was due to the lack of enthusiasm of Boston priests for the initiative. He suggests that the Boston clergy did not feel it was possible to transplant something that had worked in a rural diocese such as Brownsville to the metropolitan of Boston. Where in Brownsville people knew each other, most parishioners in Boston did not. Simply put, the city was not an environment conducive to a program that worked on one-on-one contact between parishioners.27 Was the failure, however, the general individualistic attitude of Boston Catholics, or rather the lack of a greater communitarian perspective as present in Brownsville? Did the general affluence of Boston collide with Medeiros’ overt and persistent outreach to those who stood in the margins? While these questions cannot be fully answered, Medeiros’ inability to implement something that was so basic to his understanding of ministry must have been a great disappointment for him. Although the new Visitors for Christ program was not as successful as hoped, Medeiros’ efforts to reach out to the marginalized were manifested through the archdiocese’s existent Catholic Charities. In 1974, Catholic Charities, Inc. articulated five specific goals: (1) Convening the Christian community and other well-concerned people (2) Continuing commitment to

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

141

service, (3) Humanizing and transforming the social order, (4) Coordination and expansion of planning and administrative services, and (5) A systematic effort to conduct regular evaluations of services and programs.28 During Medeiros’ tenure as archbishop, Catholic charities served approximately 20,000 people per year. Medeiros fully supported the efforts of Catholic Charities, regularly hosting garden parties at his residence in an effort to raise money for their work to support the poor.29 He fully backed programs that provided aid to senior citizens and protested against Federal cutbacks in the Department of Health Education and Welfare that hurt families. He wrote, “Our great country does understand that we must be supportive of family services if we are to grow, let alone survive.”30 Medeiros also supported various collaborative programs of Christian service. He encouraged the faithful to consider working in such programs, especially those people “who have special interest in the social mission of the Church in the local neighborhood.”31 Catholic Charities officials, both local and more broadly, were indeed grateful for Medeiros’ support. Father Francis O’Sullivan, archdiocesan director of Catholic Charities Boston, wrote to Medeiros, “Your presence at the variety of fund-raising functions and the opening of your residence are special treats to the many people who support us . . . We are grateful for this gift that you share with us.”32  Another significant group oriented toward outreach to those on the margins was the Archdiocesan Commission on Human Rights. This commission existed to advise the archbishop on ways in which the archdiocese might effectively deal with issues in the areas of education, housing, employment, and justice, particularly as they affect the poor and minorities. Additionally, the commission advised the archbishop on ways to educate clergy, religious, and the laity concerning all aspects of social justice. In June 1971, Medeiros was briefed by the commission concerning the disorder in Boston. Initially, Medeiros requested time to study the various issues. However, the chair of the commission, Patricia Goler, pressed Medeiros for action, threatening that she and other board members would resign if Medeiros would not respond to their requests for action.33 Medeiros was advised, “The Commission on Human Rights thinks it is imperative that you, the Archbishop of Boston, speak out clearly and pointedly.”34 The dispute died down relatively quickly, but the Commission was disbanded shortly after. A few years passed, and in February 1978, due in large part to the fallout from federally mandated school busing, Medeiros formed the Archdiocesan Justice and Peace Commission. Its charter was for five years, to be extended by the archbishop after consultation (see figure 7.2). The body consisted of 40–50 members, all appointed by the archbishop. Medeiros appointed Father Michael Groden as chairman. The commission was mandated to act in two areas: (1) Action/response and (2) Education/information. Within two years

142

Chapter 7

Figure 7.2  Medeiros in the Chancery Office. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

of its foundation, the Commission’s membership had dwindled to thirty “by routine resignation.”35 Medeiros’ oversight of archdiocesan affairs included several other smaller groups and commissions. In 1975, in an attempt to deepen the spirituality of the archdiocese, Medeiros opened the Office of Spiritual Development, under the direction of one of his auxiliary bishops, John D’Arcy. Its original purpose was to serve clergy, but it quickly expanded to religious and laity. Medeiros commented, “It is my hope that, under God’s grace, it will prove

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

143

beneficial to the work of Christ in Boston.”36 It offered traditional programs for parishioners and days of reflection for clergy. D’Arcy could proudly state that spiritual life seemed to be advancing in the parishes.37 Similarly, Lescault applauds the Office’s work: “[B]ecause of its traditional, conservative, and familiar nature and the fact it did not make excessive demands in terms of planning, preparation, or expense on the part of the parish, the program met with considerable success.”38 Two additional offices established by Medeiros were Urban Affairs and Communication. In the fall of 1971, in order to combat problems in cities, Medeiros established the Office for Urban Affairs, concerned with the problems of poverty, housing, crime prevention, and the corresponding role of priests and parishes in our urban society. The program was placed under the administration of Father Michael Groden. The office became a central player in Medeiros’ significant efforts to secure low-income housing in four different geographic areas within the archdiocese. In February 1981, the Office of Communications was established to comply with the Vatican II’s recommendation that “every diocese should have its own official and permanent spokesman or press officer to issue the news and give clear explanations of the documents of Church.”39 Medeiros appointed Father Peter Conley as director of the Communications Office. In announcing the establishment of the office, Medeiros commented, “The Church too must use these means as a vehicle to spread its Gospel. This is particularly necessary so that the good which our Church accomplishes in so many big and little ways can be made known to a world hungry for ‘good news’.”40 Medeiros’ concern for the poor and marginalized was also manifested in his strong support for family life in all its aspects. Medeiros described the Christian family “as a sign of God’s presence in the world.”41 In a homily delivered at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, he stated, “Today when productivity, prestige or even physical attractiveness are regarded as a gauge of personal worth, the family has the special vocation to serve as a place where people are loved not for what they do or what they have but simply because they are.”42 Medeiros’ outreach to youth was also significant. Speaking about abandoned or orphaned children, he once commented in a hopeful tone, “One of my greatest frustrations and sorrows has been not to be able to provide adequately for them. Hopefully a Covenant House will soon open in the City of Boston to provide for the needs of troubled youth in this area.”43 His concern was also manifested in his writing, dedicating three specific pastoral letters to youth.44 Saint Ann’s Home was another important archdiocesan institution that supported family life. The Home opened in 1925 as an orphanage and served in that capacity as well as providing care for the elderly until 1966. In that year Saint Ann’s discontinued its programs for orphans and the elderly, and

144

Chapter 7

it reorganized itself as a residential treatment center for emotionally disturbed children. During Medeiros’ tenure as archbishop, Saint Ann’s was a community-based group home for adolescents and foster home for children ready for release, but with no home willing to accept them.45 A review of its meeting minutes shows that Medeiros, who served as chairman, did not regularly attend meetings. Nevertheless, his periodic presence and interventions demonstrated his clear interest in the good work the Home accomplished for youth. Humberto Medeiros was an active participant with two additional family oriented apostolates. He was a board member of the Family Counseling and Guidance Center and regularly attended their meetings. He has also supported family values through his participation in The Catholic Family Life Office. Medeiros supported the office’s programs: “Essential to the work are the pre-Cana and CANA conferences which promote true, permanent and happy marriages among our brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus Christ.”46 Although not directly related to his strong advocacy for the family, Medeiros showed surprising openness to Charismatic renewal, which was growing from its roots at Notre Dame and Duquesne Universities.47 He supported the idea that Christians were seeking a livelier spiritual life. He stood in union with the basic policy of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops as they called for priests involved in the movement to be liaisons to the larger Catholic community. Yet, he was cautious, commenting that “as with most devotional practices, there is need for guidance and instruction.”48 He also commented, “My conviction is that only with appropriate help from our priests may these groups develop in a way that is helpful to all.”49 As the movement strengthened and became more popular, Medeiros’ transitioned to actively support the presence of charismatic groups in parishes. In a general letter to priests he wrote, “I would like . . . to draw your attention to the many prayer groups which . . . call themselves ‘Charismatic’ or ‘Pentecostal’.” The history of such groups in the past suggests to us now that it is very important to help them find a home in our existing parochial life.”50 Additionally, Medeiros agreed to serve as a patron for the 1975 International Conference on the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church, held in Rome during the weekend of Pentecost.51 In 1976, he celebrated mass for a large gathering of Charismatic Catholics on Pentecost Sunday, stating in his homily, “The sight of you is a great consolation to me.”52 In June 1980, Medeiros completed nearly a decade as the archbishop. In a forward-looking mode, he constructed a pastoral plan. The three-part program sought to prepare a formation plan in parishes in an attempt to make the faithful better evangelists and to give general support to the concept of evangelization. The three parts were: Part I: Seminars aimed to deepen the level of learning and understanding of the basic methods of evangelization, enabling

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

145

the faithful to communicate this message in their parishes. Part II: Leadership Training sought to assist parishes with the skills necessary to create teams, such as parish councils, that could promote evangelization. Part III: Personal Spirituality provided opportunities for individuals and teams to deepen their personal spirituality through days of reflection and retreats.53 MEDEIROS JOINS THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS Humberto Medeiros’ rather meteoric rise from a priest in Fall River to Archbishop of Boston in slightly over four years was capped in 1973 with his elevation to the College of Cardinals. On February 2, Pope Paul VI announced the selection of thirty bishops, including two others from the United States, to be raised to the level of Cardinal.54 Medeiros expressed his gratitude with great humility: I am grateful to His Holiness, Pope Paul VI for the singular honor which she has graciously conferred upon the clergy, religious and laity of the Archdiocese of Boston by making me, their chief Shepherd, a member of the Sacred College of Cardinals. Even though this is a sign of the Holy Father’s warm affection for me personally, still we must bear in mind that ultimately the honor belongs to the faithful portion of the Lord’s flock living within this great Archdiocese.55

Medeiros received numerous congratulatory letters and various messages upon the announcement. One of his former professors at Catholic University, George Seifert, wrote: Of all the students I have had in my almost 40 years here at The Catholic University, there is none who has gone so far; and it is, of course, the source of the deepest gratification to a teacher that a student whose gifts of mind and spirit and whose potentialities of achievement, he recognized at the time, should, in a steady progression from responsibility to greater responsibility, have realized them in such superabundant measure.56

The consistory was held on March 5, 1973 (see figure 7.3). A large contingent from both Fall River and Boston made the trans-Atlantic trip. After the celebration in Saint Peter’s Square, Medeiros, who was assigned the titular Church of Santa Susanna that was vacant since the death of Cardinal Cushing,57 invited those who had come to the festivities to a celebratory mass in the Eternal City. Medeiros’ new celebrity, however, changed neither his attitude toward ministry nor in any way transformed his basic humble nature. He continued to insist that his new position within the Church was more an honor for the

146

Chapter 7

Figure 7.3  Medeiros at the 1973 Consistory when he was made a cardinal. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

faithful in Boston than for him. He never lost his “down-to-earth” nature that could succinctly be described as humble. Michael Lescault accurately summarized Medeiros’ attitude and his reluctance to use his position in any more authoritative way: “Reserved, even diffident, Medeiros was reticent about a prominent national role. While he did not hesitate to speak out on issues he saw as important for the national Church, he did not use his position as a platform from which to pursue a personal agenda.”58  RESOLVING THE DIOCESAN DEBT When Humberto Medeiros arrived in Boston, the archdiocese’s financial condition was grave. Although Church officials most assuredly were aware of the situation, it seems that little was done to resolve the problem. No one was ringing the warning bell or pushing the “panic button,” although it most assuredly was appropriate to do so. Cardinal O’Connell astutely managed the finances of the archdiocese, even during the Great Depression, but because of financial constraints, some projects were not completed, and others needed endeavors were never started. Cardinal Cushing was unquestionably a prelate who believed in expanding archdiocesan institutions. During his tenure

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

147

76 new parishes, over 400 new chapels along with 60 new schools were constructed. This massive building program created a significant burden on the economic resources available. Cushing’s big heart, especially his desire to help religious communities in Boston, as well as many entities outside the archdiocese, proved somewhat problematic.59 Commenting on the situation, the historian John Tracy Ellis wrote, “His generosity at times outran his purse and he gave out money when the supply was dangerously close to exhaustion.”60 In 1967, in order to deal with a reported $80 million debt, Cushing initiated a capital campaign, “Jubilee: Tribute and Challenge.” James Dunn, formerly a Professor of Finance at Boston College, but then serving as a financial consultant for the archdiocese, convinced Cushing of the need for this capital campaign. This was a planned three-year drive, with the goal of $50 million. Its scheduled completion was planned to coincide with the Cardinal’s 75th birthday and his 25th anniversary as archbishop. The drive, coordinated by Bishop Jeremiah Minihan, employed the method of “Saturation Sundays.” Volunteers were sent out on six Sundays, asking the faithful to pledge a contribution to the archdiocese. By the end of 1970, the drive had raised $27,744,392, of which $21,860,692 was applied to the debt.61 Writing to Medeiros in April 1972, Dunn reported, “Looking at it from hindsight, if I had not done so [convince Cushing to initiate the campaign], the archdiocese would be completely bankrupt today.”62 In March 1967, in a rather ironic twist, Medeiros had received a letter from his former bishop, James Connolly, in which the latter stated, “Cushing does not want to leave any debt to his successor.”63 This archdiocesan debt, its elimination, and its effects throughout Medeiros’ tenure as archbishop in Boston undoubtedly colored every aspect of his ministry. Medeiros too acknowledged the financial quandary that met him from his first days in Boston: “Among the greatest problems facing this archdiocese, in my opinion, is the incredible indebtedness and financial burden which we must ask all to share. This is especially difficult at a time when the faith of the people seems to be disturbed and economy of the country steadily having to be restricted.”64Medeiros realized that the financial situation jeopardized existing archdiocesan ministries, writing, “Unless we raise new revenues, our present programs will have to be curtailed or eliminated.”65 The best available extant data reveals that on July 1, 1970, the archdiocesan debt was $45,704,000.66 Resolving the debt was a top priority, for Medeiros believed it was his responsibility to place the archdiocese on sound financial footing. As a man from a working-class background and an immigrant, he felt bothered by financial mismanagement. As one of his former auxiliaries, Archbishop Alfred Hughes stated, “He [Medeiros] believed you don’t spend what you

148

Chapter 7

don’t have.”67 The only immediate income source available to pay pressing bills was the archdiocesan revolving fund, a cash flow system that allowed the archdiocese to borrow monies from wealthier parishes to distribute to poorer parishes for various projects. In this case, however, the resources borrowed were for immediate archdiocesan needs. Clearly, the financial situation required cutbacks; new projects and initiatives were virtually impossible to start.68 Medeiros’ efforts to eliminate the debt occupied much of his time. Writing after Medeiros’ death, the auxiliary Bishop Thomas Daily wrote to the priests of the archdiocese extolling Medeiros’ general efforts toward stewardship: “Since he became our Archbishop in 1970, Cardinal Medeiros worked tirelessly so that each individual in the Archdiocese of Boston would better understand the biblical concept of stewardship.”69 Medeiros was indefatigable in attending fundraisers; he would go anywhere he was requested to raise monies.70 Thomas O’Connor described Medeiros’ conscientious efforts to raise funds: “He [Medeiros] set about to solve the problems of a $40 million debt in a thoughtful, methodical, and professional manner, employing capable financial advisors and using modern managerial techniques.”71 Medeiros’ closest advisor in liquidating the debt, the archdiocesan financial consultant James Dunn, was frustrated when he realized how finances in the archdiocese had been handled, especially the failure of Cushing to cajole pastors to meet their assessments. He wrote, It would appear that I must feel that I am the only one who recognizes the “crisis situation” of the archdiocese . . . Once again, I think I appreciate as much as anyone the problems with which you are faced. Yet, Archbishop, some positive action has to be taken; it cannot continue the way it is. I do believe that the archdiocese cannot be administered as it has been in the past.72

Medeiros placed his trust and confidence in Dunn to help him resolve the financial crisis. From the first day he rang the warning bell about the debt, Dunn told Medeiros that immediate fundraising action was necessary. Heeding the call and ready to act, Medeiros believed that stewardship was practiced in two related areas. First, it was a responsibility for all Christians to share with others. Second, there was a need to manage whatever time, treasure, and talent the Lord had given to members of the Church.73 In a speech delivered in October 1973 to the First International Stewardship Seminar in Rome, Medeiros presented his philosophy of stewardship in a more direct and challenging manner: “Not everyone can give everything, but everyone can give something . . . The Lord’s bounty has been widely distributed and so it must be widely dispersed.”74 Medeiros sought to speak to men’s hearts

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

149

about their responsibility toward one another and prompt them to respond by providing the opportunity to exercise charity. Thus, he saw his role in part to provide this opportunity. At that point, it was up to them how they used it.75 Prompted by Dunn’s dire warnings, Medeiros lost no time in acting. On April 13 through 15, a series of meetings was held for all priests to explain the financial indebtedness of the archdiocese and the need for its resolution. In a statement published after these meetings, Medeiros wrote: “Only a few years ago, the archdiocese was literally on the brink of bankruptcy. Only the cash received from the Jubilee campaign made it possible for the archdiocese to avoid bankruptcy. If it were not for that program the Archdiocese of Boston would be in the hands of the banks today.”76 Thus, on April 15, the Archbishop’s Stewardship Appeal, with the theme “We Need One Another,” was first publicly announced, “to meet the urgent needs for additional revenues for Archdiocesan programs.”77 The Martin J. Moran Company, a professional fundraising group, was hired to oversee the drive. Locally, Monsignor Francis Lally was placed in charge of the appeal effort. The pledge and collection date were scheduled for May 16 and a goal of $7 million set.78 Medeiros accepted the recommendation of the Archdiocesan Finance Committee that each parish be assessed based on the number of families. Later, however, when some complained that the assessment was based on a percentage of the offertory collection, exceptions were made. Still, inconsistencies were noted. For example, some pastors in the past who had over reported families to justify more staff now backtracked under the assessment rules. On other occasions, pastors under-reported offertory. Medeiros tried to be equitable, especially considering parishes with schools, allowing that they were a significant drain on parish resources. If assessments were not paid, they were marked “past-due.” When times were better the same parishes were expected to pay, yet parishes were never punished for any failure to pay. Pastors often petitioned Medeiros for relief, and modifications and exceptions to the rules were generally made. Lescault comments, “Nevertheless, demands which the appeal made on time and resources produced some contention and dissatisfaction.”79 Medeiros was actively and personally involved in the fund drive from the very outset. Regional meetings to promote the Stewardship Appeal were set up and Medeiros was asked to attend as many of these local get-togethers as possible.80 In a clergy conference he spoke generically of his need for assistance and support: “In this burdensome area, my dear priests, may I ask your help, your hand, your cooperation. To us is given this task, this ministry which we should not shrink from even if it brings a bit of rejection and misunderstanding at times.”81 Medeiros also appealed directly to his fellow priests, asking them to contribute to the Stewardship Appeal personally. He admitted that, even with the

150

Chapter 7

Jubilee Fund initiated by Cardinal Cushing, available funds were insufficient to meet the need. Therefore, he felt forced to try some new initiative, probably on an annual basis, to raise funds.82 The immediacy of the need for funds was strongly stressed by Medeiros in his various written and oral appeals. One memorandum read in part: “The picture is not a very happy one . . . We simply do not have funds available to sponsor those programs for the remainder of 1971 . . . I would not ask you for help so soon if we were not already in a critical condition.”83 As monies began to be received, Medeiros expressed his gratitude speaking of a “heartening response to our appeal for help.”84 It was very important for Medeiros that all aspects of the Stewardship Appeal be transparent. Thus, he called for public disclosure of all financial audits and complete openness with respect to financial policies of the archdiocese. He stated, “Surely it is good that the people of God know how their goodwill offerings are being used for the works of the Church.”85 In 1972, consistent with this policy, Medeiros published the budget of the archdiocese for the first time. He stated at a press conference, “This is our archdiocese; these are our monies; this is our debt; and it is our generosity and sacrifice, our faith and trust in the future that are reflected in these figures . . . I am merely the keeper of the household of the Faith.”86 Additionally, Medeiros ordered that a thorough audit of all archdiocesan finances be conducted. Lescault commented, “Medeiros’ management of the archdiocese’s finances was characterized by the overriding sense of integrity and he was completely unwilling to compromise this integrity to improve the financial situation of the archdiocese.”87 The Appeal was successful, but monies collected varied from year to year. Goals and targets were set annually. While significant funds were received, the targeted goal was never reached. The first-year collection of $6,152,300 was the best during Medeiros’ tenure. Annual collections trended downward, but generally remained in the area of $5.5 million.88 The Stewardship Appeal was helpful and derailed the crisis situation of possible bankruptcy, but additional action was required to eliminate the debt while simultaneously maintaining operations of the archdiocese in as normal a manner as possible. Medeiros acknowledged that the situation was serious, but he believed the challenge could be met: “We are in a cash flow crisis in the Archdiocese. Our financial limitations are obvious. Our hopes to fulfill the needed ministries of the present are not dimmed, however, by these harsh monetary realities. Rather, they encourage all of us to meet the challenges that confront us.”89 Raising money through the Stewardship Appeal was one fork of various efforts to eliminate the debt. It was also necessary to cut expenses. Thus, the various ministries, commissions, and general works of the archdiocese were divided into five different priority categories: (1) Essential, (2) Necessary, (3) Important, (4) Expendable, and (5) Merge or

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

151

Consolidation. After a close review of all areas and the implementation of mandated cutbacks, the archdiocese was still operating with a deficit close to $4 million annually, as reported in 1974 and 1975.90 Operating the archdiocese in a deficit forced Medeiros to take additional action. In November 1974, he established a Priorities Committee to determine how archdiocesan funds should be allocated. The Committee was asked “to establish means in general to determine precedence in order, rank, need, privilege, and urgency.”91 The Committee published a priorities list that served as an advisory tool to Medeiros.92 In May 1975, he prepared to make more drastic budget cuts while seeking to increase revenues from the Stewardship Appeal. He described to his priests the need to act: “If we do not do this, then the only alternative will be to refinance our present twenty-two-million-dollar debt at an enormous increase in the rate and amount of interest . . . I beg you to help me to avoid this.”93 Throughout the latter part of the 1970s, the archdiocese continued to operate in a deficit. For example, the 1975–1976-approved budget for the archdiocese was $10.5 million. Estimated revenue was set at $2.2 million and stewardship contributions were budgeted at $5.3 million, leaving a deficit of $3 million with no appreciable funds to meet the shortfall.94 Thus, the decision was made to sell two archdiocesan institutions and the property on which they stood: the former Saint Peter High School in Gloucester and the former Cardinal O’Connell Seminary in Jamaica Plain.95 Despite the financial quagmire, cutbacks, and even the need to sell properties, the archdiocese continued to provide services as it always had done. Medeiros insisted on tight controls and budget restrictions but made every effort to continue as normal an operation as possible. Medeiros never assigned blame for the debt. Rather, using his characteristically humble and kind approach, he pointed to all the good that Cardinal Cushing had done through his building programs of new schools and churches, projects that ultimately created the debt that was Medeiros’ burden to eliminate. Medeiros once stated, “The Archdiocesan debt is a just debt, honorably incurred. It must be justly and honorably exonerated.”96 Rather silently and with little fanfare, Medeiros professionally, fairly, with as little disruption as possible, reduced the debt year by year. His efforts, while hardly recognized during his life, have been touted by historians. Thomas O’Connor commented: With the help of tighter administrative oversight and increasingly successful (and professional) fundraising, the debt was liquidated without major cutbacks in programs or the sale of church property.97

In March 1981, The Pilot acknowledged that the Stewardship Appeal had raised over $53 million, most of which had gone to subsidize poor parishes and schools, the retirement of priests and nuns, support for family counseling

152

Chapter 7

efforts and Catholic charities, as well as programs for the handicapped and the homeless.98 Clearly, Medeiros efforts not only saved the Archdiocese of Boston financially, but he also simultaneously never neglected those most vulnerable in society. While the Stewardship Appeal and strict financial management of funds, including necessary cutbacks and sale of properties, were the primary means used by Medeiros to liquidate the archdiocese’s debt, a second development initiative was inaugurated in May 1975. Under the chairmanship of Donald Evans, a lay-membership group called, “Friends of the Cardinal,” was established “to provide the human services so desperately needed in the archdiocese, and, at the same time, allow him [Medeiros] to put archdiocesan finances on a sound basis.”99 In a letter inviting people to join, Evans wrote, “We can no longer hope that the work of the archdiocese can be accomplished without significant lay support.”100 The group was formed to promote an intensive fundraising campaign on an annual basis from 1975 to 1978. Invitations were extended to membership for contribution at the level of $1000.101 In November 1977, as a means to maintain total transparency, as he done with the archdiocesan audit earlier, Medeiros announced the formation of a four-member Budget Advisory Committee, chaired by Bishop Daniel Hart, that was to oversee all ethical aspects of archdiocesan funds. Medeiros explained, “Faithful stewardship of the money calls for its investment . . . At the same time, the good of a high rate of return may not be sought without considering the moral implications of investing.”102 Besides ethical oversight, the Committee was charged to make recommendations to the Cardinal so that (1) the debt, principal, and interest could be liquidated by 1985 without financing and (2) to assure that the archdiocese would live within its current fiscal year revenues and resources.103 Final liquidation of the archdiocesan debt was almost completed at the time of Medeiros untimely death in September 1983. Multiple sources indicate that when Medeiros died the debt stood at approximately $520,000.104 As one of his first acts as Medeiros’ successor, Archbishop Bernard Law paid the remainder of the dead from existing archdiocesan funds.105 Medeiros’ achievement was noted even in his day. In October 1980, although the process to eliminate debt was still in progress, The Pilot spoke of the “almost incredible achievement of reducing the debt of the archdiocese $40 million while introducing many new apostolates and expanding others.”106 Historians have rightly given Medeiros justified plaudits for his herculean efforts to liquidate the debt and still operate the archdiocese with minimal cutbacks. Thomas O’Connor has noted that while he received adulation from those who worked closely with him in the process, Medeiros received little appreciation from pastors and parishioners, many of whom were unaware of the magnitude of the debt and its implications for the Church in Boston.107 His mentor

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

153

at Catholic University, John Tracy Ellis, however, applauded the efforts of his former student: In the midst of these public encounters when the media were almost always against him for his conservative stance, little heed was paid to the archbishop’s dedicated service to his pastoral duties and his significant accomplishment in quietly paying off the enormous archdiocesan debt—variously estimated as high as $60 million—an achievement of no ordinary kind during a period of severe economic recession and widespread unemployment.108

Michael Lescault also rightly praised Medeiros’ efforts: “Medeiros not only paid off the archdiocesan debt, but kept apostolates going without major disruption . . . Nonetheless, without fanfare or boast, he guaranteed the ability of himself and his successors to fulfill their mission.”109 NOTES 1. Hughes, Interview, August 6, 2019. 2. The Pilot, October 3, 1980. 3. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season.” 78. 4. Quoted in Ibid., 28–30. See also, O’Connor, Boston Catholics, 293. 5. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 34, 31. 6. Lawrence Riley to Humberto Medeiros, March 15, 1972, Bishop Lawrence Riley File, Box #109, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 7. Ibid. 8. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 32. 9. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 33. 10. The Pilot, February 20, 1972. 11. Lescault, “In Season ad Out of Season,” 32. 12. Quoted in O’Connor, Boston Catholics, 293. 13. Humberto Medeiros, Interview found in Episcopal Times, January 1978, Roman Catholic Medeiros Interview File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 14. Humberto Medeiros, Christmas Message 1978, December 21, 1978 Archdiocesan News Bureau File 1978, Box #59, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 15. Impart, 6(9) (May 1972), AABo. 16. Humberto Medeiros,” Man’s Cities and God’s Poor,” August 15, 1972, in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 532. 17. Ibid. 18. “Program Goals and Organization,” n.d. [1973], Visitors for Christ File, Box #70, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 19. Humberto Medeiros to “My Beloved Visitors for Christ,” n.d. [1973] Visitors for Christ File, Box #70, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 20. “Program Goals and Organization,” n.d. [1973], Visitors for Christ File, Box #70, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

154

Chapter 7

21. “Program Goals and Organizations, n.d. [1973], Visitors for Christ File, Box #70, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 22. Humberto Medeiros to Bishop William Connare, January 3, 1974, Bishops Correspondence “C” File, Box #96. Boston, Medeiros papers, AABo. 23. The Pilot, October 19, 1973. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. “Program Goals and Organization,” n.d. [1973], Visitors for Christ File, Box #70, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. See also Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 207–08. 27. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 208–09. 28. Catholic Charitable Bureau of the Archdiocese of Boston Statement of Purpose and Goals, June 11, 1974, Catholic Charities 1974–76 File, Box #61, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 29. Humberto Medeiros to Robert Fitzgerald, April 16, 1981, Catholic Charities 1981 File, Box #61, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 30. Humberto Medeiros to Philip Rutledge, March 15, 1973, Catholic Charities 1973 File, Box #61, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. In a similar light, he argued against possible reductions in Federal financing: “We must also make every effort to be sure we can serve the families and children who still need our care.” See Humberto Medeiros to Robert Fitzgerald, April 16, 1981, Catholic Charities 1981 File, Box #61, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 31. Humberto Medeiros to “Reverend Dear Father,” n.d. [January 1981], Catholic Charities 1981 File, Box #61, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 32. Father Francis O’Sullivan to Humberto Medeiros, December 26, 1978, Catholic Charities 1977–79 File Box #61, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. O’Sullivan’s successor, Eugene McNamara was equally grateful for Medeiros’ support: “I marvel at your stamina—your patience—your fortitude . . . A million thanks for all you did for all of us at Catholic Charities.” See Monsignor Eugene McNamara to Humberto Medeiros, December 11, 1980, Catholic Charities 1980 File, Box #61, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 33. Patricia Goler, et al. to Humberto Medeiros, October 28, 1971, Paul Rynne to Humberto Medeiros, November 11, 1972, Commission on Human Rights 1971–73 File, Box #62, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 34. Paul Rynne to Humberto Medeiros, November 11, 1972, Commission on Human Rights 1971–73 File, Box #62, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 35. Boston Herald American February 22, 1980, Archdiocesan Peace and Justice Commission File, Box #59, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 36. Humberto Medeiros to James Morse, February 22, 1977, Priest Correspondence Mo-Mz File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 37. Press Release, June 6, 1980, D’Arcy Correspondence File, Box #111, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 38. Lescault, Ín Season and Out of Season,” 210. 39. Archdiocesan News Bureau, February 5, 1981, Boston Pilot Office (Hereafter BPO) Braintree, Massachusetts.

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

155

40. Humberto Medeiros to “Dear Beloved in Christ,” June 14, 1981, Chancery 1981 File, Box #114, Boston, Medeiros papers, AABo. 41. Humberto Medeiros “Christian Living and the Family,” CCD Congress 1975 File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 42. The Pilot, December 24, 1976. 43. Humberto Medeiros, Homily, December 25, 1981, Christian Family File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. The original Covenant House was established in 1972 in New York City. Its ministry was to assist homeless, runaway and trafficked children with housing and various support services. 44. The three letters were: “Come Follow Me,” October 7, 1977, “Show Us the Way,” Easter 1979, and “Come Meet Me in My Church,” Christmas 1982. 45. Saint Ann’s Home “Overall Goals and Objectives,” n.d, [1977–1978], St, Ann’s Home File, Box #68, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Programs included: Residential Treatment Program, Group Home Program, Educational Programs, Foster Home Program, and Children’s Information Center. 46. Humberto Medeiros to “My Dear Friends,” n.d. [April 1972], Catholic Family Life Apostolate File, Box #61, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 47. The Catholic Charismatic Movement came to prominence in the mid-1970s. It featured the concepts of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Duquesne University and the University of Notre Dame were strong centers for this Movement. In 1975, Pope Paul VI officially welcomed the Movement. 48. Humberto Medeiros, Statement Regarding Charismatic Renewal, December 20, 1973, Charismatic 1973–1976 File, Box #62; Humberto Medeiros to Dorothy Keir, June 15, 1974, Ke-Kh File, Box #74, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 49. Humberto Medeiros to Salome W. Englemann, Match 26, 1974, E File, Box #74, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 50. Humberto Medeiros to “Dear Father,” February 13, 1974, Miami April 27– May 3, Annual Inter-American Bishops Meeting File, Box #105, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 51. Ralph Martin to Humberto Medeiros, March 3, 1975, Charismatic 1973–1976 File, Box #62, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 52. Boston Globe, June 7, 1976. 53. The Pilot, June 13, 1980. 54. The two others were Archbishops Timothy Manning of Los Angeles and Luis Martinez of Puerto Rico. 55. Press Release, Boston Archdiocese n.d. [1983] Medeiros Paper, CAT. 56. George Seifert to Humberto Medeiros. February 1, 1973, Congratulatory Letters File, Box #126, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 57. Pope Paul VI, Memorandum, March 5, 1973, Papal Ceremonies File, Box #13, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 58. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 181. 59. Ibid., 40–41. 60. Ellis, Catholic Bishops, 119. 61. The Pilot, April 10, 1971.

156

Chapter 7

62. James Dunn to Humberto Medeiros, April 25, 1972, Chancery File, Box #130, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 63. James Connolly to Humberto Medeiros, March 28, 1967, Correspondence 1967 File, Box #41, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 64. Humberto Medeiros, Interview with Maxine Shaw National Catholic Reporter June 8, 1972, Interview with Maxine Shaw File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 65. The Pilot, April 10, 1971. 66. Richard Little to Humberto Medeiros, December 18, 1978, James Dunn Papers, 1970–1974, AABo. 67. Hughes, Interview August 6, 2019. Also, Deeley, Interview, August 21, 2019. 68. Hughes Interview, August 6, 2019. 69. Thomas Daily to “My Dear Brother Priest,” November 18, 1983, Cardinal’s Stewardship Appeal 1983–84 File, Box #18, Director of Finances Papers, AABo. 70. Helmick, Interview, October 12, 2018. 71. O’Connor. Boston Catholics, 292. O’Connor use of $40 million is, as stated earlier, inaccurate as the best available number is $45 million. 72. James Dunn to Humberto Medeiros, April 25, 1972, Chancery File, Box #130 Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 73. Humberto Medeiros, Suggested Homily of Appeal Sunday, May 16, 1971, File #10, Box #1, Chancery Circulars, AABo. 74. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 51. 75. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 50. It should be noted that Medeiros received dozens of requests, most often from bishops outside the United States, asking for financial assistance for their diocese in general or specific projects. On occasion, Medeiros would send money from his personal resources, but generally he was forced to respond negatively, informing the petitioner that he was dealing with a massive debt and was, therefore, unable to help, although he certainly desired to do so. 76. Archbishops Stewardship Appeal Meeting with Priests, Statement, April 13–15, 1971, Archbishop Medeiros File, Box #125, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 77. “Publicity,” n.d. [April 1971] Archbishop’s Stewardship Appeal File, Box #125, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo; The Pilot., April 10, 1971. 78. The Pilot, May 8, 1971, June 19, 1971; Helmick, Interview, October 12, 2018; Presentation. “We Need One Another,” n.d [April 1971], Archbishop Stewardship Appeal File, Box #125, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 79. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 48–50. 80. Richard Little to Humberto Medeiros, December 29, 1977, Cardinal Medeiros 1975–1977 File, Box 70–75, Dunn Papers, AABo. 81. Humberto Medeiros, Clergy Conference Talk, May 20, 1975, Spring Clergy Conference 1975 File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 82. Humberto Medeiros to “Reverend Dear Father, April 2, 1971, Folder #9, Box #1 Chancery Circulars, AABo. 83. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 47. 84. Archdiocesan News Bureau, August 6, 1971, BPO.

Diocesan Affairs in Boston

157

85. Boston Globe, January 9, 1974. 86. Humberto Medeiros, Memorandum, n.d. [January 1974]. January 1974 Folder, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 87. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 59. 88. Archdiocesan records provide actual numbers to the monies received:1971–72: $6,152,300; 1972–73: $5,599,400; 1973–74: $5,271,200; 1974–75: $5,113,100; 1975–76 $5,292,500; 1976–77 $5,411,700; 1977–78 $5,411,700 (probably an error in the document); 1978–79: $5,174,100; 1979–80: $5,242,600; 1980–81: $5,418,500; 1981–82 $5,732,500; 1982–83: $5,833,500: 1983–84: $6,052,300. See Booklet RC Archdiocese of Boston, March 3, 1981, Boston Bishops’ Meeting Minutes March 3, 1981 File, Box #115, Boston, Medeiros Papers; Attachment to Agenda n.d. [1985]. October 23, 1984, Archbishop Law’s Stewardship Meeting File, Box #18 Director of Finance Papers, AABo. 89. The Pilot, n.d. [February 1976], Clipping in Medeiros Papers, CAT. 90. Budget Summary by Priority Fiscal Year 1976–77, n.d. [1976] Cardinal Medeiros File, Box #125, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo; Boston Globe, June 16, 1974 and May 30, 1975. 91. Frances McGann to Priorities Committee Members, November 15, 1974, Chancery Memos 1975 File, Box #110, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 92. The priorities were in order: (1) Fulfillment of outstanding obligations, (2) Maintenance of offices and archbishop residence, (3) Recruiting and training of priests, (4) Maintenance of parochial structure of the archdiocese, (5) Religious education, (6) Archdiocesan school department and CCD, (7) Direct subsidy of archdiocesan controlled schools, (8) Charity and social work that benefits individual parishes, (9) Campus ministry, (10) Archdiocesan CYO, (11) Archdiocesan agencies dealing with special groups, (12) The Pilot, archdiocesan TV and radio. 93. Humberto Medeiros, Clergy Conference Talk, May 20, 1975, Spring Clergy Conference File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 94. The Pilot, February 20, 1976. 95. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 54; Boston Globe, January 9, 1974. The decision to close and sell Saint Peter High School was actually made without consultation, by Cardinal Cushing before he retired as even then, he could foresee the future financial situation of the Archdiocese. 96. The Pilot, January 26, 1979. 97. O’Connor, Two Centuries of Faith, 268. 98. The Pilot, March 21, 1981. 99. “Friends of the Cardinal,” n.d. [May 1975], Folder E, Box #76, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 100. Donald J. Evans to Dear Friends, May 2, 1975, Folder E, Box #76, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 101. “Friends of the Cardinal,” n.d. [May 1975], Folder E, Box #76, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 102. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 60. 103. The Pilot, January 26, 1979.

158

Chapter 7

104. Richard Little to Humberto Medeiros and Thomas Daily, December 18, 1978, Memorandums 70–74, Dunn Papers, AABo; Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 61; Hughes, Interview August 6, 2019. 105. Helmick, Interview, October 12, 2018. 106. The Pilot, October 3, 1980. 107. O’Connor, Boston Catholics, 292–93. 108. Ellis, Catholic Bishops, 133. 109. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 61–62.

Chapter 8

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

The sacrament of Holy Orders, with its three degrees—episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate—calls its recipients to be mindful of the flock entrusted to their care. For a bishop, however, ministry to his priests is critically important. Healthy, well-balanced, and spiritually enriched priests, those who have the most direct and daily contact with the faithful, are essential if any diocese is to bring the message of Jesus Christ to the world. Humberto Medeiros believed in, and utilized, a pastoral approach in this aspect of ministry. For him, this was a high priority. This daunting task of managing well over 2000 priests, working in over 400 parishes, and in administrative and other nonparochial roles, was made more manageable by Medeiros’ wise decision to place auxiliary bishops as overseers of geographic regions, but ultimately it would be his responsibility and leadership that was needed as the chief shepherd of the archdiocese. Having to overcome, as described earlier, a certain prejudice against his appointment, Medeiros successfully fulfilled his mission of outreach to his fellow priests, but not without the need to deal with a few significant challenges that tested his leadership style and ability. MEDEIROS’ PASTORAL APPROACH Humberto Medeiros’ ministerial approach could easily be termed pastoral. He was very naturally attentive to people; his experiences in life and as a priest reinforced this pastoral sense. For him, this was part of his priestly vocation. Monsignor William Helmick commented that Medeiros was often the first to arrive and last to leave at various ministerial celebrations such as confirmations and ordinations.1 Bishop Robert Deeley of Portland, Maine, recalls that when Medeiros attended various dinner functions, he routinely made it 159

160

Chapter 8

a point to go to the kitchen and speak to the workers. Deeley commented, “He taught us all a huge lesson. He was archbishop of all the people, not just the clergy or the wealthy who could attend such functions.”2 Medeiros very much understood the human condition, especially from the perspective of the poor and marginalized; his life experience had been his greatest teacher. He was a man who sought to do all he could to promote the day-to-day life of Catholics. Although some did not realize it at the time, the priests of Boston had an extraordinarily holy and good man as their archbishop. As shepherd of the whole archdiocese, Medeiros held administrative responsibilities that occupied most of his daily routine, but he never lost his pastoral sense, a desire to be with the Catholic faithful. He was most happy when he could get away from his Brighton office3 and its bureaucratic concerns and go to the parishes. Michael Lescault commented, “It was here he was most comfortable and at ease.”4 The size of the archdiocese, which contained 402 parishes, did not allow him the luxury to visit every parish with regularity, but his heart was always with the people. Members of his family commented, “He was much beloved in the parishes. Years later people spoke of how much they enjoyed it when he came.”5 MEDEIROS AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH Medeiros’ arrival in Boston in 1970 coincided historically with a general greater awareness of the role of women in society, including the Church. Traditional roles that found women at home were increasingly being transformed, as women took places within every aspect of American society. Politically women began to move forward as evidenced by the election of several women, including many minority candidates of color to positions ranging from local mayors to members of Congress. The ranks of leaders in business and various professional occupations began to be more and more populated by women. Socially, women began to stand on their own, claiming their legitimate right to equal status with their male counterparts. Medeiros’ outreach to his archdiocese was far-reaching and included a positive working relationship with women in the Church, both lay and religious (see figure 8.1). He was very cognizant of the contribution made by women in society at large and increasingly so in the Church. As will be discussed later, he encouraged the participation of women as Eucharistic ministers and lectors in the celebration of mass. He was equally grateful for the work of women religious, especially in their role as teachers in parochial schools. During his tenure as archbishop, women religious increasingly moved away from their traditional apostles, thus creating a significant challenge for Catholic elementary schools. Medeiros did not challenge this situation, but rather was generally supportive of women religious. Boston avoided any major confrontation

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

161

Figure 8.1  Medeiros with St. Teresa of Calcutta. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

which pitted women against the Church. Medeiros’ pastoral approach which included dialogue with various superiors in women’s religious communities was in large measure responsible for the absence of any significant confrontations.6  MEDEIROS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CLERGY Medeiros’ pastoral, people-oriented approach to ministry was an important part of his overall understanding of the priesthood and the role of the priest

162

Chapter 8

in the Church and greater society. Medeiros firmly believed that priesthood was a way of life; it was not a job or a life to which all are called. Writing to his priests he commented, “Priesthood can never be simply a function. Rather it is a life orientation, a vocation, indeed a mystery, through which the care of Christ, the Good Shepherd, for his flock is made present.”7 Priesthood was not about the individual; rather priests needed to learn that God worked through them and, therefore, clerics needed to “get out of God’s way” and cooperate more fully in carrying out God’s will. In a clergy conference, Medeiros clearly professed these ideas: “How can you and I live our lives and perform our ministry with more relish, with more happiness, and with more attentiveness and responsiveness to the Will of God, and with more effectiveness for God’s Holy People? How can we get in the way of God a little less and cooperate with God more?”8 For Medeiros, priesthood was not a popularity contest; it required all clerics to meet the challenges of contemporary society. The priest was to be the visible and tangible extension of the crucified and risen Christ. Addressing a national conference for priests he stated, Each of us priests must, therefore, strive unceasingly to become a priest after the Heart of Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest. Ever aiming at perfection— that means sanctity—we must have an increasingly heightened awareness that, in these days of crisis in faith, crisis in morality, crisis in spirituality, what the survival of our Church and all of our civilization needs most is saints. I speak . . . of priests who are determined to reject the temptation to be conformed to the world and its thinking, who are more interested in being right than in being popular, who love truth with such devotion and passion that they refuse adamantly to betray truth (not even in order to prevent hurt feelings), who serve the People of God primarily in their spiritual needs.9

The priest must emulate Christ, but also, realizing his humanity, understand and accept his own weaknesses and imperfections. In order to carry out to the fullest extent his ministry, and to overcome his weaknesses, the priest must be a man of prayer. Ministry is the central manifestation of the priestly vocation, but without a strong foundation of prayer, what the priest does or says will not be as efficacious as it could be. It will possibly be subject to corruption and failure. He urged his priests who placed all their energies into apostolic activity to re-embrace prayer as the fuel necessary for those who herald the Gospel message. Prolonged and deep personal prayer was essential. Priests must be steady and confident in their vocation; they must understand the full meaning of what it means to serve the People of God in this capacity. He addressed this idea in a clergy conference: “To be a good and happy priest, my dear Fathers, each of us must be in firm and steady possession of his own vocation. The gift

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

163

that we all received through the imposition of hands, should be a warm and serene light that guides our total living.”10 Medeiros’ understanding and philosophy of the priesthood was directly related to the priest’s ministry to the faithful. The priest must be fully conscious of what it means to be a priest. The priest must be one who shares personal experiences of faith with others, professes that faith fervently with conviction, and seeks to put into practice the faith that is expressed. In another talk to his priests he stated, My dear priests, unless we can enter more fully into an entirely personal experience of faith in God through Christ in the Spirit, we can never do our part in passing the faith on to others. Then indeed, we will be the sorriest of men, unable to direct our very office that speaks of direction; unable to inspire men to look to us for inspiration.11

Priestly ministry requires the cleric to uncover for others the Gospel message and to help the faithful to be responsive to demands made within the context of contemporary society. Medeiros wrote, It is his [the priest’s] mission, however, to uncover the Christian dimension in these real-life problems and issues. It is his duty to help the entire Church to be more responsive to the Gospel message in these various areas of involvement. It is his task to encourage and facilitate the appropriate responses to agonizing questions and to suffering people. It is this faith-leadership that must characterize the distinctive and unique service that the priest can give by virtue of his office in the community today.12

As the local leader of the Church, the priest must actively reaffirm the unity, not only within the priesthood, but all the People of God: “I feel certain that all of us, bishops, priests, religious, and laity are called by God to reaffirm our oneness in the “one faith, the one baptism, and the one Lord of all.”13 How did Humberto Medeiros interact with the priests in Boston? A significant factor in answering this question is the stark contrast between Medeiros’ previous experience in Brownsville and what he encountered in Boston. In the rural Texas setting, even after four years of his tenure as bishop, there were only some 120 priests in the diocese, approximately 66% of whom were religious, and 180 religious sisters and brothers. In contrast, when he arrived in Boston, the 400 parishes in the archdiocese were serviced by 1450 diocesan clergy and 990 religious. Over 5100 sisters lived there. While there was some diminution over the thirteen years of his tenure (the nadir of 1341 diocesan priests, 954 religious, and 4634 sisters in 1983), nevertheless the

164

Chapter 8

physical numbers never allowed Medeiros the luxury of the more personal contact he exercised in Texas and certainly wished to continue in Boston.14 The numbers of clergy notwithstanding, Medeiros desired to have, as much as possible, a personal relationship with his priests. One important key to such a relationship was his desire for the clergy to understand that he was accessible to them. In the first days after his arrival, Medeiros conducted meetings with the clergy in various geographic areas of the archdiocese, informing them that he was available. If a priest needed to see him, he would make the time. This was a significant change in leadership style from previous archbishops who basically only met with priests in an administrative capacity. Priests had not been encouraged to seek an appointment with the archbishop for their personal needs or concerns. Archbishop Alfred Hughes, who was an auxiliary in Boston, noted this change, “He loved his priests. He sought to be available to them. He was always open to meeting any priest who wanted to be with him.”15 In a homily delivered after Medeiros’ death, Bishop Lawrence Riley, who like Hughes served as an auxiliary, summarized the feelings of many priests concerning Medeiros’ outreach to them: No one in the Archdiocese of Boston meant more to Cardinal Medeiros than his priests. Because he had such a profound appreciation of his own priesthood as only a genuinely saintly person can have—and Cardinal Medeiros was surely a genuinely saintly person—he respected and esteemed beyond measure every single priest upon whose soul had been impressed on the day of ordination, a character that can never be effaced.16

Appreciation for Medeiros’ outreach was rapid in coming. Father Francis McGann, president of the Priest Senate, while cautioning his new archbishop about his super energetic work ethic, was duly appreciative of his obvious concern for the priests in Boston: “In my name and the name of all the priests of our archdiocese, I would like to thank Archbishop Medeiros for what he has done for priests, religious and laity in the few weeks he has been with us. He has tried to be everywhere [and] to accommodate everyone.”17 Medeiros’ appreciation for his priests was also found in his desire to gain their trust, as he manifested his love for them. He certainly went to great lengths to demonstrate his concern and affection for them. Throughout his tenure, Medeiros regularly expressed his gratitude and love for them. He expressed these sentiments in a generic letter to all his priests: I want to commend the hundreds of conscientious, dedicated priests of our Archdiocese who have been and are so faithful to the sublime vocation of the priesthood of Jesus Christ which God has bestowed upon us. I trust you are aware of how appreciative I am of the priests of our Archdiocese. What can I

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

165

say except that I admire you, that I am grateful to you, and that with the love of your father in Christ and your brother priests in the Lord?18

Regardless of his position as archbishop, Medeiros saw himself as a fellow priest, and sought a deep unity with those under his care. An important way for Humberto Medeiros to gain the trust of his priests was by working with the Priests Senate. He commented, “It [the Senate] is very necessary for the life of the church.”19 Medeiros regularly attended its meetings; he was open and listened to what was said. If he disagreed with what was discussed, the priest senators knew of his stance and why he held it.20 His openness to the opinions presented in senate discussions was noted almost immediately after his arrival. In his annual report, the president of the Priests Senate, Father McGann wrote: His Excellency . . . assur[ed] us that he regards the Senate as a necessary help for the Archbishop and that the matters which concern the Senate will concern him too. He will give careful consideration to Senate proposals, and if he finds that in conscience, he cannot accept the proposals as presented to him, he will try to suggest modifications or other approaches that will attack the problems which prompted the proposals.21

Medeiros’ described his desire to work with his priests, and the Senate specifically, in his 1971 Pastoral Letter, “Ministerial Priesthood:” “As your bishop I am completely committed to close collaboration with you who are my appointed co-workers. Happy and grateful to follow the directives of Vatican II, I recognize the Senate of Priests as a brotherly and effective means of being in communion with you.”22 Medeiros’ non-authoritative leadership style was clearly a break from the past. While welcomed and appreciated by many, was his character somewhat problematic? Medeiros ended up in conflict with several priests. In at least one celebrated case, the Federal court-ordered busing of students to public schools, several pastors simply ignored Medeiros’ decision and edicts. His nonconfrontational style can be questioned. Were some priests in the post– Vatican II era using their new freedom, along with the general “question authority” mentality prevalent in society to exercise their perceived “right” to act as they chose? Or, was Humberto Medeiros simply not the type of leader for an environment like Boston? History shows that at times a more confrontative style would have aided him in his role as archbishop. Another way Medeiros reached out to his priests was his desire to receive their input on various issues and decisions that required action as well as to ask about their concerns. Thus, within a year of his arrival, he sent a questionnaire to all priests seeking their views on a number of matters. One clear

166

Chapter 8

finding that arose from the responses was the need for a general enhancement of the spiritual life of the clergy. A summary response published by the Priests Senate stated, “the spiritual life of priests has been seriously neglected,” and many “have lost their bearings.”23 Thus, the report suggested that a radical reorganization of religious formation might be needed. In response to this need, Medeiros hosted a conference on the ministerial priesthood at Saint John seminary in March 1971. The bishops of the metropolitan province plus delegates from all its dioceses attended. Topics at the conference included “Theology of the Priesthood,” “Personal Spiritual Growth of Priests,” “Priestly Commitment,” and “Priestly Ministry.” Medeiros followed the conference by writing a pastoral letter “The Ministerial Priesthood,” that was issued on Easter Sunday 1971. Importantly, at the outset of the document Medeiros informed his readers, “I have tried to do something which is very close to my heart. I believe that it is something the bishop is called to do by the very nature of his office. I have tried to listen. I want to continue to listen.”24 In the pastoral Medeiros wrote that he understood the burden some priests feel when dealing with their own faith struggle and with simultaneously having people look to them for nourishment of their faith. Nonetheless, while encouraging his priests, he challenged them to see their integral role in helping the faithful to see their own “vocation [to practice] faith, hope, and love.”25 Several years later Medeiros again addressed the needs of his priests. Writing on Holy Thursday, he invited his priests to hear anew the call of Jesus Christ and to reflect upon their past commitment to the work that the Lord called them to do. He told them that many of the decisions they make must not be based on “what is easy or what brings us gain, but on the basis of what is best for the Church of God.” All priests must realize “that Jesus Christ is calling us to live in a certain way, that he is asking us to have certain priorities in our life and our ministry and to live in close communion with him that our vocations become a lived reality.”26 Medeiros’ desire to support his priests and to listen to their needs and concerns led to a series of initiatives and reforms within the presbyterate. Less than two months after his installation, he consented to establish a regular priestly newsletter. The name Impart was adopted because the spirit of the new initiative was to impart knowledge that might not be available from other sources to brother priests. In 1971, in response to a proposal by the Priests Senate, he established The Commission on Priestly Life and Ministry, chaired by Monsignor Peter Hart. The Commission was chartered to address three major issues: (1) Pastoral care for clerics who resigned from the priesthood, (2) Implementation of team ministry, and (3) Sabbatical programs for priests.27 Another concern that prompted the Commission’s creation, and the issue it initially addressed, was the perception that priest morale was

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

167

low. Impart reported that priest morale indeed was depleted owing to three generic causes: (1) Administrative causes—pastor–curate relationships, lack of team ministry, reluctance of priests to accept the position of pastor, lack of accountability and evaluation, and lack of a grievance structure. (2) Parochial causes—confusion between the role of the parish council and the pastor and personality conflicts. (3) General causes—seminary training, changing image of ministry, immaturity, and communication problems.28 In an effort to allow priests to voice their concerns about these issues and to stimulate camaraderie, the Commission sponsored a day of “Witness and Hearing.” The initiative seemed successful and, thus, it was suggested that regional bishops hold similar functions in each of their areas.29 In November 1980, the Priests Senate suggested that the Commission be disbanded. This was because two issues in its charter, namely team ministry and sabbatical programs, had not been sufficiently addressed. Still, the senate believed that issues associated with priestly life and ministry needed to be attacked. Thus, Impart reported, “The Senate wanted to express very strongly that it continued to believe that low clergy morale was still very much a problem within the archdiocese.”30 Medeiros also addressed issues associated with clergy salaries and appointment of pastors. In June 1972, Medeiros approved a Priests Senate plan which called for increases in clergy salaries and procedures for the appointment of pastors. Rules were set up concerning monthly income as well as stipends for liturgical services such as masses, weddings, funerals, and baptisms. A review board was also created to evaluate the plan after one year and then again, every three years. Medeiros also reformed the inherited tradition of pastors receiving the Christmas and Easter collections. The new rules stated that these two collections were to fund retirement and health programs for the priests of the archdiocese.31 New guidelines for the appointment of pastors were also published. Pastors were to receive a six-year appointment, renewable for an additional six years. Extension of the appointment was possible only at the discretion of the archbishop after consultation. In November 1974, in a move coupled with the new guidelines for assigning pastors, Medeiros investigated with the Priests Senate the possibility of establishing a priest evaluation program. Father James Haddad was assigned to head a team to conduct a preliminary study. Its purpose was not to be threatening, but rather to stimulate the growth of priests. While originally oriented toward clergy evaluations, especially for pastors, the proposal eventually evolved into a parish visitation program.32 Two additional plans, both directly instituted to assist priests, received Medeiros’ attention. In May 1978, due to the tenor of the times, which brought much confusion to society in general and more specifically to priestly identity, especially in the wake of Vatican II, Medeiros established a Priestly Counseling Office and Priest Recovery Program. The purpose was twofold:

168

Chapter 8

(1) To assist priests who were struggling with personal issues in their life or ministry and (2) To support priests who have recently left recovery programs of various kinds.33 In the wake of Vatican II, a plan for elderly priests was also necessary. Prior to the Council there was no tradition of “priestly retirement,” but rather priests served as long as they were physically capable. Cardinal Cushing had built a home for older priests, largely to encourage their being able to move away from their pastorates. Bishops were now required in some way to provide monetary assistance, insurance, and other means of support when a priest was allowed to retire. For Medeiros, this program was more difficult than for many other bishops because of the debt that was his constant worry.34 Still, by the time of his death, a program was functioning satisfactorily. Another initiative attempted in the spirit of Vatican II was concept of team ministry. The Priests Senate proposed that the traditional pastor–curate relationship be replaced, in some new cases, with a new arrangement of shared pastoral responsibility. The program was not well defined, but in general it consisted of teams of priests working together in various parishes. The program was placed under the direction of Father Michael Groden in his capacity as Director of Urban Ministry.35 Unfortunately, team ministry within the archdiocese never received grand support and, thus, was disbanded through lack of participation. Possibly the greater sense of individualism present in the Northeast region of the United States may have played a factor in the program’s demise. A successful type of team ministry was the Missionary Society of Saint James the Apostle (Saint James Society). In 1958, in answer to the call of Pope Saint John XXIII for countries to send missionaries to Latin America,36 Cardinal Cushing founded the Society, a group of diocesan priests (mostly from Boston) who volunteered to serve in three countries in South America. Medeiros supported the program in varied ways. He was the primary recruiter for priest volunteers for the program. He certainly encouraged the clergy from his own archdiocese, but additionally he reached out to his brother bishops to ask them to share with their priests the great need for ministers in Latin America. He realized that priests were increasingly scarce, and that the Archdiocese of Boston needed to be served first, but nevertheless he said “I feel that we still must be generous with our less fortunate brothers and sisters . . . It is true that we cannot permit too many to go, but we shall consider every request.”37 Medeiros traveled to visit members of the Saint James Society annually and was very impressed with their ministry. He described the Society’s efficacy in ministry: “It [the Society] has proved to be an effective channel for diocesan priests to go beyond the limits of their own diocese and play an ever-greater part in the evangelization of the world.”38 Writing to his fellow bishops and encouraging them to recruit priests from

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

169

their own dioceses to join the Society: “I have seen firsthand the magnificent work they [Saint James Society priests] do to build up the Church and assist local bishops . . . I am hopeful that you will be able to release any priests in your diocese who are interested in this work in Latin America and capable of doing it.”39 Humberto Medeiros was diligent and faithful in providing support for his priests, but there were challenges in their relationship. As described earlier, Medeiros’ reception by the priests in Boston (and the general public) was mixed, including comparisons with his predecessor. Archbishop Hughes commented: “The clergy, like the laity, received him [Medeiros] initially and through a good part of his tenure unevenly. Those who knew him best, really appreciated him. Those who desired ‘the Cushing approach’ did not accept him so readily.”40 The reality that Medeiros followed two archbishops who were vastly different from him in personality, leading to differences in handling various issues, made his acceptance by “old guard” clergy much more difficult. Lescault describes how Medeiros was caught in the middle between opposing forces: Some older priests, veterans of [the] O’Connell and Cushing regimes, never warmed to Medeiros . . . This disaffection with Medeiros is attributable in part to the disappointment felt by priests on both ends of the spectrum. Hard line conservatives who believed that the archdiocese needed a strong decisive archbishop who would not tolerate any nonsense felt Medeiros was not tough enough. Others transferred [their] resentment over change to the new archbishop who they identified as an agent of change. Younger priests, too, often felt frustration with the new archbishop, feeling that Medeiros was moving too slowly, too cautiously.41

Medeiros’ “softer” approach left him open to stronger personalities who sensed the new archbishop to be weak. Some priests quickly learned that they could challenge Medeiros with impunity. When the archbishop backed off from his position when challenged by individual priests, others became emboldened to confront him as well. In the process, the archbishop lost the respect of many of his priests.42 In a sad comment, some of the clergy openly told him, “We do not want you to be here.”43 Extant records also indicate that Medeiros had some difficulty getting his priests to accept their ministerial assignments. The post-Vatican II mentality that stressed dialogue between bishops and priests, especially with respect to assignments, was a major part of the equation when making decisions on clergy appointments. In a clergy conference talk, Medeiros challenged his priests to consider the needs of the Church over their own personal desires.

