Who Are We?

The Catholic Near East Welfare Association was established by Pope Pius XI in 1926.
At that time, the Holy Father joined together in one organization several Catholic associations in the United States concerned for various purposes — the welfare of people in Russia and the Holy Land, the work of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the promotion of the union of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
The new papal agency was placed under the immediate direction of the archbishop of New York and was charged by the pope to work on behalf of Russia and the Christian East — that is, those lands in which from ancient times the majority of Christians are members of the various Eastern Churches.
Our mandate extends from central and eastern Europe to India, including northeast Africa — to the churches and peoples of Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Palestine, Russia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan — and to Eastern Catholics outside their homelands.
As a small international, non-governmental agency, we address and respond to those needs to which others cannot or do not.
We encourage and provide assistance to projects and programs of pastoral support, humanitarian assistance, interfaith communication, and public awareness.

Pastoral support. Our association is Catholic. We support the pastoral mission and institutions of the Churches of the East. We assist local bishops, priests, religious, and lay leaders to build, nurture, and maintain a living Church. We prepare church leadership, facilitate priestly ministry, build church institutions. and assist the Holy See.
Humanitarian assistance. We are also catholic. In providing food, clothing, medical care, shelter, and other basic necessities for the relief of suffering people and in caring for the afflicted, our only criterion is need, not creed. Besides responding to urgent human needs, we also rehabilitate dwellings and institutions, sustain a network of human services. and contribute to education.
Interfaith communication. Our association promotes Christian unity, especially among the Churches of the East and Rome. We foster interreligious dialogue with non-Christians and collaboration in works of human development, justice, and peace.
Public awareness. We raise consciousness of the conditions of the Churches and peoples of the East. We disseminate information about their history, cultures, and faith. Through educational programs and publications, we encourage inter-cultural communication and respect for human dignity and rights.


(Published in
Catholic Near East, 18:2, April 1992)

Bienvenidos, But . . . Hispanos y la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York, 1952-1982

INTRODUCCIÓN

P. Felix Varela

La Diócesis de Nueva York fue erigida en el año 1808. Durante los primeros veinte años un sacerdote cubano, Félix Varela, exiliado por la Corona Española debido a su lucha en favor de la independencia de su país, vino a desarrollar su trabajo pastoral en la ciudad de Nueva York, en la parroquia de San Pedro en Manhattan. Fue el primer párroco de la parroquia del Cristo, dividida en 1827 en las parroquias de Santiago y de la Transfiguración. Después de servir como párroco de la parroquia de Santiago, fue nombrado vicario general de la diócesis. Otro español exiliado, el sacerdote Ildefonso Madrano, fundó la parroquia de San Pedro en Staten Island.
Como Teilhard De Chardin comentó en su gran obra sobre la evolución como desarrollo humano, “Nada es tan delicado y fugitivo por su propia naturaleza como un comienzo . . . Los comienzos tienen una fragilidad esencial e irritante, una que debe ser tomados en serio por todos aquellos que se ocupan de la historia.” Lo mismo sucedió en los inicios de la presencia de la población de habla hispana en la ciudad de Nueva York. Existen datos acerca de la presencia de españoles e hispano-americanos en la ciudad de Nueva York desde los tiempos coloniales. Hubo puertorriqueños que vivían allí desde antes de la Revolución. El puerto y la ciudad han sido siempre una de las grandes puertas de entrada a los Estados Unidos y los hispanos siempre han pasado a través de ella.
Presentamos a continuación una visión sumaria de conjunto del desarrollo del ministerio especial a los Hispanos en la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York, especialmente por los tres primeros décadas de unos esfuerzos sin precedentes para responder a la inmigración masiva de puertorriqueños y otros pueblos de habla hispana durante la segunda mitad del siglo veinte. Tratar este tema detalladamente exige un estudio mucho más elaborado y científico que esta humilde presentación. He intentado llamar atención a los comienzos y momentos de decisión más significativos que conozco. Excepto de la oficina hispana arquidiocesana, ninguna otra oficina, agencia, institución o programa tiene una explicación detallada ni descripción de su historia interna. Narrar la historia de cada parroquia y su ministerio hispano supondría escribir un libro de cada una de ellas. Cada agencia de Caridades Católicas y departamento pastoral podría llamar atención a una extensa historia de éxitos. En general nada de eso aparece en este estudio.
Por supuesto lo que es seleccionado, descrito y destacado y la estructura misma  de organización del estudio refleja una interpretación y punto de visita particular. El propósito mio ha sido ser tan objetive posible, ser franco y conciso y manifestar lo que creo es la brillante historial de logros de la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York. En ciertas áreas hubiera deseado incluir datos más precisos, pero las limitaciones de tiempo y de accesibilidad a personas y archivos lo imposibilitaron.
Agradezco enormemente las muchas personas que me compartieron su tiempo y reflexiones y la Sra. Carmen Goytia y la Srta. María Quiñones por su ayuda clerical.


I. INSTITUCIONES Y PARROQUIAS ETNICAS

Desde los inicios de Nueva Ámsterdam en 1609 hasta su conquista por parte de Inglaterra en 1664, casi la única presencia católica conocida fue el paso de Isaac Jogues por la colonia hacia Inglaterra después de su rescate de los Iroquois. En 1682 Thomas Dongan, un católico, fue nombrado gobernador de Nueva York y trajó aquí algunos jesuitas y decretó una carta de derechos por la colonia garantizando la libertad religiosa. El desarrollo de la Iglesia Católica en Nueva York se cortó a raíz por la revolución de 1688 y en 1693 la Iglesia de Inglaterra fue establecida por ley, seguida por una legislación penal contra la católicos.
Cuando el Padre John Carroll, prefecto apostólico de la Iglesia en los Estados Unidos, presentó su informe a la Congregación de la Propaganda en 1785, indicó de la existencia de una población católica de al menos 1,500 personas en el Estado de Nueva York. Cuando el Padre Charles Whelan, O.F.M. Cap. fue designado por el P. Carroll al cargo de cuidado de los católicos en la ciudad de Nueva York, tenía una congregación de 200 feligreses, quienes obtuvieron personalidad jurídica por su comunidad y comenzaron a construir un templo en 1785. La Iglesia en Nueva York desde sus inicios fue una minoría en medio de una abrumadora cultura anglosajona protestante.

La Identidad Étnica de la Iglesia Neoyorquina

Los primeros feligreses católicos en Nueva York fueron mayormente ingleses e irlandeses. Finalizando el siglo XVIII y principiando el XIX, los irlandeses constituían el número más grande de católicos inmigrantes en los Estados Unidos. Hacia los años 1850, debido a una masiva llegada de muchísimos mas inmigrantes irlandeses, mayormente católicos, la nacionalidad dominante de la Iglesia neoyorquina fue obviamente la irlandesa. En términos de la población católica, continuó dominando por los siguientes 100 años; en términos de los líderes ordenados, aún hoy dominan los irlandeses. Testimonio de esto es la sucesión de obispos en Nueva York: Concanen, Connolly, Dubois, Hughes, McCloskey, Corrigan, Farley, Hayes, Spellman y Cooke.
Desde los inicios de la Iglesia en Nueva York hubo católicos que no hablaban inglés, una minoría en una comunidad católica predominantemente irlandesa, la cual a su vez era una minoría en la sociedad estadounidense mayoritaria. En 1810 el P. Anthony Kohlman, S.J. fue nombrado administrador de la nueva Diócesis de Nueva York después de la muerte de su primer obispo Luke Concanen, O.P. quien había muerto en Nápoles, Italia, antes de prender posesión de su sede. Una razón especial para el nombramiento del P. Kohlman fue para que se hiciera cargo de los católicos de lengua alemana. Irónicamente fue él que fundó la iglesia catedral de San Patricio.
Dado que los emigrantes europeos aumentaron durante el siglo XIX tanto la Iglesia Americana como la de Nueva York llegaron a convertirse en una comunidad rica en nacionalidades y culturas diversas. Escribiendo acerca de los puertorriqueños en 1954, el P. George Kelly hizo la observación: “La Iglesia americana al igual que diócesis como la de Nueva York, son únicas en la historia de la Iglesia Universal, por lo menos en relación al hecho de que ninguna rama local del Cuerpo Místico haya tenido que trabajar por largo tiempo con tantos nuevos miembros cuya educación, cultura y costumbres religiosas, así como sus idiomas, fueran tan variados. Tendría uno que remontarse a España, Galia e Italia de los siglos IV y V AD para encontrar una invasión de pueblos semejante a la experiencia americana.

Parroquias Nacionales

Para la población inmigrante irlandesa católica, la parroquia viene a ser el centro de la vida de sus comunidades. Discriminados y no aceptados como iguales en toda la sociedad, los irlandeses levantaron sus iglesias y escuelas con gran sacrificio. La parroquia servía como centro de vida social y organización como un instrumento para preservar su identidad religiosa, cultural y nacional. A través de los sacerdotes, los hijos de los inmigrantes lograron puestos de respeto, eminencia e influencia y la Iglesia sirvió generalmente como una fuerza de empuje en el crecimiento socio-económico de sus miembros.
Al igual que otros grupos étnicos y culturales llegaron en gran número, ellos también tenían las mismas necesidades de consolidación y fortalecimiento de su identidad y cultura, pero las parroquias que ellos encontraron tenía un carácter demasiado irlandés para proveer el mismo servicio por ellos. De ahí que gradualmente fueron creadas otras parroquias para los diferentes grupos de inmigrantes: alemanes, italianos, franceses, españoles, polacos, húngaros, croatas, eslovacos, lituanos y chinos. Para distinguirlos de las parroquias de población predominantemente irlandesa, estas nuevas parroquias fueron consideradas étnicas o parroquias “nacionales”.
Además de ayudar a las comunidades inmigrantes a preservar su fe católica y su cultura, las parroquias nacionales servían como un puente de entrada a la sociedad americana y la iglesia “americana”. “La parroquia nacional brindaba una oportunidad para un ajuste gradual a las costumbres americanas y su familiarización con las formas de practicar la fe en los Estados Unidos. De ese modo, cuando los niños de los inmigrantes se convertían en ciudadanos americanos, ellos también habían aprendido cómo ser católicos al estilo americano.”

Parroquias Nacionales para la comunidad de habla Hispana

Iglesia de Nuestra Sra. de Guadalupe

A comienzos del siglo pasado hubo preocupación por parte de los miembros de la iglesia de Nueva York y de las autoridades arquidiocesanas acerca del cuidado pastoral del creciente números de mexicanos y de otros trabajadores hispanos como de sus familias en Manhattan, especialmente en el área del muelle, al final del oeste de la calle 14. En ese tiempo fue un sacerdote asuncionista quien ejercía su ministerio como capellán de las hermanas religiosas de su congregación en Nueva York quien tuvo conocimiento del interés por establecer una parroquia para la comunidad de habla hispana. Los Padres Asuncionistas (Agustinos de la Asunción), se brindaron para asumir la responsabilidad de dicha parroquia. En 1902 convertieron un pequeño edificio ubicado en el oeste de la calle 14 en una capilla, los comienzos de la parroquia de Nuestra Sra. de Guadalupe.

Iglesia de Nuestra Sra. de la Esperanza

Pocos años más tarde, una dama española de la alta sociedad, María De Barril, quien vivía en un vecindario elegante cerca de la calle 155 Oeste, preguntó por una iglesia de habla hispana en la parte alta de la ciudad, aún cuando era difícil encontrar personas de habla hispana viviendo en dicho vecindario. Ella habló con Sr. Archer Huntington, fundador del Museo de la Sociedad Hispana de América, cuya propiedad personal comprendía el bloque delimitado entre el oeste de la calle 155, Riverside Drive, el oeste de la 156 y Broadway. Ofreció una parte de su propiedad como lugar para levantar un templo y prometió una donación para su construcción. Se organizó un comité, creció el interés, y la Arquidiócesis aprobó la recaudación de fondos bajo la dirección de los Padres Asuncionistas. La iglesia de Nuestra Señora de la Esperanza fue construida e inaugurada como la segunda parroquia nacional hispana en 1912 y continuó bajo el cuidado de los Padres Asuncionistas hasta el año 1982.
En el año 1926 una antigua sinagoga ubicada al norte del Parque Central fue convertida en la tercera parroquia nacional hispana, Nuestra Señora de la Medalla Milagrosa o “La Milagrosa” como vino a ser conocida por una generación de neoyorquinos hispanos. La parroquia fue asignada al cuidado de la rama hispanoamericana de los Padres Paúles de la provincia de Madrid, y en el año 1930 otra parroquia, la “Santa Agonía”, en la zona este de Manhattan fue inaugurada y asignada igualmente a los Padres Paúles. En ese tiempo la Milagrosa fue el centro de la vida católica hispana en la zona oeste y del alto Manhattan, pero con el desarrollo más tarde de servicios religiosos para los hispanos en la mayoría de las parroquias del área, su importancia declinó y en 1978 fue cerrada canónicamente e incorporada a la parrroquia de la Santa Agonía.
El concepto de parroquia nacional hispana es un poco anómalo. Para muchas nacionalidades, hay una coincidencia entre identidad nacional y lingüística. En el caso de personas de habla hispana existen veinte nacionalidades diferentes. Es más correcto considerar estas cuatro parroquias como centros para la comunidad de habla hispana, en vez de “nacional”. En todo caso no se establecieron más parroquias nacionales para el servicio de los hispanos, aunque se le requirió a las órdenes religiosas especialmente hispanas, que proveyeran personal a las parroquias existentes, o que asumieran la responsabilidad total de las comunidades de parroquias previamente establecidas por otros grupos étnicos.