170

Chapter 8

He told them two questions that were pertinent when considering assignments: (1) What is Christ asking of me now? and (2) What is best for the Church in this situation? Medeiros was well aware that personal desire, needs of family, and other factors were prevalent in the minds of his priests when considering assignments. However, he believed personal considerations must take a back seat to the needs of the Church.44 Medeiros was certainly willing to work with the Priests Senate, and to follow Canon Law, with respect to ministerial appointments, yet he noted a certain “paralysis” in the lack of openness by some to new assignments. He wrote, “Are we who are called to accept certain difficult assignments by our ordination, now to demand a level of perfect harmony unattainable for our people—before we put our hand to the plow?”45 In his direct communication with priests over assignments, Medeiros was very troubled by those who, for whatever reason, chose to leave the priesthood. Monsignor William Helmick commented that Medeiros never failed to counsel a priest to reconsider his decision to leave. Helmick stated, “If he saw a glimmer of hope in any situation, he tried to be helpful.”46 Although not directly related to his work with Boston clergy, nonetheless Medeiros’ role as Archbishop of Boston and, therefore, the metropolitan, placed him as the titular head of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference (MCC). This episcopal organization began formal operations in 1969, adding an executive director in September 1971. The MCC was the primary vehicle to allow the four diocesan bishops in Massachusetts to discuss and form official opinions on matters of public concern which have spiritual or moral dimensions. The bishops reviewed proposed legislation and offered responses on a variety of topics including natural family planning, housing, adoptions, Sunday rest laws, healthcare costs, handgun legislation, the Equal Rights Amendment, tax laws, no-fault divorce, capital punishment, casino gambling, and living wills. Medeiros chaired the meetings with the bishops and drove the agenda.47 Medeiros’ concern for his priests quite appropriately and importantly extended to those in the seminary, the training ground for future clerics. Medeiros was extremely interested in and supportive of seminarians. Bishop Robert Deeley recalls during his days as a seminarian at the North American College in Rome how Medeiros, who visited on numerous occasions, took a special interest in the seminarians studying in the Eternal City.48 Domestically, Medeiros visited the major seminary, Saint John, regularly. Although he bemoaned the significant drop in vocations after Vatican II,49 nonetheless he was hopeful for the future: “The great hope for tomorrow lies in our young priests. They have been trained for a Church which will demand greater sensitivity and more highly developed pastoral skills than in any previous period of Church history. They give me every hope and confidence by their dedicated work and priestly zeal.”50 In an effort to maintain high

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

171

standards at Saint John, Medeiros requested an official visit to the seminary by the Bishops’ Committee on Priestly Formation. The visit was conducted on October 29–31, 1974. The report received was complimentary to the formation staff but noted some areas which could be strengthened. Medeiros wrote to the visitation team leader, “It is our common opinion that the report will be an important contribution to the continuing development of St. John Seminary.”51 The major concern at Saint John that came to light during Medeiros’ tenure as archbishop was the presence of homosexuals and the concern about homosexual behavior. As will be addressed later, these revelations arose from Father Paul Shanley’s ministry to the gay community. News of Shanley’s work, including innuendos that he was advocating behavior that was inconsistent with Roman Catholic teaching, prompted a long letter to Medeiros from Cardinal Franjo Seper, head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, raising concerns about Shanley’s influence and how it might be affecting the seminary. Medeiros wrote a long and highly detailed response. First, he acknowledged that seminaries reflect American culture and, therefore, with the rising visibility of homosexuality in society, it is probable that similar ideas should be found in seminaries. He went on to say that some seminary faculty members believe the Church has no right to inquire into the lives of candidates for the priesthood about their sexual orientation. Disagreeing with this idea, Medeiros reported to Seper: “The danger in seminaries, Your Eminence, is obvious. Where large numbers of homosexuals are present in the seminary, other homosexuals are quickly attracted. Other healthier young men tend to be repelled. As a result of the efforts in our seminary, a large number of candidates have been dropped.”52 He also told Seper greater care must be taken in the training of spiritual directors in order to “weed out overt or latent homosexuals.” Medeiros further reported that his efforts to root out homosexuals from the seminary will reduce the numbers to be ordained. He informed Seper, “We have a seminary which has now—within five years—become almost fully transformed into community of healthy, well-balanced young men. Our numbers are much smaller but now we will attract more young men who will be the right kind of candidates.”53 MEDEIROS AND “PROBLEM” PRIESTS Humberto Medeiros held a great love for his priests and viewed them as the backbone of the archdiocese’s effort to bring the Gospel message of Jesus Christ to the world. He brought a new availability to his office; he welcomed priests to make appointments and met with them. He worked closely with the Priests Senate and was open to new ideas that this body proposed.

172

Chapter 8

Additionally, he set up new guidelines and initiated programs, all in the spirit of Vatican II, to assist his priests with their ministry. He was heartbroken when he heard that a member of the clergy desired to leave the ministry. Medeiros maintained this attitude despite the challenges and criticisms he faced by those who, for varied reasons, refused to accept his leadership. Still, while Medeiros was pastorally sensitive, he definitely held strong views on the right and proper way to act as a priest. He was very disappointed in what he believed to be “the declining sense of reverence and respect for what is sacred.” This was true not only for priests and religious, but for the faithful as well. From the perspective of the priesthood, however, he decried “the casual approach to the Mass, the sacraments, [and] ecclesiastical offices.”54 In conversation with his secretary, Monsignor Helmick, Medeiros was upset that many priests dressed in suits or less formal attire, even participating in ordinations and imposing hands with a stole over a suit coat, sweater, or jacket. Humberto Medeiros’ firm belief in clerical discipline was always matched by his great love for priests. This attitude was manifested in his efforts to reconcile with Father Leonard Feeney, S.J. In the post-World War II years, Feeney stridently supported an extreme view of the ancient Church dictum extra ecclesiam nulla salus, “outside the church there is no salvation,” claiming that only baptized Catholics could experience God’s promise of eternal life. He preached this message as chaplain at the St. Benedict Center in Cambridge where he gathered a group of lay disciples. In January 1949, Feeney’s followers bound themselves together through a doctrinal vow taking the name of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.55 Medeiros’ predecessor, Archbishop Cushing found himself in a running battle with Feeney over his polemical view on salvation. The historian Michael Feldberg describes Feeney’s motivation: “Feeney’s insistence that Catholic doctrine was eternally unchangeable and infallibly true reflected both his own rigidity and the anxieties of the period.”56 Feeney ridiculed Cushing’s idea of the “baptism of desire” and his outreach to Protestants and Jews.57 Despite numerous warnings from Cushing, Feeney would not relent on his position. Therefore, Cushing silenced him “because of grave offenses against the general laws of the Catholic Church.” Feeney was denied the right to perform his priestly duties. In a related move, Catholics who frequented the Saint Benedict Center or assisted in its activities were to forfeit the right to receive the sacraments of penance and Eucharist.58 On February 13, 1953, with no progress toward reconciliation, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued a decree of excommunication for Feeney.59 The Feeney case lay was unresolved for years, but shortly after Medeiros was installed as archbishop, he received requests that the renegade priest be reconciled. In the spring of 1971, two members of the New England Province

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

173

of Jesuits, Feeney’s religious order, made inquiries to Medeiros about reconciliation with Feeney. The archbishop was sympathetic, but since Feeney was residing in the Diocese of Worcester, Medeiros felt he had no jurisdiction. However, in May Medeiros and Bishop Bernard Flanagan (Worcester) commissioned Dr. David O’Toole, who had been providing medical services to the St. Benedict Center community (headquartered since 1958 in Still River, Massachusetts—Worcester Diocese), to open discussions toward reconciliation with Brother Gabriel ( William Gibbs), a prominent Feeney disciple. The two prelates agreed to work to remove all censures from Feeney without requiring him or members of the Center to retract their doctrinal position. In return, Gabriel and the community would drop all their actions to obtain an ecclesiastical hearing on the rectitude of Feeney’s excommunication, which was based on canonical irregularities.60 After O’Toole and Gabriel met, Father Richard Shmaruk, serving as a representative of Medeiros, entered the process. Shumaruk believed that since Vatican II had removed some ecclesial penalties, such as automatic excommunication for an invalid marriage before a non-Catholic Christian minister, so too Feeney’s excommunication, which had nothing to do with theology, but rather disobedience, should now be lifted. The historian George Pepper recorded Shumaruk’s thinking: I never felt the Church should be tolerant about Feeney’s rigid position of intolerance for non-Catholics. I did feel, however, that because of his advanced age and ill health and the evidence of senility, there was even less justification for the continued existence of the excommunication.61

The renewed overtures between the archdiocese and the Center led to a more amicable relationship between the two groups, including a chance meeting between Feeney and auxiliary Bishop Lawrence Riley. This meeting paved the way for the excommunication to be lifted. In early January 1972, Feeney met with Medeiros at a family home. The meeting went well, prompting Medeiros to petition the Vatican to remove Feeney’s penalty. Cardinal John Wright, formerly the Bishop of Worcester, but now living in Rome, was asked if he could broker the reconciliation. Wright visited Boston in April 1972 and met with Medeiros and Flanagan to discuss Feeney. He agreed to approach the Holy Office (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and the Congregation for Religious on behalf of Feeney. On August 23, 1972, at a meeting held at the Saint Benedict Center, Bishop Riley and Father Shumaruk attested to Feeney’s proclamation of faith in the Church. This report was forwarded to Medeiros who passed it along to the apostolic delegate, Archbishop Jean Jadot. In November 1972, as a result of Wright’s intervention, Rome delegated faculties to Bishop Flanagan to lift Feeney’s

174

Chapter 8

excommunication. The process was completed on November 22 with Medeiros’ approval.62 The Feeney case of reconciliation can be contrasted with a more confrontative situation that arose two years later, in August 1974 at Immaculate Conception Church, in Marlborough, Massachusetts. The pastor, Monsignor Francis Meehan, decided to delay the baptism of the child of a woman in his parish who had publicly proclaimed beliefs that contradicted Roman Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion. His concern was that the child would not be raised in the Catholic faith. Regardless of the decision of the pastor, a Jesuit priest from New York, Joseph O’Rourke, baptized the child on the steps of the church without obtaining proper ecclesiastical permissions.63 Although O’Rourke was not a Boston priest, Medeiros entered the fray in support of Meehan’s right as pastor to make such a decision. Medeiros supported “the decision that the Baptism of a child in the parish should be delayed until assurance is given that the child will be brought up in the Catholic faith.”64 Medeiros’ support for Meehan’s decision did not mean a denial of baptism, but rather that the sacrament should be performed licitly and under the proper conditions. Medeiros received both support and critique for his stance. The Pilot published an editorial that suggested it was appropriate to delay the baptism until the fundamental understanding of the parents with respect to Church teaching could be determined. However, Medeiros was severely criticized for what appeared to be the denial of the sacrament based, not on some theological principle, but rather that the opinion of the mother on a controversial subject was different from official Catholic teaching. One person angrily wrote to Medeiros: Recently . . . I have regarded with much sorrow the incident surrounding the Baptism of the child in your Archdiocese. Because a woman voiced her opinion rather than yours on one of the most controversial subjects of our time, you would deny her child his birthright as a Catholic and willingly damn him . . . The notion that sins of the fathers should be atoned for by the sons should have been allowed to die with the Inquisition.65

The Marlborough controversy was ancillary to Medeiros, but his battle with Father John Keane was more directly personal as it dealt with one priest’s defiance of his archbishop’s authority. Beginning in 1974 and continuing for the next six years, Medeiros endured a running battle with this priest who initially drew attention due to his stance on abortion but more defiantly refused to obey Medeiros’ edicts with respect to the celebration of the Eucharist. Father Keane was a supporter of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the titular head of the Traditionalist Movement, an offshoot from

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

175

Roman Catholicism that arose in the wake of Vatican II and the publication in 1968 of Humanae Vitae.66 Lefebvre was disciplined by Pope Saint Paul VI for his celebration of the Tridentine (pre-Vatican II) rite of the mass. Keane drew much attention in following Lefebvre’s lead and refusing to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass that became standard after Vatican II. In 1973, Keane was assigned to the Cathedral of the Holy Cross and given permission by Medeiros to celebrate mass in Latin in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel using the new rite. He did so for several weeks and then abruptly left the Cathedral without permission from Medeiros. He then began to celebrate mass using the Tridentine Rite in defiance of Medeiros’ expressed instructions. Helmick told Medeiros that priests in the archdiocese were concerned and “without some official action being taken against him will be interpreted by priests as your permission for Father Keane to do what he pleases.”67 Keane’s disobedience continued as his ministry within the archdiocese expanded. Operating without ecclesiastical permission, but still in possession of faculties within the archdiocese, Keane formed a public corporation and purchased a chapel in West Roxbury which he named Saints Roger and Mary, after his parents. Eventually, Keane was operating two additional chapels, one in Lawrence and a second in Scituate. Keane stated, “As long as the people continue to come to the Latin Mass, I will find a place for them.”68 Medeiros threatened Keane with suspension, but the latter continued his course without interruption. Finally, in June 1980, Medeiros decide to act more definitively. One of his auxiliaries, John D’Arcy, informed Medeiros that the Archdiocesan Consultors (priest advisory group) had met on May 20 to discuss the Keane situation. At the recommendation of the Consultors The Pilot printed the archdiocese’s side of the story, in an effort to prevent Keane from taking advantage.69 In the end, Medeiros suspended his recalcitrant priest. In an explanation for his actions, the Cardinal wrote: Father Keane’s refusal to cooperate with me has gone far beyond the problem of the current text for the celebration of Mass. Since 1973, when he left without permission his parish assignment, he has repeatedly refused to accept from me an assignment to priestly work. More importantly, Father Keane during this time has begun his own separate ministry, leading to serious confusion among many of our Catholic people . . . It is because of these intolerable actions by Father Keane, and not because of any dispute about the use of Latin in the Mass, that I am forced to take more serious action.70

While archdiocesan officials and most priests in the archdiocese were pleased that Medeiros finally acted, the Cardinal received many angry

176

Chapter 8

responses from people who perceived that Keane was mistreated for celebrating mass in Latin. Medeiros responded to such complaints, attempting to correct the basic misinterpretation by many that Keane was disciplined for celebrating mass in Latin, rather than his continual disobedience. Nonetheless, Medeiros even received pushback from some priests who felt the situation was only exacerbated by his action. They suggested that in 1980 the controversy was dormant and, in their opinion, would have died a natural death without Medeiros’ action.71 Medeiros faced a challenge vastly different from the Keane affair in the case of Jesuit priest Robert Drinan. While serving as Dean of the Boston College School of Law (1956–1970), Drinan was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1970. Drinan was one of three Catholic priests who ran for public office that year.72 He received permission from his Jesuit Superior, Father William Guindon,73 to run for Congress. As the progressive candidate, he challenged the incumbent Phillip J. Philbin, and was victorious in both the primary and general election.74 It was his stance on life issues, however, which caught the attention of many Catholics. Almost from the outset of Drinan’s service in Washington, Medeiros received many letters that complained about the Jesuit’s progressive political stance, especially with respect to abortion. Drinan, however, was popular with his constituents and, thus, considered running for reelection. Drinan’s position was known to the Jesuit Superior General, Father Pedro Arrupe, who queried Medeiros on whether he believed Drinan should continue in Congress. Medeiros told Arrupe: “I do not feel that ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist to justify Father Drinan’s presence in the House of Representatives nor to justify in declaring his candidacy for re-election.”75 Arrupe ignored Medeiros’ advice and allowed Drinan to run again in the fall of 1972; he was re-elected. He continued in office until 1980. During his ten years in Congress, Drinan followed a progressive agenda. He was a champion of human rights, strongly opposed the Vietnam War, and argued “unceasingly for the United States to be seen as a free and pluralistic society.”76 He was one of the leaders of the opposition in the House to a proposed constitutional amendment on prayer, and on July 31, 1973, introduced the initial resolution for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, based on his undeclared war in Cambodia, rather than the Watergate break-in and eventual coverup.77 It was his support for the pro-choice position with respect to abortion that drew fire from many in the Catholic community, prompting many letters to both his Jesuit superior and to Medeiros imploring them to act against the priest. The objection of some was simply that a priest should not be holding public office, that priesthood was a full-time job and there were many other qualified people to serve in elected office. Most of the complaints, however, centered on Drinan’s voting record in support of abortion rights. Monsignor

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

177

William Helmick informed Medeiros that several letters had been received about Drinan and that he anticipated many more. Thus, it was suggested that a letter be written that expressed generically Medeiros’ disapproval of priests in political office, especially when qualified laity were abundant.78 Medeiros personally stated, “Priests should stay out of political office where there is a capable laity.”79 This was an insufficient response in the minds of many. The cardinal received numerous letters that complained that Drinan’s positions were incompatible with the teachings of the Church and something should be done. Medeiros responded similarly to those who called for action, stating that since Drinan was a religious priest, and not a member of the Boston diocesan clergy, he could take no action against him. He explained the situation in this manner: “With regard to censoring Father Drinan because his views are incompatible with teachings of the bishops as set forth in the Pastoral Plan, please believe me—I have no jurisdiction. Father Drinan belongs to an exempt Religious Community, the Jesuits.”80 Medeiros’ response rang hollow for some who continued to press for the cardinal to act against Drinan. Father Drinan’s opponents may have been many, but he also had many who supported his right, both to serve in Congress and to profess publicly his positions. Many in his congressional district were pleased with his leadership in Congress: “We need his moral leadership in Congress. We need our Father who art in Congress now more than ever !!!”81 A more general letter of support read in part: “There is room for priests in politics, as there is for every other citizen and the prohibition of a superior for a priest to be involved in politics constitutes an usurpation of a civil right.”82 In 1980, the Drinan case was settled through the action of the Holy Father. In 1979, Pope Saint John Paul II participated in a bishops’ synod that decreed that leadership in political affairs was excluded for priests. Drinan’s biographer, Father Raymond Schroth suggests that additional forces were allied against Drinan. Republican Congressman Robert Dornan of California had made appeals to many bishops, including Medeiros, suggesting they speak with the pontiff about Drinan’s removal from Congress. Schroth also suggests that Drinan was most probably a subject of discussion when the pope came to Boston in October 1979.83 Thus, Pope Saint John Paul II informed the Roman headquarters of the Society of Jesus that Drinan was to withdraw his candidacy for a sixth term in Congress. The message was immediately relayed to Drinan via his Provincial, Father Edward O’Flaherty.84 Drinan complied with the papal edict, stating: It is with respect and pain that I accept the decision of the Holy See. I went to Congress, chosen by a citizen caucus, to work for justice in America and for peace throughout the world . . . I can think of no other activities more worthy of the involvement of a priest and a Jesuit.85

178

Chapter 8

Drinan’s departure from Congress was applauded by some, but it was an event of sorrow for others. The Boston Globe columnist, Jeremiah Murphy, supported the Pope’s action: “[C]ertainly there is a glaring inconsistency in a Catholic priest supporting the pro-abortion position. Fr. Drinan was educated and disciplined in the Jesuit tradition. But he went one all-important step further: he was ordained a priest and administered Holy Orders. He accepted the teachings of Rome as a priest, not a layman.”86 In agreement with Murphy, Father Richard Neuhaus commented, “As a political partisan Robert Drinan is relentlessly faithful. As a priest and a Jesuit, he is shameless.”87 Those who objected to papal interference were also vocal. The author, Garry Wills, commented, “The removal of Fr. Drinan from Congress was, in that sense [reference to the pope’s authority over a United States citizen], an intrusion of the papacy into American politics.”88 The journalist Edd Doerr suggests that Drinan was targeted by the pope, noting that no action was taken against several other priests who were in less high profile, but nonetheless government positions on state and federal levels.89 An editorial in America magazine expressed a balanced conclusion, but bemoaned Drinan’s ouster: One need not have agreed-as we sometimes did not-with every particular position that Father Drinan took during his 10 years in the U.S. Congress to recognize his distinguished record of support for justice in the world . . . Congress will be diminished by his absence.90

The two cases of Fathers Keane and Drinan pose an important question pertinent to the leadership of Humberto Medeiros. While there are differences in the nature of the challenge that Medeiros faced, there are some common elements, both to the cases and to the archbishop’s method in finding a resolution. Both cases lingered for a considerable amount of time. This certainly provided Keane and Drinan time to consider their actions, since both were well aware that they had many critics, along with their supporters. While it could be said that Medeiros wanted to give these two clerics as much leeway and opportunity to change as possible. It is equally true that he could have acted much more swiftly and certainly more deliberately. In the case of Father Keane, Medeiros’ long-delayed intervention allowed the former to create his own ministry within the archdiocese and, thus, gain support. While it is true in the case of Father Drinan that Medeiros had no authority to order the Jesuit to end his political career, he certainly had authority to remove his faculties to minister in the archdiocese. As a religious, Drinan could have received faculties from the Archbishop of Washington, but Medeiros would have been on record as officially disapproving of Drinan’s political position. Medeiros’ fidelity to the Church, as evidenced in his statements that challenged both

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

179

of these clerics, is clear, but his decisiveness in action certainly can be questioned. The trials that Humberto Medeiros faced in dealing with priests who challenged his authority were more public and transparent, but he was also forced to deal in a much less visible way with issues associated with sexual abuse. When he served as Chancellor of the Diocese of Full River, Medeiros had previously dealt with this situation but not as a local bishop. In Boston, as the Church official with ultimate control, responsibility for addressing all issues, but especially sexual abuse, fell to Medeiros. The revelations of 2002 and information that has been revealed subsequently show that several priests in the Archdiocese of Boston, as well as religious communities operating within the archdiocesan boundaries, were guilty of sexual misconduct. During Medeiros’ time as archbishop, however, general knowledge of this situation was not available. The specific examples of Fathers Paul Shanley and John Geoghan, as the two most egregious instances, will be examined. While the “Spotlight” team of the Boston Globe’s investigation of the sex abuse scandal in Boston demonstrated the wide scope of this situation, during Medeiros’ tenure as archbishop the cases of Shanley and Geoghan are presented in order to understand the situation at the time and how Medeiros chose to handle such cases in general. Revelations of the sexual abuse of minors by priests of the Archdiocese of Boston initially arose, as described earlier in this chapter, through concerns raised about homosexuality at Saint John Seminary. Medeiros was a strong advocate of ministerial outreach to the gay community, acknowledging that the Church had been somewhat delinquent in this area. Medeiros formalized his ministerial approach to homosexuals through his composition of a pastoral letter on the subject. He clearly indicated that the ministry of the Church must extend to all peoples: “There is no question, therefore, that we are called to minister with pastoral love to those of our brothers and sisters who have homosexual inclinations or enter into homosexual behavior. To them as to all others without exception, we must bring the riches of the healing love and mercy of the Good Shepherd.”91 At the same time, however, he was equally clear and straightforward with respect to Church teaching. He disagreed with those who claim that homosexual behavior was not sinful as long as it was “personally enriching,” stating clearly that such acts are “objectively immoral even if certain people experience difficulty in moving beyond them.”92 Speaking directly to the clergy, he emphasized that Church teaching must be upheld: For us as priests to sustain this teaching of the Church and to present it with peace and confidence, we must ourselves accept the Church as having in herself the light of Christ. We must also nurture in our hearts a strong resistance to any self-centered forces in the culture which claim to foster human dignity, but in

180

Chapter 8

fact inhibit and debase it. In the faith of the Church we must see the homosexual person as one whom Christ loves and wants to heal in the light of truth through genuine love.93

Medeiros rejected a specialized ministry to the gay community as alienating. He believed that the Church should serve homosexuals by bringing them “to the person of Christ in the sacraments and by leading them to personal prayer, to the prudent practice of penance and self-denial, and to the avoidance of the occasion of sin.” Medeiros received both support and critique for his ministerial approach to the gay community. A local Jewish rabbi applauded Medeiros, “We are very happy to see your courageous stand on issues of sexuality. We wish to commend you for being truthful and direct. We know of the pressure and criticism that has been leveled at you. It gives us even more admiration for your stand.”94 Others, however, were equally sharp and direct in their critique. One letter to Medeiros attacked his stand in various ways. The author wrote, “I am puzzled by your constant refusal to admit of the need of any kind of specialized ministry to gay persons in the Church.”95 The writer critiqued Medeiros’ theology that seemed to exclude gay men from ordination: “I am also concerned with your theologically untenable statement that only those who have moved beyond genital sexual preoccupation and found a real capacity for marital life and love can proceed to a celibate life.”96 Medeiros’ ideas of ministry to the gay community and his relationship with his priests collided in a forceful way through his relationship with Father Paul Shanley. Ordained in 1960, Shanley was seen by many as a flamboyant rebel who cultivated an image as a street priest in the 1970s. In April 1970, Cardinal Cushing assigned him as a full-time minister to “alienated youth,” working in Boston’s then infamous “combat zone,” an area of the city known for prostitutes and strip clubs. As a result of his non-clerical dress and “hippie appearance,” he became recognized in Boston’s homosexual subculture.97 People saw him as a bridge between those living on the streets and straight society. Before taking the reins as archbishop, Medeiros wrote to Shanley referring to his ministry as “very precious in the eyes of the Lord.”98 Thus, Medeiros did not remove him from this ministry, but in keeping with his stated policy of sponsoring no formal ministry to homosexuals, he was never assigned to work with the gay community.99 Initially, Shanley was commended for his work by people from various fronts. In 1975, he founded the Exodus Center, a nonprofit resource ministry established “to help sexual minorities and their families to achieve positive self-images, believ[ing] the essence of being whole is being who you truly are.”100 One letter of support for the center was addressed to Medeiros: “[T] he real purpose of this letter is to congratulate both you and Father Shanley

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

181

for realizing that the Church must play a role in the acceptance of equality of all men if it is to remain true to its teachings.”101 Priests from the archdiocese commended Medeiros for his support of Shanley. One typical letter read in part, “I would use this letter, brief though it might be, to praise your support for Father Paul Shanley and his work among the ‘gay’ community and the youth of the Boston area.”102 Medeiros himself was initially supportive. He cautioned, however, that great care is necessary: With regard to the Church’s work with homosexuals, I want to assure you that I regard this work as a very important part of the Church’s ministry, but one which demands great care on the part of those involved with it. It is most important that the Church avoid giving the impression that homosexuality is either normal, acceptable or good . . . [P]riests and others who work with homosexuals must not allow themselves to be carried away with emotion and thereby give the impression that what is wrong is good.103

Shanley’s ideas and at times highly controversial statements became more widely known with time through his many public comments made at various fora. In a March 1973 radio broadcast, Shanley received the attention of Medeiros through comments on various sexuality issues. Taking issue with Shanley’s beliefs and method, Medeiros responded sharply, [Y]ou expressed views contrary to the doctrine of the Church on several points of morality, stating for instance that such acts as masturbation and homosexuality are not “morally evil, and that the Church will change its teaching in regard to such matters.” If these allegations are true, I must express deep concern and disapproval.104

Shanley continued to speak publicly over the next few years on issues associated with the gay community. In the spring of 1974, he spoke at Massasoit and Merrimack Colleges. Concerned about what Shanley stated in the latter talk, one priest wrote to Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Riley, “To say the least, his remarks are causing great consternation among a people of this area.”105 In the fall of 1977, he spoke to a chapter of “Dignity,” an organization of gay Catholics, commenting that “Homosexual acts are not sinful, sick, a crime nor are they immoral.” He also claimed that “celibacy is impossible; therefore, the only alternative is for gays to have sex with different persons whenever they want to.” Moreover, he claimed that he could not think of any sexual act that caused “psychic damage to children,” arguing that “often the seducer in man-boy sexual relationships is the child.”106 An invitation to speak in the Diocese of Norwich, Connecticut, prompted the local bishop, Daniel Reilly, to query Boston archdiocesan officials about Shanley’s status

182

Chapter 8

within the archdiocese. Reilly was told that Shanley possessed faculties, but that the “archdiocese does not provide a forum for Father Shanley to teach in regard to homosexuality, and certainly did not endorse what he taught in the past and presumably his teaching at the present.”107 Medeiros received additional letters of concern about Shanley’s comments on homosexuality and his apparent disregard for Church teaching. The financier and philanthropist, Thomas Flatley, wrote that he had been “disillusioned over the past few years with Father Shanley.”108 Flatley claimed that Shanley’s work with youth in drug rehabilitation had “introduced more kids to a permissive wrong way of life than a constructive and rehabilitative way . . . Already, he has done a great amount of damage where he has spoken before groups, including college campuses, etc.” He concluded, “As a Catholic, parent and a citizen I cannot remain silent and tolerate the actions of Father Shanley.”109 Medeiros responded, assuring Flatley that “Father Shanley does not represent me at any time particularly when his pronouncements deviate from the normal tradition of the Catholic Church . . . I want you to know that I am expending every effort to ensure that Father Shanley’s ministry is the ministry of the Catholic Church to those in need.”110 While similar complaints were raised, Shanley still enjoyed significant freedom to minister as a priest. Equally if not more troubling than his public statements were accusations that Shanley had abused children. A review of public documents that became available in 2002 with the major revelations of widespread sexual abuse by many Boston priests suggests that as early as 1967 Boston archdiocesan officials first learned of allegations that accused Shanley of abusing boys and young men. The historian Douglas Slawson claims that in 1974 the mother of an alleged victim of Shanley delivered to Medeiros her son’s diary detailing the alleged abuse. There is no record that Medeiros or the archdiocese took any action.111 Concern about Shanley and his public statements reached the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, D.C., Archbishop Jean Jadot, who wrote to Medeiros asking whether the former should meet with the priest.112 Medeiros responded by acknowledging that Shanley was working with people in the gay community and that “many letters from individuals who have found strength to live virtuous lives due to his patient and understanding counsel,” were received in the chancery. Medeiros expressed his frustration in dealing with Shanley while correcting the false narrative that he had assigned Shanley to work with the gay community: I have discussed his position with him several times. I must accept the good he does but I cannot accept the confusion he creates . . . I never know what he is going to say and claim to have my approval. Actually, he assigned himself to this work but I did not discourage him from pursuing it, although not in the manner he does it with formal groups.113

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

183

Medeiros concluded by stating, “He [Shanley] has become rather controversial.”114 Jadot acknowledged Medeiros’ response, stating that he would not meet with Shanley.115 Eventually, the situation with Shanley reached the office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. One year prior to the previously mentioned interjection of Cardinal Franjo Seper, concerning homosexuality in the seminary, he had written to Medeiros raising alarm about Shanley. Seper was made aware of a series of audiotapes on homosexuality that Shanley produced for public distribution. The tapes contradicted Catholic moral teaching and pastoral practice. Additionally, Shanley claimed that he had been assigned by Medeiros to full-time ministry to homosexuals. Seper wrote to Medeiros, “May I ask you to inform the Congregation of any steps you have already taken or intend to take in regard to the spread of these erroneous ideas and in regard to the position of Father Shanley.”116 Medeiros responded to Seper, but not until three months had passed. He informed the cardinal that, once he learned that Shanley was teaching in contradiction of Church teaching, he summoned him and asked for a copy of the tapes. Medeiros told Shanley he was to take a regular parish assignment and that he was not to work with homosexuals. Medeiros further informed Seper that he told Shanley he was confusing people with his teaching. Medeiros was most concerned that, immediately after his meeting with Shanley, the priest held two extensive interviews with local media (radio and newspaper) claiming “that homosexuality as an orientation was not a sin and he would continue to proclaim that to the rooftops.”117 He concluded, “I believe Father Shanley is a troubled priest and I have tried to be understanding and patient with him while continuously affirming—both privately to him and publicly to my people—the Church teaching on sexual ethics.”118 In the spring of 1979, Medeiros was informed that Shanley had been a speaker at the Boston conference of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. At the conference, it was reported that Shanley spoke approvingly of a sexual relationship between a man and a boy.119 This revelation forced Medeiros to act. He wrote to Shanley informing him that his appointment to work with alienated youth and the gay community was to cease and that he was assigned, effective April 15, 1979, to Saint John the Evangelist Parish in Newton. In a somewhat chastising way, he informed Shanley: “It is understood that your ministry at Saint John Parish and elsewhere in this Archdiocese of Boston will be exercised in full conformity with the clear teachings of the Church as expressed in papal documents and other pronouncements of the Holy See, especially those regarding sexual ethics.”120 Extant records indicate that Shanley remained at Saint John, serving as administrator; he was ultimately assigned as pastor in 1984 by Medeiros successor, Cardinal Bernard Law.121

184

Chapter 8

As the Shanley case was coming to some resolution, Medeiros found himself embroiled in an even more tragic situation with Father John Geoghan. Ordained in 1962, Geoghan served in Saint Paul Parish in Hingham from April 1967 to June 1974.122 On the recommendation of the Priest Personnel Board, he was then appointed associate pastor at Saint Andrew Parish in the Forest Hills section of Boston. There Geoghan met Maryetta Dussourd, a single mother who was raising four children (three boys and one girl) as well as four sons of her niece. Geoghan visited the home regularly, often molesting the seven boys in their bedrooms. In February 1980, Dussourd’s children informed her sister, Margaret Gallant, of the abuse; she, in turn, informed her sister. Gallant spoke to Father John Thomas of Blessed Sacrament parish in Jamaica Plain about the alleged abuse of the boys.123 The complaint said the conduct had been ongoing for approximately one year. In notes taken during a conversation with Geoghan about the accusation, Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Daily wrote: “He [Geoghan] indicated that he had engaged in the homosexual activity (touches, etc.) as indicated—felt badly ‘ashamed’—has been very open with his confessor/spiritual director. Had asked about professional psychological help but confessor said to ‘hold’ for now.”124 Daily recommended to Medeiros that Geoghan be terminated at Saint Andrew’s no later than February 12 (three days after his meeting with Geoghan) and that she should “seek counsel and depending on what he advised--take some time off at home or go to another parish immediately.”125 Geoghan was assigned to “sick leave” in February 1980 for a period of eight months.126 In October this was extended for an additional four months.127 In November, Geoghan wrote to Medeiros about his treatment: “I have been receiving excellent care and direction from two wonderful Catholic physicians: Dr. John Brennan and Dr. Richard Mullins. They assure me that within a relatively short time, I shall be able to return for fruitful years of devoted ministry.”128 In January 1981, Dr. Brennan informed the archdiocese that after speaking with Geoghan, “it was mutually agreed that he was now able to resume his priestly duties.”129 Thus, one month later, Medeiros assigned Geoghan to Saint Brendan Parish in Dorchester, stating: “I am confident that you will render fine priestly service to the People of God in Saint Brendan Parish.”130 Initially, Geoghan’s return to ministry seemed to go well as he wrote that he was welcomed at the parish. However, when Margaret Gallant learned that he had been re-admitted to ministry and not been exposed, she wrote to Medeiros asking why more action was not taken.131 Bishop Daily noted, “They [the Dussourd family] cannot understand how the Church could reassign him [Geoghan] to a post where he had contact with young boys.”132 Nevertheless, apparently, Medeiros believed Geoghan was fully ready for ministry. In the early summer of 1982, he sent the priest to a scholarly

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

185

renewal program in Rome. He wrote to Geoghan, “It is my hope that the three months will provide the opportunity for the kind of renewal of mind, body, and spirit that will enable you to return to parish work refreshed and strengthened in the Lord.”133 More allegations arose in August 1982. In an angry and unbelieving tone, Margaret Gallant wrote to Medeiros about the malfeasance of Geoghan with members of her family two years earlier. One month earlier she had met with Bishop Daily and asked why Geoghan was still at Saint Brendan. She felt that the archdiocese had ignored the problem. She was outraged that she had been told to keep silent in order to protect her family. Considering the comment “insulting to our intelligence,” she wrote, We did not question the authority of the Church two years ago, but must insist in knowing what action is taken—where he is sent, etc. I will not allow the Temple of God to be overshadowed by a sin of omission. We, our family and all of us who look to the Authority of the Church, have the right to expect service from the ordained. My two sisters and my niece never as much as received an apology from the Church much less an offer for counseling for the boys. It embarrasses me that the Church is so negligent.134

Gallant rejected the idea that Geoghan was “cured.” Astutely and with foresight she continued, “There is no guarantee that persons with this obsession are ever cured.”135 Medeiros responded rather naïvely: While I am and must be sensitive to a very delicate situation and one that has caused great scandal, I must at the same time invoke the mercy of God and share in that mercy in the knowledge that God forgives sins and that sinners indeed can be forgiven. To be sure, we cannot accept sin, but we know well that we must love the sinner and pray for him . . . Please be assured that I am speaking to the priest in order to find the most Christian way to deal with the problem with him and at the same time remove any source of scandal for the sake of the faithful.136

Medeiros sent Geoghan for additional medical treatment; he was then returned to the parish. The priest kept a low profile for some time but by September 1984 the suspicious behavior began again to attract attention.137 A contemporary analysis of Medeiros’ methods to handle the cases of Fathers Shanley and Geoghan must be addressed. Reviewing his approach to the crime of sex abuse, as well his handling of other “problematic” situations with priests, such as Fathers Keane and O’Rourke, clearly demonstrates that Medeiros’ lack of decisive action was injurious to others. In this writer’s opinion, the common flaw in leadership in all these cases is found in

186

Chapter 8

Medeiros’ hesitancy and inability to act decisively. Paul Shanley, like John Keane discussed earlier, challenged Medeiros’ authority for several years. The Cardinal had received numerous reports about Shanley’s teachings but refused to act decisively until the situation was almost in extremis. Similarly, Medeiros gave Geoghan a long leash, allowing him to return to ministry even after twice being accused of sexual abuse of children in two different locations. Again, Medeiros should have acted more rapidly and certainly more decisively. His pastoral approach and belief in the basic goodness of people, especially his priests, while a great strength, was most evidently, in this case, a great weakness. His clouded judgment did not allow him to comprehend the situation from the perspective of those who were abused and their families.138 The advantage of 20/20 hindsight present today gives historians and readers an additional advantage in honestly evaluating Medeiros’ actions. The explosive revelations that began in 2002, leading to the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law and implementation of strict policies by the USCCB at their June 2002 Dallas meeting, make it clear that Medeiros’ response in both cases was inadequate. The “no tolerance” policy now in effect in the American Church is based on our present-day understanding of pedophilia and the now accepted medical standard that those who perpetrate such acts cannot be fully restored to proper mental health. Additionally, with contemporary emphasis on transparency, one must fault Medeiros for “keeping a lid” on these cases, especially that of John Geoghan. This writer believes that, even by the standards of Church operation and the best advice of medical science of his day, Medeiros should have decisively acted immediately to remove Geoghan from ministry upon verification of a second act of abuse of a minor. Whether his rationale for inaction was his overzealous love for priests or his refusal to air out the “dirty laundry of the Church,” his failure to act allowed a criminal situation to continue. However, it must also be asked, is it historically dishonest to judge people of past generations by standards that were not present during that individual’s lifetime. Can the slave-holding fathers of American democracy, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, be held accountable for participating in a system that was normative for their time and place in history? An honest evaluation of Medeiros’ failures to act, and the future pain, especially with respect to sex abuse, that his errors of omission advanced, cannot, however, excuse the historian’s need to understand the context of the situation under review. The framework to historical events is critical to openly and fairly evaluate one’s past actions or omissions. Poignantly, Bishop Robert Barron, an auxiliary in Los Angeles, in his 2019 Letter to a Suffering Church, addressed the question of historical context from the perspective of the Church and the sex abuse crisis in particular: “To be fair, many bishops in the 70s and 80s reassigned offending priests after they had

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

187

received assurance from psychological counselors that these men were fit for ministry. Within the context of understanding in vogue at the time, their decisions seem defensible.”139 Thus, while Medeiros’ method of dealing with Father Geoghan was clearly inadequate by contemporary standards, when one judges him by the standard of his day, his actions were misguided and ill-advised, but mainstream, based on the best available medical information concerning perpetrators of pedophilia. Additionally, it must be noted that during Medeiros’ lifetime neither the U.S. Bishops nor the Archdiocese of Boston had any formal procedure in place to deal with sexual abuse of minors. Rather, bishops handled such situations as they believed appropriately at the time. If history is honestly to evaluate this aspect of Humberto Medeiros’ ministry as archbishop, possibly the greatest fault lies with the mindset of the Church and its lack of transparency. Clearly, the need to deal with a criminal situation and root out perpetrators of sexual abuse on all fronts, but especially of minors, should have outweighed the Church’s fear of honest disclosure of the reality of the situation, and the obvious “black eye” that Church would have received. As recent history has shown, however, that “black eye” was only made much worse by the failure to disclose immediately the Church’s internal problems and take decisive action to remedy the situation.

NOTES 1. Helmick, Interview, October 12, 2018. 2. Deeley, Interview, August 21, 2019. 3. The Boston Archdiocesan offices and his Medeiros’ residence were located near St. John Seminary in Brighton, Massachusetts. 4. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 36. 5. Sousa, et al. Interview, September 20, 2014. 6. Helmick, Interview, October 12, 2018. 7. Humberto Medeiros, “A Cardinal’s Letter to Priests,” Origins 9(44) (April 17, 1990): 712. 8. Humberto Medeiros, Clergy Conference, October 15, 1973, Fall Clergy Conference October 1973 File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 9. Humberto Medeiros, Address, September 14, 1978, National Congress of the Sacred Heart File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 10. Humberto Medeiros, Clergy Conference, April 22–24, 1974, Spring Clergy Conference 1974 File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 11. Humberto Medeiros, Clergy Conference, October 15, 1973, Fall Clergy Conference October 1973 File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 12. Humberto Medeiros. “The Ministerial Priesthood,” Easter 1971, #47 in Whatever God Wants, 286–87.

188

Chapter 8

13. Humberto Medeiros to John Donovan, February 26, 1972, Priest Correspondence 1972–73, D File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 14. Boston Catholic Directories, 1971–1983, AABo. 15. Hughes, Interview, August 6, 2019. 16. Lawrence Riley, “Cardinal Medeiros Remembered,” September 20, 1983, PPGS. 17. Priests Senate President’s Report, November 27, 1970, Priest Senate File, Box #71, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 18. Humberto Medeiros to “Dear Brother Priests,” May 25, 1978, Boston Installation File, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 19. Impart, 9(5) (February 1975), AABo. 20. Helmick Interview, October 12, 2018. 21. Priests Senate President’s Report, October 23, 1970, Priests Senate File, Box #71, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 22. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season an Out of Season.” 23. Ibid. 24. Humberto Medeiros, “The Ministerial Priesthood,” in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 260. 25. Ibid, #15, page 268. 26. Humberto Medeiros, “Letter to Priests,” 710–11. 27. Impart, 15(1) (November 1980), AABo. 28. Ibid., 7(8) (May 1973), AABo. 29. John Kerdiejus, S.J. to “Dear Bishop” [Medeiros] August 1, 1977, Priests Senate File, Box #68, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 30. Impart, 15(1) (November 1980), AABo. 31. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 65. 32. Ibid., 75; Humberto Medeiros to Francis Crowley, December 23, 1974, Cardinal 1974 File, Box #77, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 33. Humberto Medeiros to “Dear Brother Priests,” May 25, 1978, Boston Installation File, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 34. Deeley, Interview, August 21, 2019; Interview with a priest who wished to remain anonymous, August 20, 2019. 35. Impart, 10(6) (March 1976), AABO; Interview with a priest who wished to remain anonymous, August 21, 2019. 36. Pope John XXIII called for renewal in the Latin American Church. He wrote to various national conferences of bishops asking them to support the Church in Latin America, Cardinal Cushing responded by establishing the Missionary Society of Saint James the Apostle, after the tradition that placed the Apostle in Spain after the crucifixion of Jesus. 37. Humberto Medeiros to “Dear Father,” March 20, 1972. Society of Saint James the Apostle 1970–73 File, Box #70, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 38. Humberto Medeiros to “Your Excellency,” April 1975, Society of Saint James the Apostle 1974–79 File, Box #70, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 39. Humberto Medeiros to “My Dear Brother Bishop,” May 5, 1973, Society of Saint James the Apostle 1970–73 File, Box #70. Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

189

40. Hughes, Interview, August 6, 2019. 41. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 70–71. 42. Ibid., 79. 43. Ibid., 70. 44. Humberto Medeiros, Clergy Conference Talk, May 20, 1975, Spring Clergy Conference 1975 File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 45. Humberto Medeiros Statement, October 24, 1975, Cardinal’s Statement, Priests Senate File, Box #56. Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 46. Helmick, Interview, October 12, 2018. 47. Massachusetts Catholic Conference Evaluation, n.d. MCC File, Box #65, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 48. Deeley, Interview, August 21, 2019. 49. Humberto Medeiros, Pastoral Letter on Vocations, May 1981, Pastoral on Vocations File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Medeiros wrote, “In the Archdiocese of Boston—which is been rich in vocations for missions in the country and abroad—the decline in priestly vocations is a grave danger for us and a source of profound sadness for the Church.” 50. Humberto Medeiros to Father Robert Hennessey, February 18, 1981 Priest Correspondence, Ha-He File, Box #88, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 51. Humberto Medeiros to Robert Bacher, December 27, 1974, Saint John Seminary 1971–1975 File, Box #69, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 52. Humberto Medeiros to Franjo Seper, February 12, 1979, found in http:​//​ www​​ .bish​​op​-ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 53. Ibid. 54. Humberto Medeiros to William Helmick, July 1, 1978, Cardinal Medeiros Memos 1978 File, Box # 97, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 55. “Saint Benedict Center: Origin, Purpose, Goals,” From the Housetops XIII (1): 33. 56. Ibid., 109. 57. Michael Feldberg, “American Heretic: The Rise and Fall of Father Leonard Feeney, S.J.” American Catholic Studies 123 (2) (Summer 2012): 110. 58. Pilot, April 22, 1949. 59. Ibid., February 21, 1953. 60. George B. Pepper, The Boston Heresy Case in View of the Secularization of Religion: A Case Study in the Sociology of Religion (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1988), 5–49. 61. Ibid., 48. 62. Ibid., 50–53; New York Times, February 1, 1978. Due to his ill health and senility, the Vatican did not demand that Feeney retract any of his former statements, but simply to profess the teachings of the creed. Initially, diocesan officials had asked that Feeney apologize for any acts of disobedience or erroneous teaching. Center officials countered saying that such an admission would crush Feeney, saying that his whole life’s work was worthless. Thus, in the end, all that was required was a simple profession of faith.

190

Chapter 8

63. O’Rourke did not have the authority nor the permission of either his direct Superior at the Woodstock Jesuit Community or his Provincial. Additionally, he did not have faculties for the Archdiocese of Boston nor delegation from the pastor at Immaculate Conception to perform the baptism. Thus, the baptism was valid but not licit. 64. Humberto Medeiros, Statement of Cardinal Medeiros Relating to Marlborough Baptism Case, n.d. [August 1974], Morreale File, Box #76, Boston, Medeiros Papers. AABo. 65. Peter Conley to Humberto Medeiros, September 5, 1974, Morreale File, Box #76, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 66. The Traditionalist Movement, with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as its titular had, arisen as a radical reaction to Vatican II. Traditionalists do not believe Vatican II to be a true Church council. Additionally, they believe the papacy has been sede vacante since Pope John XXIII. Two excellent sources that describe this movement are: William Dinges, “We Are What You Were: Roman Catholic Traditionalism in America,” and Mary Jo Weaver and R. Scott Appleby, eds. Being Rights: Conservative Catholics in America (Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press, 1995), 241–69​ .a​nd Michael Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditional Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). 67. William Helmick to Humberto Medeiros, August 15, 1974, Cardinal Medeiros Memos 1974 File, Box #97, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 68. News Clipping, n.d. [1976] Jan–June 1976 File, Box #97, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 69. John D’Arcy to “Your Eminence” May 23, 1980, D’Arcy Correspondence File, Box #111, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 70. Humberto Medeiros Memorandum, June 2, 1980, Priest Correspondence 1980 M-Z, 1981 A-O, File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 71. Albert Abracinckas to Cardinal Medeiros, June 10, 1980. D’Arcy Correspondence File, Box #111; Medeiros to Abracinskas, June 26, 1980, Priest Correspondence 1979 A-Z, 1980 A-O, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Abracinckas argued that patients in charity would have been a better route for Medeiros to follow. In response, the Cardinal stated “I tried again and again to dissuade him from actions which are contrary to Church law and harmful to souls. It would be irresponsible for me to allow the situation to continue.” 72. Jesuit priest John McLaughlin ran against John Pastore in Rhode Island for a Senate seat but was defeated. Father Robert Cornell lost a close contest for the House in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Cornell was successful, however, in 1974 and 1976. See Jim Castelli, “Priests/Nuns/Ministers in Poltitics,” Commonweal June 24, 1977, 398. 73. Boston Globe September 25, 1974, Priest Correspondence 1975 R-Z, 1976 A-O, Father Drinan File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 74. Robert Drinan, Biographical Sketch, Drinan File, BPO. Drinan became the first priest to serve in Congress as a voting member from a state. In 1822, Father Gabriel Richard (1767–1832) sat in Congress as a non-voting member from the territory of Michigan. See Vincent A. Lapomarda, “Jesuit Runs for Congress: The Rev.

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

191

Robert F, Drinan, S.J., and His 1970 Campaign,” Journal of Church and State 15(2) (Spring 1973): 209. 75. Humberto Medeiros to Pedro Arrupe, SJ, January 10, 1972, Priest Correspondence 1972 A-Z, 1973 A-D A File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 76. James E. Wood, Jr., “Remembering Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Ardent Voice for Social Justice,” Journal of Church and State 49(2) (Spring 2007): 186. 77. Ibid., 187. 78. Father William Helmick to Humberto Medeiros, October 3, 1974, Cardinal Medeiros Memos File 1974, Box # 97, Boston, Medeiros Papers, 79. News Brief, August 29, 1980, The Pilot 1979–80 File, Box #68, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 80. Humberto Medeiros to Joseph Stanton, M.D. July 21, 1979, Value of Life Committee File, Box #70, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 81. Henri D. Pellezier to Humberto Medeiros, September 23, 1974, Correspondence with Laity Pa-Ph File, Box #75, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 82. Carlos Cruz to Humberto Medeiros, October 11, 1974, Correspondence with Laity, Cr-Cz File, Box #74, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 83. Raymond A. Schroth, S.J. “Career Interrupted: Robert F. Drinan’s Unscheduled Retreat,” America 204 (7) (March 7, 2011): 14. The belief that Medeiros discussed the Drinan situation with the pope during his Boston visit is verified by Nicholas Acocella. He suggests that Medeiros did not like Drinan, offering evidence that all fourteen Massachusetts House of Representative members were invited to the papal Mass except Drinan. See Nicholas Acocella “Vatican’s Decision on Cather Drinan,” National Catholic Reporter 17 (October 9, 1981): 8. 84. Ibid.; See also Raymond Schroth, S.J. Bob Drinan: The Controversial Life of the First Catholic Priest Elected to Congress (New York: Fordham University Press, 2011), 306–15. 85. Robert Drinan, S.J. Statement, n.d. [1980]. Priest Correspondence, 1979 A-Z, 1980 A-O, Robert Drinan File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 86. Jerome Murphy, “Priest or Politician, Not Both,” Boston Globe, n.d. [1980], found in Priest Correspondence 1979 A-Z, 1980 A-O, Robert Drinan File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 87. William F. Buckley, “Father Drinan Bows Out,” National Review 32 (June 27, 1980): 801; Richard Neuhaus, “The Drinan Affair Again” First Things 71(March 1992): 58. 88. Gary Wills, “Drinan Case: Old Fear is Here Again,” Boston Globe, n.d. [1980], Priest Correspondence 1979 A-Z, 1980 A-O, Robert Drinan File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 89. Edd Doerr, “Priests, Politics, and the Pope,” The Humanist 40 (July/August 1980): 49. 90. “Priests in Politics,” America 142(May 17, 1980): 413. 91. Humberto Medeiros, Pastoral Care for the Homosexual, Feast of the Sacred Heart 1979 in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 337. 92. Ibid., 340. 93. Ibid, 338–39.