Ordenes religiosos proveendo personal a parroquias para el ministerio hispano

El Cardenal Francis Spellman

En el transcurrir de la década de 1930, fueron tantos los puertorriqueños que se establecieron en lo que llegó a ser llamado “Spanish Harlem”, el área centrada cerca del este de la calle 116, que los sacerdotes de la comunidad de los Padres Paúles hispanos de la Milagrosa y de la Santa Agonía necesitaron la ayuda de otros clérigos. Debido a que el nuevo arzobispo de Nueva York, Francis J. Spellman estaba familiarizado personalmente con el trabajo pastoral de los Padres Redentoristas de Baltimore en Puerto Rico, quienes habían misionado tanto en la Isla como en Paraguay por muchos años, decidió solicitar su ayuda en Nueva York.

Iglesia de Santa Cecilia

En 1939 se hicieron cargo de la parroquia de Santa Cecilia en el este de la calle 116, la cual hasta ese momento era una parroquia diocesana. En sus primeros años Santa Cecilia había sido el centro de un barrio americano-irlandés. Los Redentoristas llevaron a cabo la estrategia de asignar únicamente personal bilingüe al servicio de la parroquia. En su mayoría eran sacerdotes y religiosos americanos quienes tenían experiencia pastoral en Puerto Rico y otros países de Latinoamérica, y para quienes el español era su segunda lengua.
En 1948 un sacerdote Calasancio llegó a Nueva York para servir como capellán de las hermanas de San José de la Montaña, las cuales dirigían el Centro de Cuidado Infantil San José. Al año siguiente se le solicitó servir también en la parroquia de San Pablo en el este de la calle 117 en el Harlem Hispano, y más tarde en la de Corpus Christi. Otros miembros de su congregación se unieron a él y en 1949 los Padres Calasancios organizaron una casa central en la calle Segunda para la coordinación del trabajo de sus miembros en diversas parroquias de la diócesis que han sido servido por personal del clero diocesano. En 1977 recibieron el encargo por parte de la arquidiócesis de dirigir totalmente la parroquia de la Anunciación en Manhattan, y la rectoría de la parroquia se constituyó en su casa central.
En 1953 la parroquia de San Benito el Moro en el oeste de la calle 53, establecida desde 1883 para los católicos afroamericanos, fue confiada al cuidado de los Padres Franciscanos de la Tercera Orden de la provincia de la Inmaculada Concepción en España y se convirtió en el centro de cuidado pastoral y ministerial para los hispano en dicha zona.
Un año o dos más tarde los Padres Agustinos Recoletos de la provincia de San Agustín comenzaron a dirigir la parroquia del Santísimo Crucifijo en la zona este del Bajo Manhattan. La parroquia había sido fundada en 1925 para atender las necesidades de la población italiana de la zona. Los Agustinos ofrecieron los servicios religiosos tanto en lengua española como en inglés. Utilizaron la parroquia como un centro y base para otros sacerdotes quienes asistían a diversas parroquias donde se necesitaba ofrecer los servicios pastorales en español, como eran las parroquias de Santa Rosa de Lima en el Alto Manhattan y de San Pedro, San Pablo y San Agustín en el Bronx. Los Agustinos brindaron sus servicios hasta el año 1981, cuando la parroquia fue pasada al cuidado de un otro grupo de religiosos, predominamente italianos.
El modelo de una casa central para un grupo de sacerdotes con un programa misionero de ayuda fue seguido también por los Canónigos Regulares Lateranenses. Dicho grupo de sacerdotes vascos adoptaron esta nueva forma de vida comunitaria y misión pastoral. Los miembros de la Congregación fueron asignados a parroquias locales dirigidas anteriormente por sacerdotes diocesanos, y vivían y trabajaban allí. No obstante ellos se reunían semanalmente en su casa central en el Bronx para mantener y nutrir su vida y espíritu. El primer miembro de los Canónigos Regulares llegó a Nueva York en 1961. En 1976 asumieron la responsabilidad de la parroquia de Nuestro Salvador en el Bronx, atendida previamente por el clero diocesano.
Durante breve tiempo los Padres Agustinos Recoletos de la provincia de San Agustín asumieron la responsabilidad de la parroquia de Santa Rita de Casia en el Bronx, donde rllos sustituyeron al clero diocesano en 1973. No obstante, debido a las dificultades en proveer un adecuado número de religiosos, confiaron en 1976 su responsabilidad a los Padres Agustinos Recoletos de la provincia de San Nicolás de Tolentino. Ellos mismos se hicieron cargo de la parroquia de San Roque en el Bronx en 1974, la cual fue creada originalmente para atender a las necesidades de la comunidad italiana.
En 1978 la Arquidiócesis solicitó a los Agustinos de la provincia del Santo Nombre, ubicada en las Islas Filipinas, que asumieran el cuidado pastoral de la parroquia del Santo Rosario en el este de Harlem. Previamente, esta parroquia también estuvo orientada primordialmente al servicio de la comunidad italiana.

Cuidado pastoral a la comunidad hispana en otras parroquias dirigidas por religiosos

Además de la administración por parte de las congregaciones religiosas, especialmente de las parroquias nacionales o étnicas, o supliendo personal sacerdotal a otras parroquias encomendadas al clero diocesano, muchas congregaciones encontraron que las parroquias que ellos habían estado sirviendo por muchos años se estaban convirtiendo, de hecho si no de derecho canónico, en parroquias hispanas. Como parte de su responsabilidad pastoral ellos enseñaban a sus miembros a hablar español, o trataban de asignar a esas parroquias tanto sacerdotes como religiosas/os cuya lengua materna lo fuera el español o a miembros del clero que tenían experiencia pastoral en países hispanos. Entre las congregaciones más preocupadas por la atención de las comunidades de habla hispana podrían mencionarse los Benedictinos, Capuchinos, Carmelitas, Franciscanos, Jesuitas, Paulistas, Redentoristas y Salesianos.

Instituciones no parroquiales al servicio de la comunidad hispana

El primer vecindario hispano en la ciudad de New York fue el área del lado oeste de la ciudad alrededor de la calle 14 y la iglesia de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe. Además de los servicios pastorales ofrecidos en la parroquia, en 1916 un grupo de religiosas hispanas, las Hermanas de San José de la Montaña o Madres de los Desamparados, llegaron a Nueva York con la intención de comenzar un programa para el cuidado de niños durante el día, hijos de madres hispanas que trabajaban. Este programa sigue funcionando en el Centro de Cuidado de Niños de San José en el oeste de la calle 20. En 1964 las mismas Hermanas comenzaron la residencia para jóvenes sin familia que trabajan en Nueva York, la residencia Sagrado Corazón, también en el oeste de la calle 20, con el propósito no solamente de ofrecerles un lugar decente sino también para proveer apoyo y guía moral.
En 1927, el Padre Adrien de los Padres Asuncionistas en la iglesia de la Guadalupe comenzó la Casa María, en el oeste de la calle 14 cerca de la parroquia, una residencia originalmente para muchachas hispanas trabajadoras. y posteriormente para otras nacionalidades. En 1907 cuando un grupo de Hermanas-Siervas de María, Ministras de los Enfermos, estaban en ruta de España a México una de las hermanas falleció en Nueva York y fue sepultada por el Padre Adrien. Veinte años más tarde, cuando dio comienzo Casa María, el Padre Adrien pensó en invitar a las Hermanas- Siervas de María para su administración, quienes estuvieron al cargo hasta 1964. En dicho año el trabajo fue continuado por las Religiosas de María Inmaculada. Las Hermanas-Siervas de María, quienes fundamentalmente se dedican al servicio de los enfermos, también abrieron un convento en el Bronx en 1931 como centro para su apostolado de cuidado gratis de los enfermos en sus hogares o en los hospitales.
Las Religiosas de María Inmaculada quienes asumieron la administración de Casa María en 1965, llevaron a cabo su trabajo bajo el titulo de Centro María. Este continuó siendo la residencia para muchachas jóvenes solteras, trabajadoras y pobres de origen hispano. Las Hermanas ofrecían alojamiento, cuidado y servicios de consejería. En 1981 el Centro se trasladó al oeste de la calle 54.
A principios de la década 1930 un pequeño grupo de laicos católicos fundó una especie de Casa de Beneficencia en “El Barrio” (Spanish Harlem) tanto para los puertorriqueños como para otros hispanos. Las fundadoras, las hermanas Sullivan, se preocupaban de los problemas de la comunidad puertorriqueña cuando no eran atendidos en las parroquias locales. Ellas comenzaron su trabajo en un pequeño edificio de apartamentos. Cuando los niños hispanos que eran enviados a la parroquia del barrio para la instrucción religiosa eran ignorados, ellas colaboraban con los Padres Paúles hispanos de la Milagrosa en la organización de un programa de educación religiosa allí. Gradualmente se añadieron otras actividades como un campamento de verano. El Centro, Casita María, se mudó a Casas Carver donde se responsabilizaron del programa recreacional. A comienzos de 1960 se trasladó a la calle Simpson en la parroquia de San Atanasio en el Bronx donde continúa ofreciendo una amplia variedad de programas.


II. EL PUNTO DE INFLEXIÓN

La responsabilidad pastoral de la Iglesia en la Arquidiócesis en Nueva York está comúnmente en las manos del Arzobispo de Nueva York y su clero, tanto diocesano como religioso, asociados con él. No hay dudas que hubo un sentido de responsabilidad hacia todos los grupos étnicos presentes en la diócesis, incluyendo los de habla hispana. La temprana iniciativa de establecer las parroquias de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, Nuestra Señora de la Medalla Milagrosa y la Santa Agonía, como también la invitación de los Padres Redentoristas a administrar la Parroquia de Santa Cecilia honran a la Arquidiócesis.
Es interesante notar el hecho de que en el periodo anterior a la Segunda Guerra Mundial, cuando las cuatro parroquias nacionales fueron establecidas y Santa Cecilia fue confiada a los Padres Redentoristas, la responsabilidad pastoral de los católicos hispanos estaba siendo manejada casi exclusivamente por las congregaciones religiosas. El clero diocesano, con algunas excepciones, no estaba muy consciente de un compromiso especial o personal de servir a los católicos de habla hispana, ni tampoco eran invitados a llevarlo a cabo por parte de las autoridades arquidiocesanas. Si fuera necesario buscar una razón para tal actuación, quizás sería el autosuficienca. El progreso y avance de las parroquias americano-irlandesas pareció ser predominantemente el objetivo principal de la Iglesia de Nueva York; los hispanos al igual que otros grupos étnicos tan solo eran objeto de interés apostólico para algunos. En la medida que se integraban a la población general los hispanos recibían las atenciones necesarias por parte de todas las instituciones de la Arquidiócesis; en caso contrario eran dejados en gran parte al cuidado de los religiosos de habla hispana.

La migración puertorriqueña

Aunque había una población puertorriqueña en Nueva York antes de la II Guerra Mundial en el “Spanish Harlem” o “el Barrio”, al final de la contienda empezó una emigración masiva de puertorriqueños, la mayoría de los cuales se establecen en y alrededor de la ciudad de New York. En los primeros años después de la guerra la emigración neta procedente de Puerto Rico y dirigida a New York fue la siguiente:

1945: 13,573
1946: 39,911
1947: 24,551

1948: 32,775
1949: 25,696
1950: 34,703

1951: 49,436
1952: 59,000
1953: 73,000

Si se observan detalladamente, las implicaciones de esa tendencia alcista de la población puertorriqueña fueron muy serias. Se avecinaba una nueva ola inmigratoria muy intensa compuesta por católicos que no tenían el inglés como lengua nativa, esta vez de América Latina, no de Europa. Los nuevos inmigrantes puertorriqueños eran ciudadanos nativos de Estados Unidos de habla hispana. Procedan de un país y de una cultura que mantenía su catolicidad pero con escaso clero nativo, contrario a grupos de inmigrantes previos, los puertorriqueños no tuvieron clero que les acompañaran y les sirvieran. Procedían en su mayoría de las zonas rurales de Puerto Rico, muy pobres y, generalmente, con poco escuela o preparación. A consecuencia de la rapidez de su llegada se plantearon preguntas importantes acerca del futuro de la Iglesia de Nueva York.