192

Chapter 8

94. Samuel Fox to Humberto Medeiros July 11, 1979, Non-Catholic Clergy File, Box #111, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 95. C. Robert Nugent to Humberto Medeiros, August 18, 1979, Correspondence with Laity, No-Mz File, Box #83, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 96. Ibid. 97. Humberto Medeiros to Franjo Seper, February 12, 1979, found in http:​//​ www​​ .bish​​op​-ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm.;​ Paul Shanley, Personnel Record, AABo. 98. Humberto Medeiros to Paul Shanley, September 28, 1970. http:​//​ www​​.bish​​op​ -ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 99. Humberto Medeiros to Franjo Seper, February 12, 1979, found in http:​//​ www​​ .bish​​op​-ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 100. Pamphlet, Exodus Center, n.d. www​.bis​hopa​ccou​ntability​.org 101. Thomas Rogers to Humberto Medeiros, March 8, 1974, Correspondence with Laity Rj-Ro File, Box #7, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 102. Father Frank Cloherty to Humberto Medeiros, September 12, 1973, Correspondence with Priests 1972 A-Z, 1973 A-D-Ca-Cm File, Boston Medeiros Papers, AABo. 103. Humberto Medeiros to Leo Leise, February 19, 1974, Correspondence with Laity Le-Li File, Box #75, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 104. Humberto Medeiros to Paul Shanley, February 13, 1973, http:​//​www​​.bish​​op​ -ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 105. Arthur Reardon to Thomas Riley, April 26, 1974, Bishop Thomas Riley File, Box #109, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 106. Dolores {Illegible] to Jean, October 4, 1977, found in Humberto Medeiros to Franjo Seper, February 12, 1979, found in http:​/​/www​​.bish​​op​-ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​ s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 107. Bishop Thomas Daily to Humberto Medeiros, January 14, 1980, Cardinal Medeiros Memo 1980, Box #97, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 108. Thomas Flatley to Humberto Medeiros, March 4, 1974, http:​//​www​​.bish​​op​ -ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 109. Thomas Flatley to Humberto Medeiros, May 7, 1975, http:​/​/www​​.bish​​op​-ac​​ count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 110. Humberto Medeiros to Thomas Flatley, March 14, 1974, http:​//​www​​.bish​​op​ -ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 111. Chuck Colbert, “Documents Provoke Fresh Anger,” National Catholic Reporter 38 (24) (April 19, 2002): 3; Douglas Slawson, “Outrage in Boston: The Sexual Abuse Scandal and the Downfall of Cardinal Bernard Law,” American Catholic Studies 128 (4) (Winter 2017): 68. 112. Archbishop Jean Jadot to Humberto Medeiros, June 21, 1978, Apostolic Delegate File, Box #19, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 113. Humberto Medeiros to “Your Excellency” [Jean Jadot] June 30, 1978, Apostolic Delegate File, Box #19, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 114. Ibid.

Ministry and Disputes with the Clergy

193

115. Jean Jadot to Humberto Medeiros, July 3, 1978, Apostolic Delegate File, Box #19, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 116. Cardinal Franjo Seper to “Your Eminence,” [Humberto Medeiros], November 14, 1978, Chancery 1979 File, Box #114, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 117. Homosexuality received no mention in papal encyclicals until Pope Saint John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor of 1993, which “specifically proclaims the intrinsic evil of the homosexual condition.” The more modern understanding that a homosexual orientation itself is not sinful was not so understood during Medeiros’ tenure in Boston. 118. Humberto Medeiros to Franjo Seper, February 12, 1979, www​.Bis​hopA​ccou​ ntability​.org. 119. Nicholas P. Cafardi. Before Dallas: The U.S. Bishops’ Response to Clergy Sexual Abuse of Children (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2008), 168–69. 120. Humberto Medeiros to Paul Shanley, April 12, 1979, http:​/​/www​​.bish​​op​-ac​​ count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. At least two sources report that Shanley tried to blackmail Medeiros into reversing his decision. Shanley threatened to reveal to the media unspecified information about homosexuality at Saint John Seminary. Shanley is reported to have written to Medeiros, “Were I to release this [information] to the press, you would have to fire another half-dozen of your top priests since what they are saying is far more shocking than my poor offerings.” Medeiros is reported to have replied, “I reject completely your accusations that I am inflicting punishment on homosexuals and their families. I shall pass over in amazed but laughable silence the threats you invoke against me concerning further public pronouncements.” See Los Angeles Times April 27, 2002. 121. Bernard Law to Paul Shanley, December 11, 1984, http:​/​/www​​.bish​​op​-ac​​ count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. It should be noted that in January 1990, Shanley was sent to the Diocese of San Bernardino on medical leave. He was sent with a letter that he was a priest in good standing. However, the Diocese of San Bernardino was sued by a man who claimed Shanley sexually abused him while living and working in San Bernardino. San Bernardino officials claimed that they were given no warning on Shanley and thus “the diocese has no responsibility in actions that caused this lawsuit and it should not have been its financial burden.” Thus, San Bernardino sued the Archdiocese of Boston seeking recompense. In July 2003, San Bernardino dropped the case as a gesture toward the new Archbishop (now Cardinal) Sean P. O’Malley. 122. John Geoghan Personnel File, AABo. 123. Slawson, “Outrage in Boston,” 61–62. 124. Bishop Thomas Daily Notes, February 9, 1980, http:​/​/www​​.bish​​op​-ac​​count​​ abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/g​​eogha​​n​​/doc​​_list​​.htm. 125. Ibid. 126. Slawson, “Outrage in Boston,” 62. Slawson claims that Geoghan’s pastor at St. Andrew was never informed why the priest was removed. 127. Humberto Medeiros to John Geoghan, October 28, 1980, http:​//​www​​.bish​​op​ -ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm.

194

Chapter 8

128. Boston Globe Reporters, Betrayal, 207; Eugene C. Kennedy, “Fall from Grace,” National Catholic Reporter 38 (18) (March 8, 2002): 16. 129. John Brennan to Thomas Daily, January 13, 1981, http:​/​/www​​.bish​​op​-ac​​ count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 130. Humberto Medeiros to John Geoghan, October 28, 1980, http:​//​www​​.bish​​op​ -ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 131. Slawson, “Outrage in Boston,” 62. 132. Bishop Thomas Daily Notes, July 24, 1982, http:​/​/www​​.bish​​op​-ac​​count​​abili​​ ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 133. Boston Globe Reporters, Betrayal, 25. 134. Ibid, 215. 135. Margaret Gallant to Humberto Medeiros, August 10, 1982, http:​//​www​​.bish​​ op​-ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 136. Humberto Medeiros to Margaret Gallant, August 20, 1982, http:​//​www​​.bish​​ op​-ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​list.​​htm. 137. Anonymous {Margaret Gallant] to Dear Excellency {Bernard Law], September 6, 1984, http:​/​/www​​.bish​​op​-ac​​count​​abili​​ty​.or​​g​/doc​​s​/bos​​ton​/s​​hanle​​​y​/doc​​ list.​​htm. John Geoghan was defrocked in 1998 by Pope Saint John Paul II and was found guilty on February 21, 2002, of indecent exposure and assault and battery for grabbing the buttocks of a ten-year-old boy in a swimming pool. He was sentenced to nine to ten years in prison. He was murdered by a fellow prisoner in 2003. 138. Paul Shanley was eventually laicized in 2004. In 2005, he was convicted of the rape of a male child. He was released from prison in 2017. 139. Robert Barron, “Letter to a Suffering Church: A Bishop Speaks on the Sexual Abuse Crisis,” (Park Ride, IL: Word of Fire Catholic Ministries, 2019), 83.

Chapter 9

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

Catholic schools have provided the institutional foundation for the advancement of the Church’s message in many ways. During the mid-nineteenth century, especially for German immigrants, Catholic schools allowed teachers to use their vernacular language in order to keep the faith alive for several generations. Battles with the state over financial support for Catholic schools, exemplified most prominently by the advocacy of Bishop John Hughes of New York in the 1840s, also demonstrated the Church’s dedication to education. In 1884 at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, the bishops mandated that all parishes maintain schools. As a priest and bishop, Humberto Medeiros had always been a strong advocate for Catholic education. As pastor of Saint Michael Parish in Fall River, he oversaw the activities of a school. During his tenure in Brownsville, although he was unable to start new schools owing to the poverty of the region, he was, nonetheless, a strong advocate for Catholic education. Medeiros brought these same sentiments to Boston, but times had changed, and controversy arose. The post–Vatican II era saw a significant drop in student populations in some urban Catholic schools, leading many institutions to close. Moreover, in Boston specifically, education was directly impacted when in 1974 a federal court order mandated integration of public schools by means of busing. This latter situation created, in the minds of many, the most significant crisis that Cardinal Medeiros faced during his time as Archbishop of Boston. CATHOLIC SCHOOLS IN BOSTON Humberto Medeiros was a great champion of Catholic education and he brought this conviction to Boston. In various public statements, he 195

196

Chapter 9

professed his belief that education was a tool to develop the whole person, the mind, body, and spirit. He stated in a baccalaureate address at Boston University’s Marsh Chapel, “All education must aim to produce in every student an integral life guided and sustained by principles. Any system of education divorced from an appreciation of values cannot really be described as genuinely educational.”1 Education must not only impart values but provide students the means of making their lives meaningful, especially in a society that rejects authority in general. Educational institutions must seek to develop in students a full realization of who they are, a complete understanding of their human dignity and their purpose.2 He summarized his ideas stating, “Today, given the critical circumstances of our times, I am more convinced than ever that our schools should by their very mission continue to offer the most effective means and settings for the total education of our youth.”3 Medeiros closely tied his general ideas on education and Catholic schools with the need to promote private instruction. Addressing a teachers’ convention, he stated that the great challenge of the 1970s for Catholic schools was to be more creative so as to be “second to none” and to develop a “spirituality that will make them a source of new growth in the Church.” While he was supportive of public education, he asserted that there was an absolute need for private schools, and he clearly voiced his backing for government support for nonpublic education. He wrote, The non-public schools of America are independent schools, free from government control and interference. They must remain ever so even when supported by the government as justice requires. Only thus can they carry out their mission of providing the opportunities for free choice to parents and contribute to the common good of all our fellow citizens. It is my considered opinion that the existence and full operation of non-public schools alone can save us from the dark danger of totalitarianism in our national education system.4

Nonpublic education was essential to assure that a monopoly on educational opportunity and choice would not prevail.5 Medeiros also voiced his views on the purpose of Catholic education. Obviously, the basic rationale was the intellectual development of the child, but Catholic schools existed to offer additional avenues for learning. Instructing children in the mission of the Church and preparing them for leadership was very important. In a graduation speech at Saint John Seminary he stated, “Catholic education . . . traditionally is intended to foster the growth of intelligent men imbued with an intellectual curiosity, strengthened by a deep understanding of their Christian faith, inspired with respect for the religious heritage [and] committed to the things of the Spirit.”6

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

197

Catholic schools had a unique and important purpose of imparting religious truth through instruction in Church teachings and a commitment to the service of others. Medeiros once stated, “The Church must first and always teach doctrine—the message revealed by God. It must secondly develop a community of love based on fellowship in the Holy Spirit. It must thirdly lead to service—service to the Christian community and to the total community of the world.”7 The Catholic school also had the mission to address the perennial questions of human existence and apply the gospel message to daily life. He once commented: The Catholic school, secure in the religious foundation of its own spirit of community can . . . help its students to see the necessary applications of the Gospel spirit in the world around them . . . It can help them to respond through Christian service.8

Medeiros also firmly believed that Catholic education had the express purpose to serve the poor as a priority. He often referenced Vatican II’s “Declaration on Christian Education,” Gravissimum educationis, stating that educating the poor and advocating justice were central goals of Catholic education. Preferential education of the wealthier social classes can lead to the maintenance of a privileged social class and foster an environment of injustice.9 Catholic educational institutions, nationally and in Boston, reached their apex in the mid-1960s. Nationally, in 1965, there were 13,300 Catholic schools educating 5,574,000 students. In Boston in 1964, there were 363 Catholic schools serving 155,841 students.10 However, over the next decade and throughout Medeiros’ tenure as archbishop, there was a steady decline in the number of schools and students. While many reasons can be posited for this diminution, certainly rising costs, due in large measure to the loss of religious as faculty and the consequent necessity to hire lay men and women at higher salaries and benefits, along with the general trend toward secularism and abandonment of authority during the turbulent 1960s, were primary reasons. When Medeiros arrived in October 1970, there were 321 Catholic schools in operation (86 secondary and 235 elementary), with 93,115 students in attendance. By the time of his death in 1983, there were 217 schools (51 secondary and 166 elementary), educating 44,341 students.11 The downward trend in Catholic schools was troubling to Medeiros and thus he sought solutions. His primary concern was keeping schools open. He spoke of the “struggle [in] many of our schools . . . to remain open in the hope that some form of substantial assistance was on the way.”12 Medeiros was challenged to address the perceived mismanagement of many Catholic schools leading to their demise. Acknowledging that, “it seems unlikely that

198

Chapter 9

we will have in the foreseeable future the structure of Catholic education which we have known in the past,”13 he established priorities to maintain schools. In January 1972, he issued a “Statement of Priorities for Education in the Archdiocese of Boston.” The document asked religious communities serving in schools in poor areas to continue their ministry, if at all possible, even if there was a need to use inter-community staffing and consolidation (see figure 9.1). While the archbishop wanted to keep all schools open, he realized there would be a need to prioritize.14 His desire and commitment to keep schools open led him to suggest some creative ideas. Working with the Archdiocesan School Board, a cooperative

Figure 9.1  Portrait of Cardinal Medeiros. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

199

effort was designed that would involve all parish schools. Ten regional meetings were held between October 11 and November 7, 1972, to seek assistance from religious communities to staff schools.15 Again, realizing prioritization was necessary and applying his preferential option for the poor, Medeiros commented, “I resolved to provide Catholic school programs particularly in those areas of the Archdiocese where quality education is needed and where people suffer most from imposed and oppressive poverty.”16 His commitment to the continuation of Catholic education required creativity in development, but nonetheless he concluded, “It is eminently apparent that the ideal [emphasis original] Catholic education model remains the school. This is true in the inner-city as well as the suburbs.”17 Medeiros’ efforts to maintain the viability of Catholic schools in Boston was part of a broader effort, both regional and national. A joint statement by the bishops of New England admitted, “Without exaggeration Catholic schools in the United States are now confronting a crisis situation. The crisis is largely through, though not exclusively, problems of economics and the reasons for this are many.” The bishops confirmed the essential role of Catholic schools, stating that they are “as necessary now as they were any period in our history.”18 In summary, the bishops stated: The schools we retain must be good schools, sensitive to the needs of young people in today’s world, models of what a true Christian community can accomplish even in the midst of a world preoccupied with selfish and materialistic concerns . . . We must take it as our goal to see to it that their doors are open, in so far as possible to all. This specific responsibility is a burden which must be assumed by the total Christian community.19

Medeiros continued to provide support, even with dwindling numbers of schools and students, loss of religious as teachers, and the financial problems these losses created. Thus, as he had done in Brownsville, Medeiros eventually instituted strict rules before schools could be closed. Extensive selfstudies were necessary, and dialogue with him, and the Archdiocesan Office of Education and the School Board were required. The historian Michael Lesault commented on Medeiros’ endeavors: “It was due to Medeiros’ efforts that school closings slowed and that as few schools closed as did.”20 Medeiros battled to keep Catholic schools open while maintaining the highest standards possible. He once stated, “Excellence in the quality of all programs of religious education is and must be the highest educational priority of the Archdiocese of Boston.”21 Excellence was necessary not only in the area of academics, but also with respect to spiritual leadership and the development of faith. He suggested that contemplation and compassion were essential to good spiritual leadership and should be central values for everyone associated

200

Chapter 9

with religious education. Additionally, he saw the Catholic school as a community of faith that accepts Christ’s words and puts its faith into action.22 Excellence was also required in all catechists. Medeiros firmly believed that teaching the faith was a privilege and a duty. Thus, catechists needed to be well trained and prepared. Teachers had to understand that communicating the truth of religion was not the same as articulating information and insights associated with secular subjects such as mathematics or history. The lived experience of religious faith was as important as the academic. Catechists were to serve as an intellectual bridge between individuals and Christ and his Church. He challenged his catechists to be zealous in their pedagogy: “There may be times when this [your teaching] will spark opposition in the local community, but this must not deter you from trying to put these teachings into practice in your own locality in the daily life of the school and the relationships with parents and students.”23  Medeiros believed that his call for excellence could certainly be aided through government support for private education. Thus, he entered a discussion that had been ongoing, with starts and stops, since the time of Archbishop John Hughes and his battles in New York City in the 1840s.24 Medeiros believed that the state had a mandate to educate all citizens for the common good. Since citizens have the right to choose private schools, Medeiros concluded that the government had an obligation to support them. He considered it a failure of the government in its obligation to aid citizens if federal and/or state resources were not made available. He stated: I am fully convinced that both federal and state governments have a serious obligation in justice to support the private schools of America. With public funds, American citizens have a constitutional right to choose the school which is to help them educate their children.25

Additionally, Medeiros argued that government monies would not be spent to teach religion, but rather the basic elementary and secondary level subjects. He explained his position more fully: I should emphasize that I do not feel that we approach the government, whether on the state or national scene, in search of something that is not rightly ours. On the contrary, the public service provided by our schools, namely the education of the young, is required by the same public law that permits parents to choose the school in which their children will be educated. To spend tax payments of Catholic parents in assisting in the secular education of the children is simple justice.26

Medeiros never wavered in his constant battle to see government support for private education, claiming, “Unless state aid to schools is authorized, the

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

201

resulting educational crisis will be disastrous to children in terms of human need and a sad commentary on the American dedication to our time-honored tradition of liberty and justice for all.”27 THE BUSING CRISIS: THE BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DESEGREGATION PLAN Humberto Medeiros’ philosophy of Catholic education and its importance in the life of the Church in Boston was severely tested in the mid-1970s. Catholic schools and Cardinal Medeiros himself became embroiled in a citywide controversy that led to broad-based violence and generated significant animosity toward Medeiros. His attempt to follow what he truly believed to be the proper Christian course of action, as he sought to provide quality education for all, in many ways broke his spirit. It left a lingering bad aftertaste in the mouths of many Boston Catholics. It is essential to provide information on the efforts of Boston public schools to desegregate and the events that preceded it. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case of the United States Supreme Court, which overturned the “separate but equal” policy of the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, provided the catalyst for the national Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. It also generated the impetus to integrate Boston’s public schools. As early as 1834, Massachusetts had enacted legislation ensuring the admission of all children to the states’ public schools regardless of “race, color or religious opinion.”28 Nonetheless, Boston, experiencing a transition similar to that of many northern cities after World War II, was hardly free from racism. The city’s demographics changed greatly after World War II. From 1940 to 1970, the black population rose by 342% to 104,000. With white flight, the African-American percentage of Boston’s population rose from 3% to 16%, creating a black ghetto. The sociologist Ronald Formisano writes, “Thus, the emergence of a school desegregation movement in the early 1960s resulted from the confluence of national events, internal strains in the black population, improved economic conditions for native blacks, rising aspirations and, of course, the desperate condition of schools in black neighborhoods.”29 Cardinal Cushing’s attitude toward black Catholics and his response to the situation of segregation can be described as mixed and guarded. The Cardinal was a lifetime member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), established a black parish (Saint Richard in Roxbury), helped establish the Boston Chapter of the Catholic Interracial Council, and in 1966 started the Human Rights Commission. Cushing had political clout; it was well known that Beacon Hill legislators asked, “What does Lake Street think?” Still, it seems that he was quite wary of Civil Rights

202

Chapter 9

activism on the part of his priests. Yet, when two of his priests received profuse praise for their activism in North Carolina, Cushing stated in his 1964 Pentecost Sunday homily: “I call this city and its citizens to justice. I call them to see in their Negro neighbor the face of Christ himself. I call them to change their hearts and to raise their hands before the evils we are tolerating [and] call down the wrath of God upon this forgetful people.”30 That same summer Cushing was moved, after race riots in Harlem and Rochester, New York, to state: “It is time we were disturbed; it is time we were shaken . . . In this hour, if the men of God are silent, the very stones will cry out!”31 The racial situation in Boston in 1961 led the NAACP and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) to begin to investigate the situation of the city’s public schools. The review showed that little progress had been made in integrating them. Thus, on June 18, 1963 and February 26, 1964, this coalition of agencies organized boycotts, labeled “Freedom Stay Out” days. As a result, on February 27, the State Board of Education announced it would initiate a statewide study of racial imbalance in public education. In March, the Board announced that Governor John Volpe had appointed a twenty-one-member blue-ribbon Advisory Committee on Racial Imbalance and Education, the Kiernan Committee, to study the situation and make recommendations. In June, the Committee, which included Cardinal Cushing, released a preliminary report that confirmed racial imbalance existed in many Commonwealth schools.32 On April 15, 1965, the Kiernan Committee released its final report, “Because It is Right Educationally.” The paper stated that forty-five Boston schools (fifty-five statewide) were “predominantly Negro,” which was defined as greater than 50% non-white. The report went on to claim that such imbalance was harmful to black children educationally and morally, by lowering their self-esteem. Additionally, white children were also ill-affected by their isolation from healthy interracial contact.33 The report prompted Governor Volpe to propose legislation to rectify the situation of segregated schools, leading to the passage and enactment of the Racial Imbalance Act (RIA) on August 16, 1965. The new law was the first of its kind in the nation to ban de facto segregation, with its threat of removal of state funds to local schools should they fail to comply with the new standards for integration. The RIA was rejected by many, most importantly the powerful Boston School Committee, led by Louise Day Hicks. She had been overwhelmingly elected to the Committee in 1963 as a strong anti-busing candidate. The rest of the decade saw the School Committee battle with the State Board of Education over compliance with the law.34 In 1967, when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court upheld the RIA as constitutional, it observed, “The [Boston School] Committee seems bent on stifling the act before it has a fair chance to become fully operative.”35

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

203

For the next several years, the School Committee fought to maintain the status quo in the Boston public school system, while offering a token nod of cooperation with the RIA. Hicks and her successor as chair of the Committee, John Kerrigan, were asked by the State Board to submit plans for integration, but little progress was made. The historian J. Anthony Lukas has suggested that Cardinal Cushing failed to bring his influence to the table to push Day and Kerrigan, both practicing Catholics, to greater cooperation, because he needed the Irish to supply the financial resources for his many ongoing projects.36 Additionally, it has been suggested that Cushing, influenced certainly by his friend, J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, became increasingly suspicious of Martin Luther King, Jr.37 In 1971, the State School Board, led by Charles Glenn, was ready for a showdown with the School Committee. Redistricting was the compromise made, but parents did not cooperate. Accordingly, the Board voted to withhold $14 million in state funds and suspended approval of all school construction in Boston. Thus, a case was being constructed against the committee. In October 1970, for example, the MCAD filed suit against the School Committee on behalf of Christine Underwood, a black woman who sought and was denied entrance to Roslindale High School. In 1971, the Federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare filed suit against the School Committee for violation of civil rights. Upon his arrival in Boston, Humberto Medeiros found himself in the midst of this racial tension, as he had been placed in the middle of the farmworkers strike in Brownsville. He very clearly rejected all forms of racism and challenged those in the archdiocese to rid themselves of any such prejudice. He wrote, “Racism is a moral sickness which is seriously weakening our society. It will only be cured when all of us . . . admit the pervasiveness of the malady and determined to struggle in uniting against it.”38 In a letter to his priests, he exhorted them to lead the charge against all forms of racism: “When fraternal order or institutions anywhere espouse policies that deprive persons of fundamental rights, then I, as Spiritual Shepherd of the Church of Boston, must take issue with such conduct. There is no place for Catholics and Christians in organizations which violate the equal dignity of persons.”39 Prejudice, segregation, and discrimination, derivatives of racism, were equally problematic. When speaking about prejudice, Medeiros wrote in a Pastoral Letter: “But in so far as it [prejudice] leads to segregation, discrimination and a denial of rights, it departs from the Gospel message of reconciliation and justice. This is wrong.”40 Unfortunately, he realized that despite disclaimers, racism continued, even in many with Church affiliation. A cure for this plague in society would only be found when all people, poor and rich, urban and rural, were willing to “admit the pervasiveness of the malady and determine[d] to struggle in unity against it.”41

204

Chapter 9

From his arrival in Boston, Humberto Medeiros was a strong proponent of the RIA. Responding to the challenges made against the RIA, Medeiros wrote in his 1972 Pastoral Letter, “Man’s Cities and God’s Poor”: I support the Racial Imbalance Act today for the same reasons the late Cardinal Cushing supported the original legislation in 1965, because, in attempting to guarantee quality integrated education, it is right morally . . . It is from this point of commitment that I exhort those legally mandated to implement this Act to exert their utmost in professional competence and enlightened leadership to fulfill both the spirit and letter of the law in the manner least disruptive for all concerned.42

As the 1970s progressed, through his archdiocesan staff and personal efforts, Medeiros continued to forcefully voice his support for the initiative. Twice in 1973 Father Paul Rynne, Executive Director of the Archdiocesan Commission on Human Rights, read statements, prepared by Medeiros, to the Massachusetts Legislative Joint Education Committee. In February, the Committee was told that, without the law, serious educational damage was rendered to blacks, human resources were squandered, and students were presented an inaccurate picture of life. The statement concluded, “The Racial Imbalance Law must remain because systematized separation is wrong and integrated education is right—morally and educationally.”43 In April 1974, Medeiros personally spoke to the Joint Committee, supporting the RIA “because it is right--because it calls upon our citizens to collaborate for the common good of all.”44 He stated that the inequality which the RIA addresses was in contradiction of the social teachings of the Church. In a more generic sense, he spoke of justice and human righteousness as rationales for his support: The implementation of the Racial Imbalance Law will not by itself eliminate the problem of social injustice in America, not even in Massachusetts. Inequalities are not limited to education. They exist every bit as much and at least as seriously in the areas of housing and employment. I stand with those who are convinced that the deep problems of racial injustice in our country will never be solved until every American has equal opportunity in the marketplace of jobs and the fully recognized right to determine where he will live. But while the racial balancing of our schools is not a total solution, still it is a beginning we must take.45

Medeiros challenged those who opposed the RIA to direct their energies toward the solutions of the obvious inequalities, fears and understandings that the law sought to remedy in the first place.46

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

205

Medeiros received significant support for his courageous stand on the RIA. Referring to Medeiros’ testimony before the Massachusetts legislature, a Jesuit priest wrote: “I have just finished reading the text of your statement at yesterday’s State House hearing on the Racial Imbalance Law. I simply want to say that I was exceedingly pleased and very moved by your appeal.”47 Medeiros’ conviction that his stance was the best for the archdiocese did not mean that all agreed with him. Complaints against his view were received from all fronts, clerical (somewhat muted) and lay. A typical respondent, who based her opposition to the RIA on civil rights, wrote: It is not a question of morality or racism or bigotry. I certainly agree that all children regardless [of] race, creed or nationality are entitled to equal rights, one of those being education. However, I cannot understand how the taking of one person’s civil rights to grant another his, can be considered legal under our constitution . . . I do not recognize any man’s or government’s right to take away and do at will whatever they want to children whom Almighty God has given me and entrusted to my care.48

The major problem according to some correspondents, was mandating action, rather than working toward a just solution. One “concerned citizen” complained, “What we are fighting is forced [emphasis original] busing and forced [emphasis original] racial balancing of our schools. We do not want to be forced into a position that we would feel uncomfortable in.”49 The battle over the RIA and public-school desegregation in Boston reached a turning point in 1972 in the landmark case of Morgan v. Hennigan. On March 14, the Boston chapter of the NAACP filed suit in U.S. District Court, under the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, on behalf of fifty-three black children and their families. The suit, filed in the name of Tallulah Morgan, was issued against James Hennigan, Chairman of the Boston School Committee, the Superintendent of Schools, officers of the State Board of Education, and officials of the Boston municipal government. The suit charged that the School Committee was intentionally creating and maintaining a racially segregated school system through: (1) The adoption of biased public school assignment policies, (2) The gerrymandering of school district lines to reflect segregated housing patterns, (3) The administration of school capacity, enlargement, and construction policies, (4) Transportation practices, and (5) The failure to plan and execute policies to eliminate racial segregation in its schools.50 Three months after Morgan v. Hennigan was filed, additional charges were made against the School Committee. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) found the Committee in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by its creation of two racially separated school systems. Until

206

Chapter 9

Boston’s public schools complied with the RIA, the HEW would withhold $7.5 million in federal funds. The Committee immediately denied the charges, asserting that racial imbalance was due to residential segregation, which the Committee could not control, or neighborhood school policy, which was constitutionally permissible.51 On June 21, 1974, U.S. District Court Judge W. Arthur Garrity52 issued his ruling in the case. Based on statistics that showed that high percentages of both blacks and whites were in segregated schools and the conditions of these institutions, he concluded that blacks were receiving an education unequal to that of whites. He found the School Committee in violation of the RIA, as it “knowingly carried out a systematic program of segregation affecting all the city’s students, teachers and school facilities.”53 Garrity’s 152-page ruling stated that the Committee acted with “the intent to segregate” schools and that it “made districting changes for the purposes of perpetuating racial segregation.” The ruling concluded, “Therefore, the entire school system of Boston is unconstitutionally segregated.”54 Garrity’s order mandated that action be taken before the fall semester to rectify the segregated conditions as they existed in the schools. The School Committee and the Superintendent of Schools were ordered “to begin forthwith the formulation and implementation of plans which should eliminate every form of segregation in the public schools of Boston.” Additionally, the Court ordered the creation of a long-term plan to end segregation in the schools.55 THE DESEGREGATION OF BOSTON’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS: PHASE I In September 1974, Phase I of the Boston public school desegregation plan began. Since Garrity’s order of June 21 left little time to generate an adequate implementation strategy, a document previously generated by the Commonwealth was used initially. The most controversial part of Garrity’s order and its implementation was the decision to bus some 18,000 students. In the plan’s execution, Roxbury High, in the heart of the black community, was paired with South Boston High, the pride of the Irish-dominated white enclave.56 Past attitudes toward forced school busing varied greatly. In Swann v. Mecklenburg Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court gave wide latitude in seeking solutions to correct racial imbalance and segregation in schools, including busing. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that if remedial measures do not correct imbalance, it is legitimate “to employ bus transportation as one tool of school desegregation.”57 Generally, presidential attitudes toward

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

207

busing were negative. For example, in a March 1970 written statement, Richard Nixon argued against busing from the perspective that an open and pluralistic society did not require complete racial integration.58 Many saw busing as a last resort, not a solution; it was necessary to deal with the more fundamental problems created by the situation that prompted busing as a means to achieve integration.59 The rationale for rejecting busing was multi-faceted. The element of racism was certainly present. Citing a sociological study conducted in 1970, Bert Useem wrote: “Even four years prior to court-ordered desegregation, most white Boston residents perceived the busing conflict as involving themselves versus blacks, and to a lesser extent, themselves versus an elite class.”60 Ignorance of facts concerning busing was also a significant part of the puzzle. More pragmatic reasons were that busing was too costly and was likely to lower academic standards of students. Some also argued that people should be free to defend neighborhood institutions, such as schools, from unwanted social change. Still others suggested that pedagogical wisdom mandated homogenous groupings; some spoke of the fear of traveling through certain neighborhoods. Catholics pointed to the moral right of parents to choose an education for their children.61 Some raised the issue of “White flight” as a rationale to reject busing, but others said whites were not fleeing blacks. Rather, they sought to avoid school systems that were too large, unmanageable, and unresponsive to needs and find a smaller and more responsive system.62 The Catholic Church’s stance on busing was also mixed. In March 1972, the NCCB, speaking on the promotion of race relations and equal educational opportunity, stated, “We cannot give a single yes or no answer to the question of busing. In some cases, busing may be the only effective instrument by which justice in education can be served for children of all races. For this reason, it would be a serious mistake to rule out busing entirely.”63 On the other hand, the (at the time) liberal Catholic commentator, Michael Novak, referred to busing as the Vietnam of the 1970s. He wrote that busing was, “a lost cause . . . a breeder of endless demonstrations, riots, and dissent . . . Busing of the Boston and Detroit sort is an immoral policy. It goes against the basic social principles of American life, against family, neighborhood, class, ethnic and even educational realities.”64 He believed that busing was grievously unfair to working-class people, and was supported by very few. The Phase I implementation of Judge Garrity’s June 21 ruling began in September. The stage for confrontation had been set earlier, when representatives of the KKK, American Nazi Party, and John Birch Society spoke in Boston and denounced the planned busing action. From the outset of the school year on September 12, violence accompanied the integration effort, most prominently in South Boston and Charlestown. Buses were pelted

208

Chapter 9

with rocks and other projectiles; several incidents of personal violence were recorded against students, black and white, as well as ordinary citizens caught in the fray. Overwhelmed, the Boston police force received additional assistance from 450 members of the National Guard. Units of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, were placed on temporary alert but were not mobilized.65 Medeiros reacted immediately to the violence in action and words. Before the school year began, Medeiros had written his priests appending to his letter the text of a special Eucharistic Prayer for unity. When problems arose, he quickly organized groups of priests to ride buses hoping that their presence would help curb violence. Medeiros tirelessly and forcefully spoke against violence. Before Garrity’s order, the cardinal challenged parents “to be conscious of the bad example they set for their children. Children must not be taught to hate and fear: they must not learn or reflect hatred or fear towards those who are racially or culturally different.”66 In October, Medeiros spoke more overtly against violence: “I must categorically condemn attacks of violence on all sides . . . In this hour I raise my voice to encourage people of good will in our community to be heard in favor of justice, peace, civility, and safety. The violence must be ended.”67 He concluded his statement: “The real issue is not busing or educational philosophy. The real issue is whether the forces of violence and hatred or the forces of reason and reconciliation will be dominant in our community.”68 Medeiros’ utter rejection of the violence that ensued when the Phase I desegregation plan started was only a small part of a much more expansive social agenda, initiated in Brownsville and brought north to Boston. His pastoral letter, “Man’s Cities and God’s Poor,” was the blueprint used to respond to the Boston school desegregation plan in general, by addressing racism, poverty, busing, crime, and education among other social issues. The key issue from all sides in the Boston desegregation plan was the use of busing to achieve the court-ordered goal of integration of public schools through compliance with the RIA. Before the controversy arose, Medeiros spoke favorably, even stridently, about busing. In his 1972 Pastoral, he wrote, “In view of the deepening division between white and black America—a division which now breeds fear, resentment and hostility—I have publicly endorsed busing as a partial step to break what can be called the ‘habit’ of segregation. I now repeat my stand.”69 One month before Garrity’s ruling was issued, Medeiros echoed these sentiments in his comments to the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Education: While the transportation of children is not the only way to achieve the goal of integrated quality education for all children, given the realities of housing

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

209

patterns, every effort must be made to see and accept it as a principal way, despite the inconvenience it may bring.70

Shortly after Garrity’s announcement, he voiced his support for the decision: “Busing may not be the most desirable way to integrate, [but it is] all we have right now [and is] only the beginning of the fight.”71 Medeiros’ clear message of support for busing became clouded, however, as the events in the fall of 1974 unraveled. In late October, Medeiros’ stance began to change. The Boston Herald American recorded the Cardinal stating, “I am opposed to busing and I always have been.” Later he again waffled on his position stating, “I didn’t say I believed in forced busing or that I was against it. That’s a means to an end. And how to plan the integration of the city, that’s beyond me. I have no competence there.”72 Possibly, Medeiros’ most complete statement on busing was published in a 1975 Boston Globe Magazine interview: I have not said much of anything about busing because my point is integration. Integration is good for the American people. We ought to live together in peace. The integration of schools is a good place to begin so that young children will have a chance to learn together in peace and harmony. But I’ve said nothing about the way to accomplish this. This is up to those who know, the educators and city officials who know how to do these things.73

Despite his apparent waffle on the issue, Medeiros’ general support received the affirmation of groups and individuals. The Massachusetts Council of Churches supported Medeiros, stating, “The challenge confronting us is to desegregate Boston today and to integrate Massachusetts tomorrow.”74 He was also applauded for taking the high road of courage over that of cowardice: “It is that distinction which sets Cardinal Medeiros apart from and above his anonymous critics.”75 As might be expected, the cardinal also received significant pushback on his support for busing. Jeffrey Hart, writing for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner editorialized that Medeiros support for busing suggests “he has embraced one of the most transparently false gods of our secular world . . . It is a painful paradox that Cardinal Medeiros, this most religious man, has come to grief through his own support of the sleaziest of secular superstitions.”76 The president of Mass Citizens Against Forced Busing, Inc., wrote to Medeiros, “[W]e feel your position on the [busing] issue is contrary to moral teachings and law.”77 In a measured tone, but nonetheless disagreeing with his archbishop, Bishop Lawrence Riley, the auxiliary bishop responsible for the central region of the archdiocese, which included Boston, stated prior to the busing order: “Please God, public officials, education experts and our

210

Chapter 9

citizens in general must strive without ceasing to devise some plan for integration that need not resort to mandatory transportation for students.”78 Many criticized Medeiros’ position on busing and his perceived change of attitude. He accepted this reality, with the understanding that either way he chose would be problematic for some. Polls conducted at the time show that 59% of Boston’s citizens were opposed to busing, but 75% of parents rejected the option. Even 42% of blacks stood against busing. The strongest areas of opposition were in South Boston, Charlestown, West Roxbury, and Hyde Park.79 Many Catholics saw Medeiros as a traitor, siding with “ultra-liberals” and blacks against the true defenders of the faith. The standard response of the Catholic faithful, namely, to obediently follow the lead of the local bishop, was no longer operative, causing Church leaders to grope for answers in a very foreign environment. Some in the anti-busing camp even called for Medeiros to resign.80 Criticism of Medeiros’ stance on busing came from his supporters as well. Pro-busing advocates wanted Medeiros to be a front-line soldier, “in the thick of the fray,” not merely a back-row commentator. These people chided the archbishop for a “lack of vocal objection to the current social crisis that is erupting in our city,” and neglecting “persecuted Black children.” Some went so far as to suggest that Medeiros should pursue “excommunication for those who practice this sin [of racism].”81 Historical retrospect on this period shows that Medeiros’ stance in essence was one that supported integration to remove the sin of segregation; the method to be used was not of great significance. Writing as the controversy was waning, Hubert Jessup stated, “Medeiros never publicly supported busing. Instead he asserted the moral righteousness of integrated education while leaving the means of integration in the hands of the courts.”82 Years later, in his book Common Ground, J. Anthony Lukas wrote: “Consistently endorsing the underlying goal of social integration—because ‘it is morally right’—he [Medeiros] called for peaceful compliance with the law. But he sought to distance himself from busing itself.”83 While the extant historical record provides evidence of his support for busing, the record is sufficiently mixed to show that what was of greater concern to Medeiros was the higher goal of social justice, which he believed would be accomplished through integration. Busing, while difficult and not without problems, was a pragmatic solution to the achievement of a difficult but higher goal. While the busing question was certainly integral to the Boston public school desegregation plan, the more difficult issue and the one that brought greater pain to the Catholic community and its leader, Cardinal Medeiros, was the role of parochial schools. The post-Vatican II period had witnessed a significant decline in the number of schools, religious as teachers, and students. Schools were a severe financial drain on resources, creating a $2

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

211

million shortfall in the 1972–1973 academic year alone. To make matters worse, congregations of religious women, owing to reduced numbers, and the widening of ministries open to them, began a severe retrenchment of their services in schools. In December 1972, the Sisters of Saint Joseph, the religious backbone of the archdiocese, announced that by June 1975 they would withdraw from twenty-four diocesan schools, one-third of their total. One week later the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur announced they would leave thirteen elementary, middle, and high schools.84 The Boston desegregation plan created the ideal environment to enhance the archdiocese’s slumping schools, since many parents, who sought to avoid integration and busing, desired to transfer their children to parochial schools. However, standing on the principle of justice, Medeiros staunchly and consistently rejected such thinking. Actually, shortly after his arrival in Boston, Medeiros foreshadowed his stance: Let me assure those who may be anxious lest our Catholic schools might sometimes become a refuge for white middle-class youth whose parents wish them to be in segregated institutions, that nothing like this is intended nor will be allowed to come to pass.85

Similarly, before Garrity’s ruling, Medeiros, through his archdiocesan director of education, Father John Boles, issued a set of regulations designed to restrict access to parochial schools. The plan was adopted by the Archdiocesan Board of Education on February 25, 1974. The criteria were: (1) A student transfer would improve the racial balance of the school to be attended, (2) Evidence exists that the application for transfer is due to a change of address of the family, (3) The family has other children in the school, (4) The numbers accepted in transfers conforms with the average number of acceptances in previous years, (5) Transfer acceptance policies are consistent with principles of social justice as articulated by the Church.86 Medeiros believed that the unwarranted transfer of students to parochial schools “would be detrimental to the community effort and would be at odds with the basic philosophy and objectives of the Catholic schools.”87 Support for Medeiros’ position came from both Church and state. In January 1975, as might be expected, the seventeen-member Archdiocesan Board of Education published a supporting statement which read: “If Catholic schools should accept transfer of students from public schools to avoid inconvenience or integration itself, they would violate their own principles and damage community efforts to foster the common good of our city, state, and nation.”88 Additionally, Melvin King, a Massachusetts state representative, lauded Medeiros’ stance: “I am impressed by your instructions to Catholic schools

212

Chapter 9

that they must not become a haven for white children fleeing the Boston Public School system.”89 Negative reaction to Medeiros’ decision was equally swift and strong. It came from many fronts. Boston City Counselor Louise Day Hicks, chairwoman of the School Committee in the 1960s, who had been a virulent opponent of busing, stated, “It is frightening how many people are fleeing this city, and the archdiocesan action is going to push them out faster.”90 Some argued against Medeiros’ policy based on the traditional Catholic value of a parental right to educate children. Gravissimum Educationis, the “Declaration on Christian Education” from Vatican II, was quoted: “Parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their children must enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools.”91 A complaint filed by “Concerned Roman Catholics of Restore Our Alienated Rights (ROAR) read: “Said Archbishop Humberto Cardinal Medeiros did deprive the children of Boston of their rights according to Holy Mother Church. By his actions said archbishop deprived children of Boston their rights bestowed upon them by the Supreme Deity.”92 Opponents voiced concern for their children’s safety; some suggested children should not be used as a social experiment. The opposition’s position was summarized well by Catholic activist Philip Zucchi, in an article published at the height of the conflict in December 1974: The Cardinal’s directive invites criticism on several counts. First, it unfortunately casts upon the parents of children who are attempting to avoid forced busing the gloomy suspicion of racial bigotry. Secondly, it fails to lend support to the very real concerns of parents who think that parental jurisdiction over their children’s education supersedes that of the government, and that busing their children into high crime districts is unsafe. Thirdly, it at least implicitly minimizes the importance of obtaining a Catholic education as opposed to a secular one. And lastly, it assures the continual decline of the Catholic school system.93

Medeiros realized his decision would not be widely accepted, but he based his policy on principle and justice. His decision was also important for the overall success of the desegregation plan. The historian James Glinski has stated, “The decision not to allow parochial schools to become havens for those who wanted to escape busing was of the utmost importance to the success or failure of the desegregation of Boston’s public schools.”70 It was Medeiros’ unwavering belief in the common good and his rejection of racism, segregation, and simple pragmatic solutions to complex questions that, while causing him much pain, can be seen as a sign of personal virtue and greatness. Humberto Medeiros was not interested in making friends, but he was insistent upon moral and just answers to society’s great questions.

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

213

Many of the Boston clergy voiced disapproval of Medeiros’ school policy. A canvass of Boston’s Catholic school principals and pastors in December 1974 showed that 50% believed the cardinal’s decision violated the natural right of parents to send their children to Catholic schools. Thus, while most schools complied with Medeiros’ order, some, especially outside the city limits, actually increased their enrollments during Phase I. Statistics showed that 8.8% of the archdiocesan schools increased their enrollments during Phase I. The most popular way for parents to “get around” Medeiros’ order was to enroll their children in suburban schools, as the policy only applied to Boston schools. However, many pastors and principals simply ignored Medeiros’s policy, receiving only a letter of reprimand from the chancery for their disobedience. The reaction of one religious sister in Somerville illustrates the view held by many principals: “Parents have [a] perfect right to educate their children. If a child wants to come here and we have the space, why not? Where are their constitutional rights?”94 One member of the Archdiocesan School Board called for Medeiros to act against such disobedient behavior: “If the Cardinal takes a position that there’s a moral justification for desegregation then you can’t allow violators to go just because they are on your team.”95 THE DESEGREGATION OF BOSTON’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS: PHASE II Judge Garrity’s June 1974 order was implemented using a preexisting state plan since time restrictions did not allow anything new and specific to the situation to be generated. Thus, on October 31, 1974, some seven weeks after the initiation of Phase I, the U.S. District Court at Boston ordered the Boston School Committee to present, on or before December 16, a plan for school desegregation to be implemented in September 1975. The plan was submitted as scheduled but was rejected by three of the four committee members. After some legal wrangling, a revised plan was submitted on January 27, 1975, but Garrity found this plan inadequate as well. Thus, on February 7, the Judge appointed four “masters” (later assisted by two advisors) to generate a plan for Phase II.96 The masters held evidentiary hearings and considered a number of plans. The Masters’ Plan, “Citizen Participation, Monitoring and Reporting,” issued on May 10, 1975, rejected all previous ones, but did incorporate some ideas from them. More importantly, it offered numerous new ideas. The plan, which extended Phase I to 25,000 students, called for the pairing of local Boston schools with area colleges, universities, and prominent businesses. The public school system was divided into nine community school districts

214

Chapter 9

and one citywide district, the latter containing twenty-six magnet schools with special programs that drew students from across the city.74 Additionally, the plan designated oversight groups, led by the Citywide Coordinating Committee (CCC). The body was to “communicate and publicize its views and recommendations to the public, the parties and the court.” A Citywide Parents Advisory Council, composed of members from each of the nine districts, gave parents a voice on the municipal level. Each of the nine school districts organized a Community District Advisory Council.75 While some sense of resignation toward busing was evident, the Boston Herald reported a positive attitude toward the plan. Still, the Boston School Committee Chairman, John McDonough, believed the program was a disaster.97 Medeiros added his own group, the Cardinal’s Coordinating Committee, to the list of oversight groups. Headed by Auxiliary Bishop Joseph J. Ruocco, the Committee consisted of priests, ministers, religious, and one layman, John Robinson, associate archdiocesan director of the Commission on Human Rights.98 The committee’s stated purpose was multi-faceted: (1) The coordination of activity of the clergy and religious in the city for the implementation of Phase II, (2) The gathering and dissemination of information among the staff of the CCC, the Cardinal’s Committee and local clergy and religious, and (3) Keeping the Cardinal informed concerning Phase II activities.99 In addition to his establishment of the Cardinal’s Coordinating Committee, Medeiros supported the Phase II efforts in other ways. He continued to speak out against violence calling it “a rejection of our vocation to strive to reconcile all men with one another in Christ.” He testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that the Phase II plan was “morally right and good” and that he would make every effort to oversee its safe implementation.100 Medeiros’ most important move, however, was his attempt to shore up his education policy which had seen enrollment additions in archdiocesan schools despite his five-point plan. Medeiros worked with his Board of Education to write a new policy that was extended to the whole archdiocese, not only the city of Boston. A modified three-point plan was implemented. Transfer students who met local parish or school requirements could be accepted at usual points of entry—kindergarten or first grade for elementary students, ninth grade for high school. Other transfers were accepted only if at least one of these criteria were satisfied: (1) Acceptance of the individual would further integration in the school to which the student was applying, (2) The student would fill a vacancy created through transfer or drop out, or (3) Acceptance was consistent with fundamental principles of social justice and administrative policies of the Board of Education for the Archdiocese of Boston.101 Phase II proceeded with fewer incidents, but for Medeiros personally it proved to be a time of great trial that continued to the end of the conflict. In a much-heralded interview in May 1976, the cardinal rather thoughtlessly

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

215

released his tension and anger, stating his frustration with Catholics in South Boston. When asked in the interview why he chose not to go to South Boston personally to pacify peoples’ frustration, he responded, “I am not going to South Boston to speak, to exhort, as so many think I should. Why should I go? To get stoned? Is that what they’d like to see? . . . No one there is listening to me. Eighty percent of the Catholics in South Boston do not attend Mass . . . and it contributes to their attitude toward busing.”102 Negative reaction to Medeiros’ statement was voiced swiftly. A typical response came in a personal letter: “Busing is not a religious issue. The Church has no stand on it except for your [emphasis original] personal feelings. As an individual Catholic, I believe we can be anti-busing in any legal or moral way. Furthermore [,] you as leader of the Church have no right to take sides on this issue, as this is a political issue.”103 The pain of the South Boston case, however, was quickly transformed into a positive event by Medeiros’ rapid and wise actions. In a statement which he asked to be read at all parishes on the weekend of May 8–9, Medeiros took full responsibility for his actions and asked pardon of the South Boston Catholic community: Your archbishop reacted, after a long and anguished time, out of fatigue and anger. These, as we know, cloud the mind. Do not blame the reporter . . . The fault is mine and I accept it . . . And so, my dear sisters and brothers in the Lord in South Boston: I do love you, I am sorry, I ask your Christian compassion, forgive me.104

Medeiros’ apology received immediate praise from clergy and laity alike. One person wrote Medeiros: “We greatly appreciate your apology for we know how courageous and difficult it must have been.”105 A South Boston priest also congratulated the Cardinal: “The people of this district and elsewhere have been greatly pleased by your statement. They accept your humanity and see themselves in your ordeal . . . I was very proud of you, my Archbishop, last Saturday.”106 Medeiros’ ability to demonstrate his humanity broke the ice of a cold relationship between himself and the Catholic anti-busing lobby. The historian Michael Lescault has accurately summarized the effect of the archbishop’s action: “Medeiros’ apology was something of a watershed in the conflict. After years of conflict and division, Medeiros’ gesture provoked great healing. It sparked a catharsis that opened the door to something of a reconciliation.”107 The reconciliation was completed in December when Medeiros celebrated Christmas Mass in South Boston, an event attended by many in the anti-busing lobby. By November 1977, attitudes toward desegregation had shifted sufficiently, such that the core of the Catholic opposition to busing,

216

Chapter 9

Louise Day Hicks and John Kerrigan, lost their re-election bids. Surprisingly and rather unceremoniously the Boston bus controversy died as rapidly as it arose from lack of enthusiasm.108 AFTERMATH AND EVALUATION OF THE CONTROVERSY By the time of Medeiros’ 1976 Christmas Mass in South Boston, the busing controversy had begun to wane, but final resolution came thirteen years later. On September 28, 1987, the U.S. Federal Appeals Court overturned Judge W. Arthur Garrity’s 1974 order that required the use of specific racial guidelines in student assignments. In the opinion the court wrote, Under the Court’s guidance, they [Boston School Committee] have succeeded not only in dismantling virtually all the one-race schools the system had maintained but appear also to have made the schools as desegregated as possible given the realities of modern urban life.

Thus, the “Battle of Boston” came to an official close.109 Historians have pondered the Boston busing controversy seeking lessons, heroes, and villains. While many messages can be derived for future civic and state action,110 the responses of the Church and Medeiros are most critical. While the extant record clearly demonstrates the Church’s commitment to desegregation, many commentators have criticized it for its perceived failure to have greater influence on the course of events. James Glinski believes that the archdiocese’s inability, before or after the controversy, “to develop a coordinated and consistent urban policy” played a significant role.111 The Jesuit priest Frank Harris, writing at the time of the controversy, commented: “If the teachings of the Church relative to social justice had been taught here [Boston] and received by the people, the current problem would not exist.”112 As leader of the Boston Church, Cardinal Medeiros’ role in the busing controversy has received the most scrutiny. J. Anthony Lukas, by comparing him with his predecessor, Cardinal Richard Cushing, concludes that Medeiros lacked initiative. He writes, “In the bitter struggle over Boston’s schools, Medeiros remained profoundly cautious, as if fearing to stir the fires of Irish resentment.”113 In June 1975, at the conclusion of Phase I, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, concluded that Boston’s religious leaders had not done enough “to support the peaceful and lawful implementation of court-ordered desegregation.”114 The historian Thomas O’Connor addressed the future ramifications of the crisis: “When the passions subsided and forced

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

217

busing was implemented as the norm for the Boston public schools, many parishioners found themselves distanced from their parishes as they felt that they had been abandoned by their Church.”115 Many other historians and even participants in the controversy have seen Medeiros’ role in a much more positive light. In a stinging rebuttal to Lukas, Robert Dentler, one of the two advisors to the Masters who constructed the Phase II plan, wrote that Lukas’ appraisal of Medeiros’ performance “is subjective conjecture on a the part of a journalist who was unable to penetrate the walls of privacy surrounding archdiocesan leadership in secular matters.” He calls Lukas’ attempt to compare Medeiros with what Cushing might have done “a form of what-if historiography.”116 James Glinski views Medeiros as a “victim,” both of racism and a long-standing archdiocesan system of highly centralized policy-making and decentralized policy implementation, a process completely opposed to Medeiros’ leadership style. He concludes, “Cardinal Medeiros, because of his own leadership style and the perception of him as an outsider, was unable to provide strong leadership for the archdiocese during this time of crisis.”117 Near the end of his life, Medeiros reflected upon the bus controversy and his role. He continued to proclaim the importance of integrated schools, believing that this reality would be what children would experience when they matured. The question of technicalities, how to effect such a policy, was not his domain, but rather for those with greater expertise. He centered his position on the message of Christ: “You have to be for the Gospel; I thought I was for the Gospel.”118 Cardinal Medeiros as a prelate of great principle sacrificed personal popularity and pragmatic solutions, especially for parochial schools, opting for the more difficult and important vision of social justice. It can be argued, based on past history and local expectations of the faithful, that Humberto Medeiros was not the proper man for the position of Archbishop of Boston, but regardless of his suitability his position in the busing controversy was untenable; either side he chose would have been problematic. It would have been rather easy for him to support the majority by speaking against busing and opening the parochial schools to all comers, but at what cost? For Medeiros the cost, that which was to be sacrificed, was the more basic need for racial integration, which he saw as central to Catholic social justice. Thus, he took the consistent and more difficult position which caused him personal pain, turned many against him, including some of his own priests. The situation negated the opportunity to bring greater vitality to the archdiocesan schools which badly needed a shot of adrenaline. Medeiros’ position was the more difficult path, the road less traveled, but for him it was the only route to maintain the integrity of the Gospel message upon which he based his life. In a totally non-ironic but wholly consistent way, Humberto

218

Chapter 9

Medeiros continued to apply the basic principles of fairness and his forwardthinking ideas to the implementation of the principles of Vatican II in the Archdiocese of Boston. NOTES 1. Humberto Medeiros, Address, May 16, 1982, Baccalaureate Ceremony Boston University File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 2. Humberto Medeiros, Address, n.d [1973], Service and Sacrifice Award, Boston College File, Box #55; Medeiros Address, “Catholic Education: Problems and Issues That Unite Us,” September 11, 1971, School Department Worcester File, Box #69, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABO. 3. Humberto Medeiros, “Statement on Educational Priorities of the Archdiocese of Boston,” January 10, 1972, Schoolboard File, Box #71, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 4. Humberto Medeiros, “Statement on State and Federal Aid to Private Schools,” February 12, 1972, Racial Imbalance File, M339A, Chancellor Records, AABo. 5. Ibid., December 19, 1970. 6. Humberto Medeiros, Saint John Seminary Graduation Speech, May 31, 1971, Unmarked File, Box #10, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 7. Humberto Medeiros, Homily, January 28, 1973, TV Mass Homily File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 8. Humberto Medeiros, Address, October 31, 1972, Teacher Professional Day, Malden High School File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 9. Humberto Medeiros, Address, September 17, 1979 Archdiocese School Department 1977–79 File, Box # 60, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 10. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 100. 11. Kennedy Official Catholic Directories 1971–1983. 12. Archdiocesan News Service, August 3, 1980. BPO. 13. Humberto Medeiros to Sister Aquinette, OP, February 4, 1972, Director of Education File, Box #63, Boston Medeiros Papers, AABo. 14. Ibid. 15. Statement of School Board of the Archdiocese of Boston, December 15, 1972, Director of Education File, Box #63, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 16. Humberto Medeiros, Statement on Educational Priorities of the Archdiocese of Boston, January 10, 1972, School Board File, Box #71, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 17. Humberto Medeiros Address, “Catholic Education: Problems and Issues That Unite Us,” September 11, 1971, School Department, Worcester File, Box #69, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 18. Archdiocesan News Bureau, November 14, 1971, BPO. 19. The Pilot, November 20, 1971. 20. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 105.