P. Joseph Fitzpatrick, SJ

Uno de los primeros religiosos e intelectuales que percibieron las dimensiones e implicaciones de esta gran migración lo fue el sociólogo y catedrático de la Universidad de Fordham, el jesuita Padre Joseph P. Fitzpatrick. Comenzó a estudiar este movimiento migratorio y a llamar la atención tanto en lo académico como en las comunidades eclesiales. Durante los años subsiguientes, se convirtió en el principal experto en el tema de la migración puertorriqueña, publicando gran cantidad de estudios y libros, convirtiéndose igualmente en afamado conferencista y profesor sobre el tema.
En 1952 se unió a él el P. Iván D. Illich, joven sacerdote, brillante intelectualmente, procedente de la región de Dalmacia, recién llegado a la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York y asignado al trabajo pastoral en la parroquia de la Encarnación en el Alto Manhattan. El Padre Illich se había preparado académicamente en Roma para trabajar en el Cuerpo Diplomático de la Santa Sede. pero prefirió ejercer su ministerio en Nueva York. Fue presentado y recomendado altamente ante el Cardenal Spellman con el cual mantuvo siempre una relación privilegiada. Poco tiempo después de su llegada a la parroquia de la Encarnación fue a Puerto Rico para aprender la lengua y familiarizarse con la cultura y las condiciones sociales de la gente y la iglesia de la Isla. Regresó a Nueva York y inició un ministerio pastoral creativo e innovador con la comunidad boricua.
Otro atento y sensible observador de la migración puertorriqueña lo fue el canciller de la Arquidiócesis, Monseñor John Maguire, quien más tarde sería nombrado el Arzobispo Coadjutor de Nueva York. Se dio cuenta de las implicaciones de esta nueva población para la Iglesia e hizo notar la necesidad de datos precisos del estado de esta población en cuanto a su relación con la iglesia como fundación para el desarollo de planificación pastoral. En el otoño de 1952 le solicitó al Padre George A. Kelly, joven sacerdote sociólogo, en aquel tiempo radicado en la parroquia de Santa Mónica, el llevar a cabo un estudio científico de los puertorriqueños y la iglesia. Durante el año próximo Padre Kelly recopiló una gran cantidad de datos y elaboró un documento el cual representaba un audaz y contundente reto para la arquidiócesis, un documento profético extraordinario acerca del crecimiento y desarrollo de la población puertorriqueña en Nueva York.

La “Encuesta Católica”

Como el Padre Kelly menciona en la introducción de su informe final, “Este estudio de la población puertorriqueña en la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York es altamente experimental. Un análisis sociológico de un problema religioso, con el propósito de desarrollar un programa que enfrente este problema, es una empresa nueva y audaz para la diócesis.” Y anticipando la conclusión del estudio, aseveró, “. . . no hay dudas de que la Arquidiócesis tiene en sus manos un problema misionero y pastoral de tal magnitud como para poner a prueba sus recursos, el ingenio y personal competente por años . . . uno de los primeros trabajos que debe hacerse es crear un ambiente entre los puertorriqueños en Nueva York que sería más favorable al esfuerzo pastoral y sacerdotal de la Iglesia. En este sentido la educación de los sacerdotes y religiosos de Nueva York en la naturaleza y alcance del problema es un imperativo sobresaliente. Para presentarles honestamente la magnitud exacta del mal existente, para crear la simpatía por los puertorriqueños, para inspirar el entusiasmo para trabajar entre ellos, para preparar sacerdotes ahora no directamente envueltos en resolver un problema que rápidamente se desarrolla todo esto el estudio puede promover. Pero tiene que haber conversaciones francas y publicación de información relevante para sacerdotes católicos y dentro de los círculos católicos.”

Contenido. El propósito de la encuesta fue reunir e interpretar datos y hacer amplia proyecciones y recomendaciones para el futuro desarrollo de la iglesia de Nueva York. Después de un capitulo de introducción sobre la cantidad y distribución de la población puertorriqueña, se estudió los sacerdotes de habla hispana y maestros, la administración de los sacramentos a puertorriqueños, asistencia a Misa, inscripciones a la escuela parroquial y a otros programas educacionales religiosos, así como las sociedades y organizaciones católicas. Se enfocó principalmente en el crecimiento de la comunidad puertorriqueña desde el censo federal de 1950 hasta el día de la investigación. La siguiente muestra de algunos hallazgos presenta algunas indicaciones del alcance y contenido del trabajo.

De acuerdo a los estimados que se hicieron en 1952, había más de 300,000 puertorriqueños entre Manhattan y el Bronx.
Dentro de ocho años la población de puertorriqueños de la Arquidiócesis sería aproximadamente de unos 880,000.
. . . en unos diez años los puertorriqueños de Nueva York formarían quizás una mayoría de católicos dentro de la Arquidiócesis.
La gente puertorriqueña de Manhattan no son atendidos adecuadamente por sacerdotes de habla hispana, pero los del Bronx están en peor situación. Las peores áreas de Nueva York son el bajo Harlem, el lado Oeste, y el Bronx hispano, los cuales necesitan sacerdotes urgentemente. Solamente doce sacerdotes neoyorquinos hablan español.
Sacerdotes religiosos hasta ahora han llevado esta carga, pero requerirán mucho más asistencia de las parroquias diocesanas en el futuro, ya que la migración puertorriqueña en la ciudad será más problemática para las parroquias diócesanas en los próximos diez años.
Los maestros de Nueva York están poco preparados para hablar español, particularmente los hermanos religiosos y los laicos.
. . . hay aproximadamente . . . tan solo 30 hermanas religiosas enseñando quienes son competentes para trabajar entre los puertorriqueños.
Hay casi una renuencia por parte de los pastores de las parroquias diocesanas a envolverse en el trabajo con los puertorriqueños de forma sincera, o a tener sus parroquias conocidas como puertorriqueñas, aún donde hay gran número de sus miembros son puertorriqueños e incluso en algunos lugares donde son la mayoría.
Aceptado el crecimiento de puertorriqueños en la Arquidiócesis y concedido el principio de servicio proporcional, en el 1960 debería haber unos 500 sacerdotes y 1,500 hermanas religiosas de habla hispana. (Estos estimados no tratan las necesidades de los puertorriqueños en las agencias de educación y beneficencia pública de la Arquidiócesis.)
En vista de la presente condición y perspectivas futuras, no parece que un sistema voluntario para entrenar a futuros sacerdotes en español para trabajar en la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York, vaya a satisfacer la demanda. Es casi imperativo que cada sacerdote ordenado hable español y que el aprendizaje de esa lengua sea obligatorio.
Cerca de la mitad de los niños puertorriqueños nacidos cada año (en el presente) es bautizado como católico.
Los ministros protestantes ofician el mismo numero de matrimonios de puertorriqueños nacidos en los estados americanos y el doble del numero de matrimonios de nacidos en Puerto Rico oficiados por los sacerdotes catolicos.
Un poco más de la tercera parte de los católicos de Nueva York asisten a Misa el domingo . . . No más de uno de cada diez puertorriqueños en Nueva York asiste a Misa.
De 43,000 niños puertorriqueños que asisten a la escuela elemental en Nueva York, 5,000 van a las escuelas parroquiales, 9,000 reciben instrucción una vez en la semana en las parroquias, y 29,000 son desconocidos para la Iglesia.

Importancia. El estudio manejó una enorme cantidad de datos, que hasta la fecha ningún otro estudio había reunido, dirigido a llamar la atención del lector de la gran necesidad y del reto pastoral que enfrentaba la iglesia en Nueva York. El hecho mismo del estudio y la información puesta al descubierto, puso en manos de Mons. Maguire los datos factuales que necesitaba para persuadir al Cardenal Spellman de la necesidad de una acción inmediata e innovadora a favor de los puertorriqueños de Nueva York. Las conclusiones del estudio llegaron a ser el estímulo para una completa reorientación de la respuesta de la arquidiócesis a la migración puertorriqueña.
En la realización del estudio el Padre Kelly tuvo la experiencia de ser llamado y recibido de manera entusiasta por una variedad de grupos y organizaciones puertorriqueñas. Ellos encontraron en él un representante arquidiocesano preocupado por los intereses de los puertorriqueños e hispanos. Era claro que ese rol era necesario de manera oficial y permanente. De esta manera, mucho antes que el estudio concluyera, se decidió crear una nueva oficina dentro de la arquidiócesis con la responsabilidad de representar los intereses de la arquidiócesis dentro de la comunidad hispana y de defender los intereses hispanos dentro de las parroquias y otras instituciones de la arquidiócesis.

El Coordinador de la Acción Católica Hispana

Mons. Joseph Connolly

El 24 de marzo de 1953 por recomendación de Mons. Maguire, el Cardenal Spellman nombró a Mons. Joseph F. Connolly en la recientemente creada posición de Coordinador de la Acción Católica Hispana en la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York. La nota de prensa oficial acerca del nombramiento, decía: “Esta nueva posición ha sido establecida para integrar el trabajo que se ha llevado a cabo entre la comunidad puertorriqueña en Nueva York por las agencias católicas religiosas, educativas, y sociales, y para desarrollar el alcance del presente programa para proveer más facilidades a nuestros católicos recién llegados. Monseñor Connolly tendrá su sede principal en la 0ficina de la Cancillería de la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York, en el 451 Madison Ave.
Del contenido de esta nota se puede apreciar la importancia que revestía este gesto. La nueva oficina era, claramente, una de alto nivel y prestigio. El nombramiento en si mismo fue un mensaje importante a la comunidad puertorriqueña y reflejaba un sentido nuevo de responsabilidad por parte de la Arquidiócesis para con los puertorriqueños. Mons. Connolly era un sacerdote de la arquidiócesis, inteligente y dinámico, formado en Roma, un vez miembro de la facultad del seminario, con el título de Prelado Doméstico. Contribuyó con empuje, creatividad y sentido de importancia a la nueva oficina y su designación fue bien recibida por los portavoces de los puertorriqueños en Nueva York. Y, hay que señalar, que su residencia en la parroquia de la Encarnación le permitió compartir ideas, entusiasmo y planes con el Padre Illich.


III. DIRECCIONES NUEVAS

Mons. Connolly sintió la necesidad de un audaz e imaginativo comienzo, brindando algunos signos y gestos, indicativos de que una nueva era estaba comenzando en lo que concierne a la arquidiócesis y la comunidad puertorriqueña. En los primeros dos meses hubo dos hechos significativos por parte de la nueva Oficina: la institución de la Fiesta de San Juan Bautista y el primer programa de pormación de sacerdotes diocesanos de New York en Puerto Rico. Ambos hechos dejaron claro el que la arquidiócesis de forma directa e inmediata estaba consciente de la presencia puertorriqueña y había que responder a esta presencia con el propio clero.

La Fiesta de San Juan

El 24 de junio de 1953, “cuatrocientos cincuenta personas se hicieron presentes en la Catedral de San Patricio para una solemne Misa Pontifical celebrada por Su Eminencia, Francis Cardenal Spellman. El sermón fue en español”. Esta breve descripción de Mons. Connolly marcó el comienzo de una tradición en Nueva York y un importante logro de la comunidad puertorriqueña. En este tiempo no se daba aún ninguna manifestación pública importante de la presencia puertorriqueña, su cultura y su religiosidad. La Misa especial por la fiesta del santo patrón de la capital de Puerto Rico fue deliberadamente señalada por Mons. Connolly como “la fiesta hispana equivalente al Día de San Patricio”
La celebración de la fiesta se repitió en la catedral en 1954 y 1955. Presidieron obispos procedentes de Puerto Rico. Se cantaron canciones e himnos en español. Todos los seminaristas que estudiaban español en la arquidiócesis fueron llamados a participar en la celebración eucarística, e incluso participaron dignatarios de la comunidad puertorriqueña neoyorquina. La catedral se llenó en su totalidad de nuevo en 1954 y 1955. En 1954 la homilía en español fue predicada por uno de los dos primeros sacerdotes entrenados en Puerto Rico, quien después de un año de estudio en la Isla estaba de regreso en Nueva York.
Después de la tercera celebración de la fiesta en la Catedral en 1955, y siguiendo las sugerencias y el estimulo del P Illich, se planificó una forma nueva para la fiesta de 1956. Con la colaboración del P. Fitzpatrick y de la sra. Encarnación Armas, se planificó una celebración al aire libre en el recinto Rose Hill de la Universidad de Fordham, en el condado del Bronx. La idea fue la de recrear un ambiente típico de la Fiesta Patronal de Puerto Rico con elementos de celebración religiosos, cívicos y populares. Además de la celebración de la Misa al aire libre para la apertura de la fiesta, se organizaron barbacoas al estilo puertorriqueño, discursos y canciones improvisadas, junto con juegos y entretenimientos para los niños. Cuando un grupo grande de niños y adultos pugnaban por los dulces y regalos caídos de una piñata, los policías americanos de origen irlandés corrieron a proteger al Cardenal Spellman, preocupados de que corriera peligro de ser asaltado.
La celebración de la fiesta en Fordham tuvo un gran éxito popular. Sin embargo, las 30,000 personas que asistieron demostraron que eran demasiadas para ser acogidas cómodamente en la Universidad de Fordham. Hubo que pensar ante la masiva respuesta en un lugar más amplio y accesible para la celebración del año siguiente — se tomó la decisión de utilizar el estadio y las facilidades públicas de la Isla de Randall.

El Clero Diocesano de Nueva York en Puerto Rico.

 En junio de 1953 se tomó una decisión no publicitada pero igualmente importante. A las pocas semanas de haber recibido la ordenación sacerdotal dos de los recién ordenados sacerdotes diocesanos recibieron una asignación especial de residir y trabajar en una parroquia en Puerto Rico, donde tratarían no tan solo de aprender el idioma español sino igualmente conocer las costumbres e historia de los puertorriqueños. De la misma forma un grupo de seis seminaristas del seminario mayor interesados en el aprendizaje o mejoramiento del idioma español fueron enviados como ayudantes laicos a varias parroquias de la Isla por un período de seis semanas durante sus vacaciones estivales.
Se repitió el mismo procedimiento en los veranos de 1954 y 1955. Los sacerdotes y seminaristas enviados a Puerto Rico ciertamente llegaron a familiarizarse con la isla y su gente, y se dio un crecimiento sobre el conocimiento de Puerto Rico entre los seminaristas en general. Dicho programa tuvo sus limitaciones. Primero, no hubo un estudio organizado y serio de la lengua castellana. No todos pueden fácilmente absorber un nuevo idioma tan solo exponiéndose al mismo, especialmente los seminaristas quienes fueron allá por un tiempo relativamente corto. Segundo, el nivel de crecimiento de la población puertorriqueña en Nueva York fue tan rápido que ni siquiera el envío de dos sacerdotes al año fue suficiente.
En 1956 el Cardenal Spellman tomó una decisión más audaz e inusual. Después de su ordenación, la mitad de los nuevos sacerdotes de la arquidiócesis fueron asignados para estudiar durante el verano en el Foreign Service Institute de la Universidad de Georgetown en Washington, D. C. Participaron en un programa intensivo de dos meses de inmersión total en el aprendizaje conversacional del español, utilizando uno de los métodos más efectivos y avanzados de enseñanza de idioma disponible en ese tiempo. Al igual que la fiesta, el programa de entrenar los nuevos sacerdotes para hablar español, rápidamente sobrepasó los límites de la Universidad. El año siguiente la mitad de los nuevos ordenados fueron asignados a estudios de verano de español conversacional, conforme a la misma metodología, pero en esta ocasión en Puerto Rico. Lo mejor del año anterior se combinó con otras dimensiones de práctica pastoral y entrenamiento en destrezas de comunicación intercultural.