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

219

21. Humberto Medeiros, Statement on Educational Priorities of the Archdiocese of Boston, January 10, 1972, School Board File, Box #71, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 22. Humberto Medeiros, “Christian Hope and Joy,” August 20, 1971, Address to the New England Conference of Religious Education, found in Whatever God Wants 393; Medeiros, Address, October 31, 1972 Teachers Professional Day Malden High School File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 23. Humberto Medeiros, “Introduction,” September 17, 1979, Phillips Trust File Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 24. In the 1840s, Archbishop John Hughes of New York fought to secure public funding for parochial schools in the city. Although he was not successful, he nevertheless brought the issue to the forefront where it has remained to this day. For more details see Vincent Lannie, Public Money and Parochial Education (Cleveland: The Press of Case Western University, 1968). 25. “Humberto Medeiros, Statement on State and Federal Aid to Private Schools,” February 12, 1971, Racial Imbalance File. M339, Chancellor Records, AABo. 26. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, December 1, 1970, Statement Boston Latin School File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 27. The Pilot, December 5, 1970. 28. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 87–88. 29. Ronald P. Formisano, Boston Against Busing: Race, Class and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 27. 30. Quoted in Lukas, Common Ground, 385. 31. Ibid., It is interesting to note that, at the end of his life, Cushing felt racism persisted on all levels in the archdiocese. The historian John Deedy concluded that before his death Cushing “felt his people [of the Archdiocese] carried with them deep feelings of prejudice and distrust toward black people, and they trusted to too great an extent the leadership of bigoted and narrowminded priests.” See John Deedy, “News and Views,” Commonweal 100 (December 6, 1974): 226. 32. Robert Butler, “A Chronology of the School Desegregation Controversy in Boston,” September 1974, M3326, Chancellor Papers, AABo. 33. Ibid. 34. Laura S. Kohl, “The Response of the Catholic Church to the Desegregation of the Boston Public Schools 1973–1976” (B.A. Thesis, Harvard University, 1987), 4, 35. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 90. 36. Lukas, Common Ground, 389. 37. Ibid., 387. 38. “Cardinal Fights the Good Fight,” 3. 39. Humberto Medeiros to “Reverend and Dear Father,” February 21, 1974, Phase II Busing File, Box #60, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 40. Humberto Medeiros, “Man’s Cities and God’s Poor,” in Whatever God Wants by Humberto Medeiros (Boston: Daughters of Father Paul, 1984), 547. 41. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, April 4, 1974, M-3339, Chancellor Papers, AABo. In November 1979, after the Boston bus controversy had subsided, Medeiros participated in an ecumenical prayer service held on Boston Common, to pray for

220

Chapter 9

peace after an apparently racially motivated attack upon a black high school student in Charlestown raised concern throughout the city (see chapter 12). He stated at that time: “Racism—root and stem and branches—must now and forever, be driven out of the minds and hearts, out of the living rooms and neighborhoods, out of the social atmosphere and the institutions that make up Boston.” Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 140. 42. Humberto Medeiros, “Man’s Cities and God’s Poor,” in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 571–72. 43. Humberto Medeiros, Statement before the Massachusetts Legislative Joint Education Committee, February 24, 1973, Phase II Busing File, Box #60, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 44. Ibid.; Humberto Medeiros, Statement Before the Massachusetts Legislative Joint Education Committee, November 19, 1973, Phase II Busing File, Box #60, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 45. Humberto Medeiros, Statement at Gardner Auditorium, April 4, 1974, Speeches and Public Statements of Cardinal Medeiros, Box #60, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 46. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, November 17, 1973, Phase II Busing File, Box #60, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 47. Father James Ryan, S.J. to Humberto Medeiros, April 5, 1974, Unmarked File, Box #121, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 48. Marjorie Jennes to “Reverend Fathers,” March 30, 1974, M-3332, Chancellor Papers, AABo. 49. A Concerned Citizen to Humberto Medeiros, April 5, 1974, Unmarked File, Box #121, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 50. Kohl, “Boston Public Schools,” 4–5; Jane M. Hornburger, “Deep Are the Roots: Busing in Boston,” Journal of Negro Education 45 (3) (Summer 1976):237; Butler, “Chronology of the School Desegregation Controversy” M3326, Chancellor Papers, AABo; David M. Condon, “Politics, Priests, and Protests: The Response of the Catholic Church to the Boston Busing Crisis,” B.A. Thesis, Harvard University, 1990, 61. 51. Kohl, “Boston Public Schools,” 5. 52. Judge W. Arthur Garrity had linked his fortunes with the Kennedy family. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy named him to the position of United States’ Attorney in Boston. President Lyndon Johnson appointed him a federal district judge. He held a liberal reputation on the bench. Garrity’s position was consistent with other cases that had arisen since Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. 53. Butler, “Chronology of the School Desegregation Controversy,” M-3326, Chancellor Papers, AABo; Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 97; Hornburger, “Deep Are the Roots,” 237; “School Desegregation Plan,” December 16, 1974, Box 112, Department of Implementation, Boston Public School Papers, Boston City Archives (hereafter BCA), Hyde Park, Massachusetts. 54. Newspaper clipping, n.d [October 1974] M-3339, Chancellor Records, AABo. 55. “School Desegregation Plan,” December 16, 1974, Box 112 Department of Implementation, Boston Public School Papers, BCA.

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

221

56. Formisano, Boston Against Busing, 66–87. 57. Emmet Buell and Richard A. Brisbin, Jr. School Desegregation and Defended Neighborhoods: The Boston Controversy (Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1982), 11–13; “Busing is Part of the Answer,” America 134 (January 24, 1976):45. 58. Buell and Brisbin, School Desegregation, 15–18. 59. Michael True, “Last Resort in Boston,” Commonweal 100 (October 25, 1974): 76; James M. Wall, Editorial Comment, The Christian Century, n.d. [June 1976], 531, found in Busing Notes Medeiros Papers, AABo. 60. Useem, “Models of Anti-Busing,” 268. 61. Buell and Brisbin, School Desegregation, 5–7; Hornburger, “Deep Are the Roots,” 242–43; Humberto Medeiros, “Comments at a Prayer Breakfast,” n.d. M-3339, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 62. Maurice de G Ford, “Courts, Busing and White Flight,” The Nation 221 (July 5, 1975): 13–14. 63. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 91. 64. Quoted in James E. Glinski, “Church in Crisis: The Role of the Archdiocese of Boston in the Effort to Desegregate Boston’s Schools,” M.A. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, 1987, 58. 65. “Boston School Violence: Turning Point in Busing?” U.S. News & World Report 77 (October 28, 1974): 22. 66. Archdiocesan News Bureau, October 9, 1973, BPO. 67. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, October 8, 1974, Archdiocesan News Bureau, M-3339, Chancellor Papers, AABo. 68. Ibid. 69. Humberto Medeiros, “Man’s Cities in God’s Poor,” in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 571. 70. Humberto Medeiros, Statement before the Massachusetts Legislature Joint Committee on Education, May 29, 1974, Speeches and Public Statements of Cardinal Medeiros File, Box #125, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 71. Quoted in Glinski, “Church in Crisis,” 43. 72. Boston Herald American, October 22, 1974, clipping found in M-3339A, Chancellor Papers, AABo; Quoted in Lukas, Common Ground, 399. 73. Quoted in Glinksi, “Church in Crisis,” 100. 74. Press Release, October 10, 1974, Massachusetts Council of Churches File, Box #66, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 75. Father David Noonan to Editor (The Real Paper), April 12, 1976, Correspondence with Priests 1975, O-Z, 1976 A-O, N File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 76. Los Angeles Herald American May 13, 1976, News Clipping found in Priest Correspondence 1975 P-Z, 1976 A-O, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 77. Marianne Procida to Humberto Medeiros, May 18, 1975, Busing M3326 Chancellor Records, AABo. 78. Archdiocesan News Bureau, April 4, 1974, Phase II Busing File, Box #60, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

222

Chapter 9

79. “Cardinal Medeiros of Boston: Outspoken Supporter,” 3. 80. Ibid. 81. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 131–32. 82. Hubert Jessup, “Busing Rerun, Medeiros Returns to South Boston,” National Catholic Reporter (January 7, 1977): 6. 83. Ibid.; Lukas, Common Ground, 398–99. 84. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 101–03. 85. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, December 1, 1970, Boston Latin School File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 86. Archdiocesan News Bulletin, January 30, 1975, BPO; Bartholomew Varden, CFX to Members of the Archdiocesan Board of Education, December 23, 1974, Archdiocesan School Department 1974–76 File, Box #59, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo; The Pilot, January 31, 1975. 87. “Policy on Admissions, “Archdiocesan Board of Education Meeting Minutes, February 25, 1974, 3339A Chancellor Papers, AABo. See Also, Condon, “Politics, Priests and Protest,” 48–49. 88. Archdiocesan News Bulletin, January 30, 1975, BPO. 89. Melvin King to Humberto Medeiros, March 12, 1974, Director of Education File, Box #63, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 90. Boston Herald American, February 20, 1974. 91. Gravissimum Educationis, paragraph 6. Some also referred to Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri “On the Christian Education of Youth” (December 1929, paragraph 32 ) stated: “The family therefore holds directly from the Creator the mission and hence the right to educate the offspring, a right inalienable because inseparably joined to the strict obligation, a right anterior to any right whatever of civil society and of the State, and therefore inviolable on the part of any power on earth.” 92. “Complaint” Filed with the County of Suffolk Court, n.d. [1975] ROAR File M339A Chancellor Records, AABo. 93. Quoted in Glinski, “Church in Crisis,” 57–58. 94. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 120–21. 95. News Clipping, n.d [1975] Racial Imbalance Act File M339A Chancellor Records, AABo. 96. The Masters were: Francis Keppel, former U.S. Commissioner of Education and former Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education; Edward McCormack, Jr., former Massachusetts Attorney General; Charles Willie, Harvard Professor of Education, and Justice Jacob Spiegel, retiree from the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The two advisors/assistants were Robert Dentler, Boston University Dean of Education and his Associate Dean Marvin Scott. The advisors were appointed by Garrity on May 15 to redraw the boundaries of the proposed nine community school districts to make them more racially balanced. 97. Boston Herald, August 15, 1975, clipping; The Pilot, May 16, 1975, M-3339, Chancellor Papers, AABo. 98. The Pilot, August 29, 1975, clipping, M-3339A, Chancellor Papers, AABo; Memorandum, Massachusetts Advisory Committee to US Commission on Civil

Catholic Schools and the Busing Crisis

223

Rights, February 11, 1976, Box 33, Department of Implementation, Boston Public School Papers, BCA. 99. Statement, Archdiocesan News Bureau, August 28, 1975, M-3339, Chancellor Papers, AABo. 100. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, August 7, 1975, Archdiocesan News Bureau; Boston Herald, June 18, 1975, Clipping, M-3339, Chancellor Papers, AABo. 101. Statement of Policy of Admission of Students from Boston Public Schools, January 27, 1975, M-3339A, Chancellor Papers, AABo. 102. Herald American, May 2, 1976. 103. Unknown to Humberto Medeiros, May 8, 1976, Busing Letters Answered File, Box #121, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 104. Humberto Medeiros, Statement Read at All Parishes, May 8, 1976, Busing Notes File, Box #121, Boston Medeiros Papers, AABo. 105. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 136. 106. John Coffey to Humberto Medeiros, May 10, 1976, Correspondence with Laity, Box #78, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 107. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 136–37. 108. Jessup, “Busing Rerun,” 6. 109. Quoted in Glinski, “Crisis in the Church,” 99. 110. As just one example, America ran an editorial in January 1976: “The Boston crisis only proves that it is terrifyingly hard to segregate schools when the local school board actively resists integration and thereby encourages racial hostility in some parents and some students.” See “Busing is Part of the Answer,” America 134 (January 24, 1976): 45. 111. Ibid., 99–100. Glinksi elaborates significantly on this urban policy failure in his thesis. 112. Father Frank J. Harris, S.J. “The Boston Church and Desegregation,” America 134 (September 11, 1976): 116. 113. Lukas, Common Ground, 398. 114. Quoted in Glinski, “Church in Crisis,” 79. 115. O’Connor, Two Centuries of Faith, 228. 116. Robert A. Dentler, “Boston School Desegregation: The Fallowness of Common Ground.” New England Journal of Public Policy 2 (1986): 91. 117. Glinski, “Church in Crisis,” 103–05. 118. “Medeiros of Boston: The Cardinal, the Priest,” Videotape, 1983, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Chapter 10

Vatican II in Action

The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) can arguably be described as the most significant event in Roman Catholic history during the second millennium. Humberto Medeiros attended all four sessions of the Council, serving as a peritus for Bishop James Connolly of Fall River. Medeiros truly was a “Vatican II Bishop” as manifested through his promotion of several ideas and initiation of various programs that were inspired by the Council documents. In Fall River, he gave numerous talks about the implementation of the revised liturgy. In Brownsville, his “Visitors for Christ” program, organized around the renewed spirit of lay participation, was highly successful and, although not successful in Boston, was utilized in other dioceses. Arriving in Boston five years after the end of the Council, Medeiros exemplified the spirit of Vatican II in many ways, but especially through ecumenical outreach, establishment of the permanent diaconate, and promotion of greater lay participation in the celebration of the sacraments. While his life pre-dated the more contemporary debate that contrasts those who interpret Vatican II as a revolution versus those who see the Council as reform with continuity, Medeiros, nonetheless, exemplified the latter. He understood the need to foster the Council’s changes, while simultaneously maintaining a traditional and more conservative theological perspective. THE POST-VATICAN II CHURCH In the wake of Vatican II (1962–1965), the Catholic Church was in a period of great transition; some might suggest that it was a period of crisis. Before the Council, at least from external observation, the Church was at a high point. The Jesuit theologian Gustave Weigel referred to the dawn of the 225

226

Chapter 10

1960s as a “revolutionary moment” for the Church. The number of priests and religious was at an all-time high, seminaries were full, Catholic schools were flourishing, dissent was minimal, and the percentage of Catholics attending mass and celebrating the sacraments, including reconciliation, was very high. Yet, after the Council, the high numbers of the pre-Council days began to drop precipitously. This was due in large measure to the ramifications of the 1960s, including the rise of the counterculture, the unpopularity and rising dissent associated with the Vietnam war, student protests, the ongoing Civil Rights Movement, and the general challenge to traditional authority on all fronts,. In many ways, the American Catholic Church had never faced such challenges and, therefore, sought answers that did not immediately arrive. Religion in America was also generally in transition. The sociologist of religion Robert Wuthnow, in his monograph After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s, suggests that traditional religious practice in the United States transitioned from a position of “indwelling” in the 1950s to a posture of “seeking” in the 1960s and beyond. For Wuthnow, before the onset of the 1960s, peoples of faith practiced their religious tradition by attending services and being present to others; in essence they were indwelling. However, the challenging environment of the 1960s transformed many who had previously practiced “indwelling” into people who were “seeking”; they began to look for spirituality outside their traditional realm of attending church services and affiliating with members of their own faith.1 For the Catholic world in the United States, the influence of the 1960s and the general movement from “indwelling” to “seeking” was manifest in varied ways. As alluded to earlier, the Church in the United States, including Boston, experienced the loss of clergy and religious from their ranks; the numbers of seminarians and those in formation as religious decreased dramatically. The significant split in theological perspective was also apparent. The two basic perspectives on Vatican II viewing the Council as either a “revolution” or “reform with continuity” illustrate this theological divide. Divisions stemming from the 1968 publication of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae further exacerbated this theological split. Humberto Medeiros found himself, in Brownsville but most especially in Boston, in the difficult position of leading a local Church through the morass, uncertainty, and divisions that were central features of the contemporary environment, both in society generally and the Church more specifically. For Medeiros, the principal idea that drove this unsettled situation in the Church was secularism. Referencing Gaudium et Spes, “The Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World,” Medeiros said that it was no surprise that secularization had spilled over into the very interior life of humanity with its repercussions clearly evident in the relationship between humanity and God.2 The secularism of the world was driving people away from God and toward

Vatican II in Action

227

the state. In a homily, Medeiros commented, “The secularization of society has already separated the Church from the State not only with reference to their rightly distinguished fields of competence but the higher level of their capacity for working together for the common good. Secularization has thus come to signify decentralization.”3 Medeiros called upon the faithful not to allow the pagan culture of secularism to drown out the faith; Christians needed to be sufficiently courageous to call upon God before the things of the world.4 Medeiros believed that contemporary society was experiencing moral decline due to the loss of the sacred. He pointed out that in the United States some 50% of the people did not belong to an organized religion. He commented, “The United States is a missionary country. God has been expelled from the public schools, the children do not know Him, [and] there is a crisis of faith among the adults.”5 Loss of the sacred was also evident in the loss of Sunday’s place as a day of rest. Thus, he did not favor the addition of a vigil mass on Saturday, commenting that “Christian[s], need to take more seriously the tradition of Christian history that Sunday should be Sacred for the Lord.”6 Medeiros lamented the fact that the “throw-away culture” of the 1970s had marginalized sacred truths, considering them optional. In contrast, he proudly proclaimed that there can be no compromise and that sacred truths must always outweigh human wisdom.7 He summarized his view stating, “As individuals and as a nation we have little time for God and even less confidence in prayers. We search for beauty, but not the good. We have almost lost our sense of what is sacred.”8 Medeiros presented additional evidence of the nation’s moral decline. He noted a rising crime rate, rampant and easy divorce, political corruption, unchecked vandalism, the explosion of pornography, the promotion of moral permissiveness, as well as an attack on innocent life, even to the unborn, as clear evidence of the nation’s moral improprieties. He suggested that technology had advanced faster than the application of moral principles leading to the “dehumanization of Americans.”9 Sadly, and with a sharply negative tone, he stated, “We seem to be a country on ‘skid-row’ at the moment. We seem to be morally bankrupt.”10 Another major contributor to this moral decline was the rise of individualism. In his 1972 Easter message, Medeiros proclaimed, “Today’s excessive personalism with its pretense of concern and caring is a romantic escape from the objective demands of the true love we must have for one another.”11 Medeiros also bemoaned what he perceived as a loss of human dignity and a rise of injustice within American society. In order to counter this negative direction he stated that we must “be unafraid to voice our convictions about the inalienable rights of man; to work for change where change is needed; to manifest our faith in and love for the moral values that give meaning

228

Chapter 10

and direction to our lives.”12 He saw this as symptomatic of a sickness in American society. He believed it was necessary to address injustice whenever or wherever it reared its head. He was also troubled by the failures of those in the married state, as well as by Catholics in religious life and priesthood who could not meet their commitments. Too many, especially youth, having lost their human dignity and searching for some answers, turn to drugs.13 Medeiros’ rather dark and negative view of the ills of contemporary society must be paired with the spirituality he possessed and promoted as a solution to the problems that he accurately and forthrightly described. Medeiros articulated his basic spirituality and philosophy of life: “Men are made in the image and likeness of God, and all life and everything that has to do with life is sacred and therefore demands the utmost respect from us. All of us come from God and for that reason all of us deserve respect and justice and love.”14 Medeiros was described by all who encountered him as a holy man, a quality that was immediate and obvious. Those who knew him best, including his secretary, Monsignor William Helmick, spoke of his prayerful nature, which included a daily recitation of all 15 decades of the rosary (at the time—20 today).15 Bishop Daniel Hart described Medeiros as “a living sign of Jesus.”16 Medeiros believed that evils of society would always be defeated by the light of Christ. This light, which brings spiritual growth, begins with selfknowledge. He regularly professed that humanity needed to be transformed through personal growth and conversion. This was the key to the spiritual life as well. If we truly know ourselves, as we truly are and not as we imagine ourselves to be, then we can make inroads in finding solutions to various problems. Yet, personal initiative must be channeled in a way that seeks answers for the common good and not for the individual. He emphasized selfknowledge as the key to spiritual growth.17 Discovering and accepting who we are in our quest for self-knowledge may incur suffering, but Medeiros firmly believed that carrying the cross was the lot of every Christian. Thus, we should not run away from suffering but rather embrace it. Our personal suffering is done in cooperation with Christ. Our self-knowledge and personal efforts to reform society are essential. Medeiros’ theological position flowed directly from his spirituality. Serving as a bishop in the post–Vatican II era, he had to contend with the divide between those who are fundamentally conservative in their religious perspective and those who are basically liberal.18 Although he was more conservative, he sought as the Shepherd of all, to be attentive to both perspectives. He understood that it was his duty to speak out on issues that impacted the Church, but never to compromise in his defense of Catholic doctrine. The faith of the Church and its members needed to be guided by theology. In an address at the Catholic University of Portugal, Medeiros stated, “One cannot believe firmly without some understanding of what we believe. Our faith is

Vatican II in Action

229

not unreasonable or totally incomprehensible since it is the light from God. Because of this light, we know what we believe, in whom we believe, and why we believe.”19 Like many of his contemporaries in the episcopacy, Medeiros was socially progressive but theologically conservative. He fully supported Church teaching on all issues and was distressed when priests or other Church officials would “break ranks” and present opinions that were contrary to the accepted norms.20 He once stated, “Whatever the Church has been teaching is the truth. The truth is the truth whether we like it or not.”21 Similarly, he challenged those who are indifferent toward the Church. He held that such an attitude led to confusion. He believed that it was his task to present a clear and straightforward message that articulated the Church’s theological position. He wrote, “As your archbishop, it is my great obligation to defend the integrity of the Catholic Church’s Faith against . . . the erosion of its divinely given morality. Look to the authentic teaching of the Church and your vision will be: clear as crystal.”22 As the defender of the faith, Medeiros scrutinized things carefully. He was very exacting in what he said, doing his best to speak clearly so that misinterpretation of his words would be minimal. His exacting theological perspective earned him the respect and admiration of the Holy See.23 Medeiros’ view on our moral conscience was an element integral to his overall theological perspective. Conscience was not infallible and, therefore, required guidance. Contemporary society had in many ways drowned out conscience, the voice of God within, and thus it was necessary never to lose sight that no one has the right to form his or her morality independently of the will of God.24 Medeiros believed “While each person must form his own conscience, this conscience must be formed in accordance with the official teaching of the Catholic Church and not on the basis of personal considerations.”25 Adhering to his generally conservative perspective, Medeiros was cautious with respect to the role of women in the Church. He believed that the advances women had made in society were productive, but he was more guarded with respect to their place in the Church. In an address to the League of Catholic Women, he proclaimed, It would be rash on our part to join with some of our contemporaries who in exaggerated enthusiasm suggest that every office and function in the Church should be made available to women as well as men. This is the kind of “all-ornothing-at-all” answer with which some people in our time feel that every question should be resolved . . . [W]e must understand in the light of faith what will best serve the mission of the Church among men, what will assist in building up the kingdom among the people of God.26

230

Chapter 10

Medeiros’ more conservative theological perspective, both in general and with respect to women, did not mean that he was opposed to the reform that was the clear mind of the bishops at Vatican II. He sought to implement the directives of the Council Fathers in an effort to make Jesus Christ better known, loved, and served. He realized that change was difficult for some, but that careful and deliberate thought was placed into all the updates and reforms articulated in the Council documents.27 Speaking to a group of Catholic women, Medeiros stated, Vatican II, and the developments since that time have certainly changed the “look” of much that once was familiar to us. In this sense at least, we can say that for us the “old time religion” has given way to renewal, aggiornamento and a kind of new look. This, however, should not be a matter of dismay; we should instead seek to understand why these changes were made and what was expected from them in our lives as Catholics.28

Medeiros firmly believed that the Church needed to adapt herself to the widespread social and cultural changes evident in the contemporary environment of the day. This must be accomplished, however, while simultaneously preserving the divine message the Church had always proclaimed. Thus, “to do anything less [than adapt] would make the Church unfaithful to itself.”29 In short, he claimed that an aggiornamento was necessary.30 Cardinal Medeiros’ role in the implementation of Vatican II was key to the modernization of the Church in Boston. Writing during Medeiros’ time as archbishop, the historian James O’Toole commented: “It has been the work of Cardinal Medeiros to ensure that the Church of his predecessors adapts to the needs of today’s ethnic and racial immigrants and that it acts both as their solace and their defender.”31 The years of his service as archbishop were pivotal; he strongly advocated for the implementation of the Council’s ideas, but also discouraged those who sought to exceed its directives.32 He believed it was his responsibility to implement the Council’s teachings. He always sought to be in harmony with the Council, but clearly its letter and not its “spirit.”33 ECUMENICAL INITIATIVES One of the most significant concepts promoted by Vatican II was ecumenical and inter-faith dialogue. The Council published two pertinent and significant documents, “The Decree on Ecumenism,” Unitatis redintegratio, and “The Declaration on the Relations of the Church to Non-Christian Religions,” Nostra aetate. Following the lead of Jesus’ words in John’s Gospel (17:21),

Vatican II in Action

231

“That they may all be one, as you Father, are in me and I in you, that they also be one in us, that the world may believe that you sent me,” the Council fathers sought to reach out to all peoples of faith. Yet, in so doing, the Church must never compromise its position as possessing the fullness of the truth. Medeiros clearly articulated this view, writing: “I believe that the fullness of the Church ‘subsists’ in the Roman Catholic Church as Vatican II clearly states. But I also believe with that same Council that we Catholics must work for the day when the Christian churches will be one as Jesus prayed.”34 He suggested that a goal of reconciliation among all peoples of faith, while a truly challenging task, must be one from which all cannot shrink. He wrote, “We must try to eliminate all the barriers that divide men.”35 He committed himself to the mission of the restoration of full unity among all Christians.36 He identified three essential elements that were critical to the ecumenical movement: (1) Honestly addressing the divisions existing among churches with regard to moral and ethical matters, (2) The Churches must educate their congregations in the knowledge that God wants them to be one, and (3) Prayer. In support of the latter, Medeiros stated, “This [religious unity] will come in God’s good and gracious time; but it will not come without prayer, our dialogue and our hard, hard work.”37 He quoted “The Decree on Ecumenism, ‘There is no genuine ecumenism without an inward conversion’.”38 For Medeiros, ecumenism was not a mere passing fad and, therefore, should not be addressed in any perfunctory way. He suggested that no one could excuse oneself from the task of ecumenical dialogue “without doing damage to the Word of God and the will of Christ.”39 He acknowledged that there would be difficulties and challenges; the ecumenical journey would be a rocky road. Thus, he stated, “Unless our efforts are marked by perseverance and sacrifice of time, talent, and money, they are doomed to failure. We must re-commit ourselves to the task.”40 He also realized that there were some “hard” issues, and he was not so idealistic to simply forget the past. He also understood, as he had articulated earlier, that secularism was a major problem that impeded the path toward unity. Therefore, the movement needed to proceed with humility and truth as its shield and sword.41 Despite the challenges, Medeiros could proudly proclaim that in Boston, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, and Islam have given each other the hand of brotherhood. We are united in a variety of ways in many charitable endeavors for alleviating the plight of the needy and the suffering. We do pray together to our common Father and we have entered a covenant of justice, equity, and harmony for peace in our midst.42

Medeiros believed that the key ingredient in ecumenism was dialogue. He once stated, “Dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides.

232

Chapter 10

It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good and thus excludes all selfseeking.”43 Dialogue, he maintained, required four basic ingredients: (1) Clarity before all else, (2) Accompaniment by actions, (3) Need for trust, and (4) Prudence. He also stressed the need for absolute truth in all conversations, but for Medeiros truth was defined as Catholic doctrine. He sought unity with other traditions as much as possible, but not at the expense of “watering down” the faith or compromising belief. In an address, Medeiros stated: “The Church meets the world in every generation, but it meets the world on its own terms not on those of the world. To do anything less would make the Church unfaithful to itself and to its invisible head, Our Lord Jesus Christ.”44 He further proclaimed that it was wrong for Catholic theologians to suggest that the teachings of Vatican II opened the door for a completely new formulation of the faith. In this vein, he wrote: “What Vatican II teaches is to be interpreted and applied not by individual theologians but by the magisterial authority of the Church, which convoked the Council and teaches through the Council.”45 Several have commented on the ecumenical spirit Medeiros exhibited as Archbishop of Boston. Michael Lescault wrote that “Medeiros’ orthodox [stance] . . . in no way precluded a genuine desire to advance the goals of ecumenism. Ardently devoted to the ecumenical movement . . . he spent a considerable amount of time and energy on ecumenical affairs, vigorously supporting interfaith groups formed to combat religious prejudice.”46 Monsignor William Helmick commented, “He [Medeiros] had warm relationships with people of all faiths. He did whatever he could and attended events to foster ecumenical harmony.”47 Medeiros’ ecumenical efforts were formalized through the Archdiocesan Ecumenical Commission. This body, established by Cardinal Cushing on September 10, 1963, stated its purpose: “To further religious understanding among all Christians and to inform Catholics of the history, purpose and goals of the ecumenical movement.” Headed by commission president, Bishop Thomas Riley, the original composition of the group was twelve clerics and three laymen.48 Medeiros met with Commission members in December 1971 to discuss new guidelines for its work. The proposals of the commission members were: (1) Apprise the archbishop of any ecumenical developments within the Christian and non-Christian traditions, (2) Help to facilitate a working relationship between the archbishop and representatives of other faiths, (3) Advise the archbishop on ecumenical implications of questions which come before the NCCB, the bishops of the Boston Province, and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.49 Medeiros’ critique of the proposed guidelines drew a forceful response, but his critique was not well received by Commission members: “The overall tone of the critique is quite disturbing. It communicates an attitude of no-confidence, or lack of trust in the officers and members of the Commission. Many of the

Vatican II in Action

233

comments offered reflect a fear that the Commission is not, or might not, exercise its responsibility with your approval.”50 Despite the internal disagreement, discussions between the archbishop and Commission members pertinent to the guidelines continued with Medeiros eventually agreeing to implement interim policies so that open positions on the Commission could be filled. Medeiros’ most active ecumenical outreach was to the Episcopal community. In June 1975, Medeiros and the Episcopal Bishop of Massachusetts, John Burgess, sponsored a two-day conference at Emmanuel College that sought to promote Catholic and Episcopal dialogue. The conference reviewed the Windsor and Canterbury statements on priestly ministry and Holy Eucharist, produced by the International Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue. It was also hoped that through the conference an Anglican-Roman Catholic resource center could be opened.51 The keynote speakers at the conference were Archbishop William Baum of Washington, D.C. and Bishop John Harris Burt of the Episcopal Diocese of Ohio.52 At the conclusion of the conference, the two bishops published a common pastoral letter, “Bless These Beginnings.” It stated that, despite historical divisions and the continuing separation between these religious traditions, there was still great desire and good will to further unity between the two traditions. The document also recognized the many links between the two religious groups, including biblical studies and liturgical renewal. In a challenging way, the letter spoke to both communions: “There is need for the world to see this common witness as there is need for us to manifest it.”53 This dialogue between the two communions continued over the ensuing years. May 22, 1977, was celebrated as “Anglican-Roman Catholic Sunday.” As part of the festivities another joint Pastoral was issued, this time after a meeting between Medeiros and Bishop John Coburn. The letter read in part: “There is much cause to rejoice. There is inspiration and confidence to press on, that we may be one as we, even as Jesus and His Father are one. These days convince us that we are at an ecumenical moment of which we must now take advantage.”54 The ecumenical effort of these two communions was also furthered by the 1982 meeting between Pope Saint John Paul II and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie. Medeiros wrote to Coburn suggesting that the historic meeting could be ecumenically profitable and should be recognized locally in some way. He wrote, “It seems to me that this dialogue with both its huge successes and serious limitations, should be made more widely known among the clergy and laity in our parishes.”55 The two agreed to a joint prayer service at the Episcopal Cathedral of Saint Paul. On that occasion, Medeiros stated, “This is more than a personal visit between old and good friends. It is rather a celebration of the distance our two churches have traveled over 450 years of silence, suspicion and separation.”56

234

Chapter 10

Beyond the Episcopal community, Medeiros sought to engage his Protestant brothers and sisters in general and specific ways. He offered general comments on the concept of ecumenism, lamenting the past, but looking in a positive direction to the future. Speaking to a Baptist congregation in Medford he commented, We can sum up the achievement of the past with a few observations; no matter how we may explain the historical causes of our disunity in the past, we all lament them now. No matter how bitter the acrimony of the past understanding, forgiveness is the mark of today. No matter how we differ in belief and practice, our common treasury of Scripture, Baptism and Eucharist gives us the degree of unity upon which we must and will build.57

Similarly, in an address to students at Gordon College, in Wenham, Massachusetts, Medeiros stressed that ecumenism was a “comprehensive conversation and an understanding and appreciation of one another’s values and strengths.” While great strides have been made in ecumenical dialogue, he returned to a familiar theme that compromise of one’s beliefs was not the goal: “Know too your faith. Never compromise it. Beware of that false ecumenism which too easily shouts ‘unity unity’!—when there is no full unity.”58 Cardinal Medeiros was engaged in several additional ecumenical efforts. He was a member of the Massachusetts Commission on Christian Unity, which was founded in 1967 with representatives of the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches. He was also a member of the New England Conference of Church Leaders, and he participated on occasion with the New England Consultation of Church Leaders. Addressing the Salvation Army on its eighty-fifth anniversary, Medeiros lauded the organization for its social consciousness, yet at the same time he lamented the divisions that continue to be a barrier to making Jesus’ prayer for unity a reality.59 Medeiros was a regular participant in ecumenical prayer breakfasts and celebrated the annual week of Christian unity. Medeiros conducted ecumenical dialogue with other mainline Protestant traditions. He was an active participant in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue of New England. His contribution was noted in a letter of gratitude: “Your graciousness, openness, and solid encouragement have moved us another significant step closer to our common quest for the oneness of Christ’s Church. For these acts of kindness, the Committee stands deeply in your debt.”60 As a member of this same dialogue group, Medeiros was asked to comment on a pamphlet prepared for a celebration of the 450th anniversary of the Augsburg Confession. He also participated in panel discussions involving Catholic and Lutheran bishops. His relationship with Lutheran

Vatican II in Action

235

clergy was very positive. Medeiros was thanked for his ecumenical outreach to the Lutheran community: “We are pleased and grateful for the expressions of reconciliation and growing unity that the people of our church bodies, especially in New England, are experiencing.”61 As the featured speaker at an event in Methuen to mark the 250th anniversary of the Congregational Covenant, he championed the advancement of the ecumenical movement, stating that we need to examine “what we hold in common and what divides us yet.”62 Writing to a local Methodist minister, Medeiros expressed his gratitude: “May I also take the opportunity to express my gratitude for all that you have done over the years to help create the ecumenical atmosphere for which Massachusetts has received wide acclaim.”63 Medeiros’ relationship with the Orthodox community, as one might expect, was also very positive. He worked with Bishop Mark Lipa of the Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America in producing a joint statement asking for the re-opening of churches, mosques, and religious institutions in Albania.64 Additionally, in 1981, an agreement was made that would allow Catholic and Greek Orthodox marriages to be recognized by both communions.65 Writing on behalf of the Orthodox community more generally, Lipa thanked Medeiros stating: “[T]he spirit generated by our conversations is both promising and positive from our viewpoint.”66 Moving beyond ecumenism into the realm of inter-faith dialogue, Medeiros also held a generally positive relationship with the Jewish community. Medeiros forcefully and regularly spoke out against anti-Semitic rhetoric of any kind. He once wrote, “My abhorrence for anti-Semitism is deep-seated.”67The Catholic-Jewish Committee of the archdiocese rejected the then popular notion that Zionism was a form of racism or racial discrimination.68 Medeiros’ affection for the Jewish community was clear: “I do love the Jewish people. I love them deeply. Regularly I ask our common Father in heaven to bless and guide them. I sympathize with them in these critical times and I pray that peace will soon come to Israel and all peoples of the Near East.”69 Even more importantly from an inter-faith perspective, Medeiros spoke very positively about the efforts between Catholics and Jews to find reconciliation: The recent history of our cooperation has in fact given strong evidence that we have begun to walk a new path, less divergent and more parallel. We have begun to reverse our past and create a future that is promising in its possibilities. To continue to do this we must be willing first to be faithful to the riches of our own traditions. We must speak frankly and candidly one to another on the most difficult subjects that still divide us.70

236

Chapter 10

VATICAN II IN OTHER APPLICATIONS Medeiros’ efforts both in Brownsville and Boston in instituting the Visitors for Christ program, while successful in the former and not so in the latter, were nevertheless clear evidence of his desire to promote the faith. He once stated in an interview: “Evangelization demands total engagement of the Christian in the mission of the Church in the manner of the gifts given to him. Responsible stewardship is the key to evangelization for both clergy and laity.”71 Beginning in the fall of 1976, Medeiros made a significant effort to evangelize local Bostonians. He dedicated the clergy conference at that time to the subject. He proposed four questions that he wanted his priests to consider individually: (1) What new efforts should be made in our parishes to reach the lapsed and unchurched? How can we involve the laity in our efforts? (2) What efforts should be made toward young people who are alienated from the Church? (3) In our preaching, are we presenting the person of Jesus? Is the content of revelation lacking in our homilies? (4) What are the main obstacles to a fruitful hearing of the Word of God encountered by our people in their daily lives?72 Inspired by Pope Saint Paul VI’s apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi, and working with his auxiliary Bishop Daniel Hart, Medeiros developed a pastoral plan for evangelization that could be used in Boston. The program was initiated with a retreat for archdiocesan leaders, held September 12–16, 1977, at Saint Francis Retreat House, in Rye, New Hampshire. Sixty-seven participants examined various methods of evangelization and made a plan to make the Holy Father’s vision a reality. As a result of the retreat, Medeiros accepted a plan that called for a “Year of Learning about Pastoral Planning for Evangelization.” The plan was designed as a year to find and create better ways for renewal of faith in the archdiocese; it envisioned formation programs for parishes to train people to become better evangelizers. Unfortunately, the “Year of Learning” did not receive the enthusiastic support Medeiros expected, and even in some cases, the plan was opposed. Additionally, as with the Visitors for Christ program, many priests never became involved or understood the program73 Roman Catholics who lived through the changes of Vatican II, almost to a person, point to the liturgical changes as the ones that were most obvious and significant. Medeiros, a champion of liturgical change in Fall River, continued the same attitude in Brownsville. Nonetheless, he was cautious, understanding that the centrality of the mass necessitated the Church’s maintaining order and control over liturgical celebration. The historian Thomas O’Connor has commented: “Although he was conscientious about vigorously implementing the liturgical changes called by Vatican II, Cardinal Medeiros was equally vigorous in establishing clear boundaries beyond which experiments

Vatican II in Action

237

in doctrine and innovations in teaching would not be tolerated.”74 Despite his reservations, Medeiros was committed to implementing the reforms in the sacred liturgy. Still, Medeiros was very clear that any change should not lead to a diminution of obligatory participation. Rather, people should be encouraged toward greater participation in the life of the Church.75 As alluded to earlier, he was also wary of instituting the Saturday vigil Mass as a means of meeting Sunday obligation. He wrote to the Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy (a function of the NCCB) concerned that young people saw little difference between Saturday and Sunday with respect to religious significance.76 For Medeiros, the centrality of the Eucharist was paramount. In a Pastoral Letter, “Christ our Victory,” he strongly emphasized the responsibility of priests to act as a guiding light to others, helping them “to appreciate the essential richness of the Church as a most treasured gift.”77 Several issues relevant to the celebration of the Eucharist, all in some sense derivatives of Vatican II, required Medeiros’ response. Some people, both clergy and laity, who were not enamored of the change to the vernacular, pressed the cardinal for permission to celebrate mass in Latin, using the pre-Vatican II rite of Pope Saint Pius V. Seeking counsel on the question, Medeiros was informed by the General Secretary of the NCCB, Bishop James Rausch, that the Holy See had ordered that only the novus ordo, the rite of Pope Saint Paul VI, was allowed. Thus, as he had done in his engagement with Father John Keane, Medeiros informed those who inquired that mass could be celebrated in Latin but only using the post-Vatican II ritual. Another significant issue with respect to the celebration of the Eucharist was the Church’s decision to allow the laity to receive both the body and the blood of Christ. In 1969, permission had been granted by the Holy See for the laity to receive from the chalice, allowing national conferences of bishops and local bishops to set rules in their areas of authority. However, the NCCB initially balked, unable to gather the necessary two-thirds vote of the bishops to petition the Vatican for this privilege.78 Eventually, experimentation in some parishes in various dioceses, including Boston, was allowed. Medeiros wrote to his priests, “It is expected that each priest will pastorally judge the particular situation locally in the understanding of the people.”79 After a period of brief experimentation, the privilege was discontinued in 1973; eventually in 1979 on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi Medeiros granted permission.80 Especially cognizant of the Council’s emphasis on lay participation, another important issue was the use of lay (extraordinary) ministers of the Eucharistic. The papal instruction Immensae Caritatis, issued on March 29, 1973, gave permission for “suitable persons to serve as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. These may be chosen for a specific location, or for a time, or in the case of necessity even in a permanent manner.” Both

238

Chapter 10

men and women were eligible but “they must be duly instructed and distinguished by their practice of the faith.”81 Medeiros wasted no time, publishing a directive in late May 1973, instructing his priests to appoint properly trained people to be Eucharistic ministers. At the same time, the archdiocese inaugurated a series of regional training programs for Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. At the same time, the archdiocese issued its guidelines for lay ministers.82 Thus, on September 23, 1973, Medeiros invested 800 laymen and laywomen as Eucharistic ministers.83 Several years later Medeiros commented on his enthusiastic support for extraordinary lay ministers of Eucharist: “It has always been my desire that we continue to work in the Boston Archdiocese for the full conscious and active participation of all people in the Holy Eucharist which is the summit and source of the Church’s life.”84 The one area of lay participation that Medeiros rejected was female acolytes. Numerous extant letters exist from young women asking why they could not serve as “altar servers?” Medeiros’ basic response, displaying his traditional side, was basically the same in all cases. One typical letter read: Although you have read and observed that in other areas altar girls are permitted, we have not given such permission here in the Archdiocese of Boston. One reason is that here in the archdiocese there have always been more than enough young men who want to assist the priest during the celebration of the Holy Mass.85

Beyond the celebration of the Eucharist, the revised sacrament of penance and its three rites of reconciliation were also introduced by Medeiros. The new rite was being utilized by November 1976; it became mandatory on the First Sunday of Lent 1977. Medeiros, however, did not allow the use of general absolution for he could not foresee any situation within the archdiocese when it might be necessary.86 Certainly, one of the most significant teachings of Vatican II was the reinstitution of the permanent diaconate. Both “The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” Lumen Gentium (#29) and “The Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity” Ad Gentes Divinitus (#16) called for the restoration of this ancient ministry in the Church. In June 1967, in response, Pope Saint Paul VI issued a motu propio, Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem, which restored the permanent diaconate, but only in those countries where it was desired. Cushing was queried about initiating the program in Boston, but he felt that there was no need at the time.87 Medeiros was certainly open to the permanent diaconate stating, “Their ministry must be oriented toward building the Church of God into a vibrant, dedicated servant of God and the world.”88 In March 1971, the Priests Senate passed a resolution to recommend

Vatican II in Action

239

establishment of a permanent diaconate training program with the appointment of a director. In response, Medeiros set up an Ad Hoc committee to research the initiation of a permanent diaconate program.89 The committee submitted its report, giving full support for the program and providing a rationale: Since the Church is diaconal, a servant community after the example of Her Shepherd, we envision the Restored Order of [the] Permanent Diaconate in Boston as a new opportunity whereby mature men of faith may, by the laying on of hands, give a permanent visible witness to their response to the God who calls them and with the Sacramental Grace of the Diaconate, take their proper place in the ministry of Jesus Christ.90

The committee also provided details on requirements for candidates and outlined an academic program.91 The proposal called for a three-year academic training program, taking four courses per semester. The committee believed that the deacons should have strong training in sacramental ministry as well as serving in public witness to the Church’s concern for the needs of all peoples.92 Based on the committee’s recommendations, the work of a small cadre of pastorally minded researchers,93 and his own ideas, Cardinal Medeiros authorized a new permanent diaconate program in 1972. He stated that the archdiocese was ready to begin implementation, but that he would remain open to suggestions for improvements along the way. He wrote to his priests, “I feel that the program has much to offer the Church and I am anxious to see it implemented in the Archdiocese of Boston.”94 The program received its first candidates in 1973. Initially, 160 men in the archdiocese applied and 38 entered the first class. Medeiros appointed Father William C. Burckart as the first director of the Permanent Diaconate Program.95 Medeiros was closely linked to the program and supportive of its future success. The first thirty-four deacons were ordained on May 22, 1976. Over the remaining years of Medeiros’ tenure as archbishop, the permanent diaconate continued to evolve. Medeiros understood that some priests had difficulty accepting the permanent diaconate as a ministry. He suggested that priests must first accept their own vocation as a shepherd so as to be able to better understand the content of the deacon’s vocation, as one complementary to, yet different from, that of the presbyterate.96 In March 1978, as a means to evaluate and improve the program, Medeiros formed a committee to assess the curriculum. The fifteen members of the committee, priests and religious sisters, made a few recommendations. First, the committee suggested that a more substantial introductory program was required prior to entrance into formation. Second, more emphasis needed to be placed on

240

Chapter 10

spiritual development. Third, the initial part of the program needed an intensive seminar on spiritual direction.97 The establishment of parish councils was another Council-inspired innovation that Medeiros strongly promoted. Both the “Decree on the Pastoral Office of the Bishops in the Church” Christus Dominus (#27) and the “Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity,” Ad Gentes Divinitus (#30) address the need for collegiality at various levels of the Church. Thus, in 1966, through his motu propio Eccleiae Sanctaem, Pope Saint Paul VI called for the creation of parish councils.98 In Boston, a handbook that provided guidelines for parish councils was published. In part, it read: “[I]t is the purpose of the Parish Council to coordinate, encourage and promote every apostolic activity through which the parish community discharges its common responsibility of making the Gospel known and aiding men to the sanctification of life.”99 Medeiros backed the concept of parish councils, although he did not mandate their establishment in every parish.100 THE VISIT OF POPE SAINT JOHN PAUL II In the summer of 1979, Pope Saint John Paul II, who had been elected approximately one year earlier, announced his intention to visit Boston on a pilgrimage to the United States. A committee was quickly formed by Medeiros, chaired by one of his secretaries, Monsignor William Helmick, to prepare for this historic event. As the Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow, Poland, Karol Wojtyla had visited Boston on two previous occasions, in 1969 and 1976. During the latter visit, he gave a lecture at Harvard Divinity School titled “Participation or Alienation.”101 Medeiros wrote to the pontiff, I am deeply moved by the decision you have made to come to the Archdiocese of Boston on the occasion of your visit to the United States . . . In the name of the Auxiliary bishops, the Priests, religious and the faithful of the Archdiocese of Boston, I wish to express the gratitude and joy we all have in our hearts because you have chosen to honor us by your presence in our lives.102

The Holy Father arrived at Boston’s Logan Airport at 2:45 pm on October 1 (see figure 10.1). Upon his arrival, church bells throughout the city began to ring. The pope was greeted by an entourage of leading dignitaries including the First Lady, Rosalynn Carter, Massachusetts Governor Edward King, Boston Mayor Kevin White, local members of Congress, the Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Jean Jadot, and Cardinal Medeiros.103 Mrs. Carter greeted the Pope: “Your Holiness, we welcome you to our country with love. We Americans of every faith have come to love you in a very special way.”104

Vatican II in Action

241

Figure 10.1  Medeiros with President and Mrs. Jimmy Carter. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

Excitedly, Medeiros also greeted the Pope: “Thrilled by a deep spiritual joy we cannot fully express, we humbly and gratefully salute you and welcome you warmly to our historic city, to our charming Commonwealth, to beautiful New England, to our bold, young and generous country, and most of all into our open and loving hearts.”105 The pope responded in gratitude by saying that he came to fulfill his noble destiny of service to the world: “Once again, I can now admire firsthand the beauty of this vast land stretching between two oceans, once again I am experiencing the warm hospitality of the American people.”106  Battling the elements of a torrential rainstorm, the Pope nevertheless wasted no time attending to his agenda. From the airport, the Holy Father was escorted through the city to the Cathedral of the Holy Cross for a prayer service, attended by some 2000 priests and religious. Despite the rain, crowds lined the streets as his motorcade proceeded. Commenting on the proceedings one week after the visit, Medeiros stated, “Indeed, we might feel that God tested our faith and our perseverance on Monday, October 1, and we are glad that hundreds of thousands of us were not found wanting.”107 After a short break and visit with Medeiros at the Cardinal’s residence, the Pope celebrated

242

Chapter 10

mass at Boston Common. He was joined by sixty-two bishop concelebrants, including the U.S. Cardinals, the Apostolic Delegate, Jean Jadot, twentyseven prelates from New England, and other bishops representing the eleven episcopal regions of the NCCB. Four bishops came from Canada.108 In his homily at the mass, the Pontiff proclaimed, I come to the United States of America as successor of Peter and as a Pilgrim of faith. It gives me great joy to be able to make this visit. And so, my esteem and affection go out to all the people of this land. I greet all Americans without distinction. I want to mention and tell you all—men and women of all creeds and ethnic origins, children and youth, fathers and mothers, the sick and the elderly—that God loves you, that he has given you a dignity as human beings that is beyond compare.109

He concluded his homily at mass by an exhortation to respond to the call of Christ: “To all of you I extend—in the name of Christ—the call, the invitation, the plea: “Come and follow me.” This is why I come to America, and why I have come to Boston tonight: “to call you to Christ—to call all of you and each of you to live in his love, today and forever. Amen.”110 Before leaving the next morning, Pope Saint John Paul II visited Saint John Seminary and spoke with seminarians. The papal visit was certainly one of the great high points, regardless of its short duration of less than 24 hours, during the tenure of Humberto Medeiros as Archbishop of Boston. Medeiros expressed his gratitude for the Holy Father’s visit. He spoke of it being a great blessing for the archdiocese. Writing to a fellow bishop he commented, “His [John Paul II’s] presence in our midst was a great source of consolation, inspiration and encouragement to me, and to the priests, religious and faithful of the Archdiocese.”111 NOTES 1. Robert Wuthnow, After Heaven: Spirituality in America since the 1950s (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). 2. Humberto Medeiros, Address “The Priest As Living Host” October 15, 1977, Serra International File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 3. Humberto Medeiros, Homily, February 24, 1977, Carney Hospital File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 4. Humberto Medeiros Pastoral Letter on Vocations May 1981, Pastoral Letter on Vocations File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 5. The Pilot, June 10, 1977. 6. Humberto Medeiros Easter Message, April 10, 1977, Cardinal’s Easter Message April 10, 1977 File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Vatican II in Action

243

7. Humberto Medeiros, Homily, December 19, 1976, Marriage Encounter File, Box #56; Medeiros. Homily, February 24, 1977, Carney Hospital File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 8. Humberto Medeiros, Homily, May 1971 Marriage Encounter File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 9. The Pilot, June 10, 1971. 10. Humberto Medeiros. Address. June 6, 1971, Address to Catholic Alumni Sodality File, Box # 55. Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 11. Humberto Medeiros, Easter Message 1972, April 2, 1972, Archbishop Easter Homily 1972 File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 12. Humberto Medeiros, Homily, Summer 19, 1976, Marriage Encounter Mass File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 13. The Pilot, June 10, 1971; For a more complete picture of Medeiros’ concern with the growing problem with drugs in American society see Humberto Medeiros, “The Drug Problem,” International Documentation on the Contemporary Church (IDOC) (International North American Edition) 26 (May 29, 1977): 24–34. Medeiros wrote a Pastoral Letter, “Drugs and Our Children,” dedicated to this societal problem. 14. James G. Crowley, “Impressions of Cardinal Medeiros,” Boston Globe July 27, 1975; 6. 15. Helmick, Interview October 12, 2018; Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 68–69. 16. Bishop Daniel Hart, Homily, September 22, 1983, in “Cardinal Medeiros Remembered,” n.d. [1983] PPGS. 17. Humberto Medeiros Address, October 23, 1972, Northeast Conference of Priests Senates File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 18. Wuthnow, Rough Country, 321. 19. The Pilot, May 27, 1977. 20. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 187, 190–91. 21. Boston Globe, March 4, 1973. 22. Humberto Medeiros, Pastoral Letter on Authority, July 5, 1977, Statement on Authority File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 23. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 188; O’Connor, Boston Catholics, 296. 24. Humberto Medeiros, “Pastoral Reflections on Conscience,” October 20, 1980, in Whatever God Wants, 496. 25. Humberto Medeiros to Mr. Devlin, September 12, 1973, Correspondence with Laity, De File, Box #72, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 26. Humberto Medeiros, Address, May 17, 1973, Keynote League of Catholic Women File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 27. His Secretary, Monsignor William Helmick stated, “He [Medeiros] understood that the implementation of the Council was not as good as it should have been and caused some pain and disruption in the life of the Church.” 28. Humberto Medeiros, Address, May 9, 1972, League of Catholic Women Congress File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers AABo. 29. Ibid.

244

Chapter 10

30. Humberto Medeiro, “Attacks Eastern Allegiance,” Pastoral Letter on Sexuality, July 5, 1977, in Whatever God Wants, 643. 31. O’Toole, From Generation to Generation, 133. 32. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 195. 33. Hughes, Interview, August 6, 2019. 34. Humberto Medeiros to Father David F. Noonan, June 10, 1977, Correspondence with Priests, 1976 N-Z, 1977 A-Z, N File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 35. “Humberto Medeiros, Christ Our Victory,” Pastoral Letter 1974, #59 found in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 36. 36. Humberto Medeiros, Speech, “Looking Ahead 25 Years,” Looking Ahead 25 Years File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 37. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 201. 38. Humberto Medeiros, Address, March 1–3, 1971, TCC File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 39. Humberto Medeiros, Speech, “Looking Ahead 25 Years,” Looking Ahead 25 Years File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 40. Humberto Medeiros Address, n.d. [1970s], Ecumenism: Encounter or Escape File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 41. Boston Archdiocesan Statement Re: Edelin Trial, n.d. [February 1975]. Dr. Edelin File, Box #76, Humberto Medeiros, Address to Texas Conference of Churches, n.d. [1970s] Ecumenism: Encounter or Escape File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo; The Pilot, March 6, 1971. 42. Humberto Medeiros, Saint Botolph’s Day Homily, June 12, 1980, Priest Correspondence 1980 M-Z, 1981 A-H, Ma-Md File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 43. Humberto Medeiros, Address to Texas Catholic Conference, March 1–3, 1971, 1971 TCC File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 44. The Pilot, May 13, 1972. 45. Humberto Medeiro, “Attacks Eastern Allegiance,” Pastoral Letter on Sexuality, July 5, 1977, in Whatever God Wants, 643–44. 46. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 195. 47. Helmick, Interview, October 12, 2018. 48. “Fellowship,” Vol 1 #1, May 1964, Ecumenism File, M2649 Chancellor Records, AABo. 49. Organizational Guidelines for Ecumenical Commission of the Archdiocese of Boston, n.d.[1972], Archdiocesan Ecumenical Commission 1972 File, Box #59, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 50. Matthew Stapleton and James Hickey to Humberto Medeiros, March 31, 1972, Archdiocesan Ecumenical Commission File, Box #59, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 51. Archdiocesan News Bureau, May 5, 1975, BPO. 52. The Pilot, June 13, 1975. 53. Humberto Medeiros and John Burgess, “Bless These Beginnings” Joint Pastoral Letter, June 6, 1975, Chancery Memos 1975 File, Box #110, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 54. The Pilot, May 20, 1977.

Vatican II in Action

245

55. Humberto Medeiros to John Coburn, May 10, 1982, Non-Catholic File, Box #92, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 56. The Pilot, June 4, 1982. 57. Humberto Medeiros, Speech, “Looking Ahead 25 Years,” Looking Ahead 25 Years File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 58. Humberto Medeiros, Address, February 13, 1981, Gordon College File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 59. Father James Hickey to Humberto Medeiros, September 18, 1971, Massachusetts Commission on Christian Unity File, Box #66; Medeiros, Address, April 16, 1975, Salvation Army Banquet File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo; Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 196. 60. Rev. Karl Donfried to Humberto Medeiros, May 17, 1979, Non-Catholic Clergy Correspondence File, Box #111, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 61. Robert Feldmann to Humberto Medeiros, December 3, 1980, Non-Catholic Clergy Correspondence File, Box #111, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 62. Humberto Medeiros, Speech, October 25, 1979, Ecumenical Clergy Luncheon File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 63. Humberto Medeiros to Rev. Forrest Knapp, Non-Catholic Clergy Correspondence File, Box #111, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 64. Humbero Medeiros and Bishop Mark Lipa, “Albania: Declaration for Religious Freedom,” The Ecumenical Review 34 (2) (April 1982): 180–81. 65. “Agreement on Orthodox-Roman Catholic Marriages,” Origins 10 (40) (April 30, 1981: 734–35. The agreement allowed Catholic and Greek Orthodox marriages for earlier years to be recognized by both faith communities, allowing each party to have full communion within their respective tradition. 66. Bishop Mark Lipa to Humberto Medeiros, February 29, 1972, Bishops Correspondence 1971–1974 L File, Box #96, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 67. Humberto Medeiros to David Segal, April 2, 1982, Correspondence Se-Sy File, Box #92, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 68. Statement of the Catholic-Jewish Committee of the Archdiocese of Boston, November 9, 1975, Archdiocesan Ecumenical Commission 1975 File, Box #59, Boston, Medeiros Papers. AABo. The statement in part read: “The CatholicJewish Committee of the Archdiocese of Boston rejects the notion that Zionism is a form of racism and social discrimination. The Jewish people have survived over 4000 years of uniquely hazardous history, share a common future, and the natural right that all peoples have to a national homeland. Therefore, the Catholic-Jewish Committee firmly supports the statement of the United States Delegation to the United Nations, noting the injustice of equating Zionism with racism and racial discrimination.” 69. Humberto Medeiros to Albert Schlossberg, November 16, 1973, Correspondence Sa-Sd File, Box #73, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 70. Humberto Medeiros, Address, March 23, 1979, Jewish Community Council Luncheon File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 71. Episcopal Times, January 1978, Anglican-Roman Catholic Medeiros Interview File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

246

Chapter 10

72. Humberto Medeiros, Address, October 19, 1976, Fall Clergy Conference File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 73. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 213–19. 74. O’Connor, Boston Catholics, 295. 75. Humberto Medeiros to Rembert Weakland. June 11, 1980, Meeting of Cardinal with Auxiliary Bishops File, Box #115, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Some bishops were suggesting that “Holy Days” should be optional. In his usual defense of the traditional Church, Medeiros totally rejected this idea. 76. Ibid. 77. Humberto Medeiros, “Christ Our Victory,” Pastoral Letter 1974, #47 in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 28. 78. Boston Globe, July 27, 1977. 79. Monsignor William Helmick to Humberto Medeiros to “Dear Father,” March 8, 1971, Chancery Circulars Folder #8, Box #11, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. He wrote to the priests and religious in the Archdiocese: “Receiving Holy Communion from the cup should not be considered a novelty or just another change for the sake of change; it is neither of these. It signifies, rather, the fullness of our participation in the Eucharistic be held and, therefore, is a more complete expression of our Holy Faith.” 80. In November 1978, the NCCB granted permission for the reception of communion under both species on all Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. See William Helmick to Humberto Medeiros, Memorandum, March 2, 1979; Humberto Medeiros to Reverend and Dear Fathers, n.d. [April 1979], Liturgical Commission 1978–79 File, Box #65, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 81. Quoted in The Pilot, June 6, 1973. 82. Humberto Medeiros to Reverend Dear Father, May 28, 1973, Chancery Circulars, Folder #5, Box #12; Guidelines for Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, n.d. [1982]. Meeting of Cardinal with Auxiliaries, June 4, 1982, File, Box #115, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo; Archdiocesan News Service, August 2, 1980, BPO. 83. Boston Globe, September 24, 1973. 84. Humberto Medeiros to Father Francis Strahan, February 1, 1980. Liturgical Commission File, Box #65, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 85. Humberto Medeiros to Daria Dulskis, February 8, 1973, Correspondence with Laity Du-Dz File, Box #72, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. It should be noted that only on March 15, 1994, the Congregation for Divine Worship affirmed that both men and women may serve at the altar, with each bishop having the discretion to determine who may serve, 86. The Pilot, March 34, 1977; Humberto Medeiros to “My Dear Brother Priests,” November 1, 1976, Chancery Office File, Box #62, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. The Sacrament of Penance has three rites: (1) Individual confession with absolution, (2) Reconciliation services with (if desired) individual confession, and (3) General Absolution. 87. “Proposal for the Permanent Diaconate Program, Archdiocese of Boston.” n.d. [1971]; Joseph Reilly to “Your Excellency,” [Medeiros], September 17, 1971, Permanent Diaconate File, Box #67, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Vatican II in Action

247

88. Humberto Medeiros to Bishop Joseph Bernardin, July 2, 1971, Permanent Diaconate File, Box #67, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 89. Ibid. 90. “Proposal for the Permanent Diaconate Program, Archdiocese of Boston,” Permanent Diaconate File, Box #67, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 91. Ibid., The basic qualifications to enter the diaconate program were: (1) At least thirty-two years old, (2) Good moral character, (3) Firm faith and sense of vocation, (4) Good intelligence, (5) Attuned to Vatican II, (6) Possessing basic ministerial skills—relating to people, ability to speak well, leadership involvement in parishes. See “Proposal for the Permanent Diaconate Program, Archdiocese of Boston.” n.d. [1971]; Permanent Diaconate File, Box #67, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 92. Ibid. 93. Medeiros asked Fathers Edwin Condon, Robert Banks, and Frank O’Hare to work out a proposal for implementing the permanent Diaconate Program in Boston. See Edwin Condon to Humberto Medeiros, February 5, 1972, Permanent Diaconate File, Box #67, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 94. Humberto Medeiros to “Dear Father,” June 6, 1973, Chancery Circulars, Folder #5, Box #12, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 95. Archdiocesan News Service, July 6, 1973, December 15, 1974m BPO. The average age of the initial thirty-eight men class was forty-six. One was single, one widowed and 36 married. 96. Humberto Medeiros, Address, April 29, 1981, Permanent Diaconate Directors Convention File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 97. Father William Burckart To Evaluation Board Members, June 1978, Permanent Diaconate File, Box #67, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Auxiliary Bishop John D’Arcy was concerned that the permanent deacons were not being effectively utilized. He suggested to Medeiros that a priest might be assigned to work with deacons on an individual basis and at times collectively to help deacons to have a more effective ministry. See John D’Arcy to “Auxiliary Bishops,” February 6, 1981, Meeting of Cardinal and Auxiliary Bishops, February 12, 1981 File, Box #115, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 98. Avery Dulles, S.J. “The Theological Rationale for Parish Councils,” March 13, 1972, Parish Council Sharing Responsibility File, Box #59, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 99. Handbook on Parish Councils, n.d.[1972] Commission for Parish Councils File, Box #59, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 100. Parish Council Norms, December 1, 1973, Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Men and Women 1971–73 File, Box #59, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 101. O’Toole, From Generation to Generation, 135. 102. Humberto Medeiros to Pope Saint John Paul II, Telegram, August 30, 1979, Cardinal Medeiros Memorandums 1979 File, Box #97, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 103. Press Release, “Pope at Airport,” September 12, 1979, Information Center File, Box #2, Papal Visit Papers, AABo. 104. The Pilot, October 5, 1979.

248

Chapter 10

105. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, n.d [October 1979], Cardinals Announcement of Papal Visit File, Box #2, Papal Visit Papers, AABo. 106. The Pilot, October 5, 1979. 107. Humberto Medeiros, “Thank You,” October 10, 1979, Cardinals Thank You File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 108. Press Release, Concelebrants of Papal Mass, September 12, 1979, Information Center File, Box #2, Papal Visit Papers. 109. Pope John Pail II, Homily, October 1, 1979, Visit of Pope Saint John Paul II 10/1/79 File, Box #1, F.J. Ryan Papers, AABo. 110. Ibid. 111. Humberto Medeiros to Bishop Warren Boudreaux, October 20, 1979, Correspondence with Bishops, B File, Box #111 Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Chapter 11

Serving Those on the Margins

Throughout his life, Humberto Medeiros personally experienced poverty and, therefore, could understand the plight of the poor. His family immigrated to the United States from the Azores because of his father’s inability to find steady work. As a youth in Fall River, he swept floors in one of the city’s many clothing mills to help his family make ends meet. As Bishop of Brownsville, he was a strong advocate for migrant workers, both locally and nationally through the NCCB, and he championed the construction of lowincome housing in two districts within his diocese. As Archbishop of Boston, Medeiros continued his strong support for the poor, both the economically dependent and those who had been placed on the margins of society for various reasons. As with the busing crisis of the mid-1970s, he would find opposition from some sectors, but he never lost focus in his efforts to secure a better life for those whom society had, in many ways, forgotten. EFFORTS TO ASSIST THE POOR IN BOSTON Humberto Medeiros’ life experience as well as his ministry in Brownsville formed in him a perspective on the social sin of poverty. He often professed the view that unjust and unchecked poverty was rampant in the world, including in the more affluent American environment. In an article, he expressed his understanding of the origins of this general scourge on humanity: “A small number of more wealthy nations, chiefly those of us in the North Atlantic, continue to consume an increasingly disproportionate percentage of the entire world. Our advantages in trade and manufacturing are overwhelming and our affluence as a rich country seems only to perpetuate the indigence of the poorer nations.”1 Medeiros believed that people were far too polarized on 249

250

Chapter 11

the issue of poverty; they simply did not understand the complexities of the social evil. Thus, he suggested, “It seems to me there is a vast need to educate, both those who are relatively affluent so as to give their support to those in poverty, and at the same time to educate the poor in the manner in which they might most effectively stimulate the charity of the affluent.”2 Removing polarization and seeking a more equitable distribution of goods was only a first step. In a talk to the World Council of Churches Conference on Science and Technology, Medeiros suggested what was necessary was “maintainability, the concern for future generations likely to be adversely affected by the constant depletion of non-renewable resources in the name of greed and consumerism.”3 Medeiros firmly believed that it was impossible to be a Christian and not be concerned with the plight of those who lived on the margins of society. In a homily, he addressed this issue: The great remorse that seems to hover over the world today because affluent societies live side-by-side with the most wretched human beings dying of starvation, should drive the human family to hunger and thirst for justice and to kneel in humble prayer to the Father of mercy, begging for forgiveness, for wisdom and courage to heal this festering sore in our society and in the human spirit.4

Medeiros’ position as Archbishop of Boston required that he rub elbows with people in all sectors of society, religious, and civic leaders, but also prominent people of wealth and influence, but he always preferred the company of simple people. He had special concern and love for those on the margins. In a Pastoral Letter he wrote, “As an immigrant to this my adopted country, I saw first-hand also the evil effects of discrimination and economic injustice.”5 Medeiros’ affection for and outreach to the poor was noted upon his reception in November 1975 of the Peter Francesco Medal: “A man of God, so humble, so understanding, it seems he was sent to us when we needed to console, to take up the guidance of the poor.”6 Thus, as the historian Michael Lescault has concluded, “[H]is interest in the plight of the poor was never merely academic.”7 Medeiros was a major advocate of direct service and personal involvement in assisting the poor. In a talk to a local chapter of Rotary International, he stated, “Leaving aside the merits and shortcomings of public-type and welfare services, I should like to make an appeal for a restatement of the human call to service.”8 He wanted to do more for the poor, but the crippling debt situation in which he was forced to operate obviated much of what he desired to accomplish on that front. He wrote to a fellow priest, “I am struggling to maintain the charitable works for which the archdiocese has been well known

Serving Those on the Margins

251

for so long. I must convey to you, however, that there are moments of real discouragement.”9 For Humberto Medeiros, poverty was a much broader concept than simply the economically poor. More broadly he saw many people in society who for varied reasons had been placed on the margins and needed the assistance of others. Speaking at the National Assembly of Religious Men, Medeiros urged the group, “to concern themselves with the aged, the lonely, the sick in mind and body, the addicts and alcoholics, the prostitutes and prisoners, the fatherless and homeless, the undesirable and unemployed.”10 In a homily delivered after his death, Auxiliary Bishop Lawrence Riley captured the inclusivity of Medeiros’ outreach to the poor and marginalized: Cardinal Medeiros was for all of us a model of love and concern toward all, toward those of other religious groups no less than toward those of his flock; toward the rank and file (the cross sections of humanity), but especially toward the poor and downtrodden, the sick and bereaved, the lonely and the forgotten, the oppressed and deprived toward the young in their problems and the elderly in their ailments.11

Consistent with his breadth of understanding of poverty, Medeiros had broad interest in many social justice issues. An editorial in The Pilot read in part: “In no way has the Cardinal given his pastoral attention exclusively to the abortion issue, as though other human needs, rights and values were unimportant. He needs no editorial apologia for his stands on housing, education, health, integration, ecumenism, poverty, justice and peace.”12 Medeiros sought to eradicate injustice in all its forms and manifestations. As he expressed that the loss of human dignity had been highly problematic for society, so too the deprivation of humanity had led to many social injustices. He was unequivocal in his outrage at the loss of human dignity: “We as a society have lost our feeling for man. We have failed in our respect for man. We do not know man and as a consequence, we have no real feeling of the dignity of man. We must recover what we have lost in bitterness and violence.”13 Medeiros’ rather dim view of society’s ills did not mean he had given up; on the contrary, his vision prompted him to provide an answer to the social dilemma he perceived: “The only answer is for each of us to advance in holiness and eliminate gross injustice . . . You cannot remove injustice from the world but we must work toward the elimination of injustice and never rest.”14 Medeiros realized that his view of social injustice and his actions to rectify what he believed was wrong might be hurtful to some, but he insisted that he must stand his ground: I am and have been deeply troubled by the effects of social stands which I have taken and which seem to hurt our people. I have taken the stands, I believe, out

252

Chapter 11

of love for justice, in fidelity to our tradition, and fundamentally out of true love for our people. I cannot retract them. But the human and priestly part of me cries out to those who feel offended.15

Medeiros utilized Scripture and theology to support his basic social justice stance. Referencing Pope Saint Paul VI’s apostolic exhortation Octogesima Adviens (#23), Medeiros suggested that the gospel instructs us to have a preferential respect for the poor and for the particular situation in which they find themselves in society. Christians must be willing to renounce some of their goods and place them in the service of others.16 Such an attitude, Medeiros firmly believed, necessitated that one must suffer with the poor: “It is the cross alone, freely embraced on behalf of the poor, which is the key to personal and social redemption.”17 For Medeiros, the Church, viewed in the Vatican II image of the People of God, had a mandate to carry out the work and mission of Jesus Christ. Medeiros’ drive for social justice encompassed both Church and state institutions. As a member of the National Committee of the Campaign for Human Development, he was a full promoter of its mandate to help the poor, placing the committee in a position to solve problems for those on the margins. Locally, he fully supported the archdiocesan funds for The Campaign for Human Development. Locally, in the fall of 1971 Medeiros established the Office of Urban Apostolate which was tasked to address problems with poverty, housing, crime prevention and “the role of priests and parishes in our urban society.”18 Similarly, Medeiros worked with secular organizations in an effort to assist the poor. He challenged members of a local Rotary Club, “Why the richest country in the world, the most advanced technologically, supposedly the most efficient, cannot eradicate the slums of our cities is hard to understand. Perhaps the only truthful answer is that we have not really been eager to try.”19 He called upon Massachusetts Governor Edward King to reject the call to reduce social services to the poor: “Decisions to curb or cut social services cause the eventual disintegration of those delivery systems. Thus, all of us who care about the quality of life for all, especially the poor, must not make short-term, short-cited decisions that will have effects that are unforeseen and undesirable.”20 One local social service agency, the Pine Street Inn, received the Cardinal’s personal attention. This homeless shelter was first established in 1915 and had served the city since that date. Medeiros was a regular visitor to the Inn and provided both moral and economic support, including regular Christmas visits. In October 1979, the Inn moved to a new site in the South End of Boston. So dedicated was Medeiros to this ministry that he left the pilgrimage of Pope Saint John Paul II (which had started in Boston) in order to give the invocation at the new location’s grand opening.21

Serving Those on the Margins

253

LOW-INCOME HOUSING Low-income housing, beginning on the federal level, was initiated during the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The U. S. Housing Act of 1937 established the public housing program. The 1949 Housing Act called for “the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family.”22 After World War II, a coalition of labor, Church, and civil rights groups served as a strong advocacy force for low-income housing, but this alliance broke down in the 1960s, leading to a severe shortage in housing for the poor. In 1978, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition was formed to be an informal but vocal advocate for low-income housing while providing information on various housing programs to those who could utilize them.23 The housing advocate Cushing Dolbeare stated, “Society has a fundamental responsibility to assure that everyone living in this country is able to obtain decent housing at affordable costs.”24 Speaking of the need for more Federal assistance, the editors at America commented: “There is need for more muscle, more effort and more money.”25 Problems associated with inadequate housing were voiced by several observers. The main concerns associated with this social dilemma were twofold: quality of housing and affordability. Availability was also a problem either through inadequate supply or discrimination based on race or in some cases family composition. A study conducted by The Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Urban Studies, showed that 13.1 million families and 30 million people were living in a state of housing deprivation.26 Housing expert Magdalen Murphy concluded, “There is a crisis in housing for nearly every segment of society in the United States and concerned people must blow the whistle and sound the alarm, otherwise the crisis will become a catastrophe of major dimensions.”27 Advocates provided strong rationale for the need to create more lowincome housing units. According to data published in 1980, annual housing surveys conducted between 1970 and 1980 showed that median income for homeowners during this decade rose 104% (from $9700 to $19,800), but median home value during the same timeframe tripled (from $17,100 to $51,300). Thus, it was apparent that affordability, one of the two significant concerns for low-income housing (the other being quality of housing), was lagging.28 This situation prompted the sociologist Michael Stegman to comment: “Another argument for low-income homeownership programs is that, to the extent that home equity is an asset and constitutes wealth, home ownership assistance would remedy current inequalities in the opportunity to accumulate wealth.”29 Writing in the early 1980s, Dolbeare noted the “wide and growing ‘house gap’ for many low-income people.”30

254

Chapter 11

The Church noted the housing dilemma and published ideas meant to resolve the situation. In November 1975, the NCCB issued “The Right to a Decent Home.” The bishops noted five areas that needed to be addressed: (1) Awareness, (2) Advocacy, (3) Provision of service, (4) Stewardship, and (5) Community building. The bishops realized that they were not experts in the field, but nevertheless they called for action, concluding that “millions of American families are condemned to live in poor housing or in unsuitable environments unless dramatic action is taken.”31 The need for low-income housing, combined with Medeiros’ general outreach to the poor prompted him in April 1971, only seven months after taking the reins as archbishop, to announce a diocesan housing policy and sponsorship program. It sought to right the wrong of a growing problem in society. Church-owned property, where it was feasible, would be used to develop up to six housing projects for low- and moderate-income families. These homes “will be exemplary in their environmental quality and responsiveness to human needs, that will stand as highly visible examples of Church leadership in an important social cause; and they will eventually be owned by the users themselves [emphasis original].”32 In a Pastoral Letter to the archdiocese, Medeiros expressed his philosophy that undergirded his advocacy: “Another scandalous indignity is suburban opposition to low- and middle-income housing which in effect restricts the poor, especially minority groups, to the cities. In effect, the message being received by the poor is that a comfortable majority is telling them to rebuild their lives on the hopeless decay of the past.”33 Springing certainly from his own personal experience, Medeiros, besides regarding racial minorities as victims of discrimination, championed the needs of immigrants. He especially noted an influx of Puerto Rican families into the communities of Roxbury and North Dorchester, within the city of Boston.34 He vigorously argued against those who continually suggested that placing low-income housing in more affluent suburban areas would lead to a devaluation of property. Such thinking, he suggested restricted the poor to areas of squalor. Seeing this as stereotyping people, Medeiros forcefully defended his ideas and the people who would be best served by the housing projects: We casually referred to the “problem of public housing” as the “black problem,” or the “Puerto Rican problem,” or the “Chicano problem,” or the Indian problem,” or the “Portuguese problem”; forgetting that these children of God are expected to accept what is said about them by the majority. Soon they begin to feel they do constitute a problem. Have we ever reflected how a man feels being “a problem?”35

Similarly, Medeiros firmly believed in the need for integration within these low-income housing projects. He was warned that pushing integration raises

Serving Those on the Margins

255

racial tensions and “threatens not only the public housing community but may lead to outbreaks of racial violence which could endanger the entire city.”36 Nonetheless, as with his strong advocacy for busing to achieve racial integration in schools, so too he believed that integration was best for neighborhoods. Medeiros believed that all means at his disposal should be used to accomplish his goal, which he described as a “work of mercy begun by Christ and entrusted to His Church on earth.”37 He once stated, “Justice and its pursuit are not the sole responsibility of the few; they are the task of all.”38 In a speech to a group of international real estate executives, he was more specific in his call for a community effort in the cause of low-income housing: “[W]e believe that people of good will, in private industry and in the public sector, working together with imagination, sensitivity and determination can and will make the difference.”39 After months of planning, Medeiros announced his overall plan for the construction of low-income housing in the archdiocese. The plan was to be executed in five consecutive phases: (1) Choosing an appropriate site, (2) Formation of neighborhood and development groups, (3) Acquisition of the necessary rezoning or variance from towns where housing was planned, (4) Organization of tenants and assessment of their needs, including design acceptance by tenants and sponsors, and (5) Construction of the homes.40 Medeiros appointed Father Michael Groden, assistant director of the Office for Urban Apostolate, to oversee the low-income housing project. In an effort to obtain land for his proposed housing project, Medeiros sent letters to various parishes and religious institutions (schools and novitiates) informing them of the new archdiocesan housing project and stating that some of their land was seen as a possible location for these homes. Medeiros raised the “hope that Religious Orders as well as Parishes will voluntarily collaborate with us whenever feasible.”41 Father Groden pieced together a group of private companies in the locales where housing was planned to finance the program42 Medeiros’ proposed housing endeavor, which he supported through utilization of all his resources, received both support and criticism from various entities within the archdiocese. The secretary to the Plymouth Vicariate Human Rights Committee, wrote to Medeiros “Wish[ing] to commend you for your efforts to answer housing needs for low income and poor families.”43 A sharply negative response illustrated those who saw folly in the project: “I disapprove of using money placed in collection baskets being used on such a foolhardy venture. The money that was collected was meant to propagate the faith and to maintain that select body of our Church, the Archdiocese of Boston.”44 While in the minds of some in the archdiocese Medeiros’ project was misguided, his sense of outreach to the poor drove his sensibilities in this

256

Chapter 11

endeavor, as it had throughout his priestly and episcopal career. As overseer of the project, Groden originally planned a total of six sites for the proposed homes, but four locations—Lexington, North Andover, Beverly, and Scituate—were eventually chosen.45 The third of the aforementioned five phases of the project, namely working with local governments on obtaining proper rezoning of selected lands, proved to be one of the most difficult hurdles. In 1973 in Lexington, for example, local city officials denied a rezoning change to build 16 units of low- and moderate-income housing on land donated by Saint Brigid Parish. The major complaint was rooted in the perception that value of property in the general area would be decreased and the sense that many residents did not want “poor people,” and thus in their minds lesser individuals, in their neighborhoods. Medeiros rejected such arguments, commenting that such an attitude restricts “God’s poor [to]continue to be restricted to the areas of squalor.”46 This discriminatory attitude was found in the general attitude held against many toward low-income people. As the professor of Urban Studies, J.S. Fuerst, commented about changing the perceptions of people toward lowincome housing: The first and most important [idea] is a change in public image. It must be beaten, pounded and drummed into the general public mind—specifically the would-be eligible as well as the neighbor residents of possible future public housing sites—that the program is for low- and moderate-income workers [emphasis original], for workers who cannot afford private, unsubsidized housing.47

Despite the opposition from city officials, upon appeal and through support from the Lexington United Methodist Church, the proper permissions were obtained and ultimately the project was completed. Similarly, construction was delayed in North Andover, not only due to zoning restrictions but also strong opposition from local residents. A typical irate resident wrote to Medeiros: “You may have won your case for 230 units of low-income housing, but you have lost many Catholic people along the way!”48 Medeiros responded by assuring the woman, “[M]y intentions in sponsoring low income housing are not to encourage people to be poor. Rather, it is simply to provide decent shelter for those who as a matter of fact are poor.”49 Despite opposition, Medeiros pushed forward believing that he was following his conscience and serving the people in the archdiocese. As with Lexington, the project was completed. An archdiocesan news memorandum stated, “[T]he housing program continues to enjoy the Cardinal’s support as an effort consistent with his views on social and economic integration.”50

Serving Those on the Margins

257

After successfully completing projects in Lexington and North Andover, the enterprise moved to Beverly in 1974, with Medeiros announcing a 98-unit development in the city. As occurred in the previous locations, the Beverly project also received opposition. On October 15, 1973, the Zoning Appeals Board of Beverly rejected the petition to build housing on a 14-acre plot of land owned by the archdiocese. However, the State Department of Community Affairs ordered the Beverly Zoning Board to grant the archdiocese the needed permit, basing its decision on the anti-snub zoning law, stating that Beverly’s refusal was “unreasonable and not consistent with local needs.”51 Despite the opposition to his plan, Medeiros doggedly pursued his housing effort, believing it to be not the primary role but nonetheless an important aspect of the Church’s work. While in the midst of his battle against those who opposed his low-income housing plans, he proclaimed in a homily: “[I]t is the task of the Church, in season and out of season, in word and indeed to preach and to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And that gospel teaches us to shelter the homeless and to do for our least brothers or sisters what we would do for the Lord.”52 Medeiros’ actions were supported by some locals, seeing it as a model that should be followed. A typical comment was voiced by one local resident: “Northridge [Beverly] will be a success, it already is a triumph of good over the forces of cynicism, indifference, apathy and despair. If Northridge is not doing the Lord’s work, I do not know what is.”53 Medeiros’ efforts to bring adequate housing to low- and middle-income people in Lexington, North Andover, and Beverly, while receiving some pushback from individuals and most especially from zoning appeals boards, were nonetheless successful. His efforts in Scituate, however, brought forth a tidal wave of opposition from all sides, creating a great test of character for Cardinal Medeiros. As with the projects north of Boston—Lexington, North Andover, and Beverly—Medeiros sought to utilize Church land for his proposed homes. In Scituate, he targeted five acres of land, purchased originally in 1939 by Saint Mary of the Nativity Parish for use as a cemetery, although it had never been used for this purpose. In June 1972, Medeiros was informed by the pastor of Saint Mary that the subject land “is surplus property.” Since the taxes on it were high, the pastor said it should be sold to meet increasing parish costs and make needed repairs on various parish buildings.54 The parishioners were first informed of Medeiros’ plan on October 7, 1972, when Father Michael Groden outlined to the parish council the archbishop’s plan and its rationale.55 Opposition to the plan arose almost immediately from local residents and parishioners. One parishioner voiced several reservations: Before any definitive plans such as those proposed are formalized, should not the local parishioners be consulted? Should not the recommendation of the

258

Chapter 11

present pastor be obtained? Should not the subject matter have appeared on the agenda of the Parish Council which is charged with making recommendations regarding transfer of any parish property?56

Others voiced the “standard” argument that such a project would lower property values in the area.57 Additionally, the pastor, Father Joseph Deacon, who took the reins of the parish in September 1972, informed the chancellor of the archdiocese, Bishop Thomas Daily, that there were bodies buried in the subject land. Daily responded by emphasizing that Medeiros would thoroughly investigate this supposition and assure that all legalities are followed.58 Opposition was received from an unexpected source as well. Parishioners were especially disturbed that Medeiros was asking the parish for something he wanted, but the archbishop had not addressed concerns they had voiced in the past. Father William Helmick, Medeiros’ longtime secretary, informed the Cardinal, “They [parishioners] now wonder why the archdiocese is pushing so hard and so forcefully on this housing proposal, which in the opinion of many is not a clear-cut moral question, when the archdiocese did not act forcefully on an issue which involved priests and was causing scandal and doing harm.”59 From the perspective of local residents, such housing was not necessary in the area.60 One parishioner even wrote to Medeiros suggesting that the land be sold to the Town of Scituate to be used as a cemetery for there was indeed a need.61 The controversy in Scituate grew only greater with time. Helmick advised Medeiros that much animus among the parishioners was being directed at him, accusing the archbishop of precipitating an unnecessary crisis when people had already experienced sufficient fallout from the archdiocese’s above-mentioned failures to act on past scandalous situations. Additionally, more consternation was being raised when those favorable to the plan were referring to those opposed to it as racists, bigots, and similar pejorative labels. Many felt that there were legitimate reasons that justified their opposition to the plan. When the local Scituate zoning board turned down the original request of the archdiocese and the Cardinal appealed, people reacted negatively. Again, Helmick informed Medeiros, “The threatened court action is seen by these people as an excessive use or misuse of your power, and as evidence that you lack understanding of other legitimate issues involved.”62 One priest wrote to Medeiros suggesting that he drop his request: “No doubt your side will win, but loss of goodwill and the increasing hostility is not worth it.”63 Medeiros responded, As we both know, the feelings and sentiments generated among people over the issue of housing for low- and moderate-income families is often strong on both sides. Though good Christians would concur with the Lord’s mandate that we

Serving Those on the Margins

259

must shelter the homeless, many would disagree with the best manner of accomplishing this worthy and necessary end; that all of God’s people be adequately and safely housed. Such disappointment is inevitable.64

Thus, Medeiros pressed forward. He wrote to a local real estate agent, who was a significant financial supporter of the archdiocese: The decision to continue our efforts to build the 40 townhouses for low- and moderate-income families in Scituate was not arrived at quickly or arrogantly. We decided to proceed after thoughtful prayer. Though in such matters, one can never be absolutely sure of the wisdom of each decision, one must act with courage and humility asking always for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.65

Consistent with previous experience in Lexington, Andover, and Beverly, the archdiocese ran afoul of the local zoning board. In April 1973, the Town of Scituate rejected the archdiocese’s petition to rezone the five-acre plot of land for housing. However, the archdiocese appealed the decision, again utilizing the “anti-snub zoning act.” Finally, on April 4, 1977, the Massachusetts Supreme Court acceded to the archdiocese’s request and the land was transferred to the Planning Office of the archdiocese.66 The parishioners refused to go down without a fight. On March 21, 1978, a group of parishioners filed suit in Superior Court of Plymouth to block the archdiocese from using the five-acre parcel of land. The plaintiffs claimed that the land was originally purchased for use as a cemetery. They further claimed that parishioners had contributed money in the belief that this would be the use of the land. In response, the archdiocese cited a June 1897 Massachusetts court ruling that all lands under the jurisdiction of the archdiocese were part of Corporation Sole and thus the archbishop had absolute right to use the land as he wished.67 On May 10, 1979, the Massachusetts Supreme Court rendered its decision on the side of the archdiocese. Several months later, on October 8, the U.S. Supreme Court again refused to hear the case. Thus, the archdiocese was now clear to go forward with its plan.68 Refusing to accede to Medeiros’ plan, on October 18, 1979, William Clay, the attorney who had been working with the parishioners wrote a letter to Medeiros asking that the Scituate case be heard by the Metropolitan Tribunal. Rather inexplicably, but certainly out of his spirit of total fairness, Medeiros allowed the case to go forward, stating: “I did this out of a desire to see justice served to the fullest in protecting the rights of St. Mary of the Nativity Parish, and to ensure that when the decision was finally reached it would have the widest possible support.”69 Thus, in March 1980, the Metropolitan Tribunal issued a report on the situation in Scituate. It concluded that since the parishioners had never taken

260

Chapter 11

action to utilize the subject land for a cemetery, the parish should be freed from this obligation. Therefore, there was no proof that the wishes of the plaintiffs alone should be considered. Nevertheless, the Tribunal said that the consultation leading to the housing project was flawed. The Tribunal voted three to one not to allow the housing project to move forward. In the ruling, Tribunal officials wrote, “An injustice would be done if the transfer of title to the land were done against the will of the moral person— Saint Mary of the Nativity Parish.”70 This paved the way for parishioners to meet and vote on the proposal. They soundly rejected the housing project 751 to 210, in a consultation conducted by the Tribunal.71 Medeiros acceded to the wishes of the parishioners, commenting with some resignation: “While I am always pleased to serve the cause of justice and observe the canons of Church Law in regard to ministry as your Archbishop, I must admit that this is also a moment of sadness and disappointment for me.”72 Medeiros’ apparent failure in Scituate did not, however, dampen the spirit of those who supported the cardinal’s plan to promote low-income housing in Scituate. One priest wrote: “It may be unnecessary to say (and please God it is!) but we in this house support you in this time of sadness and disappointment. I dare say that few towns would do much better than Scituate as regards racism and elitism. But few of us would have handled the entire affair with the Christ-like care that you employed.”73 In gratitude to a similar letter of support, Medeiros responded, “It is very encouraging for me to know that I have the support of our priests, and I hope you know how much I appreciate your thoughtfulness in my regard.”74 Medeiros’ defeat in his effort to secure parish land in Scituate was not, however, the end of the story, as he remained committed to providing lowincome housing for the region. While acceding to the decision of the Tribunal, he asked the cooperation of the pastor and parishioners to help him find an alternative site in Scituate. Medeiros’ desired assistance came unexpectedly when he was informed that Pitcock Farm, owned by Alfred Gomes, was up for sale. Medeiros immediately contacted Gomes who agreed to sell the property, a parcel of 8.68 acres, to the archdiocese. The transfer of title was accomplished on August 19, 1980 and on May 12, 1981, the Scituate Zoning Board of Appeals approved the construction of 64 housing units. Opposition continued as one critic complained, “I am sorry Pitcock Farm fell victim to it [the archdiocese]—not that I am against low cost housing, but Scituate is not a town for low incomes.”75 Ground was broken on October 11, 1982, and the first residents moved in during the early summer days of 1983. By the time of Medeiros’ death on September 17, 1983, the project had been completed. In a note of irony and in a possible vindication of Medeiros’ decision to target Scituate for this project, 70 percent of the first inhabitants were residents of the town.76 At the

Serving Those on the Margins

261

end of this controversy, Medeiros commented: “It is . . . a responsibility [of the archdiocese] to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and its implications for any just society, and in the light of that gospel, to analyze as objectively as we can the social justice issues that lead to inadequate housing, the denial of human rights and the fact of needless human suffering.”77 PRISON REFORM Beginning with the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, the question of prison reform became more prominent in American society. In 1965, Johnson formed a nineteen-member commission to review the American justice system. The Commission’s report, “The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society,” concluded, among other things, that crime was not an isolated reality that involves only a small percentage of people. Rather, it was a widespread problem that required an equally broad base in seeking solutions to problems and proposing reforms to the prison system. Many scholars in the 1960s and the ensuing years commented on the state of the justice system and the need for reform. Some of the problems that were noted in the literature were the overcrowding of jails, delays in trials and sentencing, inadequate medical attention for prisoners, and insufficient educational opportunities for those incarcerated. The sociologists Thomas Blomberg and Karol Lucken noted: “Not only have we generally suffered from social amnesia and failed to recognize our ignorance in the promotion of penal reforms and practices, but also, we have not done or accomplished what we say we are going to do and accomplish.”78 There was also growing concern over the need to upgrade standards for both sentences and correctional practices. This concern arose from a greater humanitarian interest in the living conditions of prisoners and from a desire to reduce the number of violent confrontations among prisoners and between prisoners and staff. Additionally, it was hoped that a review would lower the rate of recidivism among the prison population.79  An important element in the review of the penal system was to ascertain the rationale for prisons. Many experts pointed out that punishment was not an effective means to move offenders away from a life of crime to a more productive life in society. Rather than punishment, rehabilitation of those incarcerated was needed. The problem of past “best practices” was seen as problematic. Sociologists Peter Benekos and Alida V. Merlo commented, “The belief that punishment as opposed to treatment is likely to deter future crime has widespread support. Policies reflecting this conservative ideology are partially responsible for the crisis that corrections is now experiencing.”80 The sociologist Edward Zamble suggested that a new orientation was

262

Chapter 11

necessary if the goal of reforming prisoners and aiding society was to be attained: “[T]he primary aim of prison should be to change patterns of criminal behavior in the individuals imprisoned.”81 The failure of prison reform prompted some to go so far as to say that “prisons . . . act as dustbins that permit us to sweep some of our basic problems out of sight and mind.”82 The NCCB also commented on the ongoing debate of prison reform. In their 1970 letter, “The Reform of Correctional Institutions in the 1970s,” the bishops recommended several ideas associated with prison reform. First, they suggested that prisoners should be housed in facilities near their homes. Next, programs of rehabilitation should be started immediately. Third, all discrimination based on race, religion, and ethnicity needed to be removed from prison practices. The bishops also recommended that prisoners must have freedom to worship, rules for prison life should be provided in writing to inmates, and parole should be automatic after a certain time unless prison officials can show a reason to deny it.83 The general call for prison reform first sounded in the 1960s, was also an important element of Humberto Medeiros’ outreach to the poor and marginalized. While possibly not as significant as his work with farm workers and low-income housing, nevertheless Medeiros placed prison reform high on his agenda. His efforts included publishing a new Pastoral Letter, the appointment of a new commission, and personal outreach to individual prisoners. In a related matter, he strongly condemned capital punishment based on his belief in the dignity of every human person.84 Medeiros’ ideas were consistent with the views of various scholars concerning the need for prison reform. Advocates Robert Jeffrey and Stephen Woolpart clearly articulated the problem and need for change: There is a growing concern over the need to upgrade society’s sentences and correctional practices. This concern stems from a humanitarian interest in the living conditions in correctional institutions, from a desire to reduce the incidents of violent uprisings in prisons and perhaps most importantly from the alarming rate at which those released from custody are subsequently incarcerated for new crimes.85

Prison-reform advocates believed that people were suffering from social amnesia in their failure to recognize that past practices in prisons had failed to accomplish what the system was designed to achieve. There was a widespread belief that punishment, as opposed to treatment, was likely to deter future crime. Many thought that this conservative ideology was partially responsible for the situation afflicting the prison system.86 Cardinal Medeiros never wavered from his support for prison reform. In December 1971, he issued “On Penal Reform,” to stand as an advocate for

Serving Those on the Margins

263

prisoners. Citing the prominent image in the Old Testament Book of Genesis, he wrote, “We are all made in the image and likeness of God, and Our Lord Jesus Christ has identified Himself with our brothers in prison. This calls at all times for humane and Christian treatment for all prisoners in line with the latest and valid findings of the behavioral sciences, and especially in the light of faith.”87 In the same letter, he stated, While prisoners experience the fearful deprivation of their freedom, every effort must be made to instill or restore their sense of worth and dignity as persons; to provide the educational and vocational skills that they may lack, to counsel, encourage, guide, and develop an attitude of responsibility that will enable them to function happily and constructively in a free community upon their release.88

Medeiros placed his full energies behind efforts to secure prison reform. He once stated, “I have made it clear that I am totally dedicated to those principles that advocate justice, support humane treatment and exhort recognition of the prisoner’s dignity as a man, his worth as a ‘child of God’.”89 He was highly critical of the conditions that existed in many prisons, as he noted that human dignity was being taken from the incarcerated. Because prisons tended to brutalize and dehumanize inmates, Medeiros went so far as to exclaim, “Prisons as presently conceived and administered should be abolished.”90 The archdiocesan Priests Senate was a significant ally of Medeiros in his campaign to bring about prison reform. In early 1973, the senate began a series of discussions on prison reform, with a goal of publishing a statement on the subject. In February, the senate issued the statement. It expressed that it was an appropriate time to challenge seriously the penal system in hopes to bring about true reform, especially the change in emphasis from punishment and retaliatory retribution to rehabilitation. The message suggested that prisons reflect the vengeful attitude of many in society. In response, the report said, “We conclude that the prison system continues to degrade and demean human beings. In all their tragedy, our prisons symbolize and typify our inhumanity to one another.”91 Echoing Medeiros’ words, the statement concluded, “Prisons as currently conceived . . . should be abolished. The religious community should work with others towards this end.”92 Medeiros was fully supportive of the statement: “It is time for our society to make a searching self-examination of its individuals and collective conscience regarding the traditional concept of prison itself in the light of the teachings of the Church regarding the dignity of man redeemed by Christ.”93 The ideas of Medeiros and the Priests Senate were echoed by many scholars who called upon the Church to make a stand in favor of prison reform. The theologian David Rothenberg expressed the challenge in this way: “Religious people should be at the forefront, providing the alternatives and

264

Chapter 11

provoking meaningful change, motivated by the truths that are larger than the political and fiscal considerations dominating the thinking of today’s prison establishment.”94 The attorney Vincent Enright suggested that a new “theology of liberation” should be developed that would free the present prison system from its antiquated Calvinistic slant as based on the sheep and goat passage from Matthew Chapter 25. He concluded “The problem [with prison reform] . . . is that liberation is needed to free people of serious prejudice that causes correction problems, and to free the institution of prison from its destructive practices.”95 Medeiros initiated two specific groups to monitor present conditions, make suggestions on possible reforms, and provide for the spiritual needs of inmates. In March 1973, Medeiros created a Permanent Commission on Penal Reform with Father John Foley as Director.96 Speaking of the Commission, Medeiros commented, “They [the Commission] have my mandate to study and implement the complex and involved goals of my Pastoral Letter and my ‘Reflections on Penal Reform’.”97Later that year the Commission, with Medeiros’ approval, issued a report. Concluding that the existing system was degrading and demeaning and also that “our prisons symbolize and typify our inhumanity to one another,” the statement in part read: “It is time for our society to make a searching self-examination of its individuals and collective conscience regarding the traditional concept of prison itself in the light of the teachings of the Church, regarding the dignity of man redeemed by Christ.”98 The report made a clear connection between poverty and racism, considered as two important aspects of outreach to the poor, and the general problem with crime. It concluded, “Only if these issues are dealt with directly will we begin to understand why prisons are populated largely by poor and exploited people.”99 The commission and Medeiros personally called upon all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation, and including nonbelievers, candidly to evaluate the prevailing injustices, inadequacies, and weaknesses in the penal system in an effort to seek reform.100 Medeiros also initiated and fully supported Prison Spiritual Ministries, Inc., under the direction of Father Joseph McDermott, which provided spiritual outreach to prisoners.101 Medeiros’ pledge to support prisoners’ rights was often manifested in his personal intervention on behalf of some incarcerated who sought his assistance. One example was the case of Charles McGarty, who was convicted in 1948 of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. In July 1951, his sentence was commuted to life in prison. Just prior to the publication of his Pastoral Letter, “On Penal Reform,” Medeiros wrote to McCarty’s sister informing her that he would review the case and that the aforementioned Permanent Commission on Penal Reform would be created.102 In correspondence with another inmate, Jon Taylor, who had read Medeiros’ Pastoral Letter, the

Serving Those on the Margins

265

Figure 11.1  Medeiros Celebrating Mass with Prisoners. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

archbishop commented, “I realize that there are many problems to solve and …that solutions are not easily found. However, I feel that, with God’s grace, the situations in our prisons can and will be bettered.”103 With some frequency, Medeiros visited prisons within the archdiocese. Typically, around Christmas, he celebrated mass and visited with the inmates (see figure 11.1). Medeiros was also supportive of civil legislation that was consistent with his own belief in the need for prison reform. He worked with various groups, including the National Prisoners Reform Association to recommend solutions to ongoing problems in various prison facilities. Massachusetts Governor Francis Sargent supported Medeiros’ efforts: “Just a short note to say a thousand thank yous for your strong words of support regarding our difficult task of improving our corrections systems and for your eloquent pleas in behalf of the poor and other minorities. I am most grateful!”104 Support for Medeiros’ stance on prison reform was countered by some who were angered at his perceived liberal position on this issue. One major concern was the perception that Medeiros was more concerned with the perpetrator of crime than the victim. A typical critique read: You seem to go all out for prisoners, vicious murdering raping maiming trash that should be done away with and not coddled and catered to . . . Unless I see a change in your behalf for sensible, reasoning in the handling of convicts

266

Chapter 11

imprisoned, I surely will consider you not a true high official of my church—but a radical, liberal who has lost his way.105

Medeiros, however, did not allow this attack to go unanswered: “I am in no way insensitive to the plight of those who are victims of criminals, but I honestly feel the one way to solve the increasing problem of crime in our society is to implement practical prison reforms, which will rehabilitate men and women rather than confirm them in their criminal activities.”106 Another important issue associated with prison reform was that of inmate furloughs. In 1963, only two states had prison furlough programs, but by 1976, forty-seven states and the District of Columbia were participants.107 Nationally, the prison furlough program was labeled as “both controversial and confusing,” but overall, it was successful, including in Massachusetts. Although almost a decade after Medeiros’ death, Anthony Travismo, executive director of the American Correctional Association, commented, “The furlough program is a good program. It is neither liberal nor conservative. Furloughs boost inmate morale, and we need every boost we can get. They are ninety-nine and forty-four hundredths percent successful.”108 A National Evaluation Program called for a rationale and an evaluation system for furloughs. This allowed administrators at correctional institutions to make appropriate decisions on furlough requests.109 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts initiated a furlough program for first-degree life sentence inmates in November 1972.110 These were granted temporary release, for instance, to lecture to various groups on crime and prison life. The Boston Globe reported in September 1973 that the furlough program to that date had allowed a total of 40 first-degree life sentence murderers to be granted a total of 184 furloughs with only one resulting escape, a 99.5% success rate.111 Medeiros was strongly supportive of the furlough program. He indirectly addressed this issue in his Pastoral Letter: A competent and concerned legislature, guided by wise, thoughtful and progressive recommendations from professionals in the area of corrections and parole, advised by experts in human behavior and treatment, and responsive to enlightened and responsible suggestions of the prisoners themselves, will effectively provide the changes in law that prison reform so desperately needs.112

More directly, when the Priests Senate issued its 1973 statement, Medeiros added an endorsement: “The present Furlough Program, if properly structured and administered, is a legitimate extension or interpretation of my stated sentiments that ‘visits from friends and family be as frequent, pleasant, relaxed and warmly human as possible’.”113

Serving Those on the Margins

267

As his general advocacy for prison reform received critique, so too his support of the furlough program received pushback. Some felt that Medeiros was pampering criminals in his support for furloughs. Others pointed to criminals who failed to return or committed other crimes during their furlough period.114 Medeiros provided a rationale for his position, “My support of both of these programs [reference to furloughs and rehabilitation] is motivated by a sincerely felt desire to be of service to those who need my assistance. I recognize that there are problems, but I feel that these problems can be resolved with proper safeguards.”115 RACIAL JUSTICE The busing crisis of the mid-1970s brought to greater light the prevailing racial tensions in Boston. However, the murder of a young African American, Daryl Williams, on September 28, 1979, raised tensions to a fever pitch. This prompted Medeiros to once again jump into action. The fifteen-year-old Williams’ murder on a football field in Charlestown led to several incidents of violence in the city.116 In response to the unrest and at the urging of the pastors of the three Catholic parishes in Charlestown, Medeiros took action. On October 12, Medeiros hosted a meeting of clergymen and other city officials to discuss racism in the city. After the meeting, Medeiros initiated “You are the Soul of the City,” a series of conversations and discussions involving the media, business community, students, parents, and political leaders. These were conducted to lessen racial tensions and reduce the tendency toward bloodshed in the city.117 From these discussions, and prompted by Medeiros’ leadership, an ecumenical prayer service was held on November 2 at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. The seventy-five-minute service was attended by some 400 local religious, civic, and political leaders. Medeiros commented at the service, “Racism—root and stem and branches—must now and forever be driven out of the minds and hearts, out of the living rooms and neighborhoods, out of the social atmosphere and the institutions that make up Boston.”118 Medeiros used the November 2 prayer service at the Cathedral as a steppingstone to a broader and more public prayer service held on Boston Common on November 19. Besides Medeiros, the ecumenical program included religious officials from the Orthodox, Episcopal, Jewish, and Muslim communities as well as Governor Edward King and a large delegation of other civic dignitaries. Medeiros told the crowd of approximately 4000 that the achievement of racial peace “is not the sole responsibility or competence of religious leaders; it is the responsibility of all the citizens, all the leadership of the city.”119 He repeated his call for rooting out all racism

268

Chapter 11

while seeking to establish a solidarity between all groups. He expressed a need to think and act differently and to ask questions about the direction of our society. Medeiros proclaimed at the service, “I am seeking your advice, your support and your collaboration in the common task of bringing Christ’s Gospel message of love, of justice and peace into the minds and hearts and actions of all people of good will in the city of Boston.”120 Medeiros also announced at the Boston Common event that he was inaugurating the Covenant of Justice, Equity, and Harmony. He described the new initiative: On this day and at this hour we are initiating a new covenant, a turning of our hearts and minds to the God of Love that is, we begin today an effort that in the days and weeks ahead must reach every heart and home, every neighborhood, every section of the city. And what is it that we are beginning today? It is a prayerful search, and a serene examination of the thoughts we think and the ways we act, privately and publicly, so that, before the face of the all loving and forgiving God we shall renew and revitalize our faith’s fundamental commitment to love one another; to love one another in intelligent and free obedience to Jesus Christ the Son of the living God of Love.121

The goal of the program was to encourage citizens of all stripes to sign a pledge of racial harmony. Individuals, churches, and various groups were challenged to sign the pledge and wear notable badges. Medeiros’ efforts to restore racial harmony were lauded. Many noted that the Covenant was praiseworthy; his leadership in this effort was seen as a role model for youth to follow. It was also noted that because of the Covenant, and especially Medeiros’ strong support for it, that people were much more aware of bias and prejudice and, thus, in a position to transform their thinking. One member of Boston Mayor Kevin White’s staff commented: “We commend you highly for your endeavors and sincerely hope the Covenant of Justice, Equity, and Harmony becomes reality, and the emblem worn by all.”122 Medeiros was totally committed to the Covenant initiative and to the basic racial justice it promoted. Acknowledging the present atmosphere, he commented: There are . . . many challenges facing the Church in the Archdiocese of Boston in its efforts to bring about racial harmony in the City of Boston. I hope and pray that through the principles of the Covenant these challenges may be addressed and met in a true spirit of faith and trust in God and one another.123

He encouraged people to “redouble [their] efforts to make life for all people safe and secure.”124 Two years after its initiation, Medeiros still realized that

Serving Those on the Margins

269

more needed to be done: “The Covenant at its best should be a continual reminder that we have a job yet to do and that we cannot leave it to someone else. For that ‘someone else’ is you and me and them.”125 The Covenant of Justice, Equity, and Harmony was the springboard that led to the generation of the Boston Committee. The Committee, established by Mayor Kevin White in January 1980, sought to address racial tensions through various means: (1) Economic development activities, including job training programs. The initiative was aimed at all areas of society not only minority groups. (2) Addressing concerns on employment practices and on inadequate representation of minorities in the upper echelons of the city’s corporate and business circles. (3) Development of inter-neighborhood activities.126 The initial members of the Committee were Mayor White, Richard Hall, Chairman of the First National Bank, Davis Taylor Chairman of Affiliated Publications, and Cardinal Medeiros. Frank Jones, a prominent Boston attorney, served as the committee chairman. The Committee’s statement called for the community “find solutions to urban problems that have plagued American cities for generations.”127 The Boston Globe was positive on the Committee’s future: “If the Boston Committee succeeds at involving Bostonians—if it evolves into an organization that brings Boston residents together across the lines of class, race and geography—then there is every reason to believe that the ‘breakthrough in human interaction’ that [Frank] Jones signaled yesterday will, in fact be possible here.”128 For the next few years, until Medeiros’ death in September 1983, the Boston Committee met periodically, seeking to carry out its role to dampen racial tensions within the city. In May 1981, in an attempt to bring greater depth and broader participation, five additional board members were added. Medeiros’ participation with the Boston Committee was noted by William Davis Taylor, one of its members: “His [Medeiros] devotion to the Boston Committee and the amount of time he gave it, considering his other responsibilities, impressed me.”129 NOTES 1. Humberto Medeiros, “‘The Global Vision of the Missionary Church’,” L’Osservatore Romano (English Edition) 50 (December 14, 1972): 11. 2. Humberto Medeiros, Interview with Maxine Shaw, National Catholic Reporter, June 8, 1972 Interview with Maxine Shaw File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 3. The Pilot, July 20, 1979. 4. Humberto Medeiros, Holly, December 25, 1981, Christmas Homily Morning Mass File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. In “Man’s Cities and God’s

270

Chapter 11

Poor,” he wrote, “The very existence of the poor in our cities lack of material, intellectual and spiritual necessities of human decency is a frightful accusation against all who are apathetic or indifferent to their plight.” See Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 519–20. 5. Humberto Medeiros, “Stewards of This Heritage,” July 4, 1983, in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 411. 6. Newsletter, September 30, 1975, Portuguese Political Problems 1975–1978 File, Box #68, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 7. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 37. 8. Humberto Medeiros, Talk, June 1978, Rotary June 1978 File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 9. Humberto Medeiros to Father Edward Moffett. May 5, 1972, Priest Correspondence 1972 A-Z, 1973 A-D, Boston, Medeiros Papers. AABo. 10. News Clipping June 22, 1971, Bishops Correspondence 1971–74 O File, Box #96 Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 11. Lawrence Riley, Homily, September 23, 1983, in Cardinal Medeiros Remembered n.d [1983]. PPGS. 12. The Pilot, September 19, 1980. 13. Humberto Medeiros Address, May 2, 1976, Saint Vincent dePaul Convention Breakfast File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 14. Boston Globe, March 4, 1973. 15. Humberto Medeiros, Address, October 19, 1976, Fall Clergy Conference File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 16. Humberto Medeiros, “Man’s Cities and God’s Poor,” in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 553. 17. Humberto Medeiros, “The Ministerial Priesthood,” in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 283. 18. Biography of Medeiros, October 3, 1980, Biography of Medeiros File, Box #12, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 19. Humberto Medeiros, Address, June 13, 1973 Rotary Club Talk File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 20. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, May 14, 1981. Governor King’s Office File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 21. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 181. 22. Fair Housing for All,” America 140 (May 19, 1979: 405. 23. Cushing Dolbeare, “The Low-Income Housing Crisis,” in Chester Hartman, ed. America’s Housing Crisis: What is to be Done? (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983), 36, 54. 24. Ibid., 49. 25. Fair Housing for All,” America 140 (May 19, 1979): 405. 26. Barbara Beckwith, “Housing: The Crisis that Exempts No One.” Saint Anthony Messenger 84 (October 1976): 18. 27. Magdalen Murphy, “The Housing Crisis,” Catholic Charities Review 58 (January 1974): 34. The housing problem was exacerbated when President Richard Nixon on January 5, 1973, suspended all federally assisted housing programs and

Serving Those on the Margins

271

suspended or terminated on that date (with action on June 30 as well) community development programs. 28. Ibid., 30–31. 29. Michael Stegman, More Housing, More Fairly: Report of the 20th Century Fund Task Force on Affordable Housing (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press, 1991), 40. 30. Dolbeare, “Low-Income Housing,” 33. 31. Ibid. #3. 32. “A Housing Program for the Archdiocese of Boston,” October 1971, Archdiocesan Housing Program 1971–72 File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers; Impart 6(4) (December 1971). AABo. 33. Humberto Medeiros, “Man’s Cities and God’s Poor,” August 15, 1972, in Whatever God Wants, 576–77. 34. Medeiros relied greatly on the work of the Spanish Apostolate within the archdiocese that served as an advocate for Hispanics, a group he obviously favored based on his time in Brownsville and his own personal experience. 35. Humberto Medeiros, “Men’s Cities and God’s Poor,” August 15, 1972, in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 540. 36. Robert Kiley to Humberto Medeiros, June 6, 1980, Cardinal Medeiros Memos 1980 File, Box #97, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 37. Humberto Medeiros, “Man’s Cities and God’s Poor,” August 15, 1972, in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 577. 38. Humberto Medeiros, “Remarks,” August 30, 1974, Archdiocesan Family Housing File, Box #56, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 39. Humberto Medeiros, Address, August 2, 1981, Welcome to Massachusetts File, Box #58, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 40. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 148. 41. Humberto Medeiros, to Sister Helen Lyons, SND, November 21, 1972, Archdiocesan Housing Project 1971–72 File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 42. Father William Joy, Interview with the author, January 10, 2019. 43. Rita Revil to “Your Excellency” [Medeiros] November 20, 1971, Archdiocesan Housing Projects 1971–72 File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 44. Joseph Smith to Cardinal Medeiros, April 19, 1977, Massachusetts Catholic Conference 1977–78 File, Box #65, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 45. It should be noted that beyond the original planned six sites that several additional housing projects of various kinds were to some extent sponsored by the Archdiocese. Homes for the elderly, McNamara House, were planned for Allston. In 1981 Medeiros investigated the possibility of an “Elder Life Corporation,” to bring greater awareness to the plight of the elderly and to create practical service programs for senior citizens. See Humberto Medeiros, Memorandum October 1, 1981, Planning Office for Urban Affairs File, Box #59, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 46. Humberto Medeiros, “Men’s Cities and God’s Poor,” August 15, 1972, in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 537.