1958 Sacerdotes Nuevos Partiendo para Puerto Rico

El plan de coordinación

 Lo que ocupó un lugar muy especial en el corazón de Mons. Connolly fue el gran diseño de un “Plan de Coordinación de Acción Católica Hispana para la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York”. Le brindó una atención inmediata. En sus propias palabras : “El plan ha sido formulado solamente después de un análisis cuidadoso del estudio del Padre George Kelly, después de una reflexión deliberada sobre las funciones de los diferentes departamentos arquidiocesanos y después de seis meses de experiencia personal activa con muchos de los sacerdotes, personas y problemas de la población católica hispana de Nueva York”.
Mons. Connolly hablando de la historia de la adopción y desarrollo del tal plan, dijo: “El primer bosquejo fue sometido en su totalidad al Arzobispo Cardenal y a los sacerdotes directores de los varios departamentos de la Arquidiócesis. Sus comentarios fueron incorporados al bosquejo final, de una forma u otra. El plan final fue discutido en una reunión a la que asistieron entre 16 a 18 sacerdotes que se habían destacado en el apostolado hispano-americano en Nueva York. Esta reunión fue presidida por Su Eminencia, Francis Cardenal Spellman, quien previamente había expuesto su comentario al plan. En el transcurso de la reunión, la cual duró entre dos y media a tres horas, las discusiones sirvieron para destacar y clarificar elementos del plan los cuales eran debatibles o dudosos. El plan general fue aprobado.

El Consejo Coordinador. La primera parte del plan incluía la creación de un “Consejo Coordinador de Departamentos Arquidiocesanos” para la Acción Católica Hispana, integrado por los sacerdotes representantes de dichos departamentos. Con tal propósito Mons. Connolly ideó una especie de Mesa de Organizaciones de la Arquidiócesis con once jefes de departamentos. La razón para esta coordinación fue excelente y valiosa como principio permanente: “Los problemas y necesidades de los hispano-americanos católicos son de la misma variedad (y) . . . son sustancialmente sorprendentes en volumen como los problemas y necesidades del resto de la población católica. Consecuentemente los problemas de los católicos hispano-americanos debían ser referidos y ser resueltos por los departamentos ya existentes de acuerdo al área que le corresponda. Estos departamentos ya existen con una organización, administración y experiencia propias de su trabajo. Simplemente extienden sus esfuerzos para abarcar más y nuevas personas con problemas de su cobertura . . . Cualquier otro plan alternativo de coordinación parece imposible, si es una cuestión de una persona tratando de manejar los asuntos relacionados con cualquier y todos los departmentos arquidiocesanos existentes . . . en pocas palabras, el principio subyacente del plan de un Consejo Coordinador es el principio de unidad. No debería haber dos departamentos distintos realizando la misma función.”

El Comité de Laicos. La segunda parte del plan propugnaba la creación de un “Comité de Laicos por Acción Católica Hispana” en la línea del “Consejo Coordinador de las Organizaciones Católicas Laicas en la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York.” La finalidad principal de este comité fue la de asegurar una representación de la arquidiócesis en todas y cada una de las “asociaciones eclesiales y seglares Hispanoamericanas” y “en todos y cada uno de los diversos conferencias, talleres, seminarios, conferencias, comités, etc.”

La oficina del coordinador. La tercera parte del plan confirmaba la continuación, de acuerdo a nuevas líneas de definición, de la oficina del “Coordinador de Acción Católica Hispana”.  La función principal de la oficina fue definida como “para servir como centro de enlace entre la gente hispano-americana y nuestra propia Consejo de Coordinación y Comité de Laicos, así como con las muchas otras agencias eclesiásticas, cívicas y sociales en Nueva York con características similares.” Las funciones de la oficina fueron descritas en tres aspectos: “1. aclaración de todo lo que ocurre en la comunidad hispano-americana a los respectivos departamentos de la Arquidiócesis; 2. contacto con todas las agencias e individuos, tanto eclesiásticos como civiles, envueltos en los problemas que afectan a la población hispano-americana de la Arquidiócesis; 3. comunicación con todas las agencias e individuos, eclesiales y civiles, concernientes con las cosas que afectan a la población hispano-americana de esta Arquidiócesis.”
El plan tripartito general, presentado más arriba, fue seguido por una sección que ofrecían una mina de información y recomendaciones concretas concernientes a los sacerdotes, parroquias, capellanías, Caridades Católicas, Confraternidad de la Doctrina Cristiana, Tribunal Matrimonial, oficina de las Personas Desplazadas, colegios, Asociación de Maestros Católicos, educacion adulta, escuelas católicas, programas de radio y televisión, vicario para religiosos, seminarios mayor y menor, acción social (asuntos legales, asuntos educacionales, viviendas) y vocaciones.

Importancia. El plan de coordinación denotaba una visión y un diseño magníficos para la movilización de la Arquidiócesis en beneficio de la comunidad puertorriqueña. Se tomaron los datos científicos y sus sugerencias del estudio del Padre Kelly, elaborándolos y plasmándolos en una coleccion de recomendaciones — un programa completo de desarrollo y acción. La exhaustividads del plan, el proceso de consulta individual con los jefes de departamentos, las discusiones que envolvía al Cardenal, todo ayudó a crear una nueva y constante conciencia de las necesidades de la comunidad puertorriqueña y de la responsabilidad de la Arquidiócesis. Un valor especial de este plan lo fue su articulación del principio de unidad para acción pastoral en favor de los Hispanos y su llamado para “una integración de estos, nuestros ciudadanos nuevos y numerosos, en los modelos existentes de vida arquidiocesana” tanto como “evitar la evolución infeliz e indeseable, en consecuencia, de una diócesis separada dentro de la Arquidiócesis.”
Desgraciadamente este plan tan preparado y bueno nunca fue implementado como tal. Elementos importantísimos como el Consejo Coordinador y el Comité de Laicos nunca fueron establecidos como Mons. Connolly deseaba, aunque 16 años más tarde uno de sus sucesores estableció una especie de consejo coordinador con directrices diferentes. La Oficina Hispana de Acción Católica continuó creciendo y abogando efectivamente por los intereses hispanos, presentada como una agencia netamente de acción hispana.