272

Chapter 11

47. J.S. Fuerst, “The Crisis in Public Housing,” in Grant S. McClellan, ed. Crisis in Urban Housing (New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 1974), 52. 48. Josephine Uszyanski to Humberto Medeiros, May 12, 1975, Correspondence with Laity, U File, Box #78, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 49. Humberto Medeiros to Josephine Uszyanski, May 19, 1975, Correspondence with Laity, U File, Box #78, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 50. News Memorandum, August 30, 1974, Archdiocesan Family Housing File, Box #56, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 51. News Clipping, May 14, 1974, Archdiocesan Housing Project File 1974–75, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 52. Humberto Medeiros, Homily, March 14, 1977, Cambridge File, Box #57, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. Medeiros insisted that the need for housing in Beverly was great; requests continue to be received long after the original houses were filled with new residents. See Humberto Medeiros to William Flynn December 10, 1976, Correspondence with Laity, Fi-Fl File, Box #7, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 53. V.A. Fulmer to Father Michael Groden, August 15, 1975, Archdiocesan Housing Project 1974–75 File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 54. Edward Sullivan to Humberto Medeiros, June 13, 1972, Parish Correspondence, Saint Mary of the Nativity File 1972–73, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 55. Father Richard G. Lennon, “Scituate Land Case Controversy and Resolution,” M.A. Thesis, Saint John’s Seminary, Brighton, Massachusetts 1983, 5. 56. Raymond Sisk to Humberto Medeiros, December 11, 1972, Archdiocesan Housing Projects 1971–72 File, Box #59, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 57. Robert and Lynn Ellis to Humberto Medeiros, December 6, 1973, Correspondence with Laity, Ea-El File, Box #72, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 58. Father Joseph Deacon to Thomas Daily, March 25, 1975, Parish Correspondence 1975–76, Saint Mary of the Nativity 1975–76 File, AABo. 59. Monsignor William Helmick to Humberto Medeiros, Memorandum, July 16, 1973, Archdiocesan Housing Program 1973 File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. In the recent past, a priest at St. Mary’s had caused local scandal by being intoxicated. This was reported to archdiocesan officials, but no action had been taken. 60. Ibid. 61. Raymond Sisk to Humberto Medeiros, December 11, 1972, Archdiocesan Housing Projects 1971–72 File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 62. Monsignor William Helmick to Humberto Medeiros, Memorandum, July 16, 1973, Archdiocesan Housing Program 1973 File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 63. Monsignor. Mark Keohane to “Your Eminence” [Medeiros, October 8, 1977, Archdiocesan Planning Office 1977 File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 64. Humberto Medeiros to Msgr. Mark Keohane, November 8, 1977, Archdiocesan Planning Office 1977 File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 65. Humberto Medeiros to Jack Conway, May 30, 1973, Archdiocesan Planning Office 1973 File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 66. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 152–56.

Serving Those on the Margins

273

67. Lennon, “Scituate Land Case,” 13–16. 68. Ibid., 18–20. 69. The Pilot, June 2, 1980. 70. Humberto Medeiros, Statement Scituate Land Case, n.d. [1980], Statement of Scituate Land Case File, Box #57, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. The Court’s view that the parishioners had not been fully consulted was key to its decision. 71. Lukas Common Ground, 401. Lukas suggests that Medeiros’ action in allowing the Metropolitan Tribunal to hear the case was a good example of the Archbishop’s incapacity to use his authority effectively. He further suggests that this is evidence that Medeiros was not up to the task. See Boston Globe, Clipping, April 29, 1980, found in Planning Office for Urban Affairs File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 72. Humberto Medeiros, Statement Scituate Land Case, n.d. [1980], Statement of Scituate Land Case File, Box #57, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 73. Father Jim Hickey to Humberto Medeiros, June 2, 1980, Priest Correspondence 1980 M-Z, 1981 He-Hn File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 74. Humberto Medeiros to Father Laurence Borges, June 12, 1980, Priest Correspondence 1979 A-Z, 1980 A-G, Bi-Br File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 75. Marjorie Evans to Humberto Medeiros, August 25, 1980, Correspondence with Laity, E File, Box #85, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 76. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 168–71; Planning Office for Urban Affairs Report, October 26, 1981, Planning Office for Urban Affairs File, Box #59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. The 64 units were broken down as follows: 24 onebedroom, 19 two-bedroom, 17 three-bedrooms and 4 four-bedroom units. 77. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, March 10, 1983, Lemuel Shattuck Hospital File, Box #58, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 78. Thomas Blomberg and Karol Lucken, American Penology: A History of Control, Second Edition (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Aldine Transaction, 2010), 261. 79. Robert Jeffrey and Stephen Woolpart, “Work Furlough as an Alternative to Incarceration: An Assessment of Its Effects on Recidivism and Social Cost,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 65 (3) (1975): 405. 80. Peter J. Benekos and Alida V. Merlo, Corrections: Dilemmas and Directions (Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Company, 1992), ix. 81. Edward Zamble, “Behavioral and Psychological Considerations in the Success of Prison Reform,” in John W. Murphy, ed. Our Prisons Any Better? Twenty Years of Correctional Reform (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990), 140. 82. Michael Mack, “Let’s Begin to Eliminate Prisons,” U.S. Catholic 37 (October 1972): 14. 83. “Bishops Call for Reform of Correctional Facilities,” National Catholic Reporter 10 (November 23, 1973): 8. 84. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 229. 85. Robert Jeffrey and Stephen Woolpart, “Work Furlough as an Alternative to Incarceration: An Assessment of Its Effects on Recidivism and Social Cost,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 65 (3) (1975): 405.

274

Chapter 11

86. Thomas G. Bloomberg and Karol Lucken, American Penology: A History of Control Second Edition (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Aldine Transaction, 2010): 261; Peter J. Benekos and Alida V. Merlo, Corrections: Dilemmas and Directions (Anderson Publishing Company, 1992), ix. 87. Humberto Medeiros, “On Penal Reform,” December 1971 in Humberto Medeiros, Whatever God Wants: 670. 88. Ibid., 670–71. 89. Humberto Medeiros, Statement on Prison Reform, June 9, 1973, Archdiocesan News Bureau, BPO. 90. Ibid. 91. Statement, Priest Senate, n.d. [1973] Priest Senate File, Box #68, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 92. Ibid. 93. Humberto Medeiros, Statement on Prison Reform, June 9, 1973, Archdiocesan News Bureau, BPO. 94. David Rothenberg, “In Disgrace with Fortune: Prison Reform Today: The Future Society,” America 136 (February 19, 1977): 144. 95. Vincent L. Enright, “Prison Reform,” Priest 29 (December 1973): 31–32. 96. Humberto Medeiros to Father Daniel Hart, March 2, 1973, Priests Senate File, Box #68, Boston Medeiros Papers, AAB. 97. Humberto Medeiros Statement on Penal Reform, June 9, 1973, Archdiocesan News Bureau, BPO. 98. Prison Reform Statement, n.d. [1973], Priests Senate File, Box #68, Boston Medeiros Papers, AABo. 99. Ibid. 100. Ibid. 101. Joseph McDermott, Interview with author, August 20, 2019. 102. Humberto Medeiros to Phyllis Ryan, November 23, 1971, Correctional Institutions File, Box #63, Boston Medeiros Papers, AAB. 103. Humberto Medeiros to Jon Taylor, January 1, 1972, Correctional Institutions File, Box #63, Boston Medeiros Papers, AABo. 104. Francis Sargent to Humberto Medeiros, June 14, 1973, Correspondence with Laity Sa-Sd File, Box #73, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 105. Dennis De Arruda to Humberto Medeiros, June 13, 1973, Correspondence with Laity, Am-Az File, Box #72, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 106. Humberto Medeiros to Dennis De Arruda, June 13, 1973, Correspondence with Laity, Am-Az File, Box #72, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 107. National Evaluation Program Phase I “Summary Furlough Program for Inmates,” September 1976, United States Department of Justice, p. 1–2. 108. New York Times, October 12, 1988. 109. National Evaluation Program Phase I, Report Summary Furlough Program for Inmates, September 1976, U.S Department of Justice, 2. 110. Boston Evening Globe September 20, 1973, Correctional Institutions 1972– 73 File, Box 63, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo.

Serving Those on the Margins

275

111. Boston Evening Globe September 20, 1973, Correctional Institutions 1972– 73 File, Box #66, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Prisoners were granted 14 days furlough per calendar year. 112. Medeiros, “On Penal Reform,” 672. 113. Humberto Medeiros, “Statement on Penal Reform, June 9, 1973, Archdiocesan News Bureau, BPO. The furlough program in Massachusetts came under close scrutiny in the 1988 presidential election campaign. Vice President and Republican nominee, George Bush pressed the former Massachusetts Governor and Democratic nominee, Michael Dukakis, over the case of Willie Horton, a convicted felon who never returned from a furlough which began in June 1986. In October 1987, Horton was convicted in Maryland of rape. The incident became a cause celebre for Bush against Dukakis in the campaign. 114. Sarah and Francis Slattery to Humberto Medeiros, n.d. [May 1974]; Correspondence with Laity Sh-Sm File, Michael Ozella to Humberto Medeiros, June 14, 1974, Correspondence with Laity, Op-Oz File, File, Box #75. Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 115. Humberto Medeiros to Mr. and Mrs. Francis Slattery, June 6, 1974, Correspondence with Laity, Sh-Sm File, Box #75, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 116. Boston Globe, October 27, 1979; The Pilot, September 13, 1983. 117. Humberto Medeiros, “Controlling Boston’s Racial Tension and Violence,” Origins (November 1, 1979): 315. 118. Boston Globe, November 3, 1979. 119. The Pilot, November 23, 1979. 120. Humberto Medeiros, “Controlling Boston’s Racial Tension and Violence,” Origins (November 1, 1979): 315. 121. The Pilot, November 23, 1979. 122. John F. Green to Humberto Medeiros, November 26, 1979, Correspondence with Laity, Gr-Gz File, Box #83, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 123. Humberto Medeiros to Mark Klein, December 16, 1981, Correspondence with Laity, Ki-Kl File, Box #88, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 124. The Pilot, August 1, 1980. 125. Ibid., June 23, 1982. 126. Boston Globe. November 7, 1980. 127. Ibid. 128. Ibid., July 1, 1980. 129. Boston Globe, October 6, 1981.

Chapter 12

Issues of Church and State in Boston

The combination of the unsettled environment in United States after the turbulent 1960s and the many different events in Boston created a contentious atmosphere for Humberto Medeiros throughout his tenure as archbishop. Racism and segregation, leading to federally court-ordered busing were a significant trial for the cardinal as he found himself as the object of hate from many Boston Catholics. His sincere belief that the poor deserve preference for Church assistance, and his desire to champion those on the margins of society placed him at odds with many of those he served. He also addressed issues that placed Church and state at odds. Never to waver in his support for the Church he loved, Humberto Medeiros once again found conflict, with individuals and groups in the archdiocese. THE CHURCH AND STATE ISSUE IN THE 1970S Humberto Medeiros’ previous experience in Brownsville, especially his work with the Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor, made him aware of the basic challenges to be faced when various issues impacted society’s two great institutions Church and state. He understood the general “situation” of the 1960s that flowed into the 1970s and his time in Boston. He described the post-Conciliar Church: “‘Crisis’ and ‘tension’ are the words consistently used to describe the present scene and I think they are fairly accurate . . . I’m afraid crisis, tension, [and] uncertainty are going to be part of our way of life for some time to come. We are simply going to have to learn to live with it.”1 Writing four decades later, Cardinal Francis George, OMI, of Chicago expressed the tension in this way: “The debate on the institutional 277

278

Chapter 12

relationship between church and state has become a conversation on the relationship between faith and culture.”2 Medeiros believed that Church and state each played an important and unique role in society, but that the separation of these two institutions was not absolute; the Church had a right and a duty to enter public debate. He wrote, “Public officials and citizens alike will remain faithful to their principles and to themselves when they strive through intelligence, dialogue, and persuasion to ensure the protection of the rights of all in a community based on truth, justice and mutual love and freedom.”3 The Church’s role in public debate, while some viewed it as controversial, was significant in providing an important voice in contemporary society. The journalist E.J. Dionne commented, “To say churches have no right to speak out on matters political is foolish on its face. There are moral imperatives in politics, as in other areas.”4 The Church’s view on issues is important for it clarifies and straightforwardly presents a consistent message. This is especially important in a democratic country like the United States where many issues are not so clear, and varied opinions arise even within a singular religious group. For Medeiros, participation in the public debate was a means of bearing witness to the truth as he understood it. Whether it was the issue of the right to life or of nuclear war, Medeiros believed that it was important, especially in his role as archbishop to present the Church’s view on contemporary issues. Medeiros’ perspective on the political agenda of the Church was most clearly articulated in his 1983 Pastoral Letter, “Stewards of this Heritage.” Herein, Medeiros described the Church’s role in public political discussion as bearing “witness to the truth, justice, mutual love and real freedom.”5 He firmly believed that participation in political life was part of the Christian vocation to work for the common good. Narrowly defined interests and lack of concern for the rights of all must always be avoided. Guided by the teaching of Pope Saint John Paul II, he wrote, Public life, politics, and citizenship: approached properly, are not principally the sphere where individuals or groups pursue power and self-interest. Rather, politics and citizenship are above all concerned with the common good of our social life together. As Christians we know we are called by God to an active concern for the freedom and well-being of our neighbor. This call to serve our neighbor is both deeply Christian and profoundly human. Participation in public and political life is, therefore, a genuine Christian vocation.6

Medeiros clearly believed that the Christian role in general and his position as archbishop required entrance into public political debate, but he found this aspect of his ministry to be extremely challenging. His genuine meekness

Issues of Church and State in Boston

279

made entry into the more public debate difficult and at times problematic. The historian Michael Lescault has commented, A man of enormous simplicity and humility, Medeiros was not comfortable in the public arena. Reserved, even diffident, he found the combativeness of public life difficult and was uneasy with the give-and-take of heated public debate. He viewed himself simply as a pastor and teacher and was described as one who “strenuously” avoids public involvement in political matters, humbly viewing himself primarily as the shepherd of his flock.7

Despite his personal aversion to the public debate, Humberto Medeiros entered the political arena in efforts to fulfill, as he understood it, his overall duty as shepherd of the Church in Boston. MEDEIROS TACKLES THE ISSUES When Humberto Medeiros arrived in Boston, the United States had been politically involved with Vietnam War for over fifteen years. Its military commitment, however, only began in earnest when Lyndon Johnson became president on November 22, 1963, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Johnson ordered a significant escalation in America’s involvement. Chief among these events was the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, written in response to an attack by North Vietnamese forces on U.S. naval vessels, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty. Passed by Congress, 504-2, on August 7, 1964, the resolution extended this policy beyond Vietnam, authorizing armed force “to assist any member or protocol states of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.”8 In November, Johnson ordered the commencement of air attacks on the North. These attacks, which intensified in February 1965, became the pretext for the introduction of ground troops. By June 1966, American troop strength in Vietnam reached 431,000.9 During this early stage of the U.S. military involvement, the American people were generally supportive of Johnson’s policies. However, factors like time, lack of military progress, and especially the mounting number of casualties, soon turned public opinion against the war. In early 1968, after the “Tet Offensive,” dissent and calls for a change in American policy increased dramatically. On January 30, 1968, approximately 80,000 troops of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) simultaneously attacked over 100 cities and towns throughout South Vietnam. While eventually the onslaught

280

Chapter 12

was repulsed, the attack has often been seen by historians as the decisive battle of the war because of its effect on American politics and public attitudes.10 The battle prompted many prominent U.S. officials to voice their belief that the war was probably not winnable. Tet placed the NVA and Viet Cong in a highly favorable position for a political settlement. On March 31, 1968, in a speech to the nation, President Johnson offered North Vietnam a negotiated peace. To enhance that possibility, he announced in the same speech that he would not run for re-election in November.11 When Richard Nixon entered the White House in January 1969, debate about American policy in Vietnam reached a fever pitch, with arguments voiced on both sides. Some suggested that the United States needed to continue the fight, based on its previous commitment, the instability of the South Vietnamese armed forces, and the need for strength during the ongoing peace talks in Paris, initiated as a result of Johnson’s March 31 speech. Supporting Nixon’s position, the journalist A.J. Langguth, wrote: “With more than half a million American troops in Vietnam, the United States cannot walk away . . . Should the United States withdraw without concluding a peace, forces of Hanoi and the National Liberation Front would win the war, as they would have won four years ago if we had not increased our commitment.”12 The secretary of defense, Melvin Laird, reported to the American people after a visit to Vietnam, “I regret to report that I see no indication that we can presently have a program adequate to bring about a significant reduction to the U.S. military contribution in South Vietnam.”13 The voices of the “hawks” were more than answered in a resounding chorus by many who viewed American policy in Vietnam as tantamount to insanity. A sense of weariness from several years of armed violence told people that the killing and destruction must cease. The journalist William Pfaff suggested that the success or failure of Nixon’s administration would teeter on settling the war promptly. He wrote: “Washington has no reasonable alternative to settlement. The military option has been discredited; no one in Washington can believe that more war of any kind would produce a quick victory; and if there cannot be a quick victory there will have to be a settlement.”14 Dissenters suggested that the United States could no longer achieve its original goal, namely self-autonomy for the South Vietnamese people. While some suggested that a political compromise would be disastrous, others believed the destructive effects of the war were more catastrophic. Student protests against American participation in the war also reached their apex. In his public role as archbishop of Boston, Humberto Medeiros was forced to speak on the issue of Vietnam and about peace in general. Addressing the war from a religious perspective, he wrote:

Issues of Church and State in Boston

281

We have tried so many other things, and still there is no peace. Perhaps in our anxiety for solutions we have forgotten the most powerful force of all. The power of God and God’s ability to change us from within—as he did for Mary— and to enable us “to walk in newness of Christ’s life.”15

Medeiros suggested that world leaders needed to concentrate on justice. Such an attitude would help them to see the need for divine wisdom as the base for creating a peaceful world. For him, however, peace among nations could only be achieved by beginning with the individual and moving to the community. He advocated a then-contemporary adage, “Think globally, but act locally.” In a homily he proclaimed: We are so concerned with peace among nations. We are in anguish over Vietnam and Cambodia, and Israel and Egypt, and India and Pakistan, and Northern Ireland, and other danger spots on the face of the glove [sicglobe] . . . Pleadingly do we pray God to grant peace among nations! But how seldom do we pause to realize that there can be genuine peace among nations, only when there is peace among men? . . . Peace among nations is only a fantasy, unless we have peace in our hearts, which is the fruit of being at peace with God and peace with our fellow man.16

Medeiros’ specific view with respect to Vietnam was consistent with his overall concept of peace. He was a strong opponent of the escalation of the war commenting: “The possibility of the continuing use of massive bombing in Vietnam, long after American forces are withdrawn, raises serious questions about further destruction of civilian life and with less apparent justification for it.”17 On the domestic front, the ongoing phenomenon of draftevaders attracted Medeiros’ attention. He took the position of the NCCB in support of granting amnesty to those who, because of conscientious belief, refused to participate in the war.18 In the archdiocese specifically, following a recommendation from the Priests Senate, he initiated a draft-counseling and information center. He spoke highly of the project, “I am delighted to know that the program is going well and that already some troubled young men have been helped.”19 The Boston province bishops, headed by Medeiros as metropolitan, published a pastoral letter in 1971 on the war. The bishops saw the war as a sign of moral degradation; moreover, they questioned the morality of the U.S. policy in the region. They feared that if casualties decreased, the moral sensibility of people would be dulled. Therefore, the pastoral letter was intended to reawaken Catholics to the reality of the situation. The bishops did not impugn the sincerity of the motives of Americans, but rather questioned some aspects of their policy: “It is our considered judgment that some of our past

282

Chapter 12

policies have exceeded the minimum balance of morality and it is our fear that projected policies indicate a continuation and intensification of this trend in the future.”20 Similarly, the NCCB, like the Boston province bishops and Medeiros himself, called for peace and specifically addressed the situation in Vietnam. The bishops entreated people to live in peace and harmony, and they thought that such a peace is predicated on the advancement of human dignity. They proclaimed, “Everyone, therefore, must be vitally [and] personally concerned about correcting the great disorder which today threatens peace.”21 Medeiros also addressed the specific issue of nuclear weapons and the horrible thought of nuclear war. He held that the position of the United States as a world leader brought with it the responsibility to work for peace and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. More personally he believed that, as an American citizen, a Christian and archbishop, he could not abdicate his responsibility to address the moral implications of the military, scientific, and political questions that surround the use of nuclear weapons.22 In 1982 he wrote an Easter pastoral, “Choose Life,” which addressed the issues associated with nuclear weapons and warfare. He proffered the idea of creating an international consensus to reject the use of all nuclear arms. However, following the teaching of Pope Saint John Paul II and the 1983 NCCB Pastoral, “The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response,” he suggested that nuclear deterrence, while not the ultimate answer, was acceptable.23 Although deterrence was “acceptable” under the proper conditions, nevertheless the ultimate abolition of nuclear weapons was certainly Medeiros’ goal. Thus, he challenged all decision-makers in nations that possess nuclear weapons to refrain from “provoking war and to make such catastrophes impossible by influencing attitudes and convictions, their intentions and aspirations of governments and peoples.”24 Medeiros summarized his view on the issue of nuclear weapons in this way: “It is my profound hope and earnest prayer that the danger to mankind which is posed by nuclear weapons will be eliminated in our time, and that people all over the world can have peace with justice.”25 While Humberto Medeiros was passionate about many subjects, none received greater attention and more engagement than the life issues of abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. These issues were undoubtedly the most politically charged of any ideas that found conflict to the institutions of Church and state. For the Church collective and Medeiros specifically, the major role of organized religion was to provide organizational infrastructure. This would comprise a nationally and locally established institutional network to exist outside the structures and framework of the established political parties, and thus providing a platform for comment

Issues of Church and State in Boston

283

on critical issues. In a formal sense, the NCCB created the “right-to-life” movement through its Family Life Division.26 Lescault has accurately summarized Medeiros’ views on life issues: “By his efforts, during 13 years as archbishop, Medeiros raised the level of social consciousness of the Church in Boston in a gentle but consistent fashion, like waves relentlessly breaking against the rocks, it would advance justice and respect for life in all its forms.”27 Medeiros believed, professed, and acted to support human life when he believed it was being threatened by society. In an address at Assumption College, he stated, “I am guilty of no exaggeration when I say that at no time within the memory of any person here has respect for human life reached so low point as it has at the present.”28 He saw the present threat against life as a move backward in society, one that upsets the moral order established by God as the foundation of peace on earth for all people. He called for the advance of science and technology to serve life, not destroy it. He once stated, “The Christian faith is a call to life.”29 The sacredness of life was never to be threatened; to threaten life at any point on its spectrum was to threaten life itself. The moral principles of God were under attack by those in society who endangered life. The breadth of Medeiros’ vision of life was expressed in this same address at Assumption College: The value that the Church places on the sacredness of human life must be considered not only in connection with the question of abortion. It is applicable to all human life. It lies at the basis of the Church’s condemnation of euthanasia or mercy killing. Indeed, it is intimately connected with the Church’s concern for a decent human life lived in the midst of conditions that are humane—the Church’s concern for the poor and the destitute, for the disadvantaged and the indigent and the retarded, for those who suffer discrimination and oppression and persecution.30

Medeiros’ beliefs led him in September 1974 to initiate an eight-week archdiocesan program focusing on a variety of life issues, including the unborn, mental retardation, gun control, aging and euthanasia, justice and corrections, healthcare and poverty. The program was “to raise the consciousness of American Catholics regarding ways to promote respect for human life.”31 For Medeiros, the root issue in jeopardy was one of human dignity. The maintenance of human dignity imposed on all the obligation to protect and promote the fundamental human rights of every person. He expressed his belief that preserving human dignity and retaining human rights for all people remain a challenge to political leaders.32 Thus, the challenge for those in the

284

Chapter 12

political arena was to translate the truth of human dignity, that advanced the sacredness of life, into the public arena through legislation. Medeiros’ belief in the sanctity of life, with its roots in human dignity, was based upon the principle that God is the Lord of all life. Foreshadowing what Pope Saint John Paul II would write in 1995 in Evangelium vitae, “The Gospel of Life,” Medeiros stressed the belief that God and God alone was the author of life and, therefore, the only one who could dictate death. In a homily given on the Feast of the Holy Innocents, Medeiros proclaimed, “We must convince society that only God has authority and dominion over life; that as he alone created human life, he alone can terminate it.”33 For Medeiros, the fundamental problem was that people have arrogated to themselves the power over life and death, which belongs to God alone. Thus, it was necessary for the Church to reaffirm the fundamental truth that we are God’s property, not our own; we have no absolute dominion over our lives.34 Humanity has no right to “play God.” He concluded, “[U]nless we realize that all life comes from God and not merely from the procreative act of our parents, we will never adequately understand either the dignity or the sacredness of human life or the sovereignty of God over human life.”35 Medeiros’ perception that the value of human life was in a precipitous decline throughout society, while disheartening, was also a motivating force for his continual drive to preserve life. Medeiros challenged people to be courageous enough to protect and enhance human life by rejecting contemporary views that questioned traditional values. He wrote, “Let it suffice here merely to mention the enormous harm that has resulted in the current trend toward secularization in our society, coupled with a rejection of moral practices based upon belief in God and his plan for creation.”36 Before Cardinal Joseph Bernardin famously articulated it, Medeiros was an advocate for the concept of the consistent ethic of life. In an address at Saint Patrick Cathedral in New York, Medeiros stated, “Thus, to be vitally concerned about the rights of innocent human life at one point in the case of war, while being indifferent to the destruction of innocent lives in the case of abortion, is evidence of our inability to see the unity of these bonds of trust and respect which support a consistent ethic of life.”37 Thus, in order to assure a consistent ethic of life for all, Medeiros called for government action: a constitutional amendment to protect life. He presented his view in detail:

The religious traditions of our people and the Constitutional structure of our system of justice affirm respect for human life and promise protection for it. To make sure this promise is fulfilled, the nation needs a reaffirmation of our basic commitment on the part of each citizen and a determined effort by our elected leaders to amend the Constitution.38

Issues of Church and State in Boston

285

MEDEIROS ON SPECIFIC LIFE ISSUES Medeiros’ views on specific life issues were founded on a traditional approach to human morality. He strongly rejected the idea that humanity had the privilege of operating on its own, considering men and women infallible in their decision-making processes. Humanity had lost sight of its religious worth and given itself over to the secular side of society. All have the moral obligation to preserve and safeguard their life to the best of their ability. In an address to a men’s group, Medeiros stated, We [the Catholic Church] do not accept the even more popular idea advanced by moral philosophers in favor of “liberty of conscience,” namely the freedom of the individual to decide infallibly for himself what is absolute and morally right. Conscience they say . . . is supposed to be superior to all the laws and the ultimate guide for making moral choices. But the individual who appeals solely to the sovereign autonomy of his conscience in order to advance his personal freedom from all responsibility, has totally passed from the Christian moral order.39

For Medeiros, the basics of human morality were best understood through the high value placed on life. Medeiros summarized his general teaching on life in a Pastoral Letter: We have been commanded by the Lord of Life, “Thou shalt not kill,” and we have been taught by Christ that he came so that we “may have life and have it more abundantly.” Hatred, violence, and terrorism, abortion, euthanasia and anything that destroys or diminishes life and its fullness cannot exist side-byside with a commandment that protects life, and with a Christian perspective that seeks to replace what’s evil with God’s love.40

Medeiros’ support, for life, from conception to natural death was also found in his strong opposition to capital punishment. His ideas were expressed through the collective statement of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts. In the fall of 1982, Medeiros led the effort of the Massachusetts Catholic bishops to defeat a referendum to reinstate the death penalty in the Commonwealth. While it is clear from our earlier discussion that Medeiros was a champion for the incarcerated, he and the bishops clearly stated their concern for all parties involved: “Even though we oppose the restoration of capital punishment, this position must not be construed as a failure on our part to recognize, from a moral point of view, the plight and suffering of innocent victims of crime.”41 The bishops’ statement, published in March 1982, did not question whether the state had the right to inflict the death penalty, but rather if it was morally right to exercise such punishment or

286

Chapter 12

to restore it in places where it had been abrogated. Still, the bishops affirmed the “sacredness of life” and supported “efforts toward the establishment of a humane and just society.”42 Speaking directly against a proposed addition to the Massachusetts Constitution that would permit capital punishment, the bishops’ statement argued that the application of the death penalty was often unfair and discriminatory. They noted that most of those in prison and or on death row are poor and young and are people of color. Those without financial means or those from a racial or ethnic minority would be more likely to die, while those with monetary resources, and thus able to afford better legal talent, often escape such punishment.43 The bishops concluded, We believe that long term sentences, life imprisonment and sentences mandating restitution to the victims of crime or their families, are equally strong deterrents. When punishment is sure and swift, it can be an effective crime deterrent. Accordingly, in the light of contemporary discussions within the Church itself, we believe that any reasonable doubt concerning the morality of capital punishment should be resolved in favor of the right to life possessed by each and every human person, even persons convicted of serious crime.44

Despite the efforts of Medeiros and his fellow bishops, Massachusetts voters in November 1982 approved the re-institution of the death penalty. It became law on December 22.45 Medeiros’ belief in the consistent ethic of life prompted him to attack all perspectives that he believed were injurious to life. Medeiros admitted that opinions varied on what might be considered “ordinary” and “extraordinary” procedures to preserve human life, but he argued that Catholic theologians had formulated a moral principle that was thoroughly consistent with the traditional condemnation of euthanasia. Too often, he explained, people lost sight of the big picture and perceived the issue exclusively from the perspective of the patient; they wrongly viewed the practice as some form of mercy killing.46 But Medeiros argued that the concept of “dying with dignity” gave credence to a false proposition. Echoing his basic philosophy of life, he wrote, “Ver[y] simply euthanasia is murder, a serious violation of the Fifth Commandment of God. From a Catholic point of view euthanasia would be defined as the direct taking of the life of someone seriously impaired either mentally or physically.”47 Medeiros supported bishops in other areas of the country in their condemnation of euthanasia. He wrote to the Bishop of Richmond, Virginia, who was fighting against euthanasia legislation in his state: “Needless to say, I have your feelings that we must be alert to the next encroachment on life under the guise of ‘death with dignity’ legislation.”48 Unquestionably, the most significant life issue for Cardinal Medeiros was abortion, the precursor of which, in his mind, was contraception. The

Issues of Church and State in Boston

287

Catholic Church in the United States had argued since the onset of the debate that contraception conflicted with life. During the 1920s, the National Catholic Welfare Conference had fought against the public distribution of birth control materials.49 The apex of the debate was reached in 1968 with the publication of Humanae Vitae, the last encyclical letter of Pope Saint Paul VI. Medeiros was fully supportive of this encyclical, stating, “Humanae Vitae, of July 1968, is very clear indeed—that artificial contraception is, by its very nature, essentially immoral and evil and because it is such, by its very nature, it can never become morally good because of circumstances, however urgent and grave these might be.”50 Writing in the post–1960s sexual revolution era, Medeiros suggested that the glorification of sex was rampant, and that this most holy of unions has its place only within the sanctity of marriage: It is not reactionary to retain the term “reproductive activity” to describe what today is casually and lustily referred to as “sex.” It is not sociologically obsolete to hold that the only situation in which reproductive activity has objective meaning and moral justification is within the sanctified association of a unique and indissoluble marriage. Only between lawfully married couples, who regard their union a part of God’s plan for the preservation of the human race can sexual relationships afford occasion for mutual support and truly personal gratification.51

Medeiros realized that the forces that promoted contraception were willing to use all means to push their agenda, but it was necessary to stand against the tide. This was especially true for those who were trying to win the hearts and minds of youth.52 Like contraception, abortion was an issue that split society. The Church had been consistent in its opposition to this practice. Gaudium et Spes labeled abortion an “abominable crime.” Humanae Vitae, issued three years later, suggested it must be “absolutely excluded.”53 Opponents of the Church’s position suggested that abortion was the vehicle of the New Right. Feminist scholar Rosalind Petchesky commented: Anti-abortion ideology has been taken up by the right wing not only for its “profamily” and pro-church message, but also for its support of conservative sexual values, the “right-to -life” doctrine of the fetus’s “personhood” and the aborting woman’s “selfishness” is directly akin to the anti-humanist philosophy of the “profamily” movement. Anti-humanism, as professed by the “right-to -life” and “profamily” movements, pits itself squarely against every intellectual and philosophical tradition that grew out of the Enlightenment and secularism.54

288

Chapter 12

Completely consistent with his pro-life stance, Medeiros totally rejected all arguments in support of abortion. He rebuffed any idea that abortion was a private moral matter. He insisted that it was a public issue with political implications that needed to be addressed. He asked whether the law should be serving life or be neutral in conflicts over life issues: “In the face of conflict, can society remain humane if the law does not protect those who are the least able to defend themselves? Does the intensely personal character of an abortion decision thereby make it an issue of merely private morality?”55 He insisted that the state had no right to decide who should live and who should die, but rather that it had the “responsibility to assure that the life of every person, weak or strong, young or old, born or unborn, is protected from unjust attack.”56 Thus, he asserted that the legalization of abortion would be morally objectionable as it would deny to God the right and authority over human life. Abortion transferred to humanity the right to decide the life of other creatures.57 On January 22, 1973, the abortion debate took on a new meaning with the decision of the United States Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the country. Medeiros’ reaction was swift and strong. He suggested that the decision was “a terrifying hour for our country.”58 In a statement issued on the date of the court’s action, Medeiros blasted the decision: The majority of the Supreme Court of the United States has, in effect, spoken in favor of the destruction of innocent human life. With millions of people throughout the land I am struck with horror and dismay by this crude decision. At a time when so much importance is rightly given to human values without distinction of race, creed, or class, a death blow is now being dealt against the sacred origins of every person . . . In a very real sense, by this shocking decision, the Court determines who shall have the right to life—a right which belongs to God alone, the giver of life.59

Determined that the court would in no way dictate the whole conversation, Medeiros forcefully reasserted the position of the Church: While we regret and lament the decision of the Court, we must remember that it in no way alters the moral position of the Catholic Church on the evil of abortion. No judicial power nor legislative bodies can make the willful and intentional destruction of the innocent unborn something good . . . We hope and pray that all our people will take this occasion to reaffirm their strong faith in the sacredness of human life which does have its beginnings, its development, and its end in the loving care of the Creator rather than in the fallible decision of a human Court.60

Issues of Church and State in Boston

289

Medeiros amplified his ideas by addressing the illegality of the decision. He suggested that the court’s decision arbitrarily assumed that the fetus was not a person, and thus negated the protections of the Constitution to the unborn.61 Judge John Noonan agreed with Medeiros: “Needless to say, not a single word of history is adduced to show that the framers of the 14th Amendment, the Congress which proposed it and the states which passed it, intended to legitimize abortion.”62 Noonan continued in his own personal harangue against the court decision: “In less than ten years the Supreme Court has written into the Constitution a far more radical doctrine. By virtue of its opinions, human life has less protection in the United States today than at any time since the inception of the country.”63 Adding to the opposition, the NCCB attacked the decision from several points of view: Despite attempts to do so, the Court has failed to justify its opinion on theological, historical or scientific grounds. Nonetheless, during the first six months of the child’s life, the court has made the doctor the final judge as to who will live and who will die . . . Never before has a humane society placed such absolute and unrestricted power in the hands of an individual.64

In the ensuing months, and throughout the remainder of his tenure as archbishop, Medeiros never missed an opportunity to attack the Supreme Court decision and to speak against, as he understood it, the outrages of abortion. He continued to argue that abortion was a morally grave offense against God and that it arbitrarily denies the unborn their God-given right to life as a creature of God. Even in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Medeiros was equally outraged by the court’s decision, and he forcefully vocalized his opposition to abortion. In September 1980, he struck a familiar theme, “I wish to state my unalterable opposition to legalized abortion as an offense against God and humanity, against our Maker and His people.”65 Besides his personal voice, Medeiros sought allies in the Church and legislative initiatives to argue against abortion and to overturn the Court’s decision. As head of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, Medeiros championed an effort to take action on the state level to address the Court decision. Namely, an effort was initiated to draft legislation that would overturn Roe v. Wade in Massachusetts.66 On a national level, Medeiros was the vanguard of a group of bishops in the NCCB who worked to initiate an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to secure legal protections for the unborn. To this end, Medeiros along with three other nationally known archbishops, Cardinals John Krol of Philadelphia, John Cody of Chicago, and Timothy Manning of Los Angeles, testified and presented a forty-one-page report to a U.S. Senate subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. Their testimony concentrated on securing the idea that an unborn child was a person.67 In his

290

Chapter 12

testimony at the Senate hearing, Medeiros rejected a compromise, opting for a constitutional amendment: A so-called “states’ rights” amendment, which would simply return jurisdiction over the abortion law to the states, does not seem to be a satisfactory solution to the existing situation . . . Furthermore, there is something both illogical and repugnant about the notion that abortion could be permitted in one jurisdiction while being forbidden in another. Protection of human life should not depend on geographical boundaries.68

Medeiros also testified that a constitutional amendment must establish that from the moment of conception onward an unborn child is a human person in terms of the Constitution, and that the Constitution should express a commitment to the preservation of human life and thus a prohibition against direct and intentional taking of innocent human life. Additionally, the amendment should restore the basic protections of human rights for the unborn as provided for all other citizens.69 Medeiros also supported certain amendments raised by members of Congress that sought to limit abortions. In 1975, the “Bartlett Amendment” that would eliminate Medicaid funding for abortions was debated in the U.S. Senate. Medeiros was disappointed that Massachusetts Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy refused to support the anti-abortion position. Kennedy claimed that most Massachusetts residents supported his position. Medeiros vigorously denounced the 1976 Supreme Court decision that struck down parental and spousal consent as a requirement for abortions.70 He went on to say that in considering a woman’s right to privacy and her procreative faculties as the overriding factors in their decision, the justices should recall that it is not a woman’s body that is being destroyed in the abortion but the body of a separate distinct and genetically unique individual, namely her and the father’s child. The voice of the child and the father has been silenced in the decision.71 Medeiros was very hopeful that the Hyde Amendment, which prevented taxpayer abortions, which passed Congress and was made law in 1977, would be a springboard for a similar initiative in Massachusetts. A similar bill did pass in the Massachusetts legislature, but it was vetoed by the pro-choice governor Michael Dukakis.72 Related to Medeiros’ support for legislative initiatives that sought to limit abortions was his defense of the right of hospitals to refuse to offer certain medical services. He argued that private hospitals had every right to determine whether they would or would not become involved in elective services. He realized the dilemma that faced Catholic hospitals when their religious conscience came in conflict with secular law. Still. He held fast, stating, “You are rightly disposed to safeguard your constitutionally guaranteed freedom to

Issues of Church and State in Boston

291

resist organized efforts that compel you to make your facilities available for immoral procedures.”73 As would be expected and consistent with the past, Medeiros’ strong anti-abortion stance received both support and critique. One pastor thanked Medeiros for calling abortion what it is, a “horrendous crime and sin.”74 The director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life congratulated Medeiros on his stance: You have been forthright and courageous in your moral leadership on abortion and other social issues. The secular humanists who criticize your efforts in the name of a constitutional guarantee of separation of Church and State are, of course, for the most part ignorant of reality, but many are motivated by malice and (I believe) the devil.75

A particularly vehement critique of Medeiros’ view attacked him for his rhetoric and his perceived superiority in arguing his case: It is particularly disturbing to me for a fellow Christian, the more so if he holds your exalted position, to call to arms “all Christians” to a position which is less than universally shared . . . It appears to me that using unfair and inflammatory characteristics such as “new barbarism,” “a summons to death” (as opposed to a “call for life”), “the enemies of life” and by calling us “blind” you have helped to make it impossible for any reasoned discourse to take place on the issue.76

Medeiros was not one to allow criticism to go unanswered. Rather, while he admitted that he held no specific expertise as a moral theologian, nonetheless he spoke in response to his conscience.77 For Medeiros, upholding the Church’s position trumped any opposition he might incur. In response to one critic he wrote, “I will continue to defend the innocent unborn because it is human life. In the face of such circumstances, I would prefer to be called harsh and intemperate rather than silent and indifferent.”78 THE 1980 ELECTION CONTROVERSY In the fall of 1980, as the Massachusetts primary was drawing near, Medeiros entered directly into the political arena. Three years earlier, Joseph Stanton, M.D., who was allied with Medeiros through the Value of Life Committee, had encouraged the cardinal to speak against those who espoused views contrary to the Church about abortion. He specifically targeted Father Robert Drinan, S.J. for his congressional support of the pro-choice position. Stanton wrote, “I do not think the official Church can avoid any longer a frank statement on

292

Chapter 12

the official teaching of the Church re: abortion and Father Drinan’s calculated legalist support of abortion, all the while posturing as opposed personally to abortion.”79 Similarly, in several previous statements, Medeiros had proclaimed that morality cannot be determined by a political process or secular reasoning. Certainly, humanity had the task to discover Christian moral truth, but it had no power to create truth. To maintain that humanity was the sole creator of values was ultimately to deny God’s revelation.80 Clearly, like most people, there were certain issues that would not allow a person to stay on the sidelines; he felt it was imperative to enter the fray. For him that main issue was abortion, and in 1980 his primary targets for his commentary were Barney Frank, one of the democratic candidates running for the seat that Father Drinan was vacating and Senator Kennedy. On the Sunday before primary voting, Medeiros wrote a letter, “Vote to Save Our Children,” which he ordered to be read at all masses in the archdiocese. In the letter, the cardinal not only voiced his strong opposition to abortion but suggested how Catholics should vote on election day: The Second Vatican Council declares that abortion is “an unspeakable crime.” Those who make abortion possible by law—such as legislators and those who promote and elect those same lawmakers—cannot separate themselves totally from that guilt which accompanies this horrendous crime and deadly sin. If you are for true freedom and for life—you will follow your conscience when you vote. You will vote to “save our children, born and unborn.” [emphasis original]81

Medeiros’ letter received immediate praise and severe criticism. Many members of the laity congratulated Medeiros on his courage. One typical letter read in part: How God must smile in His Heaven. You are the first great leader in this country to speak out so timely for His Holy Innocents. Your courage and your faith inspire all of us to follow your lead in protecting the rights of the unborn, the poor, and the forgotten. You have never failed to remember them all. I pray every bishop in our nation picks up your plea and re-echoes it in their areas.82

The principal critique of Medeiros’ letter and his insistence that it be read at all masses was that he had crossed the line in the proverbial wall of separation between Church and state. The journalist E.J. Dionne described the stance of these critics: “What unites all these Catholic liberals is a belief that the Church has no business becoming involved, albeit unintentionally, in the political machinations of the New Right, which has found the abortion issue as a convenient organizing tool.”83 A particularly angry critique,

Issues of Church and State in Boston

293

which addressed not only Medeiros’ letter but the general entry of the Church into political matters, illustrates the position that many took in opposition to Medeiros: If the pope doesn’t want priests to be politicians, that’s his prerogative. If you don’t want Catholics to have abortions, that’s fine. But you have no business trying to determine for the rest of us what will be the focal issue in a political campaign. A public official addresses issues that affect our livelihood, our health and our defense. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit still while a Pole [reference to John Paul II] living on another continent and his subordinates try to control my political life in Massachusetts!84

Catholics for Free Choice also critiqued Medeiros’ letter calling it “a hollow tactic of intimidation and abuse of the spiritual power of the priesthood.”85  Medeiros’ overt entry into the political process in September 1980 drew editorial commentary on both local and national levels (see figure 12.1). The Boston Globe viewed Medeiros action as “hypocrisy”: “In a democratic society it must be troubling that a priest with serious political interests, like Father Drinan, may no longer hold an active office in which he can be held accountable for his views and actions, but that another priest, in this case Cardinal Medeiros, may express views and take actions and hold himself above public accountability.86 The editorial also decried the fact that Medeiros was reducing morality to one issue, stating “We would hope they [Catholic voters] consider the entire range of beliefs their candidates may have about all the moral concerns of any day—poverty, hunger, war, justice.”87 Approximately two weeks later, a Globe editorial took a more moderate view, stating that religious figures of all persuasions had every right to speak on matters of principle and to do so as effectively as possible, but they also must expect criticism for what they say.88 The weekly Jesuit publication, America, gave credit to Medeiros for being a champion of social justice, but observed that in effect his letter reduced voting to one issue and in so doing contradicted the spirit of the 1976 NCCB document “Political Responsibility.” Rejecting a New York Times editorial which was highly critical of Medeiros’ action, America defended the prophetic role that a bishop, like Medeiros, has in the Church, but “as the results of the election showed—the candidates thought to be the targets of the pastoral letter won—the Cardinal lost his gamble.”89 While criticism of Medeiros’ letter was widespread and harsh, there were many who came to the cardinal’s defense. Several extant letters rejected the argument of the Globe’s editorial team. A very poignant critique of the newspaper’s position was voiced by F. Washington Jarvis, Headmaster at Roxbury Latin School. He argued that the Globe editorial led one to believe that the separation of Church and state means that Jews and Christians should

294

Chapter 12

Figure 12.1  Medeiros with Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

not encourage one another to express their moral convictions in the voting booth. He continued, I submit that this is an Orwellian rewriting of the First Amendment. The Globe appears to contend that it is appropriate only for non-religious leaders in society to try to persuade each other about who should be elected. But of course, the Globe is inconsistent. In the same breath that the Globe rebukes the Cardinal for freely speaking his mind, it rejoices that the highly influential Father Drinan

Issues of Church and State in Boston

295

(who shares the Globe’s views) freely speaks his mind, endorses specific candidates and, as a priest, holds elected office. It would appear that religious leaders in agreement with the Globe fall into a special category.90

In an opinion piece published in Citizens’ Voice, Mary Meehan suggested that politics in the country did not suffer from too much free speech, but too little. She went on to speak about the civil liberties that were being denied to Medeiros: “Civil libertarians should protect the suggestion that bishops, cardinals or any clerics must restrain themselves from speaking out on the serious issues of our time. That suggestion comes close to saying that they have fewer rights than the rest of us, or that their rights are limited in a special way.”91 Medeiros defended himself: “I believe that we [Catholics] have an obligation to form our conscience according to the teachings of the Lord, as put forth by the Catholic Church . . . It is my obligation as a moral teacher and as shepherd to do this at any time, but especially at crucial times. I hope that I’ll continue to do it, as it is my obligation to do.”92 Pragmatically, Medeiros concluded, “I wasn’t sent to Boston or Brownsville or to a parish church to please the people, but to tell the truth.”93 NOTES 1. Humberto Medeiros, “Post-Conciliar Christian,” n.d. Miscellaneous Labor File, Box #9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 2. Cardinal Francis George The Difference God Makes: A Catholic View of Faith, Communion and Culture (New York: Herder & Herder, 2009), 22–23. 3. Humberto Medeiros, “Stewards of This Heritage,” July 4, 1983, in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 429. 4. E.J. Dionne, “The Scarlet Letter: Questions for Catholic Liberals: Commonweal 10 (October 10, 1980): 555. 5. Humberto Medeiros, “Stewards of this Heritage, Pastoral Letter, July 4, 1983 in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 427. 6. Ibid. 7. Lescault, “In Seasons and Out of Season,” 223–24. 8. Clark M. Clifford. “A Vietnam Reappraisal: The Personal History of One Man’s View and How it Evolved,” Foreign Affairs 47 (July 1969): 605. 9. George C. Herring. America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam 1950–1975 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996), 108–43. 10. Larry Berman, Zumwalt: The Life and Times of Admiral Elmo Russell “Bud” Zumwalt, Jr. (New York: Harper, 2012), 160–61; J.W. Lewis and J. S. Werner. “The New Stage in Vietnam,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 25 (January 1969): 21–22. 11. Clifford, “A Vietnam Reappraisal,” 615; J.W. Lewis and J. S Werner, “The New Stage in Vietnam,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist 25 (January 1968): 24. Johnson stated in his speech, “I shall not seek, and will not accept, the nomination of

296

Chapter 12

my party for another term as your president.” It should also be noted that the surprising strength of Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary, losing to Johnson by only 7%, most likely also was a factor in the President’s decision. 12. A. J. Langguth, “Vietnam: How Do We Get Out?” Saturday Evening Post 242 (February 8, 1969): 19. 13. “Laird’s Official Report on Vietnam: The Basic Problem Remains,” Statement of March 19, 1969, U.S. News & World Report 66 (March 31, 1969): 35. 14. William Pfaff, “This Way Out,” Commonweal 89 (February 14, 1969): 612. 15. Humberto Medeiros, “Renewal of Marian Piety,” May 1971 in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 146. In a 1973 New Year’s homily, he stated, “I, for one, believe tragedies like Vietnam in all their terrifying significance for mankind will never really end until we accept God in our lives as He is, and with demands for justice and love we find in the 10 Commandments and the Law of Christ.” See Humberto Medeiros, New Year’s Homily 1973 in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 364. 16. Humberto Medeiros, Christmas Homily 1971, Christmas Message 1971 File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 17. Humberto Medeiros, Address, “A Call to Consistent Ethic,” July 4, 1971, in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants. 451. 18. Humberto Medeiros to Maurice F. MacDonald, March 18, 1974, Correspondence with Laity, Ma-Md File, Box #75, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 19. Humberto Medeiros to Father Francis Conroy, August 17, 1971, Draft Counseling and Information Center File, Box #63, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 20. Pastoral Letter New England Province on Vietnam, n.d. [1971] NCCB/ USCC Council Meeting, April 24–29, 1971, File, Box #104, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 21. USCCB “Statement on Peace,” n.d., Statements on Peace File, Box # 17 Brownsville, Medeiros Papers. AABo. 22. Humberto Medeiros, “Choose Life,” Easter 1982 Pastoral Letter on Nuclear War, in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 461. 23. Ibid., 468–69. Is interesting to note that the “acceptance” of nuclear deterrence by the Pope, USCCB, and Medeiors was consistent with the policy of the U.S. government during the period of the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union. 24. Ibid., 455. 25. Humberto Medeiros to Ann Marie Durocher, April 20, 1982, Correspondence with Laity, Dr-Dz File, Box #91, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 26. Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, “Antiabortion, Antifeminism and the Rise of the New Right,” Feminist Studies 7 (2) (Summer 1981): 212–14. 27. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 260. 28. Humberto Medeiros, Address, March 10, 1976, Address Assumption College File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 29. Ibid. 30. Ibid. 31. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 240. 32. Humberto Medeiros, “Stewards of This Heritage,” July 4, 1983, in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 420–21.

Issues of Church and State in Boston

297

33. Humberto Medeiros, Homily, December 28, 1974, Liturgy for Life File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Pope Saint Saint John Paul II in “The Gospel of Life,” Chapter 3 presents this same argument. 34. Humberto Medeiros, Address, March 10, 1976, Address Assumption College File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 35. Ibid. 36. Humberto Medeiros, Address, March 10, 1976, Address Assumption College File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 37. Humberto Medeiros, Address, “A Call to Consistent Ethic of Life and Law,” July 4, 1971, Red Mass File, Box Number 55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 38. Humberto Medeiros to “Dearly Beloved in Christ,” October 1, 1976, Priest Correspondence 1975 P-Z, 1976 A-O, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 39. Humberto Medeiros, “Morality in Our Time,” April 20, 1972, Church Men's League for Civic Welfare File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 40. Humberto Medeiros, Pastoral Letter, August 5, 1977, Pastoral Letter on Abortion File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 41. Statement of Roman Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts on Capital Punishment, March 5, 1982, Massachusetts Catholic Conference File, Box #66, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 42. Statement by Roman Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts on Capital Punishment, March 5, 1982, Massachusetts Catholic Conference File, Box #66, Boston Medeiros Papers, AAB. 43. Ibid. 44. Ibid. 45. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 232. Nevertheless, Massachusetts’ capital punishment statute was struck down in 1984 as violation of due process, because it allowed a death sentence only when the defendant had pleaded not guilty. The state legislature never passed a statute to reinstate capital punishment, despite support from then-Governor Michael Dukakis. 46. Humberto Medeiros, “Statement on a Dying Patient,” March 5, 1977, Statement on a Dying Patient File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 47. Humberto Medeiros to Ron Fuchs, Jr. January 4, 1979, Correspondence with Laity, Fo-Fz File, Box #81, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 48. Humberto Medeiros to Bishop Walter Sullivan, December 30, 1975, Bishops Correspondence 1971–74 S File, Box #96, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Medeiros and the Massachusetts bishops collectively argued against proposed legislation in the Commonwealth on living wills. The bishops claimed that the legislation added nothing to the rights people already had that the legislation was unduly restrictive and that might have unfortunate implications. Massachusetts is one of only a few states which does not have a legally binding living will option. 49. Leslie Wodcock Tentler, Catholics and Contraception: An American History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004). See especially pages 47–57. 50. Humberto Medeiros to Mr. Devlin, September 12, 1973, Correspondence with Laity, De File, Box #72, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. In this same vein, Medeiros wrote to a fellow priest, “I assure you that I am doing everything within

298

Chapter 12

my power to see to it that the Holy Father’s teaching, as contained in the encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae, is explained to our people, and I will carry on these efforts to the best of my ability.” See Humberto Medeiros to Father Thomas M. Gildea, CSSR, November 24, 1973, Priest Correspondence 1973 E-Z, 1974 A-L, Ga-Gn File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 51. Humberto Medeiros Keynote Address, March 25, 1973, Addressed to Northeast Conference of Catholic Hospitals File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 52. Medeiros was very upset about a course taught at Harvard that promoted birth control and contraception in general. See Humberto Medeiros to Msgr. Paul Harrington, April 15, 1972, Priest Correspondence 1972 A-Z 1973 A-D, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 53. Vatican II Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965 #51; Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1978, #14. 54. Petchesky, “Antiabortion,” 228. 55. Humberto Medeiros, “A Call to Consistent Ethic,” July 4, 1971, in Medeiros, Whatever God Wants, 445. 56. Ibid. 57. Humberto Medeiros, Address, December 27, 1971, Homily at Cardinal Cushing School File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Similarly, Medeiros stated, “Legalized abortion would violate all these sacred rights and principles [reference to the Constitution] and would establish a set of values alien and contradictory to those of our founding fathers.” See Humberto Medeiros, Statement, n.d. [1972] Statement on Abortion File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 58. The Pilot, January 26, 1973. 59. Archdiocesan News Bureau January 23, 1973, BPO. 60. Ibid. 61. Ibid., Humberto Medeiros, Keynote Address, March 25, 1973, Address to Northeast Conference of Catholic Hospitals File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 62. John T. Noonan Jr., “Raw Judicial Power,” National Review March 2, 1973: 262. 63. Ibid. 64. Statement of Committee for Pro-Life Affairs, NCCB, January 23, 1973, Abortion and Birth Control File, Box #121, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 65. Humberto Medeiros “Vote to Save Our Children,” Editorial, The Pilot, September 12, 1980. 66. Humberto Medeiros to Bishop Daniel Cronin, February 5, 1973, MCC File, Box #65, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 67. The Pilot, March 8, 1974. 68. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, March 7, 1974, Testimony for United States Senate File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 69. Documentation on the Right to Life and Abortion—Booklet 1974, NCCB Ad Hoc Committee on Pro-Life Activities File, Box #93, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. On September 21, 1980, Senator Orin Hatch of Utah introduced the “Human Life Federalism Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Amendment read,

Issues of Church and State in Boston

299

“A right to abortion is not secured by the Constitution. The Congress and the several states shall have the concurrent power to restrict and prohibit abortions: Provided that a law of a state which is more restrictive than a law of Congress shall govern.” While many supported the Amendment, Medeiros was not satisfied as the Amendment did not contain the essential recognition of personhood for the unborn. Still, on November 18, 1981, the bishops overwhelmingly voted to endorse the Amendment. See Lescault, “In Season and Our of Season,” 256. 70. Boston Globe, July 2, 1976, Cardinal Medeiros Memorandums 1976 File, Box #97, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 71. Humberto Medeiros, Keynote Address, March 25, 1973, Addressed to New England Conference of Hospitals File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 72. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 244. 73. Ibid. 74. Thomas Michael to Humberto Medeiros, September 23, 1980, Non-Catholic Correspondence File, Box #111. Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 75. Joe Mulligan to Humberto Medeiros, January 22, 1982, Correspondence with Laity, Mu-Mz File, Box #92, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 76. F. Sydney Smithers to Humberto Medeiros, December 28, 1970, Abortion and Birth Control File, Box #121, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 77. Humberto Medeiros to Father Paul Gorman, April 8, 1972, Priest Correspondence 1972 A-Z, 1973 A-D, G File, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 78. Humberto Medeiros to Rabbi Frank Waldorf, September 24, 1980, Rabbi Correspondence File, Box #111, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 79. Joseph Stanton, M.D. to Humberto Medeiros, July 7, 1977, Value of Life Committee File, Box #70, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 80. Humberto Medeiros, “Morality in Our Time,” April 20, 1972, Church Men's League for Civic Welfare File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 81. Humberto Medeiros, Statement on Abortion 1980, September 12, 1980, September 1980 Cardinal Statement on Abortion File, Box #57, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 82. Martin Kelley to Humberto Medeiros, September 12, 1980, Unmarked File, Box #121, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 83. Dionne, “The Scarlet Letter,” 554. 84. Holly Gunner to Humberto Medeiros, September 17, 1980, Unmarked File, Box #121, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 85. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 248. 86. Boston Globe, September 12, 1980. 87. Ibid. 88. Ibid., September 25, 1980. 89. “Church and State in Boston,” America 143 (October 4, 1980): 180. In February 1981, the Boston Globe suggested that Medeiros was not respected by Boston politicians. An editorial red, “None of the top Catholic politicians on Beacon Hill believe Medeiros can hold a candle to Richard Cardinal Cushing when it comes to using muscle.” See Boston Globe February 19, 1981.

300

Chapter 12

90. Enclosure to F. Washington Jarvis to Thomas Winship, September 13, 1980, Unmarked File, Box #121, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 91. Citizen’s Voice, Clipping, October 2, 1980, The Pilot File, 1979–80, BPO. 92. Boston Globe March 15, 1981. 93. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 250.

Chapter 13

Ministry Beyond Boston

Humberto Medeiros was clearly a “hands-on” prelate who was not afraid to tackle difficult and at times sensitive issues in Boston. Quite naturally, he spent much time and expended considerable energy in working with his priests and the organization of the archdiocese. His efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate a massive archdiocesan debt required his constant attention. The numerous issues of the day, both nationally and locally, focused on his day-to-day activities as archbishop. However, as with his time in Brownsville, Medeiros was required to participate in various initiatives and endeavors that took him outside his local jurisdiction in order to serve the broader Church, both nationally and internationally. While his activity beyond Boston during his time as archbishop was not as extensive and significant as with his other activities, nonetheless his efforts, especially with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, were noteworthy and an important aspect of his overall episcopal ministry. EXTRA-BOSTON APPOINTMENTS All bishops, but especially those who are members of the College of Cardinals, serve, at the request of the Holy Father, on various congregations affiliated with the universal Church. In 1974, Pope Saint Paul VI appointed Medeiros to the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, the principal advisors to the pope on the naming of bishops and the creation and/or division of dioceses. This body was originally founded as the Congregation for the Erection of Churches and Consistorial Provisions by Pope Sixtus V in January 1588. In 1967, after Vatican II, the body was renamed the Sacred Congregation of Bishops. Additionally, Medeiros served on the Congregation for Catholic 301

302

Chapter 13

Education. The Congregation was established in 1588 by Pope Sixtus V to oversee the University of Rome—La Sapienza and other notable universities of the time, including Bologna, Paris, and Salamanca. Medeiros’ service in education with Roman congregations was matched internationally with his service to institutions of Catholic higher education. As an immigrant from the Portuguese-speaking Azores, it is not surprising that Medeiros was invited and readily chose to be involved with the Catholic University of Portugal. This institution was started in 1967 by the Portuguese Conference of Bishops. In 1971, the Portuguese government granted it civil legal stature. It comprised three separate schools: a School of Philosophy located in Braga, and Schools of Theology and Human Sciences, both located in Lisbon.1 Medeiros assisted the university as a faithful Board member of the Association for the Development of the Catholic University of Portugal. The Massachusetts-based association met a few times each year, generally at the cardinal’s residence. Its purpose was to sponsor various fundraising initiatives to assist the university with its programming costs. Periodically, Medeiros traveled to Portugal or throughout the United States to support these development efforts.2 Back in the United States, Medeiros was actively engaged at The Catholic University of America (CUA). As a graduate he always held strong interest in the university, and as an archbishop he was a prime candidate to join its board of trustees. He served on the board on two different occasions, May 1971–August 1980, and September 1981–July 1982, leaving the board only because of health concerns.3 On the board, he served as a member of the Academic Affairs Committee, the group tasked with the responsibility to oversee the curriculum of the University. He also served briefly as the chair of the Committee on Mission and Goals. Possibly, his most important contribution came in 1983 when he chaired the search committee that selected Edmund Pellegrino as the next university president.4 His work with the board was highly appreciated. During his time of service, the president at CUA, Clarence Walton, wrote to Medeiros, “For us at The Catholic University of America, your presence, your words, your actions mean so much that we shall ever treasure them. God bless you for your goodness to your Alma Mater and to me.”5 When Medeiros retired from the CUA Board in 1982, the Chairman, Archbishop Philip Hannan, thanked Medeiros for his service to the University: “I wish to assure you of the very deep gratitude that we feel toward you because of your many contributions to the University as a member of the Board. Your advice was always very sage, and you are always very willing to serve the University despite the strain on your physical strength.”6 Another academically related work that took Medeiros beyond the confines of the archdiocese was his work with the Center for Allied Research in the Apostolate (CARA). Founded in 1964, CARA was and remains a national,

Ministry Beyond Boston

303

nonprofit organization, now affiliated with Georgetown University. It conducts social scientific studies concerning the Catholic Church. The Center espouses three major dimensions to its mission: (1) To increase the Church’s self-understanding, (2) To serve the applied research needs of Church decision-makers, and (3) To advance scholarly research on religion, particularly Catholicism. In June 1975, Medeiros accepted an appointment (which began in January 1976) as Chairman of the Board of Directors for CARA. His primary contribution to CARA was in overseeing a fund drive that allowed the organization to move its offices to Washington, D.C.7 Medeiros was highly supportive of CARA’s efforts, writing, “Through the years, CARA has been engaged in research for the Church and its work has been of immense help to different segments of the Church: dioceses, parishes, seminaries and religious orders.”8 He remained as chairman until his death in September 1983. MINISTRY WITH THE NCCB Humberto Medeiros was a member of several smaller committees associated with the NCCB. Between 1969 and 1972, he served as a member of the Committee for International Affairs. As a member of the Ad Hoc Committee for Priestly Life and Ministry, he assisted with the composition of an NCCB study on the spirituality of priests, producing “The Spiritual Renewal of the American Priesthood.”9 He also served as a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Migrants, Seamen, and Travelers. This body provided input to the Pontifical Commission for Migration and Tourism.10 Medeiros was also invited by Cardinal John Dearden, chairman of the NCCB, to serve with Archbishop Timothy Manning of Los Angeles and Bishop David Maloney of Wichita, to draft a pastoral letter affirming the importance of the role of Mary in the life of the Church.11 Medeiros was active as well with the InterAmerican Bishops, a group comprising prelates from Canada, the United States, and Latin America, which met annually to discuss issues pertinent to the Church in the Western Hemisphere.12 Medeiros’ principal work with the NCCB during his tenure as archbishop was found in familiar territory, continuing his ministry from the past with the Ad Hoc Farm Labor Committee. We recall that, when serving as Bishop of Brownsville, Medeiros had been actively engaged with this ad hoc committee that had helped to generate an agreement between grape growers and members of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC), centered in Delano, California. Medeiros continued his work with the ad hoc committee which continued to monitor the situation with the UFWOC. Only days after the collective bargaining agreement of July 1970 had been signed, he learned that growers of lettuce in the Salinas Valley had secretly signed

304

Chapter 13

agreements with the Teamsters Union, which at the time could not claim to represent workers. The UFWOC immediately called a strike and Chavez moved his headquarters north to Salinas to address the situation. The ad hoc committee was once again invited to mediate, this time between the UFWOC and the Teamsters. With the aid of the Committee, the two parties worked out an agreement that ceded jurisdiction over fieldworkers to the UFWOC. The Teamsters held jurisdiction over packing sheds and food processing plants. Part of the agreement stipulated that the Teamsters must try to convince those in charge at the sheds and processing plants to re-negotiate with the UFWOC. However, these negotiations never fully materialized, prompting the UFWOC to call a national lettuce boycott.13 The ad hoc committee, with Medeiros’ active participation, attempted to work with the Teamsters, but, after three lengthy meetings the latter decided to take on the UFWOC and to seek to formally organize farmworkers throughout California without regard to any earlier agreements. The UFWOC was appalled at this development and sought recourse through the intercession of the NCCB. Initially, the ad hoc committee stayed out of the fray, remaining neutral. By November 1973, however, with the Teamsters still refusing to negotiate in good faith, the bishops met to reconsider their role in the controversy. The ad hoc committee became convinced that the cause of the UFWOC was just and that the work of César Chavez represented the best interest of the nation’s agricultural workers. In a report, Committee Chairman Bishop Joseph Donnelly stated, “It [the UFWOC] deserves our whole-hearted support in its struggle to protect legitimate economic rights of one of the most disadvantaged groups of workers in the American economy.”14 By unanimous vote, the committee recommended to the NCCB collective to go on record in support of the UFWOC’s demand for free elections to determine which union should represent fieldworkers. By majority vote, the Committee recommended the NCCB endorse and support the UFWOC boycott of grapes and lettuce.15 The NCCB quickly approved both recommendations. For the next fourteen months, the ad hoc Committee unsuccessfully pushed for elections that would allow workers to determine if they wanted a union to represent them and if so which one. Frustrated at its inability to resolve the strike and boycott and the lack of communication between the parties involved, the Ad Hoc Committee including, Medeiros, traveled to California in January 1975 to restart the process to find a resolution. Between January 6 and 8, the Committee met in Fresno with representatives of the San Joaquin Valley farmers and the AFL-CIO, representing the Teamsters; César Chavez represented his UFWOC. The key issue in the discussions centered on legislation. Both the growers and unions wanted some type of permanent solution, but they differed on whether it should be on the federal or state level. Chavez opted for state legislation, believing that a federal law

Ministry Beyond Boston

305

would take far too long to enact. The growers, on the other hand, sought federal legislation as a more permanent fix. Additionally, the growers said that meaningful discussions toward a solution could never be held if the UFWOC continued to advocate a boycott. The growers went further to suggest that the ad hoc committee, representing the institutional Church, was overly biased and did not serve as a fair arbitrator and impartial party in the discussions. Martin Zaninovich, chairman of the California growers in the Salinas Valley, wrote to Donnelly: A worthy position of the Church is to bring workers, growers and other concerned groups together with the churches to consider means and mechanisms through which the needs of farmworkers can be met. We are willing to continue working in this direction . . . It is our opinion that meaningful legislation has been delayed and will continue to be delayed as long as the Catholic Church in America, influenced to some degree by your committee, persists in its position of support for one of the parties in the issue, namely the United Farmworkers of America, and endorses its activities.16

Zaninovich concluded that the presumption that a union was the only possible method to aid farmworkers was erroneous: “This is false and misleading, and actions springing from it necessarily will be equally false.”17 The strike and boycott of grapes and lettuce prompted by the dispute between the UFWOC and the growers produced a situation highly problematic for California’s agricultural vitality. A legislative resolution was needed. On June 5, 1975, Governor Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown, Jr. signed legislation that allowed farmworkers the right to determine by secret ballot which union, if any, they want to represent them. In response, the Ad Hoc Committee commented, “We call upon all concerned—state officials, growers and union representatives—to cooperate with one another in implementing the spirit as well as the letter of the law.”18 The peaceful resolution to the grape and boycott strike of 1965–1970 and the boycott of the 1970s proved to be the final action of the Ad Hoc Farm Labor Committee. While the Committee remained in existence until 1979, its effective work ended with the 1975 California labor law. While Medeiros’ participation during his years as Archbishop of Boston was less frequent, he remained actively engaged, especially in the January 1975 deliberations that led directly to a resolution of the crisis. During his time in Boston, Medeiros continued his work with the NCCB Latin American Bureau. In November 1970, shortly after taking the reins in Boston, Medeiros was elected chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Latin America, the body that was the overseer for the Latin American Bureau and the other groups with which he was a participant during his days as Bishop of

306

Chapter 13

Brownsville. He served in that capacity until May 1973.19 Medeiros’ strong support for the Church in Latin America was expressed in a homily delivered at Saint Patrick Cathedral in New York City. He was grateful that Catholics in the United States, both clergy and laity, were beginning to understand and take seriously the Gospel edict to serve the poor, and that the manifestation of their outreach was toward their brothers and sisters in Latin America. He was also pleased that many who often divided themselves into liberal or conservative theological camps could come together in the common need to assist their brothers and sisters in the Americas.20 Medeiros’ principal efforts remained with the Latin American Bureau and specifically with his role as the head of the Allocations Subcommittee. In October 1971, he sent out his annual “begging letter:” Once again, I come to my brother bishops to ask your active cooperation on behalf of the faithful in Latin America who currently comprise nearly half of the Catholics in the world. Latin American bishops face tremendous obstacles and call on us in the spirit of post-Conciliar liberation of the impoverished people in their diocese who look to the Church for leadership . . . Therefore, I respectfully request permission to appeal to the generosity of the faithful in your diocese through the U.S. Bishops’ National Annual Collection for Latin America.21

Medeiros was grateful for all financial assistance rendered to Latin America, but he was concerned that some bishops were working independently of the NCCB in their efforts to assist the Church in this region. Resources from the NCCB provided funds for projects run by local clergy. Medeiros’ fear was that funding projects without the input of local Latin American ordinaries would compromise the autonomy of those bishops. He wrote, Many U.S. diocesan programs have made valid contributions worthy of the generosity of sponsoring ordinaries. But there has been a sufficient number of counter-productive incidents to warrant reflection concerning stewardship. There are serious inequalities which could potentially give scandal and strain relations with the local church whom the U.S. ostensibly serves.22

Additionally, he spoke of the NCCB’s competence in handling resources: “My fellow bishops and I who serve on the NCCB Committee for the Church in Latin America, which administers the allocation with assistance for the Latin American Fund, hope this division of allocation imbalance does not reflect a loss of confidence in our efforts to authentically respond to the needs of the Latin American Church.”23 Medeiros was also challenged by his fellow prelates that monetary giving must be matched by spiritual development. One bishop wrote to Medeiros: “I am convinced that unless our efforts in social

Ministry Beyond Boston

307

action are at least equaled by our efforts at preaching the Gospel, that we are wasting money and effort in Latin America.”24 The efforts of Medeiros and his fellow bishops to raise money for projects in Latin America were highly successful. The annual collection trended upward, reaching over $1.5 million in 1972. The successful drive allowed for allocations to be made annually to approximately 100 projects. It also funded field operations and missionary training institutes in at least eighteen Latin American countries.25 Medeiros’ efforts on behalf of the Church in Latin America were applauded on many fronts. The Latin American bishops were very pleased with his proactive service on their behalf. Father Frederick McGuire, who served as the director of the Division of Latin America for the USCCB, lauded Medeiros for his service: “May I take the opportunity to thank you for your past support and interest in our work to assist the Church in Latin America.”26 Although Medeiros in the ensuing years was not intricately involved with the USCCB’s work in Latin America, he was nonetheless a careful observer and was grateful for those who would continue his efforts on behalf of their brothers and sisters in Christ. He wrote, “I continue to follow the problems of our Latin American brothers through participation in the Inter-American Bishops’ Meeting and the biennial meeting of the General Council of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America.”27 Medeiros was grateful for the service his colleagues had provided in making his work with the Latin American Church successful, stating: “I realize that you have given generously of yourself in every way, and I want you to know how much your cooperation has meant to me and the members of the NCCB.”28 As his ministry with the Latin American Bureau ended, Medeiros transitioned to a new work to celebrate the forthcoming bicentennial of the country. In February 1973, the NCCB created an ad hoc committee to study and make proposals for the Church’s participation in sponsoring a national conference on justice that would conclude with a national Eucharistic celebration as part of the 1976 bicentennial gala. The committee, chaired by Cardinal John Dearden of Detroit, held its first meeting on May 8. The members discussed how the bicentennial must be a time of religious renewal as well as national pride.29 At this initial meeting, the bishops also created three subcommittees—Church History, chaired by Bishop Edward McCarthy of Phoenix, Justice, headed by Archbishop Peter Gerety of Newark, and Religious Observance under the guidance of Cardinal Medeiros.30 In his role as chair, Medeiros guided the subcommittee in its initial meetings to clarify its objectives and proposals. Initially, the group was unanimously in favor of establishing a permanent U.S. Liturgy Center. Initially, the members were not favorable to hosting a Eucharistic Congress, but they were amenable to holding a national Eucharistic celebration on television.31

308

Chapter 13

However, the subcommittee eventually agreed that sponsoring a national conference on justice, preceded by a national Eucharistic celebration, was the best answer to its mandate. This conclusion was prompted in large measure due to the diversity of liturgical expression that prevailed throughout the country and the need to manifest these various rituals publicly. The committee also agreed to prepare and disseminate to all parishes in the United States a booklet with various observances of the bicentennial and with suggestions for celebrating it liturgically. The subcommittee also suggested that because July 4, 1976 was to be a Sunday, this should be the actual date for the national liturgical celebration of the bicentennial.32 As a member of the ad hoc committee, Medeiros was party to the publication of a guide booklet, “Liberty and Justice for All,” a vehicle for a national discussion of various issues associated with the Church in the United States. The booklet received a highly critical review from the priestsociologist Andrew Greeley, referring to it as “unscholarly, simplistic, historically false and disastrous psychologically.” Greeley’s critique was answered by Father John Egan, who stated that while he generally respected Greeley’s opinions, “I am enormously saddened by the most recent essays because it seems to mark in some way his [Greeley’s] resignation from the community of discourse among those who share his faith, his commitment and his hope.”33 The final events connected to the Ad Hoc Bicentennial Committee’s work were celebrated in the wake of the July 4 festivities. The International Eucharistic Congress that Medeiros’ subcommittee endorsed was held between August 1 and 8, 1976, in Philadelphia. Medeiros attended the congress and participated as a panel member for Portuguese-speaking Catholics. The closing event of the Bishops’ Bicentennial celebration was the “Call to Action” Conference, held October 21–23 in Detroit. Approximately 1300 delegates from various dioceses and national Catholic groups attended the conference, which was to be consultative; its recommendations were to be submitted to the bishops’ conference for its review.34 Medeiros was very positive on what the Conference could accomplish: These are not the best of times, nor are they the worst of times, but they are our times and we must make the most of them if justice and peace are to be found in our country, our Commonwealth, our own community . . . Talking about them may raise the consciousness of the concerned people, but seriously working for them will demonstrate a commitment that can right the wrongs and still the violence that have plagued too much of our national life and local scene.35

Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, however, offered a more measured prediction:

Ministry Beyond Boston

309

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops Catholic must take a very careful approach to its evaluation of the recommendations [of the Conference]. Undoubtedly, many good recommendations emerged which will provide the groundwork for constructive reflection and action in the future; but to be realistic, others must be considered problematic at best.36

The conference produced a mixed reaction, largely based on the theological perspective of those who attended. Medeiros’ ministry beyond the borders of Boston was not extensive but produced fruit in various areas. His work with the NCCB, especially his Latin American Bureau was noteworthy. He answered the call to assist with the celebration of his adopted nation’s bicentennial. As he reached the twilight of his priestly career and life, Medeiros was ready, after weathering the conflicts, for his final few years.

NOTES 1. Information Sheet July 1975, Catholic University of Portugal File, 1976, Box #62, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 2. Minutes. Association for the Development of the Catholic University of Portugal, September 22, 1981, Catholic University of Portugal Meeting File, Box #124, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 3. Catholic University of America Press Release, September 1983, Catholic University of America Papers, ACUA. 4. Board of Trustees Committee on Academic Affairs, November 22, 1974, Catholic University of America Trustee File, Box #119, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo; Catholic University of America Press Release, September 1983, Catholic University of America Papers, ACUA. 5. Clarence C. Walton to Humberto Medeiros, September 10, 1973, Catholic University File, Box #62, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 6. Archbishop Philip Hannan to Humberto Medeiros, July 8, 1982, Correspondence with Bishops, H File, Box #109, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 7. Humberto Medeiros to Dear Father, n.d. [1977]; CARA Meeting Minutes, November 15, 1977, CARA File, Box #101, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 8. Humberto Medeiros to Jane Engelhard, December 8, 1977, CARA File, Box #101, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 9. Marvin Bordelone to Committee for International Affairs, December 3, 1971, Box #105; Humberto Medeiros to Joseph Bernardine, October 28, 1972, NCCB Ad Hoc Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry File, Box #93; Bishop Thomas Daily to Archbishop Philip Hannon, October 21, 1972, NCCB Ad Hoc Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry File, Box #93, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 10. Bishop Alfred Abramowicz to Humberto Medeiros, September 5, 1973, Chancery Memos 1973 File, Box #110, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo.

310

Chapter 13

11. Humberto Medeiros to Cardinal John Dearden, May 11, 1973, Bishops’ Pastoral on the Blessed Virgin Mary File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 12. Bishop Joseph Bernardin to Humberto Medeiros, April 28, 1972, Québec May 15–19, 1972 Inter--American File, Box #106; Humberto Medeiros to Joseph Bernardin, January 27, 1975, Unmarked File, Box #105, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 13. Memorandum Bishop Joseph Donnelly to NCCB Ad Hoc Farm Labor Committee, July 17, 1973, NCCB Ad Hoc Farm Labor Committee 1973 File, Box #126, NCCB Papers, ACUA. 14. Bishop Joseph Donnelly Report on Ad Hoc Farm Labor Committee, November 13, 1973, NCCB Ad Hoc Farm Labor Committee 1973 File, Box #126, NCCB Papers, ACUA. 15. Ibid. 16. Martin Zaninovich to Bishop Joseph Donnelly, January 10, 1975, Ad Hoc Farm Labor Committee File, Box #101, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AABo. 17. Ibid. 18. “Resolution on Farm Labor,” November 20, 1975, Ad Hoc Farm Labor Committee File, Box #101, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB. 19. The Pilot, November 21, 1970. The other members of the Committee were: Archbishop Patrick Flores of San Antonio, Archbishop Coleman Carroll of Miami, Bishop Jerome Hastrich of Gallup, New Mexico, Bishop Gerald McDevitt, Auxiliary in Philadelphia, and Bishop Joseph Green, from Reno Nevada. 20. Ibid., November 25, 1972. 21. Humberto Medeiros to Dear Excellency, October 4, 1971, USCC International Affairs Latin America 1971–72 File, Box #103, USCC Papers, ACUA. 22. Statement NCCB Committee for the Church in Latin America, n.d [1972], Latin American Bureau File, Box #102, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 23. Ibid. 24. Bishop Charles Helmsing to Humberto Medeiros, April 6, 1971, Bishops’ Correspondence H File, Box #96, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 25. Memorandum, Division of Latin America, n.d. [May 1973] Latin American Bureau File, Box #102, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. Annual collections for the Church in Latin America were: 1970--$1,238,812; 1971 $1,427,099; 1972--$1,433,568. 26. Father Frederick McGuire, C.M. to Humberto Medeiros, December 1974, Latin American Bureau File, Box #102, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 27. Humberto Medeiros, Report to the Administrative Board, NCCB, n.d. Latin American Bureau File, Box #102, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 28. Humberto Medeiros to Father Frederick McGuire, C.M., January 4, 1975, Latin American Bureau File, Box #102, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 29. James Rausch to Cardinal John Krol, June 5, 1973, NCCB Bicentennial Committee File Box #117, NCCB Papers, ACUA. Members of the Ad Hoc Committee work: Cardinal John Dearden of Detroit, Chair; Archbishop Joseph Bernardin of Cincinnati, Vice Chair; Bishop Raymond Gallagher of Lafayette, Indiana; Bishop Edward McCarthy, Phoenix, Arizona; Bishop William Johnson, Auxiliary in Los

Ministry Beyond Boston

311

Angeles and Cardinal Medeiros. See Francis J. Butler, Memorandum, March 20, 1974, Bicentennial Meeting March 26, 1973. 30. Fact Sheet, American Catholic Bicentennial Program. N.d. [May 1975], Massachusetts Catholic Conference File, Box #104, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 31. Meeting Minutes SubCommittee for the Religious Observance of the Bicentennial, September 18, 1973, USCC Committee on Observance of the Bicentennial File, Box #103, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. The initial composition of the Religious Observance Subcommittee was: Cardinal Humberto Medeiros, Chair; Bishop John Dougherty, Auxiliary in Newark, Vice Chair; Father Thomas Krosnicki, SVD of the NCCB Liturgy Office; Father Virgil Elizondo, President of the Mexican American Cultural Center (MACC), Father Clarence Rivers of Cincinnati, Ohio, Father James O’Donohue, Dean of Students at Saint John’s Brighton, and Father Joseph Champlin of the Diocese of Rochester, New York. See SubCommittee List n.d [1973], NCCB Bicentennial Committee 1972–1973 File, Box #117 NCCB Papers, ACUA. Membership in the Subcommittee changed over time. 32. Meeting Minutes Ad Hoc Committee for Bicentennial, April 18, 1974, NCCB Ad Hoc Bicentennial Committee January-June 1974 File, Box #119, NCCB Papers, ACUA. 33. John Egan to National Catholic Reporter Staff, n.d. [February 1975], Ad Hoc Bicentennial Committee 1975 File, Box #119, ACUA. 34. USCCB News Bulletin, October 26, 1976, NCCB Ad Hoc Bicentennial JulyDecember 1976 File, Box #119, NCCB Papers, ACUA. 35. Humberto Medeiros, Address, March 10, 1976, Address Rotary Club of Boston File, Box #56, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 36. Statement of Archbishop Joseph Bernardin in NCCB News Bulletin, October 20, 1976, NCCB Ad Hoc Bicentennial Committee July–December 1976, File, Box #119, NCCB Papers, ACUA.

Chapter 14

Final Years, Death and Legacy

In social circles, it is a compliment when one hears the words, “You don’t look your age.” Such a comment is generally made because the individual receiving the accolade has for some reason “escaped,” at least from a physical perspective, the aging process. This might be the result of years of regular exercise, proper diet, and adequate sleep, or it could simply be a factor of genetics. Certainly, a less welcome greeting occurs when an individual says, “She looks much older than she is.” The wear and tear of his daily ministry as priest and bishop, combined with a love for food and the lack of exercise, placed Humberto Medeiros in the latter category; he was a man who looked older than he was and, as the expression goes, “died before his time.” As he entered the 1980s, with the scars and fatigue of his many “wars” behind him, Cardinal Medeiros continued to serve his people despite numerous bouts with ill health that eventually led to his sudden and unexpected death. The legacy he left, generated from his accomplishments, but more profoundly from his character and fidelity to God, the Church, and those he served, is long and noteworthy. Not adequately appreciated during his life, Humberto Medeiros, despite inadequacies that plague any human, must be remembered as a champion of principle who willingly and lovingly served others as priest and bishop. HEALTH ISSUES AND DEATH As the archbishop of one of the most prominent and largest sees in the United States, Humberto Medeiros was certainly a man of prominence and stature, but his personality can be more accurately described as simple and straightforward. He was truly a self-effacing and humble man in every aspect 313

314

Chapter 14

of his life. Although he had accomplished much, especially considering his humble and poverty-stricken roots, he never considered his achievements of any great value. In a self-description he wrote, “As far as accomplishments are concerned, I know of none I have made. I do my work every day . . . I teach the word of God. I was born a poor man and I am still a poor man . . . Accomplishments—if there have been any, only God knows about them.”1 Exhibiting the attitude that some today referred to as “getting out of the way of God,” Medeiros never shied away from expressing his perceived inadequacies. Interviewed by a local Boston reporter, he commented, “I am my own biggest obstacle. I wish I were a better disciple of Christ. I am not as dedicated as I would like to be. To that extent I may be an obstacle to Christ and to the extension of his kingdom in the Church.”2 Medeiros self-description resonated well with those who knew him or have commented upon him historically. Written after his death, an editorial in the Boston Globe described him as “a simple, humble man, uncomfortable with pomp and pageantry. He was, always and forever, a parish priest who never forgot his roots in Fall River, the factory jobs and the long economic struggle of the Depression.”3 Archbishop Alfred Hughes, who ministered in Boston as an auxiliary under Medeiros, described him as “a peasant,” who was true to his roots and thus could easily relate to the poor, immigrants, and ordinary people. Hughes continued, “Those who knew him were drawn to him by his humility and simplicity of life. He never wanted to draw attention to himself and he was satisfied with the simple things in life.”4 Historians have also commented similarly. Michael Lescault wrote, “Medeiros was uncomfortable with attention and pompousness. While his position routinely brought him into contact with the rich and powerful, he never considered himself a part of that social level.”5 While most people today appreciate the virtue of humility, especially when exhibited by a person of power, wealth, or prestige, Medeiros’ self-effacing disposition could be problematic. Indeed, the historian James O’Toole suggests that Boston Catholics were more accustomed to the personality of William O’Connell or Richard Cushing, who enjoyed the trappings of their office and their titles. Medeiros never felt comfortable in the cardinal’s residence on Commonwealth Avenue. He considered turning the home into a youth hostel, but his advisers cautioned against such a move.6 Still he lived in only one room of the mansion. Medeiros was a sensitive man and was at times stunned by the criticism he received. He was also frustrated by his inability to make himself better understood, even to his fellow Catholics. Periodically bouts of melancholy irritated his physical ailments, which became more visible as time passed.7 Medeiros’ work ethic was legendary. He was described by Monsignor William Helmick as a “workaholic.” He rarely took a day off, “relaxing” only

Final Years, Death and Legacy

315

during periodic trips outside the confines of the archdiocese, including pilgrimages that he led.8 Generally, he was engaged 18 hours or more each day. Many times, after events in parishes were concluded, he remained in the area, often visiting a family who had a member who was ill or had recently died. Medeiros loved to eat, but never exercised, thus exacerbating his diabetic condition.9 Medeiros’ almost oppressive work ethic and his refusal to self-monitor his health led to several bouts of ill health, including hospitalizations of various severities. During his days in Boston, Medeiros was first hospitalized for exhaustion in 1975, but beginning in the next decade his medical problems began to multiply.10 In November 1981, he was again hospitalized for seven days, suffering from exhaustion, lung congestion, and high blood pressure. Medeiros grudgingly acquiesced to the orders of doctors: “Although I have regained much of my strength, my physicians insist that for the immediate future I must curtail my schedule of appointments and commitments. I therefore ask your continued prayers and patience.”11 Only seven months later Medeiros was again hospitalized for a week. He collapsed from exhaustion and high blood pressure while attending a special meeting of the American bishops at Saint John University in Collegeville, Minnesota. While in Rome in November 1982, he was once again hospitalized for exhaustion and complications from his diabetes medication.12 In April 1983, Medeiros once again was admitted to Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital, suffering from an inner-ear malady that brought on dizziness and nausea.13 By August of that year, because Medeiros had been hospitalized several times in the past few years, speculation arose that he would ask the pope to resign his position. Medeiros’ series of hospitalizations came to a head in the fall of 1983. On September 5, he was once again at Saint Elizabeth, complaining of chest discomfort. An examination revealed he had suffered a mild heart attack. For some time, Medeiros had believed something was wrong, but medical examinations proved inconclusive. He had told Monsignor William Helmick, “I know there is something wrong with my heart and I wish they could find it.”14 Eventually, doctors concluded that Medeiros had significant coronary disease, including three blocked vessels. Thus, on September 16, he underwent six hours of surgery to replace a mitral valve and perform the necessary triple coronary bypass.15 Upon completion of the surgery, doctors were pleased and confident that it had been successful. The next morning, September 17, Medeiros’ vitals were checked at 6:30 am and all was satisfactory. Five minutes later, however, he went into unexpected cardiac arrest. All known means of resuscitation were employed but they were unsuccessful. Cardinal Humberto Medeiros was declared dead at 7:46 am.16 Although, as we have seen, Medeiros had been hospitalized numerous times in the last few years, nonetheless his rather sudden death was a shock

316

Chapter 14

to all, but especially to the faithful in the archdiocese. While his physical complications were clear, it was certainly evident to many that his death was prompted by more than bodily health. His tireless work ethic, constant worry about the oppressive archdiocesan debt, not to mention the lack of support and constant battles he faced in Boston, were undoubtedly major contributors leading to his death at the age of 67.17 Medeiros’ sudden death generated a massive outpouring of emotion that, based on his reception upon his arrival, might not have been expected. Beginning on September 20, for three days, Medeiros’ body lay in state in the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. The six auxiliary bishops in the archdiocese each took a half-day to serve as hosts as thousands of people passed by to pay their respects to their archbishop. The historian Thomas O’Connor commented, “The long lines of people, however, who waited patiently for hours to pass by his bier at the Cathedral testified to the love and respect of the Catholics of Boston for this gentle shepherd who served as archbishop during a tumultuous period.”18 One of the auxiliary bishops present at the wake, Alfred Hughes, commented, “I was overwhelmed by the cross-section of people who came, so many people from different ethnic backgrounds, rich and poor. They all considered him their bishop. I don’t think he knew how much he had touched those people.”19 Medeiros’ funeral mass was celebrated on September 23, 1983, at the cathedral (see figure 14.1). The principal celebrant was Archbishop Pio Laghi, Apostolic Delegate to the United States. He was joined by 5 cardinals, 7 archbishops, 37 other bishops, 3 Benedictine Abbots, and over 600 priests. Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, represented President Ronald Reagan. Many other religious community leaders, including Bishop John Coburn of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts and Dr. James Nash, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches, were also present.20 The homily at the funeral was preached by Bishop Lawrence Riley, an auxiliary in the archdiocese. Riley described Medeiros as a man who was often misunderstood and misjudged, even disparaged, but who always imaged the love of Jesus Christ. Medeiros was lauded as a good, gentle, deeply spiritual man, and a true shepherd of his flock. He was simple, self-effacing, quiet, and retiring, yet a man of great principle. Riley emphasized two important aspects of Medeiros’ life and ministry. Commenting on his role, shepherding, Riley stated, first of all, that, Cardinal Medeiros was for all of us a model of love and concern toward all, toward those of other religious groups no less than toward those of his own flock; toward the rank and file (the cross-section of humanity), but especially toward the poor and the downtrodden, the sick and the bereaved, the lonely and

Final Years, Death and Legacy

317

Figure 14.1  Medeiros’ Funeral. Source: Courtesy Archives Archdiocese of Boston.

the forgotten, the oppressed and the deprived, toward the young in their problems and the elderly in their ailments.21

Second, Riley strongly emphasized Medeiros total devotion and uncompromising loyalty to the Church: His passionate devotion to the Church, his uncompromising fidelity to the teachings of the Church and his unswerving loyalty to the Vicar of Christ were joined to an innate goodness, tender gentleness, a delicate sense of dignity and decorum, an all-pervading kindness, a compassionate understanding and a deep unspeakable faith that enabled him to see God in all human beings regardless of race or color or creed or nationality.22

Riley concluded, “Whatever God wants. This was the theme of his life and the epitaph for his death.”23  Unlike his predecessors and possibly completely consistent with both his roots and his reception in Boston, Medeiros chose to be buried in his family plot at Saint Patrick Cemetery in Fall River. Observers remembered the funeral cortege from Boston south to Fall River. Thousands of people stood on the various overpasses on the Southeast Expressway (Route 93) and Route

318

Chapter 14

24 in order to pay their respects to Medeiros. He was laid to rest alongside his parents with Bishop Daniel Cronin of Fall River presiding.24 THE LEGACY OF CARDINAL MEDEIROS The measure of a man and his greatness can be evaluated on many fronts and from various perspectives. Historical figures who filled significant positions in society and were highly public individuals generally receive many accolades and awards along the journey of life. Such was the case for Humberto Medeiros, especially during his years as Archbishop of Boston. Medeiros was the recipient of at least seven honorary doctorates from colleges and universities in New England including Boston University and Providence College. He was especially fêted by the Portuguese community, receiving the Grand Cross of the Military Order of Christ of Portugal in April 1972, the Peter Francesco Award from the Portuguese Continental Union in 1975 and the Grand Cross of the Order of Prince Henry the Navigator in July 1976.25 In 1979, Medeiros was named “Luso-American of the Year.”26 Bostonians celebrated “Cardinal Medeiros Night” at Boston Garden in November 1978.27 As has been noted in varied ways throughout this study, Humberto Medeiros often found himself in difficult circumstances, and thus his legacy was in many ways crafted within the context of conditions beyond his control. Social and political upheaval experienced nationally and locally, created great challenges for him. The on-going Vietnam War, racial tensions, and the controversy over Roe v. Wade were only some of the more prominent situations that colored the life and ministry of Cardinal Medeiros. The presumption that Catholics would be unified in response to these various issues, as had been the case with his two immediate predecessors, was no longer valid; evidence for the shattering of Catholic unity was everywhere. Thomas O’Connor has written, “By 1980, it was clear both that a common political and social program, uniting the religious and political leadership in Boston and the deference once automatically accorded the Archbishop, were gone.”28 Father Tim Shea spoke of Medeiros, “He was a good man in a bad time, a sterling character in a time of scoundrels, a leader of courage in a time of war.”29 The situation within the post-Vatican II Church was problematic. Medeiros’ tenure coincided with significant losses in numbers of priests and religious and a “graying effect” for those who remained, suggesting that the future would see more decreases. Additionally, as has been stated, Medeiros walked in the shadow of a legend, Cardinal Richard Cushing. The significant expansion of Church institutions that was visible in earlier decades was now a thing of the past. For the first time since the founding of the Church in Boston, contraction rather than expansion was the future reality. The crushing $45

Final Years, Death and Legacy

319

million debt that Medeiros inherited exacerbated the problematic situation and defined how the archdiocese would operate throughout his thirteen-year administration. Still, Medeiros always spoke with compassion and demonstrated a charisma of great faith and strength, both as a man and a priest. His empathy was always oriented toward the dispossessed, victims, and the forgotten. Medeiros did not possess the charismatic rhetoric one associates with Cushing, but he possessed a gentleness of speech and manner that was obvious, although not at times fully appreciated. Thomas O’Connor has written, “Cardinal Medeiros had been called upon to lead the Boston Church during difficult times, and the task was sometimes literally a thankless one. Even his more popular predecessors would have been challenged by it.”30 Medeiros’ fidelity to and rootedness in the Church were central to his whole life, especially his ministry. Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, who as we recall was one of Medeiros’ professors at The Catholic University, referred to Medeiros as “a churchman for whom I retained a genuine esteem even when I could not always agree with his opinions or the manner in which he chose to express them.”31 He was absolutely faithful to God and the Church. This is what he committed himself to do with his life when he was ordained as a priest and later a bishop.32 He always made decisions in accordance with what he understood to be objectively right. This might mean considerable personal suffering, but doing the will of God, as he understood it, always took priority.33 Humberto Medeiros will be remembered by history for both his personality and his ministry. Unquestionably, the personal virtue that dominated all others was his humility and self-effacing attitude. This characteristic was noted by those who knew him well and others who commented from a distance. John McAvoy, one of Medeiros’ Durfee High School classmates, recalled, “He was brilliant and high-minded, but humble and completely unaware of his many talents. I think he was basically a private man and being in a position of prominence was not important to him. I am sure he preferred to be just an ordinary priest in a small town.”34 The journalist Robert Ellsberg spoke of his humility as both a strength and weakness: “A self-effacing man, he sought as much as possible to step out of the public role attached to his job. This was not always possible, and his infrequent efforts, awkward and indecisive, to apply the moral authority of his office to social issues, seemed to rebound in bitter and costly reactions.”35 Medeiros’ personal weaknesses allowed him to understand inabilities in others. He commented, “Awareness of my own weakness makes me more patient with my neighbor, more understanding toward the whole Church in all its members, saints and sinners. It is the beginning of openness to God.”36 His mild manner, while attractive in some cases, made it difficult for him to navigate certain complexities associated with his role as Archbishop of Boston.

320

Chapter 14

From a ministerial perspective, Medeiros’ greatest achievement was undoubtedly his eliminating the inherited archdiocesan debt, but his historical legacy was far-reaching and broadly based. While not making the headlines in the local papers, Medeiros’ advocacy for the poor touched the lives of ordinary Bostonians, Catholics, and non-Catholics alike. In Brownsville and Boston, Medeiros championed justice and peace, while assisting a broad range of society. Upon his death, Boston Mayor Kevin White said of Medeiros: “He was a crusader for the poor, the homeless and the subjects of discrimination. He tried to teach us how to respect one another, to see beyond color, creed, and social position so that we would be freed from the bonds of prejudice.”37 He was a man of great charity; he possessed the ability to see the face of Christ in each person and to help others to have his same vision.38 Humberto Medeiros was a leader who taught by personal example. He came to the archdiocese as an outsider, but quickly took his place as a leader. Indeed, Archbishop Hughes claimed that Medeiros’ greatest contribution to the Archdiocese of Boston was his ability to lead the local Church away from its past domination by Irish churchmen to build a multi-racial, multi-cultural Church, and to do so without realizing its significance.39 Humberto Medeiros made a significant contribution to the Church, as priest and bishop, but his failures must also be honestly evaluated. His days in Fall River and Brownsville saw few conflicts, and only one major event over which he had significant control. The case of Father James Porter in Fall River was highly problematic. As chancellor and thus the “right hand man” of Bishop Connolly, Medeiros most certainly was aware of the situation, but decisions concerning Porter’s future with respect to medical treatment and ministry were not his purview. In Brownsville, Medeiros received criticism for his perceived overt support for migrant farmworkers in the fight with growers for a just wage. However, Medeiros always maintained that the proper settlement to any labor disagreement must involve input from both sides of the dispute. In Boston, his failures were more palpable, although some did not come to light until long after his death. Conflicts over court-ordered busing, his political battles with Father Drinan and his entry into the September 1980 Massachusetts primary vote, cost him personally and professionally. However, possibly due to love of his priests and the Church, Medeiros’ failures to adequately address issues with troublesome priests, especially those guilty of the sex abuse of minors, darken his accomplishments to some extent. He should have acted immediately to stop the crime of sexual abuse of children The advantage of 20/20 hindsight provides history and historians the opportunity to honestly evaluate Medeiros’ failures, but always with the understanding that historical context must be applied in any fair analysis of past actions or omissions. How did Humberto Medeiros understand his own legacy? Insight into this question can be gained from a homily he prepared to celebrate the

Final Years, Death and Legacy

321

archdiocese’s 175th anniversary. The homily was preached by his Vicar General Bishop Thomas Daily, due to one of Medeiros’ bouts of ill health. In part, Medeiros wrote, In 1970 God called me, His unworthy servant to shepherd the flock in the Archdiocese of Boston . . . I have been striving to be faithful to the divine deposit of revelation that Jesus Christ left to his Church to be procured and propagated through the Magisterium for the advancement of His kingdom. I have been striving to implement the teachings and the directives of the Second Vatican Council . . . I have chosen also to strive to be a shepherd servant, not a ruler . . . I have been striving to see in my neighbors, every man and woman and child with whom I have come in contact, but especially the destitute and the homeless and the shelterless [sic] and the forsaken and the lonely and the victims of injustice and the disadvantaged. I have been striving to see in all of these the Lord Jesus Christ himself.40

Clearly, Medeiros saw himself as a disciple of Jesus Christ. He was called to serve and, with all the talents and energy he possessed, did everything within his ability to serve both God and God’s people, the faithful in Boston, with fidelity, honesty, and charity. Medeiros’ self-description hinted at an overall reality, that during his life he was not well appreciated within his own territory, namely the Archdiocese of Boston. Equating his reception in Boston with that of Jesus in the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16–30), a local journalist wrote of Medeiros: “He has spoken on busing, abortion, prison reform, the freeze on nuclear weapons, capital punishment and gay rights. But his message is always more didactic than dynamic . . . Cardinal Medeiros may well be the personification of the gospel message that a prophet is often without honor in his own country.”41 These descriptions lead this author to conclude that the legacy of Cardinal Humberto Medeiros can best be described as tragic and flawed, yet in the end triumphant. He suffered much as a result of his simple manner, strong faith, and uncompromising loyalty to the Church and his priests, yet it is these very principles and virtues that provided lessons that went far beyond the archdiocese and the years of his life. Certainly, Medeiros’ personality and leadership style, when facing some of the complexities of the environment of Boston, led to conflict and in some cases much ill will. Some have noted that his strong stances and unflinching loyalty to Church teaching cost him in the “popularity polls,” but that was of no concern to Medeiros, who once stated, “I wasn’t sent to Boston or to Brownsville or to a parish church to please people but to tell the truth.”42 Robert Ellsberg described Medeiros “as a man of deep piety, compassion and human decency.”43 Michael Lescault presents a similar theme in his judgment of Medeiros:

322

Chapter 14

Looking at many of the goals and aspirations of Medeiros’ episcopacy—the Visitors for Christ, the Year of Learning, creating racial harmony, the rollback of abortion—one might conclude that he was a failure. He was, however a true success. For in the end, it is not structural changes, programs of renewal or even the dissolution of the vast archdiocesan debt that constitutes his legacy to the Church, but the force of his personal example.44

Lesault concludes: “It is evident that Humberto Medeiros left behind a church in Boston that was stronger and sounder, financially, spiritually, and in its commitment to the gospel of social justice.”45 History has proven Lesault to be correct; the archdiocese is on good footing, a position that in large measure can be attributed to the ministry of Cardinal Humberto Sousa Medeiros. NOTES 1. The Pilot, January 18, 1980. 2. James G. Crowley, “Impressions of Cardinal Medeiros,” Boston Globe, July 27, 1975, 6. 3. Boston Globe, September 19, 1983. 4. Hughes, Interview, August 6, 2019. 5. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 183. 6. Ibid., 58–59; O’Toole, “The O’Connell Century,” 48. One Boston journalist wrote of Medeiros “If it were in any way practicable . . . the Cardinal would fill the residence and other buildings with the poor, especially children and surrender his own bed and his own place at the table to anyone in need, the more despised the better.” See Crowley, “Impressions of Cardinal Medeiros,” 6. 7. Lawler, Faithful Departed, 107. 8. Through his position as Archbishop of Boston, Medeiros was often asked to lead pilgrimages. These were often sponsored by the Archdiocese and included trips to Ireland, Lourdes, France, Spain, Rome, and the Holy Land. Periodically, as well, he traveled to the Azores and to Portugal, especially to attend functions associated with the Catholic University of Portugal. Additionally, besides international travel to Rome and to Latin America to attend meetings, he was often invited to give talks in various parts of the country, but especially a return to the Diocese of Brownsville. In January 1978, accepting the invitation of the Chief of Chaplains of the United States Air Force, Medeiros conducted a 15,000-mile trek visiting Air Force bases in Alaska and Pacific Ocean island bases. 9. Helmick, Interview. October 12, 2018. Two priests from Brownsville recalled, “He loved to eat anything.” See Doherty and Garza Interview, March 8, 2017. 10. Humberto Medeiros to Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, December 18, 1975, Correspondence with Bishops, B File, Box #108, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 11. The Pilot, November 13, 1981.

Final Years, Death and Legacy

323

12. Press Release, June 22, 1982, Medeiros Illness File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo; Brownsville Herald, November 29, 1982. Medeiros Papers, ADB. 13. Monsignor William Helmick, Memorandum, April 12, 1983. 14. Helmick Interview, October 12, 2018. 15. Boston Globe, September 18, 1983. 16. Memorandum, September 17, 1983, Doctors Reports File, Box #43, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 17. Father Tim Shea to Author, August 7. 2019; Anderson, Interview, March 10, 2017; McDermott, Interview, August 20, 2019; Deeley, Interview, August 21, 2019. 18. O’Connor, Two Centuries of Faith, 229. 19. Hughes, Interview, August 6, 2019. 20. The Pilot, September 30, 1983. 21. Bishop Lawrence Riley, Funeral Homily, September 23, 1983, Medeiros Personnel File, ADFR. See also The Pilot, September 30, 1983. 22. Ibid. See also The Pilot, September 30, 1983. 23. Ibid. 24. The Pilot, September 30, 1983. 25. Press Release, Boston Archdiocese, n.d. [1983], Medeiros Papers, CAT. 26. The Pilot. January 18, 1980. 27. The Pilot, October 3, 1980. 28. O’Connor, Two Centuries of Faith, 269. 29. Father Tim Shea, Letter to the Author, August 7, 2019. 30. O’Connor, Two Centuries of Faith, 271. 31. Ellis, Catholic Bishops, 133–34. 32. William Helmick, Homily November 23, 1983, in “Cardinal Medeiros Remembered,” n.d. [1983], PPGS. 33. Hughes, Interview August 6, 2019. 34. Quoted in Anchor, September 30, 1983. 35. Robert Ellsberg,” Card Medeiros Self-Effacing man, Prelate to the Poor,” National Catholic Reporter 19 (September 30, 1983): 2. 36. Humberto Medeiros, Address, October 23, 1972, Northeast Conference of Priests Senates File, Box #55, Boston, Medeiros Papers. AABo. 37. Quoted in Anchor, September 30, 1983. 38. Deeley, Interview, August 21, 2019. 39. Hughes, Interview, August 6, 2019. 40. Humberto Medeiros, Sermon, April 9, 1983, Anniversary of Diocese File, Box #58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AABo. 41. Providence Journal, February 20, 1983, Boston Installation File, Medeiros Papers, ADFR. 42. Quoted in Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 250. 43. Ellsberg, “Medeiros Self-Effacing,” 2. 44. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 276–77. 45. Ibid., 276.

Epilogue Humberto Medeiros: A Life of Service and Fidelity

Humberto Medeiros heard the call of the Lord Jesus and responded with great fervor. From the time the first apostles were called to the present day, millions of faith-filled Christian men and women have sought to respond to the invitation of Christ to follow in his footsteps. History remembers many of these and the Church has recognized some as saints who are celebrated throughout the liturgical year. The vast majority, however, while not recounted in the annals of history, have been recorded in the book of life held by God alone. Cardinal Medeiros will most likely never be honored as a saint and, while he served as a priest and bishop, reaching the plateau of Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, his contribution to the Church and society has to date not been fully recognized. His humble approach to ministry, the fact that he succeeded an iconic figure in Cardinal Richard Cushing, combined with his strong stance on varied controversial issues during his tenure in Boston, have pushed his name and memory out of the mainstream of historical literature. Yet, as this monograph has demonstrated, Medeiros, despite his flaws and mistakes, deserves his place among those more well-known followers of Jesus. His notoriety, however, will not be found in his personal accomplishments, while they were many and significant, but rather from his fidelity to follow the directives of the Lord as he best understood them. Medeiros truly believed that his ministry as priest and bishop was to do all that he could to accomplish “whatever God wants.” Seemingly unconcerned about what this sense of discipleship might mean for him personally in the court of public opinion, Medeiros truly sought to live Jesus’ words when he challenged the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees: “Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” (Matthew 23:3). In more contemporary parlance, Medeiros was able not only “to talk the talk but to walk the walk.” 325

326

Epilogue

It certainly did not take long for Humberto Medeiros to make his mark in the Church. Arriving in Fall River, Massachusetts from St. Michael in the Azores as a poor immigrant in the depth of the Great Depression, he chose a life of service as a priest. His initial years in his home diocese were marked by a rapid rise in responsibility, concluding with his service for many years as chancellor while simultaneously serving as pastor of St. Michael parish. Ordained a bishop in 1966, he was sent to the “perceived backwater” of Brownsville, Texas where he heard the call of the Lord to serve the poor, especially migrant workers on both local and national levels. Noted for his work by at least one national publication, Medeiros was sent to Boston in October 1970. The move to Boston continues to be rather mysterious now even a half-century later, but all that mattered to Medeiros was to faithfully follow “whatever God wants.” Medeiros’ thirteen-year tenure as archbishop coincided with events, locally and nationally, that found him in conflict with both individuals and groups. Historically one could say today that Medeiros chose the wrong battles to engage—the busing crisis in Boston, the issue of abortion, and priests serving in politics, as three significant examples. It might also be said that his dogged and unbending attitude on these issues and others could have been tempered or even a different approach utilized to address the situation. Additionally, his hesitant and at times indecisive actions on several fronts, especially in dealing with clerical problems and his failure immediately to act to stop the abuse of children must be acknowledged. However, Humberto Medeiros never sought favor from others or refused to enter a fight that might be difficult or distasteful. Rather, if in his understanding of the gospel, the message of Jesus was under attack or the good of the Church local or universal was being threatened, he acted to preserve the foundations of the faith in which he so fervently believed. Controversy and problematic situations raise ratings on news programs and contribute positively to the sale of printed publications. Thus, the various conflicts in which Medeiros was embroiled in Boston have been the focus in previous historical analyses of his time as archbishop. Thus, his many accomplishments—elimination of the crushing $45 million debt he inherited, reorganization of the archdiocese into more manageable regions, implementation of programs and changes dictated in the documents of Vatican II, and his outreach to the poor, especially through his efforts to promote low-income housing and advocacy for prison reform—have largely been ignored. The historical record must now be properly leveled, with the contributions that Medeiros made to the Church in Boston weighed against the conflicts he experienced. Viewing his ministry throughout his priestly life, Humberto Medeiros listened to and followed the call of the Lord without reservation. The outpouring of emotion by the faithful in Boston when he died quite

Epilogue

327

suddenly on September 17, 1983, is indicative that, upon reflection, people realized and appreciated the holiness and dedication that typified the life of Cardinal Medeiros. It is totally appropriate, therefore, that a more positive legacy be afforded to Medeiros and his contributions to the Church.

Bibliography

ARCHIVAL SOURCES Archives of the Archdiocese of Boston (AABo) Archives of the Diocese of Brownsville (AAB) Archives of the Diocese of Fall River (AADFR) Archives of The Catholic University of America (ACUA) Boston City Archives (BCA) Personal Papers of Gerry Silvia (PPGS)

PERSONAL INTERVIEWS Mr. Ron Anderson, March 10, 2017 Interview with a priest who wished to remain anonymous, August 20, 2019 Bishop Robert Deeley, August 21, 2019 Father John Driscoll, October 24, 2016 Fathers Pat Doherty and Amador Garza, March 8, 2017 Monsignor William Helmick, October 12, 2018 Archbishop Alfred Hughes, August 6, 2019 Monsignor William Joy, January 10, 2019 Father Joseph McDermott, August 20, 2019 Gerry and Lillian Silvia, January 12, 2017 Mrs. Natalie Sousa, September 20, 2014 Father Barry Wall, August 3, 2019.

329

330

Bibliography

BOOKS AND ARTICLES Acocella, Nicholas. “Vatican’s Decision on Father Drinan.” National Catholic Reporter 17 (October 9, 1981): 8–9. “Agreement on Orthodox-Roman Catholic Marriages.” Origins 10(40) (April 30, 1981): 734–35. Anderson, George G. “Jails, Lockups and Houses of Detention,” America 13 (January 10, 1976): 6–10. Askin, J. “Parish Fights Low Income Housing,” National Catholic Register 16 (May 16, 1980): 3. Askin, Steve. Homes or Gravesites? Bostonians Choose.” National Catholic Register 16 (June 20, 1980): 6. Bank, John. “César Chavez.” Saint Anthony Messenger 78 (April 1971): 16–20. Barnwell, William H. Concept: An Idea in Prison Reform.” The Christian Century 89(34) (September 27, 1972): 966–67. Barron, Bishop Robert. Letter to a Suffering Church: A Bishop Speaks on the Sexual Abuse Crisis. Park Ridge, IL: World on Fire, 2019. “Because it is Right-Educationally.” Report of the Advisory Committee on Racial Imbalance and Education. Massachusetts State Board of Education, April 1965. Beckwith, Barbara. “Housing” The Crisis that Exempts No One.” Saint Anthony Messenger 84 (October 1976): 16–22. Benekos, Peter J. and Alida V. Merlo. Corrections: Dilemmas and Directions. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Company, 1992. Berman, Larry. Zumwalt: The Life and Times of Admiral Elmo Russell “Bud” Zumwalt, Jr. New York: Harper, 2012. “Bishops Call for Reform of Correctional Facilities.” National Catholic Reporter 10 (November 23, 1973): 8. “Bishops’ Efforts to House Poor Resisted.” National Catholic Reporter 18(3) (June 4, 1982): 3. Blobaum, Gary. “What Will it Take to Reform the Prison System?” Currents in Theology and Mission 8(3) (June 1981): 171–75. Blomberg, Thomas G. and Karol Lucken. American Penology: A History of Control Second Edition, New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction, 2010. Boston Globe Staff. Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 2002. “Boston’s Cardinal Medeiros Fought the Good Fight.” Our Sunday Visitor 72 (October 2, 1983): 3. “Busing is Part of the Answer.” America 134 (January 24, 1976): 45. “Boston’s School Violence: Turning Point in Busing? U.S. News & World Report 77 (October 28, 1974): 22–23. Bradley, Francis. A Brief History of the Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts. Fall River, MA: Formal Boks and Journals, 1931. Buckley, William F. “Father Drinan Bows Out.” National Review 32 (June 27, 1980): 801.

Bibliography

331

Buell, Emmet and Richard A. Brisbin Jr. School Desegregation and Defended Neighborhoods: The Boston Controversy. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1982. Cafardi, Nicholas P. Before Dallas: The U.S. Bishops’ Response to Clergy Sexual Abuse of Children. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2008. “California Bishops Praise Farm Labor Law.” Origins 5(4) (June 19, 1975): 50–51. Campion, Owen F. “A Claim with no Credibility: The Accusations Against Cardinal Medeiros Hold no Water.” Our Sunday Visitor 90(51) (April 21, 2002): 8. “Cardinal Agrees There’s a Cash Problem.” Boston Globe February 19, 1976. “The Cardinal and Politics.” Boston Globe September 12, 1980. Carey, Patrick. “Avery Dulles, St. Benedict’s Center and No Salvation Outside the Church, 1940–1953.” The Catholic Historical Review 93(3) (July 2007): 553–75. Castañeda, Carlos E. The Church in Texas Since Independence 1836–1950. Austin, TX: Von Boeckmann-Jones Company, 1958. ———. Our Catholic Heritage in Texas (Seven Volumes) Austin, TX: New York: Arno Press, 1976. Castelli. Jim. Priest/Nuns/Ministers in Politics.” Commonweal 104 (June 27, 1977): 398–400. Chipman, Donald E. Spanish Texas, 1519–1821, Austin, University of Texas Press, 1992. “Church and State in Boston.” America 143 (October 4, 1980): 180. Clifford, Clark M. “A Vietnam Reappraisal: The Personal History of One Man’s View and How it Evolved.” Foreign Affairs 47 (July 1969): 601–22. Colbert, Chuck. “Documents Provoke Fresh Anger.” National Catholic Reporter 38(24) (April 19, 2002): 3–5. Condon, David M. “Politics, Priests and Protests: The Response of the Catholic Church to the Boston Busing Crisis.” B.A. Thesis Harvard University, 1990. Connelly, Maureen. “Humberto Cardinal Medeiros.” Boston Today (December 1978): 6–8. Connolly, James L. The Diocese of Fall River. Fall River, MA: Format Books & Journals, 1972. Considine, John J. “Aid to the Latin American Church.” America 117 (September 30, 1967): 352–54. Cort, John C. “Organizing the Faithful: A Report from the Trenches (Archdiocese of Boston). Commonweal 132(15) (September 9, 205): 14. Crowley, James G. “A Day with Cardinal Medeiros: Cushing’s Successor as Archbishop of Boston.” Catholic Digest 40 (July 1976): 99–105. ———. “Impressions of Cardinal Medeiros.” Boston Globe (July 27, 1975): 6. Cruz, Gilberto Rafael, and Martha Oppert Cruz. A Century of Service: The History of the Catholic Church in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Harlingen, TX: United Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1979. Cruz, Gilberto Rafael. “The Vicariate of Brownsville 1874–1912: An Overview of its Origins and Development.” in From Mississippi to the Pacific: Essays in Honor of John Francis Bannon, S,J. ed. Russell M. Magnaghi. Marquette, MI: Northern Michigan University Press, 1982, 79–104.

332

Bibliography

Cunningham, Maurice T. “A Christian Coalition for Catholics? The Massachusetts Model.” Review of Religious Research 51(1) (September 2000): 55–70. Dalton, Frederick John. The Moral Vision of César Chavez. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Boks, 2003. Davidson, James D., Ronald Ely, Thomas Hall and Donald Weed. “Increasing Church Involvement in Social Concerns: A Model for Urban Ministers.” Review of Religious Research 20(3) (Summer 1979): 291–314. “Death of Cardinal Medeiros of Boston.” Osservatore Romano (English Version) 39 (September 26, 1983): 2. Dentler, Robert A. “Boston’s School Desegregation: The Fallowness of Common Ground.” New England Journal of Public Policy 2(1): 81–102. Dionne, E.J. “The Scarlet Letter: Questions for Catholic Liberals.” Commonweal 10(October 10, 1980): 554–55. Dixon, Robert and R. Hoge. “Models and Priorities of the Catholic Church are Held by Suburban Laity.” Review of Religious Research 20(2) (Spring 1979): 150–67. Doerr, Edd. “Priest, Politics, and the Pope.” The Humanist 40 (July/August 1980): 49–50. Doyon, OMI, Bernard. The Calvary of Christ on the Rio Grande, 1849–1883 Milwaukee, WI: Bruce Publishers, 1956. Dulles, SJ, Avery. The Reshaping of Catholicism. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1988. Durote, Kay. “Texas Bishops Say Unions a Duty for Farm Workers.” National Catholic Reporter 3 (April 5, 1967): 3. Ellis, John Tracy. Catholic Bishops: A Memoir. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983. ———. Documents of American Catholic History. Milwaukee, WI: Bruce Publishers, 1962. Ellsberg, Robert. “Cardinal Medeiros, Self-Effacing Man, Prelate to the Poor.” National Catholic Reporter 19 (September 30, 1983): 2 Enright, Vincent L. “Prison Reform.” Priest 29 (December 1973): 31–32. Ernest, J. “Farm Labor Strikes Spread.” Extension 61 (December 1966): 22–25. “Fair Housing for All.” America 140 (May 19, 1979): 404–05. Faithful to the Heritage: Addresses on the 175th Anniversary of the Archdiocese of Boston. Boston: Daughters of Saint Paul, 1984. Feldberg, Michael. “American Heretic: The Rise and Fall of Father Leonard Feeney, S.J.” 123 (2) (Summer 2012): 109–15. Fenner, Henry M. ed. History of Fall River, Massachusetts. Fall River, MA: Format Books & Journals, 1911. Foley, Patrick. Missionary Bishop: Jean-Marie Odin in Galveston and New Orleans. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press, 2013. Ford, Maurice. “Busing and the Courts.” Commonweal 106 (September 28. 1979): 522–27. ———. “Courts, Busing and White Flight.” The Nation 221 (July 5, 1975): 13–16. Formissano, Ronald P. Boston against Busing: Race, Class and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 19670s. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991.

Bibliography

333

Frawley, Joan. “For Families, Finding a House Get Tough.” National Catholic Register 59 (March 6, 1983): 1. Gaffey, James. Francis Clement Kelley and the American Dream. Bensonville, IL: Heritage Foundation, Inc., 1980. Gall, Norman. “Latin America: The Church Militant.” Commentary (April 1970): 25–37. Garcia, Matt. From the Jaws of Victory: The Triumph and Tragedy of César Chavez and the Farm Workers Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012. George, OMI, Cardinal Francis. The Difference God Makes: A Catholic Vision of Faith, Communion and Culture. New York: Crossroad, 2009. Glinski, James. “Church in Crisis: The Role of the Archdiocese of Boston in the Effort to Desegregate Boston’s Schools.” M.A. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Boston, 1987. Greeley, Andrew. “Catholic Social Action—Real or Radical/Chic?” National Catholic Reporter, 11 (February 7, 1975): 7–8. Guill, James. A History of the Azores Islands. Tulare, CA: Gold Shield International, 1993. Hallett, Douglas. “Bitter Fruit in the Vineyards.” Nation’s Business 58 (February 1970): 80–83. Hanon, James T. “The Influence of Catholic Schools on the Desegregation of Public School Systems: A Case of White Flight on Boston.” Population Research and Policy Review 3(3) (October 1984): 219–37. Harris, SJ, Frank J. “The Boston Church and Desegregation.” America 134 (September 11, 1976): 113–16. Hartmann, Chester, ed. America’s Housing Crisis: What is to be Done? Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983. “Heart Attack Fells Prelate.” National Catholic Register 59 (October 2, 1983): 2. Hecht, James. “A Catholic Challenge: Open Housing.” America 128 (February 10, 1973): 112–14. Held, Ann. “PAVLA—to Be? or What to Be?” Ave Maria 106 (September 16, 1967): 11–13. Herring, George. America’s Longest War: The United States in Vietnam 1950–1975. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996. Higgins, George G. and William Bole. Organized Labor and the Church: Reflections of ‘A Labor Priest.’ New York: Paulist Press, 1993. Holleb, Doris B. “A Decent Home and Suitable Living Environment.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 435 (January 1978): 102–16. Hornburger, Jane. “Deep as the Roots: Busing in Boston.” The Journal of Negro Education 45(3) (Summer 1976): 235–45. Jackson, Regine O. “After the Exodus: The New Catholicism in Boston’s Old Ethnic Neighborhoods.” Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation 17(2) (Summer 2007): 191–212. Jeffrey. Robert and Stephen Woolpart. “Work Furlough as an Alternative to Incarceration: An Assessment of its Effects on Recidivism and Social Cost.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 65(3) (1975): 405–15.

334

Bibliography

“Jesuit Penal Chaplains Construct Reform Plan.” National Catholic Reporter 11 (February 7, 1975): 3. Jessup, Herbert. “Busing Rerun: Medeiros Returns to South Boston.” National Catholic Reporter (January 7, 1977): 6. Kain, John F. “What Should Housing Policies Be?” the Journal of Finance 29(2) (May 1974): 683–98. Karthunan, Frances Ruley. The Other Islanders: People Who Pulled Nantucket’s Oars. New Bedford, MA: Spinner Publications, 2005. Kay, Alan F. “A New Framework for Our Prisons.” America 141 (August 4–11), 1979): 46–48. Kennedy, Eugene C. “Fall from Grace.” National Catholic Reporter 38(18) (March 8, 2002): 13–17. Kennedy, Frank T. ed. Inculturation and the Church in North America. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2006. Keaney, Milo. Alfonso Gomez Arguello and Yolanda Z. Gonzalez. A Brief History of Education in Brownsville and Matamoros. Brownsville, TX: The University of Texas Pan American Press, 1989. Kim, C. “César Chavez in Delano.” Worship 44 (October 1970): 488–96. Kohl, Lauren Shanna. “The Response of the Catholic Church to the Desegregation of the Boston Public Schools.” B.A. Thesis Harvard University, 1987. Krebs, A.V. “César Chavez, Huelga.” U.S. Catholic 32 (September 1966): 30–31. ———. “César Chavez and the Final Hope for California Farm Workers.” Saint Anthony Messenger 76 (April 1968): 14–22. ———. “Farm Workers and Labor Laws.” Extension 61 (June 1966): 16. ———. “Growers Assail Clergy Efforts as Farm Union Gains.” National Catholic Reporter 3 (August 2, 1967): 12. “Laird’s Official Report on Vietnam: The Basic Problem Remains.” U.S News & World Report 66 (March 31, 1969): 25. Langguth, A.J. “Vietnam: How Do We Get Out?” Saturday Evening Post 242 (February 8, 1969): 19–21. Lapomarda, Vincent A. “Jesuit Runs for Congress: The Rev. Robert F. Drinan, S, J. and His 1970 Campaign.” Journal of Church and State 15(2) (Spring 1973): 205–22. Lawler, Philip I. The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. Lennon, Richard G. “Scituate Land Case Controversy and resolution.” M.A. Thesis: Saint John Seminary, Brighton, MA, 1983. Lescault, Michael Walsh. “In Season and Out of Season: The Boston Years of Humberto Cardinal Medeiros, 1970–1983.” Ph.D. Diss. Providence College, 1992. Levy, Jacques E. César Chavez: Autobiography of La Causa. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1975. Lord, Robert H., John E. Sexton and Edmund Harrington. History of the Archdiocese of Boston in the Various Stages of its Development, 1604–1943. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1944.

Bibliography

335

Lukas, Anthony. Common Ground: A Turbulent Decade in the Lives of Three American Families. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985. Mack, Michael. “Let’s Begin to Eliminate Prisons.” U.S. Catholic 37 (October 1972): 14–15. Magalia, Elaine. “Man with a Mission.” Our Sunday Visitor 61 (July 23, 1972): 1. Mallon, Vincent T. “Medellín Guidelines.” America 122 (4) (January 31, 1970: 92–96. Massa, S, J., Mark S. Catholics and American Culture: Fulton Sheen, Dorothy Day and the Notre Dame Football Team. New York: Crossroad, 1999. Mattern, Sr. Evelyn. “Rehabilitation Lost.” America 132 (January 18, 1975): 32–35. McInerney, T. “Decent Housing: A Matter of Morality.” Liguorian 68 (October 1980): 38–42. McClellan, Grant S. ed. Crisis in Urban Housing New York. The H.W. Wilson Company, 1974. McLellan, Daniel. “A History of the Catholic Charitable Bureau of the Archdiocese of Boston.” Ph.D. Diss. University of Notre Dame, 1984. McNicholas, J. “Decent Housing is Being Priced Out of the Market.” Our Sunday Visitor 65 (August 15, 1976): 1. “Medeiros Examines Political Vocations.” National Catholic Register 59 (July 24, 1983): 2. Medeiros, Humberto. “Abortion and the Elections.” Catholic Mind 79 (January 1981): 8–9. ———. “Abortion and the Elections.” Origins 10 (September 25, 1980): 239. ———. “Abortion Legislation and the Right to Life.” Osservatore Romano (English Version) 5 (February 4, 1971): 7. ———. “Abortion Legislation and the Right to Life.” Social Justice Review 64 (June 1971): 84–86. ———. “Agreement on Orthodox-Roman Catholic Marriage.” Origins 10 (April 30, 1981): 735–35. ———. “Boston Archbishop Questions Widespread Use of Drugs.” Osservatore Romano (English Version) 25 (June 24, 1971): 6–7. ———. “Boston Province Bishops on Vietnam War.” International Documentation on the Contemporary Church (IDOC) (North American Edition) 30 (April 28, 1971): 91–96. ———. “On the Boston School Busing Crisis.” Catholic Mind 73 (February 1975): 8–9. ———. “A Cardinal’s Letter to Priests.” Origins 9 (44) (April 17, 1980): 709–13. ———. “The Care of Prisoners.” IDOC (North American Edition) 40 (January 29, 1972): 68–71. ———. “A Change of Heart.” Catholic Mind 70 (February 1972): 4–7. ———. “Combating Boston’s Racial Tension and Violence.” Origins 9 (November 1, 1979): 314–15. ———. “A Consistent Ethic of Life and the Law.” Osservatore Romano (English Version) 31 (August 5, 1971): 6–7. ———. “The Drug Problem.” IDOC (North American Edition) 26 (May 29, 1972): 24–34.

336

Bibliography

———. “The Global Vision of the Missionary Church.” Osservatore Romano (English Version) 50 (December 14, 1972): 9–11. ———. “Morality in Our Times.” Osservatore Romano (English Version) 26 (January 29, 1972): 5. ———. “Welcoming the Baptized Uncatechized Adult: The RCIA and Today’s Church.” Origins 12 (October 7, 1982): 265–66. ———. “Whatever God Wants”: Pastorals and Addresses by His Eminence Humberto Cardinal Medeiros. Boston: Saint Paul Editions, 1984. ———. “Younger Generation in Need of Compassion.” Osservatore Romano (English Version) 5 (February 3, 1972): 6–7. Medeiros, Humberto and Bishop Mark Lipa. “Albania Declaration for Religious Freedom.” The Ecumenical Review 34 (2) (April 1982): 180–81. Medeiros, Humberto and William F. Hill. Jacinta: The Flower of Fatima New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1946. “Medeiros, Humberto Sousa. “Current Biography Yearbook 1971. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 1972. “Medeiros Urges End of Prison System.” National Catholic Reporter 9 (March 16, 1972): 6. Merwick, Donna. Boston Priests, 1848–1910: A Study of Social and Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Miller, Hubert J. “Oral History: A Tool for the Study of Mexican American History in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas.” The Oral History Review 15(2) (Autumn 1987): 80–95. Miller, Neal and Walter Jensen Jr., “Reform of Federal Prison Industries: New Opportunities for Public Offenders.” The Justice System Journal I(1) (Winter 1974): 1–27. Miscamble, CSC, Wilson D. American Priest: The Ambitious Life and Conflicted Legacy of Notre Dame’s Father Ted Hesburgh. New York: Image Boks, 2019. Momey, Patrick H. and Theo J. Maika. Farmers’ and Farm Workers’ Movements: Social Protest in Agriculture. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995. Moore, James Talmadge. Acts of Faith: The Catholic Church in Texas, 1900–1950. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press, 2002. ———. Through Fire and Flood: The Catholic Church in Frontier Texas, 1836– 1900. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press, 1992. Mulligan, Joe. “Prison Reform: Is it an Impossible Task?” National Catholic Reporter 8 (June 9, 1972): 7. Murphy, John W. Are Prisons Any Better” Twenty Years of Correctional Reform. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990. Murphy, Magdalen B. “The Housing Crisis.” Catholic Charities Review 58 (January 1974): 34–38. Neuhaus, Richard. “The Drinan Affair Again.” First Things 71 (March 1992): 58–59. Noonan, John T. “Raw Judicial Power.” National Review 25 (March 2, 1973): 260–64. O’Brien, John J. George G. Higgins and the Quest for Worker Justice: The Evolution of Catholic Social Thought in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005.

Bibliography

337

O’Connor, CSC, Edward. “A Catholic Pentecostal Movement.” Ave Maria 105 (June 3, 1967): 6–10. O’Connor, Thomas H., ed. Two Centuries of Faith: The Influence of Catholicism in Boston, 1808–2008. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2009. ———. Boston Catholics: A History of the Church and Its People. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998. Orosco, Jose Antonio. César Chavez and the Common Sense of Nonviolence. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2008. O’Toole, James, From Generation to Generation: Stories in Catholic History from the Archives of the Archdiocese of Boston. Boston: Daughters of Saint Paul, 1983. ———. Militant and Triumphant: William Henry O’Connell and the Catholic Church in Boston. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992. ———. “The O’Connell Century: From Triumph to Tragedy in Catholic Boston.” U.S. Catholic Historian 22 (Spring 2004): 45–49. ———. “Prelates and Politicos: Catholics and Politics in Massachusetts 1900– 1970,” in Catholic Boston: Studies in Religion and Community, 1870–1970, eds. Robert Sulivan and James O’Toole. Boston: The Archdiocese of Boston, 1975: 15–65. Patkas, Ronald D., ed. From Generation to Generation II: Stories in Catholic History from the Archives of the Archdiocese of Boston. Hanover, MA: Christopher Publishing House, 1992. Pellasch, Jana E. “Brownsville, Catholic Diocese of,” in Handbook of Texas http:​/​/ www​​.tsha​​onlin​​e​.org​​/hand​​book/​​onlin​​e​/art​​ic​le/​​icbo2​. Pepper, George B. The Boston Heresy Case in View of the Secularization of Religion: A Case Study in the Sociology of Religion Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1988. Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack. “Antiabortion, Antifeminism and the Rise of the New Right.” Feminist Studies 7(2) (Summer 1981): 206–46. Pfaff, William. “This Way Out.” Commonweal 89 (February 14, 1963): 611–12. “Priests in Politics.” America 142 (May 17, 1980): 413. “Prison Reform.” America 148 (January 29, 1983): 64. Prouty, Marco G. César Chavez, The Catholic Bishops and the Farmworkers’ Struggle for Social Justice. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2006. Ramírez, Emilia Schunior. Ranch Life in Hidalgo County After 1850. Edinburg, TX: New Santander Press, 1971. Reedy, J. “A Prison, Not a Stable.” National Catholic Reporter 12 (December 26, 1975): 3. “The Reform of Correctional Institutions in the 1970s.” Catholic Mind 72 (June 1974): 40–51. “Rights for Farm Workers.” America 120 (April 1969): 492–93. Rothenberg, David. “In Disgrace with Fortune, Prison Reform Today: The Future Society.” America 136 (February 19, 1977): 141–44. Rotsinas, Nicolas P. and Eric S. Belsky, eds. Low Income Homeownership: Examining the Unexamined Goal. Cambridge, MA: Joint Study for Housing Studies, 2002.

338

Bibliography

Riojas, Brenda Nettles. The Diocese of Brownsville: The Catholic Church in the Rio Grande Valley. Strasbourg, France: Editions du Signe, 2002. “Saint Benedict Center: Origins, Purpose, Goals.” From the Housetops XIII (1): 31–35. Scanlan, Michael J. A Brief History of the Archdiocese of Boston. Boston: N.M. Williams, 1908. Schroth, S.J., Raymond A. Bob Drinan: The Controversial Life of the First Catholic Priest Elected to Congress. New York: Fordham University Press, 2011. ———. “Career Interrupted: Robert F. Drinan’s Unscheduled Retreat.” America 204 (7) (March 7, 2011): 12–15. Seitz, John. “Priests as Persons: An Emotional History of St. John Seminary Boston in the Era of the Council,” in Catholics in the Vietnam Era, eds. Kathleen Sprows Cummings, Timothy Matovina, and Robert A. Orsi. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2018, 28–50. Shaw, Randy. Beyond the Fields: César Chavez, the UFW, and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Sherry, Gerard E. “Growers, Grape Pickers and Bishops.” Liguorian 59(12) (December 1971): 14–18. “Signs of the Times, Boston Priest Advocated Sex with Boys.” America 186(13) (April 22, 2002): 4. “Signs of the Times, Diocese Sues Archdiocese Over Priest Accused of Sexual Abuse.” America 188(13) (April 14, 2003): 5. Silbermann, Eileen. “Prison Philosophy.” America 140 (April 14, 1979): 325–27. Silk, Mark. “The Boston Heresy Case: How Father Leonard Feeney Provoked an Identity Crisis Within the Catholic Church.” Boston Globe Magazine January 3, 1988: 16–17, 44–45, 50–61. Silva Jr., Philip T., ed. Victorian Vistas: Fall River 1865–1885: As Viewed Through its Newspaper Accounts. Fall River: R.E. Printing, Co., 1987. Slawson, Douglas. The Foundation and First Decade of the National Catholic Welfare Council. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992. ———. “Outrage in Boston: The Sexual Abuse Scandal and the Downfall of Cardinal Bernard Law.” American Catholic Studies 128(4) (Winter 2017): 55–82. Stegman, Michael. More Housing, More Fairly: Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Affordable Housing. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press, 1991. Sullivan, Eugene P. “Superintendent’s Vision of Catholic Schools.” New Catholic World 224(1340) (March 1, 1981): 77–78. Sullivan, Robert E. and James M. O’Toole, eds. Catholic Boston: Studies in Religion and Community, 1870–1970. Boston: Archdiocese of Boston, 1985. Tarbox, Todd. “The Church and Housing.” Sisters Today 44 (January 1973): 72–81. Tavares, Belmira E. Portuguese Pioneers in the United States. Fall River, MA: R.E. Smith Printing Co., 1973. Taylor, Ronald B. Chavez and the Farm Workers. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975. Thomas, Samuel J. “After Vatican Council II: The American Catholic Bishops and the ‘Syllabus’ from Rome, 1966–1968.” The Catholic Historical Review 83(2) (April 1977): 233–57.

Bibliography

339

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). “The Right to a Decent Home: A Pastoral Response to the Crisis in Housing.” Washington, D.C. USCCB, November 20, 1975. Useem, Bert. “Models of the Boston Anti-Busing Movement Polity/Mobilization and Relative Deprivation.” The Sociological Quarterly 22 (Spring 1981): 263–74. “Vietnam End in Sight?” Saturday Evening Post 242(3) (February 8, 1969): 4. Vizzard, James L. “Chavez and the Teamsters: David vs. Goliath?” America 128 (March 17, 1973): 234–38. Walsh, E. “America’s Prisons Are a Crime.” Our Sunday Visitor Magazine 68 (May 6, 1979): 4. Weiser, Francois. “The Periti of the United States and the Second Vatican Council: Prosopography of a Group of Theologians.” U.S. Catholic Historian 30 (3) (Summer 2012): 65–91. Westhues, Keneth. “The Church in Opposition.” Sociological Analysis 37 (4) (Winter 1976): 299–314. “What Did the Cardinal Really Say in Controversial Letter?” Our Sunday Visitor 69 (October 5. 1980): 8. Williams, Catherine R. Fall River: An Authentic Narrative. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Williams, Preston N and Robin W. Lovin. “Right and Remedies: A Study of Desegregation in Boston.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 6(2) (Fall 1978): 137–63. Wood Jr., James E. “Remembering Robert F. Drinan, S.J. Ardent Voice for Social Justice.” Journal of Church and State 49(2) (Spring 2007): 185–90. Wright, James D., Beth A. Ribin and Joel A. Devine. Beside the Golden Door: Policy, Politics and the Homeless. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1998. Wright, OMI, Robert E. “Pioneer Religious Congregations of Men in Texas Before 1900.” Journal of Texas Catholic History and Culture 5 (1994): 65–90. ———. “The Virgin of San Juan del Valle: Shifting Perceptions in the Borderlands.” Catholic Southwest 24 (2013): 3–29. Wuthnow, Robert. Rough Country: How Texas Became America’s Most Powerful Bible Belt State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014. Yzermans, Vincent. American Participation at the Second Vatican Council. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967.

Index

Note: Italic page number refer to figures; page numbers followed by “n” denote endnotes. Ad Gentes Divinitus (#30), 238, 240 aggiornamento, 34, 230 Agricultural Workers’ Organizing Committee (AWOC), 97 Alexander VI (Pope), 10 Alfaro, Ruben, 85 Alien Land Acts of 1913 and 1920, 96 American Federation of Labor (AFL), 96 American policy in Vietnam, 280 Anderson, Ron, 39, 55 “Anglican-Roman Catholic Sunday,” 233 Annunciato, Armando, 31 anti-abortion stance, 287–91 anti-Catholic sentiment, 23–24, 123 “anti-snub zoning act,” 259 Apostolicam autuositatem, 62 Apostolic Delegation in Washington, D.C., 120 Archbishop of Boston, Medeiros as, 322n8; appointment as Archbishop, 119–20; archdiocesan debt, 127; archdiocese of Boston, 123–26; arrival to Boston, 126–27; assignment, 119–23; challenges, 126–27; “leadership by example” style, 129– 30; physical and fiscal challenges,

127; racial and ethnic animosities, 128–29; rationale behind Medeiros’ appointment, 122; rejection, 128; time of “reconciliation,” 121; visit to vicariates, 130 Archdiocesan Commission on Human Rights, 141, 204 Archdiocesan Ecumenical Commission, 232–33 Archdiocesan Justice and Peace Commission, 141–42 archdiocese of Boston: Bishop (Archbishop in 1875) John Joseph Williams, 125; map, 125; rise in Catholic population, 124; strong antiCatholic bias, 123 Arrupe, Pedro, 176 assignments and doctoral education: archival records of notebooks, 27; charity, 28–29; dissertation, 27; doctoral studies, 26; personal responsibility, 28; tutelage of Father Silva, 25. See also priest in Fall River diocese Association of Boston Urban Priests, 126

341

342

Index

atheism, 38 Azores: archipelago of nine volcanic islands, 9; association with United States, 10; Catholicism and Church, 10; Medeiros with people in, 12; settlement, 9 “baptism of desire,” 172 “Bartlett Amendment,” 290 battle of San Jacinto, 50 Baum, William, 233 Bernardin, Joseph, 101, 108, 284, 308, 309 Bishops’ Committee on Priestly Formation, 171 Boles, John, 211 Boston, assistance to poor, 249–52; direct service and personal involvement, 250; Scripture and theology, use of, 252; social justice issues, 251–52 Boston, reorganization of archdiocese: administrative style, 135–37; auxiliary bishops, 138; office, 138; post-Vatican II approach, 136, 137 Boston archdiocesan programs, 138–45; Archdiocesan Commission on Human Rights, 141; Archdiocesan Justice and Peace Commission, 141–42; Catholic Charities, 140–41; Chancery Office, 142; Charismatic Catholics on Pentecost Sunday, 144; Family Counseling and Guidance Center, 144; International Conference on the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church, 1975, 144; Office of Communications, 143; Office of Spiritual Development, 142–43; oneon-one contact between parishioners, 140; Pastoral Letter, 139; pastoral letters to youth, 143; pastoral plan, 144–45; role of the laity in the postVatican II Church, 139; Saint Ann’s Home, 143–44; Urban Affairs, 143;

Visitors for Christ program, 139–40. See also Church and State issues in Boston Boston Committee, 269 Bracero Program, 96–97, 112n2, 113n12 Breintenbeck, Joseph, 108 Brennan, John Dr., 184 Brown, Edmund G. Jr., 305 Brownsville, 55, 55–66; assets and financial matters, 56–57; Catholic education, advocacy for, 64–65; census, rationale for, 57–58; counties in diocese, 52; evangelization of Southern Texas, 50; hierarchical administration, 51; Humanae Vitae controversy, 66; Immaculate Conception Cathedral, 51; Immaculate Conception Church, 51; institutional status, 56; institutions of diocese, 65; mass of blessing, 72n75; Oblate mission, 50; parochial functions, 61; plan and guidelines, 56; with Pope St. Paul VI, 61; priestly celibacy, 59; relationships with priests, 59; residence, 55; retreat at Saint Mary Seminary, 59; role of the laity, 62; as second Bishop, 54; setting an example, 58–59; Spanish colonization of Southern Texas, 49; supporter of the TCC, 68; support for clergy, 60; tasks of priests, 56; theology, 58; vicariate improvements, 51–52; Visitors for Christ program, 62–63 Brownsville, advocacy for poor, 66, 78, 126, 320; acts to resolve strike, 82–87; address to clergy, 82; address to local Rotary Club, 78; concern for poor and underprivileged, 77–78; critiques, 86–87; “follow the crop” tours, 85; legislated minimum wage, 83; migrant workers, 79–82; negotiations, 83; support from the NCCB, 84–85; support of other

Index

bishops, 86; twofold development, 85; understanding of poverty, 77–78 Burckart, William C., 239 Burt, John Harris, 233 busing crisis, Boston public schools: Christmas Mass in South Boston, 1976, 216; Cushing’s attitude toward black Catholics, 201; desegregation phase I, 206–12; desegregation phase II, 213–16; evaluation and aftermath, 216–18; MCAD and NAACP, 202; Morgan v. Hennigan, 205; 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case, 201; Plessy v. Ferguson, 201; Racial Imbalance Act (RIA), 202; racially segregated school system, 205; racism, 203; RIA and public-school desegregation, 205; status quo in school system, 203 Cabral, Goncalo Velho, 9 California farm workers, 96–97 California grape boycott and strike, 3–4, 97–103; Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor, 99–100, 102; the bishops’ committee, 101; initial agreement, 100; launch of boycott, 98; Medeiros’ justice-for-all approach, 98; negotiations and settlement, 101–2; support for Chavez, 98–99; United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC), 97 capital punishment, opposition to, 285–86 Cardinal Cushing of Boston (Cutler), 2 Carroll, John, 24, 123 Carter, Rosalynn, 240 Cassidy, James, 14, 16, 20 Catholic Charities, 140–41, 152 Catholic Church Extension Society, 61, 72n74 Catholic education, 23, 32, 51–52, 64–65, 195–99, 201, 212 Catholic Inter-American Cooperation Program (CICOP), 105–6

343

Catholicism, 10, 14, 23, 37, 51, 67, 84, 97, 107, 123, 175, 303 Catholic schools in Boston: Archdiocesan School Board, 198; excellence, 199–200; extensive selfstudies, 199; government support for private education, 200; ideas on education, 195–96; inter-community staffing and consolidation, 198; mission, 197; nonpublic education, 196; Vatican II’s Declaration on Christian Education, 197. See also busing crisis, Boston public schools Catholics for Free Choice, 293 Catholic social teaching, 83 The Catholic University, 26–27, 120– 21, 145, 153, 228, 302, 319, 322n8 The Catholic University of America (CUA), 5, 16, 49, 54, 119, 302 Catholic University of Portugal, address at, 228–29 CELAM Conference, 110 celebration of the Eucharist, 174, 237–38 celibacy, 59, 72n64, 181 Center for Allied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), 302–3 Chancery Office, 142 Charter of the United Nations, 279 Chavez, César, 3, 80, 97, 98, 304 Cheverus, Jean-Louis Lefebvre de, 4, 24, 123, 124 Chinese Exclusion Act, 96 Church and State issues in Boston: address at Assumption College, 283; American policy in Vietnam, 280; belief in the sanctity of life, 284; constitutional amendment to protect life, 285; Easter pastoral, 282; eight-week archdiocesan program, 283; Medeiros suggestion, 281; in the 1970s, 277–84; pastoral letter, 281; political agenda of the Church, 278; “right-to-life” movement, 283; “Tet Offensive,” 278; use of nuclear weapons, 282

344

Index

Cicognani, Amleto, 40 Civil Rights Movement, 82, 201, 226 Clay, William, 259 Clement VII (Pope), 10 clergy, relationship with, 161–71; appreciation for his priests, 164–65; Bishops’ Committee on Priestly Formation, 171; The Commission on Priestly Life and Ministry, 166; conference on the ministerial priesthood, 166; Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, 171; extant records, 169; homosexual behavior, concerns, 171; Impart, 166–67; interaction with priests, 163; issue of salaries and appointment, 167; MCC, 170; meetings with the clergy, 164; Missionary Society of Saint James the Apostle, 168; non-authoritative leadership style, 165–66; Pastoral Letter, Ministerial Priesthood, 1971, 165; philosophy of the priesthood, 162–63; priest evaluation program, 167; priesthood, 162; Priestly Counseling Office, 167; Priest Recovery Program, 167–68; seminary, 170–71; team ministry, concept of, 168; working with the Priests Senate, 165; Writing on Holy Thursday, 166 clergy conference, 149, 162, 169, 236 clerical discipline, 172 Coburn, John, 233, 316 College of Cardinals: at the 1973 Consistory, 146; titular Church of Santa Susanna, 145 The Commission on Priestly Life and Ministry, 166 Concanen, Richard Luke, 124 Confraternity for Christian Doctrine (CCD), 56, 65, 68, 74n92, 120 Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, 171 Conley, Peter, 143

Connolly, James, 3, 25, 29, 41, 98, 147, 225 constitutional amendment to protect life, 285 controversy in Scituate, 258–60 Cooke, Terence, 120 Corrigan, Thomas, 126 criticism of Medeiros’ letter, 293–94 Cronin, Daniel, 120, 318 Curley, James, 126 Cushing, Richard, 2, 119–22, 126, 127, 128, 130, 135, 145–48, 150, 151, 168, 169, 172, 180, 202–4, 216, 217, 232, 238, 253, 314, 318, 319, 325 Cutler, John Henry, 2 Daily, Thomas, 138, 148, 184, 258, 321 D’Arcy, John, 138, 142, 175 Deacon, Joseph, 258 Dearden, John, 99, 303, 307 death and legacy: “Cardinal Medeiros Night,” 318; death and funeral mass, 316–17; Grand Cross of the Military Order of Christ of Portugal, 318; Grand Cross of the Order of Prince Henry the Navigator, 318; honorary doctorates, 318; hospitalizations, 315–16; legacy, 318–22; Luso-American of the Year, 318; Peter Francesco Award, 318; self-description, 314, 321; virtue of humility, 314; work ethic, 314–15 ‘death with dignity’ legislation, 286 debt in Boston archdiocesan, resolving, 146–53; Budget Advisory Committee, 152; budget restrictions, 151; “Friends of the Cardinal,” 152; fundraising action, 148; “Jubilee: Tribute and Challenge” campaign, 147; meetings, 149; method of “Saturation Sundays,” 147; Priorities Committee, 151; Stewardship Appeal, 149–50 “The Declaration on Religious Liberty,” 37

Index

“The Declaration on the Relations of the Church to Non-Christian Religions,” 38, 230 “The Decree on Ecumenism,” 230–35 “The Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity” Ad Gentes Divinitus (#16), 238 “Decree on the Pastoral Office of the Bishops in the Church” Christus Dominus (#27), 240 Deeley, Robert, 159, 170 de Oliveira, Jose, 11 Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), 203, 205–6 desegregation of Boston’s public schools phase I, 206–12; access to parochial schools, 211; criticism of stance on busing, 210; “Declaration on Christian Education” from Vatican II, 212; disapproval of Medeiros’ school policy, 213; Medeiros’ support for busing, 209; negative reaction, 212; rationale for rejecting busing, 207; violence, 208 desegregation of Boston’s public schools phase II: Citywide Coordinating Committee (CCC), 214; criteria for transfers, 214; Masters’ Plan, “Citizen Participation, Monitoring and Reporting,” 213; South Boston case, 215 Dever, Paul, 126 dialogue, 231–32; ingredients, 231–32; with Protestant traditions, 234–35 diocese of Fall River, 23–25; antiCatholic sentiment, 23–24; arrival of Catholics, 24; Catholic schools, 25; Catholic worship and Church, 24–25; map of, 26; Massachusetts Bay anti-priest law, 23–24; parishes, 25; plenary Council decree, 1884, 25 “The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” Lumen Gentium (#29), 238 Donnelly, Joseph, 99, 304 Donohoe, Hugh, 99

345

Donovan, Paul, 139 Dornan, Robert, 177 Drinan, Robert, 176, 178, 291 Drinan case, 176–78 Driscoll, John, 17, 27, 29, 30, 36, 39– 41, 55, 60, 122, 127 Druillettes, Gabriel, 123 Drury, Thomas, 54, 81 Dubuis, Claude Marie, 51 Dukakis, Michael, 275, 290 Dunn, James, 147, 148 “dying with dignity,” concept of, 286 Easter message, 1972, 227–28 Easter pastoral, 282 ecumenism/ecumenical initiatives, 230–35; “Anglican-Roman Catholic Sunday,” 233; Archdiocesan Ecumenical Commission, 232–33; “The Decree on Ecumenism,” 230– 35; dialogue, ingredients, 231–32; dialogue with Protestant traditions, 234–35; ecumenical program, 267–68; Episcopal community, 233; essential elements, 231; inter-faith dialogue, 235; International AnglicanRoman Catholic dialogue, 233; meeting (1982), Pope Saint John Paul II and Archbishop of Canterbury, 233; member of Massachusetts Commission on Christian Unity, 234; mission of the restoration, 231; Orthodox community, 235 Egan, John, 308 election controversy, 1980, 292–95; criticism of Medeiros’ letter, 293–94; entry into the political process, 293; “Vote to Save Our Children,” 292 Ellis, John Tracy, 54, 122, 129, 147, 153, 319 Ellsberg, Robert, 122, 319, 321 Episcopal community, 233–34 euthanasia, condemnation of, 286 Evangelii Nuntiandi (Pope Saint Paul VI), 236

346

Index

Evangelium vitae (Pope Saint John Paul II), 284 evangelization of Southern Texas, 50 Evans, Donald, 152 Exodus Center, 180–81 extra-Boston appointments: board of trustees in CUA, 302; Center for Allied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), 302; service in education with Roman congregations, 302 Fall River, life in: earning as a child, 14; experiences as a youth, 14; local industry and the job opportunities, 12; practice of Catholicism, 14; ravages of the Great Depression, 12; school life and awards, 15 Family Counseling and Guidance Center, 144 Family Life Division, 283 Father Geoghan’s case, 184–85 Father Shanley’s case, 181–84 Feeney, Leonard S.J., 172; case of reconciliation, 172–74 Fenwick, Benedict Joseph, 124 Fitzpatrick, John, 124 Flanagan, Bernard Joseph, 120, 173 Flanagan, Norris, 31 Flavin, Glennon P., 104 Foley, John, 264 “Friends of the Cardinal,” 152 furlough program for prison inmates, 5, 266–67 Furtado, Augusto, 14, 16 Garrity, W. Arthur, 206, 216 Gaudium et spes, 38, 226, 287 gay community, ministerial approach to, 180 Geoghan, John, 5, 179, 184, 186 Gerety, Peter, 307 Gerrard, James, 31, 36, 41 Gleason, James, 27, 30 Gorman, Thomas, 54 Great Depression, 12–13, 96, 146, 326

Green, Joseph, 108 Grillo, Manuel Cipriano, 33 Groden, Michael, 141, 143, 168, 255, 257 Guindon, William, 176 Haddad, James, 167 Hall, Richard, 269 Harris, Frank, 216 Hart, Daniel, 152, 228 Healy, Cletus, 102 Helmick, William, 129, 159, 170, 177, 228, 232, 240, 258, 314 Hennigan, James, 205 Hicks, Louise Day, 202, 212, 216 Higgins, George, 86, 99 Hodges, Joseph L., 104 homosexuality, 171, 179–84, 193n17, 193n120 Hoover, J. Edgar, 203 Housing Act, 1949, 253 Hughes, Alfred, 147, 164, 314, 316 Hughes, John, 23, 195, 200 Humanae Vitae (Pope Saint Paul VI), 59, 66, 112, 175, 226, 287 Human Rights Commission, 201 Hurricane Beulah in 1967, 68 immigrant to United States, 11–15; city of Fall River, 12; misery of the Great Depression, 12 Impart, 166–67 Incarnate Word Academy, 64 inmate furloughs, 266 interaction with priests, 163 inter-faith dialogue, 230, 235 International Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, 233 International Conference on the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church, 1975, 144 Jadot, Jean, 173, 182, 240, 242 Johnson, Lyndon B., 89, 261, 279 John Timon, C.M., 50

Index

John XXIII (Pope), 31, 34, 83, 95 “Jubilee: Tribute and Challenge” campaign, 147 Keane, John, 174–76, 178, 186, 237 Kennedy, Edward, 126, 290, 292 Kennedy, John F., 279 Kerrigan, John, 203, 216 Kevane, Raymond, 103 King, Edward, 240, 252, 267 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 203 Laghi, Pio, 316 Lanning, Dan, 82 Lariscy, Philip, 24 Latin America and NCCB: Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor, 105; Catholic Inter-American Cooperation Program (CICOP), 105–6; CELAM Conference, 110; chair of the allocations subcommittee, 107–9; Commission on Canonical Affairs, 111; Episcopal Conference of Latin America (CELAM), 107–8; Medeiro with the Latin American Bureau, 106–7; NCCB Commission on Doctrine, 112; NCCB Committee on International Affairs, 106–7; PAVLA, 103–4; Priests Associated for Religious, Educational and Social Rights (PADRES), 104–5; Sacrament of Confirmation, 111–12; trip (1967) to South America, 108–9 Latin American Church, 103, 106–8, 306–7 Law, Bernard, 152, 183, 186 lay ministers guidelines, 238 lay participation, 62, 139, 225, 237–38 League of Catholic Women, address to, 229–30 Lexington United Methodist Church, 256 life issues: anti-abortion stance, 287–91; “Bartlett Amendment,” 290; concept of “dying with dignity,” 286; condemnation of euthanasia, 286;

347

‘death with dignity’ legislation, 286; Humanae Vitae, 287; opposition to capital punishment, 285–86; traditional approach to human morality, 285 Lipa, Mark, 235 low-income housing, 253–61; “antisnub zoning act,” 259; controversy in Scituate, 258–60; Housing Act, 1949, 253; need for integration, 254–55; plan for the construction in Lexington, 255–57; rationale for the need, 253; “The Right to a Decent Home” issued by NCCB, 254 Lucey, Robert, 54, 95 Lucken, Karol, 261 Maguire, Joseph, 137 Mahony, Roger, 99 Maloney, David, 303 Manning, Timothy, 99, 105, 289, 303 Marx, Adolph, 4, 52, 136 Massachusetts Catholic Conference (MCC), 170, 232, 289 Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), 202–3 Massachusetts Commission on Christian Unity, 234 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Urban Studies, 253 mass with prisoners, 265 McCarthy, Edward, 307 McDermott, Joseph, 264 McDevitt, Gerald, 41 McDonough, John, 214 McGann, Francis, 164 McGuire, Frederick, 307 Medeiros, Humberto: arrival in Brownsville, 55; in Chancery Office, 142; with crowds in South America, 109; funeral, 317; with Governor Dukakis of Massachusetts, 294; with Group of People in Azores, 12; mass with prisoners, 265; at 1973 Consistory, 146; in Peasant Home in

348

Index

South America, 110; with Pope St. Paul VI, 61; portrait of, 198; with President and Mrs. Jimmy Carter, 241; with St. Teresa of Calcutta, 161; Vatican II in Session, 35; working in office, 138 Mexican Revolution of 1910, 96 Minihan, Jeremiah, 137, 147 ministry with NCCB: ad hoc committee, 304; Ad Hoc Farm Labor Committee, 303; grape and boycott strike of 1965–1970, 304–5; member of Committee for International Affairs, 303; national lettuce boycott, 304; Pontifical Commission for Migration and Tourism, 303; strike and boycott of grapes and lettuce, 304–5; support for Church in Latin America, 306–7; UFWOC, 304; USCCB’s work in Latin America, 307 Missionary Society of Saint James the Apostle, 168 motu propio Eccleiae Sanctaem, 240 Mulcahy, John, 138 Mullins, Richard Dr., 184 Murphy, Jeremiah, 178 Nash, James Dr., 316 National Assembly of Religious Men, 251 National Catholic News Service, 100 National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC), 19n11, 95, 287 National Committee of the Campaign for Human Development, 252 National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), 3, 79, 95, 301, 309; and Latin America (see Latin America and NCCB); ministry with (see ministry with NCCB); “The Right to a Decent Home,” 254; support from, 84–85 National Farm Labor Union (NFLU), 96 National Farm Workers’ Association (NFWA), 97

National Labor Relations Act, 1935, 79 National Origins Act (Johnson-Reed Immigration Act), 1924, 96 National Prisoners Reform Association, 265 Neuhaus, Richard, 178 New Deal, 79, 253 New England Consultation of Church Leaders, 234 Nixon, Richard, 176, 207, 280 non-authoritative leadership style, 165–66 North American Man-Boy Love Association, 181–83 North Vietnamese Army (NVA), 279–80 “no tolerance” policy, 186 nuclear weapons, use of, 282 Nussbaum, Paul, 52 O’Brien, Hugh, 126 O’Connell, William Henry, 2, 126, 146, 169, 314 Odin, Jean Marie, 50 Office of Communications, 143 Office of Spiritual Development, 142–43 “On Penal Reform,” 262–64 ordination: academic excellence, 16; academic preparation for the priesthood, 17; acceptance by the Basselin Foundation, 16; The Catholic University of America, 16; Licentiate in Sacred Theology, 18; ordination as a deacon, 18; Theological College, 16–17 O’Sullivan, Francis, 141 O’Toole, David, Dr., 173 Papal Volunteers for Latin America (PAVLA), 103–5, 106 parish councils, 240; creation of, 5; establishments, 240 parish school (75th) anniversary program, 33

Index

“Participation or Alienation,” 240 pastoral approach, 139, 159–61, 186 Pastoral Letter, 63, 65, 139, 165, 203–4, 237, 250, 254, 262, 264–66, 278, 281, 285; to youth, 143 Pastoral Letter, Ministerial Priesthood, 1971, 165 pastoral plan, 144–45; for evangelization, 236 Paul III (Pope), 10, 50 Paul VI (Pope), 39, 52, 54, 59, 66, 120, 138, 145, 175, 226 Periti, 36 Permanent Commission on Penal Reform, 264–65 Permanent Diaconate Program, 238–39 Philbin, Phillip J., 176 Pine Street Inn, 252 Pius VII (Pope), 124 Pius IX (Pope), 51 Pius X (Pope), 52 Porter, James, 31, 320 Portuguese Conference of Bishops, 302 post-Vatican II Church, 225–30; address at the Catholic University of Portugal, 228–29; address to the League of Catholic Women, 229–30; aggiornamento, 230; conservative theological perspective, 229–30; Easter message, 1972, 227–28; rise of the counterculture, 226; role of women in the Church, 229; secularism, 226–27; self-knowledge, 228; “throw-away culture” of the 1970s, 227 priest evaluation program, 167 priesthood, 11, 15–18, 25–27, 30–31, 49, 58, 122, 136, 161–64, 166, 170– 72, 228, 293 priest in Fall River diocese, 29–41; advisor to bishop, 31; antepreparatory period, 34–35; as bishop, 40–41; concern for poor and immigrants, 33; duties as chancellor, 30; Father James Porter,

349

accusations against, 31–32, 31n43; implementation of teachings of Vatican II, 39–40; impressions of Vatican II, 38–39; leadership, 33–34; mastery of Latin, 36; ministerial profile, 30; multi-dimensional ministry, 29; participation in Vatican II, 37–38; pastor at St. Michael, 34; supporter of Catholic education, 32; time for friends and family, 29–30; Vatican session, 36–37; as Vicar for Religious, 32; work ethics, 35 Priestly Counseling Office, 167 Priest Recovery Program, 167–68 Primeau, Ernest, 111 prison reforms: archdiocesan Priests Senate and, 263; ideas of Priests Senate, 263; inmate furloughs, 266; mass with prisoners, 265; “On Penal Reform,” 263; Permanent Commission on Penal Reform, 264– 65; rehabilitation, 262–63; standards for sentences and correctional practices, 261; support for prisoners’ rights, 264 “problem” priests and Medeiros, 171–87; clerical discipline, 172; Drinan case, 176–78; Exodus Center, 180–81; Father Geoghan’s case, 184–85; Father Shanley’s case, 181– 84; Feeney case of reconciliation, 172–74; Keane affair, 175–76, 178; Letter to a Suffering Church, 2019, 186; ministerial approach to homosexuals, 179–80; ministerial approach to the gay community, 180; North American Man-Boy Love Association, 181–83; “no tolerance” policy, 186; sexual abuse of minors by priests, 179; trials, 179 projects to aid the poor, 87–90; lowincome housing, 90; Texas Council of Churches (TCC), 87; Valley Ministry Project, 88; Valley Service Project, 88–89; VISTA Minority

350

Mobilization Project, 89–90; Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), 89 racial justice: Boston Committee, 269; ecumenical program, 267–68 Raimondi, Luigi, 120, 127 Ralph, Victor, 53, 82 Rausch, James, 237 Reagan, Ronald, 316 Rebelo, Domingo, 11 rehabilitation of prisoners, 262–63. See also prison reforms Reilly, Daniel, 181 religious liberty, concept of, 37 “The Right to a Decent Home” issued by NCCB, 254 “right-to-life” movement, 283 Riley, Lawrence, 137, 138, 164, 173, 209, 251, 316 Riley, Thomas, 181, 232 Robinson, John, 214 Roe v. Wade controversy, 318 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 79, 253 Rothenberg, David, 263 Ruiz, Ralph, 105 Runcie, Robert, 233 Ruocco, Joseph J., 138, 214 Rynne, Paul, 204 sacrament of Holy Orders, 159 Sacred Congregation of Bishops, 301–2 Saint Ann’s Home, 143–44 Saint John Paul II (Pope), 177, 233, 239–42, 252, 278, 282, 284; arrived at Boston, 240–41; Cathedral of the Holy Cross, prayer service, 241; homily at mass, 242; “Participation or Alienation,” 240; Saint John Seminary, 242 Saint John Seminary, 242 Saint John XXIII (Pope), 95, 103 Saint Mary of the Nativity Parish, 259–60

Index

Saint Michael Parish (Fall River), early years on: Church festivals, 11; faith, 11–12; home, 10; intellectual ability, 11; Medeiros as a youth, 11 Saint Paul, 1, 19, 34, 184, 233 Saint Paul VI (Pope): apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi, 236; apostolic exhortation Octogesima Adviens (#23), 252 Saint Pius V (Pope), 237 Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira, 16 “Saturation Sundays,” 147 Saul Alinsky’s Community Service Organization, 97 Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), 225 secularism, 226–27 self-knowledge, 228 seminary, 16–18, 36, 59, 166–67, 170–71, 183 Seper, Franjo, 171, 183, 193 sexual abuse of minors by priests, 179 Shanley, Paul, 5, 171, 179–86 Shmaruk, Richard, 173 Silva, Joseph, 25 Sixtus V (Pope), 301, 302 Solemnity of Corpus Christi, 237 Sousa, Humberto, 9, 322 Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, 279 Stanton, Joseph, 291 “Statement on Farm Labor,” 79, 84 Steinberg, Lionel, 101 Stewardship Appeal, 149–52 St. Paul VI (Pope): encyclical on artificial birth control, 66; Medeiros with, 61 Swann v. Mecklenburg Board of Education, 206 team ministry, concept of, 166–68 “Tet Offensive,” 279 Texas Catholic Conference, 84 Texas Conference of Churches (TCC), 67–68, 87–89

Index

Thayer, John, 123 Theological College, 16–17 Thomas, John, 184 Tobin, Maurice, 126 Tonkin Gulf Resolution, 279 Trisco, Robert, 120

351

Urban Affairs, 137, 143 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 216 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), 95, 101, 186, 307

Vatican II in Session, 35; Council sessions, 36n71 Verdet, Jean-Marie, 50 Visitors for Christ program, 62, 139–40, 225; active participation by the laity, 64; objectives, 63 VISTA Minority Mobilization Project, 89 Volpe, John, 202 Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), 88–89 “Vote to Save Our Children,” 292

Valley Ministry Project, 88 Valley Service Project, 88–89 Vatican II applications, 236–40; Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, 237; celebration of the Eucharist, 237–38; clergy conference, 236; establishment of parish councils, 240; Evangelii Nuntiandi, 236; guidelines for lay ministers, 238; lay participation, 237; pastoral plan for evangelization, 236; Permanent Diaconate Program, 238–39; Solemnity of Corpus Christi, 237

Walsh, David Ignatius, 126 Warren, Earl, 206 White, Kevin, 240, 268, 269, 320 Williams, John Joseph, 125 women in the Church, 160–61, 229; legitimate right to equal status, 160; St. Teresa, 161; support for women religious, 160 Woolpart, Stephen, 262 World Council of Churches Conference on Science and Technology, 250 Wright, John, 120 Writing on Holy Thursday, 166

About the Author

Father Richard Gribble, CSC, is a member of the Congregation of Holy Cross, and serves as a professor in the Department of Religious Studies and Theology at Stonehill College in North Easton, Massachusetts. A native of California, Father Gribble was ordained in 1989. He is the author of numerous books and articles in the areas of Church history and spirituality, including American Apostle of the Family Rosary: The Life of Patrick J. Peyton, C.S.C., Father of the Fatherless: The Authorized Biography of Father Nelson Baker and Navy Priest: The Life of Captain Jake Laboon, S.J. He has received three awards from the Catholic Press Association and has served as a past president of the American Catholic Historical Association.

353