Actividades en otros departamentos

Como resultado del plan de coordinación o independiente de este, se inició una variedad amplia de nuevos programas y se movilizó programas y instituciones existentes para brindar un mejor servicio a las necesidades de los puertorriqueños.

Clero. En abril de 1955 Mons. Connolly informó: “Nueva York cuenta en la actualidad con más clero de habla hispana, gran parte nacido en Nueva York, que los existentes en la diócesis de Ponce, Puerto Rico. Existen ahora 72 parroquias en Nueva York con por lo menos un sacerdote de habla hispana.”

Caridades Católicas. Desde un comienzo, la administración de Caridades Católicas estuvo consciente de la cantidad y de las necesidades de los puertorriqueños en Nueva York e intentaron hacer frente a las mismas. Se llevó a cabo un estudio especial dentro de la organización y se implementaron programas en la oficina central y las oficinas de distrito. En el año 1954 aproximadamente una tercera parte de la población atendida en las 39 agencias del Departamento de Cuidado de Niños era puertorriqueña. El porcentaje de clientes puertorriqueños visto en cada una de las cuatro oficinas del Departamento de Servicios a la Familia fue 98% en el Harlem Este, 34% en la oficina central, 23% en el Bronx y 13% en Washington Heights. Aún más alto era el porcentaje de personas de habla hispana a las que se atendía en este departamento. Mons. Connolly informó en abril de 1955, “Basta afirmar que este programa es el esfuerzo más grande llevado a cabo por parte de la Iglesia para servir a la población puertorriqueña — tanto la que vive en la Isla como afuera — con la excepción posible del Programa de Educación Católica en la Isla”.

 Confraternidad de la Doctrina Cristiana. Se erigió una biblioteca con libros dedicados a la educación catequética en lengua española. Se creó un programa de entrenamiento de catequistas bilingües para la formación de adultos. Se organizaron igualmente conferencias prematrimoniales Caná y Pre Caná en español.

Tribunal Matrimonial. Dos sacerdotes licenciados en derecho canónico que hablan español fueron incorporados al servicio del tribunal eclesiástico, formularios en español fueron preparados para los clientes hispanos, y procedimientos fueron modificados y ajustados para atender mejor a las necesidades de Hispanos con problemas matrimoniales.

Educación Adulta. Una variedad de programas exitosos de educación de adultos fueron iniciados o continuados en las parroquias de Santo Nombre, Santa Cecilia, San Pablo, San Esteban, y San Juan Crisóstomo al igual que en Casita María, por el clero y religiosos locales, Los Trabajadores Sociales Católicos Españoles, el A.C.T.U. y otros.

Escuelas Católicas. Mons. Connolly informó en abril de 1955, “El número de puertorriqueños en las escuelas primarias y secundarias ha aumentado notablemente. Escuelas individuales están implementando diversas medidas para abordar las necesidades educativas de los puertorriqueños.” Un modelo de este empeño lo fue la Escuela Commander Shea, fundada en 1942, como un anexo de la escuela parroquial de Santa Cecilia. Dicha escuela se llenó con estudiantes puertorriqueños, y las clases fueron agrupados, evaluados y divididos de forma creativa de acuerdo a las necesidades de los niños. Se formó igualmente una asociación de padres muy comprometida. La escuela secundaria Cathedral Girls fue especialmente receptiva para con las jóvenes puertorriqueñas que se graduaban de la escuela Shea. Algunas continuaron su educación en la Universidad Marymount.”

La Hora Católica. El primer programa de radio en español auspiciado por la arquidiócesis lo fue “ La Hora Católica Hispana” el cual tenía una duración de 15 minutos y se transmitía semanalmente por WHOM, los sábados a las 9:45 de la noche.”

Seminario. Durante el verano de 1953 seis seminaristas estudiaron en Puerto Rico. En octubre de dicho año Mons. Connolly habló a todos los estudiantes acerca del trabajo de Acción Católica Hispana. Se organizaron talleres semanales presentados por los seminaristas que fueron a Puerto Rico. Se estableció un “Salón de Acción Católica Hispana.” Se presentó una serie de conferencias y discusiones con sacerdotes y líderes laicos envueltos en la comunidad hispana. Un curso rápido de español, “Spanish through Pictures,” fue añadido al programa ya existente de Español Avanzado impartido por el Padre Leandro Mayoral, C.M. En 1954 los seminaristas regresaron a la Isla, y al año siguiente eran cincuenta y cinco seminaristas los matriculados en el curso rápido, y veinte en el avanzado.

Otras actividades de la Oficina de Acción Católica Hispana.

En adicción a la inauguración de la Fiesta de San Juan y los programas de enseñanza del idioma, el coordinador de Acción Católica Hispana desarrolló diversos programas:

Guía Católica. Se publicó por parte de la Oficina de Acción Católica Hispana un directorio de las iglesias Católicas en Nueva York donde se ofrecían servicios en español. Cien mil copias fue distribuidos en Nueva York y se enviaron cien mil copias a Puerto Rico para ser distribuidas entre los que planificaban venir a Nueva York.

 Trabajadores migrantes agrícolas. En julio de 1954 dio comienzo un programa de visitas a los campos localizados en el valle de Kerhonkson, al oeste de Kingston donde cerca de 300 trabajadores agrícolas puertorriqueños vivían y laboraban. El 15 de agosto de 1954 la Misa se comenzó a celebrar en el campo al aire libre, los domingos por las tardes durante la estación.

Peregrinación del Año Mariano. Una peregrinación con motivo del Año Mariano con todas las oraciones e himnos en español convocó cerca de 2,400 personas en la Catedral de San Patricio el 12 de septiembre de 1954.

New York Excelsior. El 25 de marzo de 1955 se empezó a publicar para la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York un semanario en lengua española, con una tirada inicial de 5,200 ejemplares. La publicación, una edición neoyorquino del periodico nacional hispana Excelsior, incluía artículos generales de la edición nacional y dos páginas de noticias de la arquidiócesis bajo la responsabilidad del Coordinador de Acción Católica Hispana.

La Conferencia sobre el Cuidado Espiritual de los Migrantes Puertorriqueños

En abril de 1955 se llevó a cabo en San Juan de Puerto Rico una importante reunión, la primera Conferencia del Cuidado Espiritual de los Migrantes Puertorriqueños. Aún cuando fue auspiciada por los obispos de las dos diócesis puertorriqueños, San Juan y Ponce, sin embargo el Cardenal Spellman brindó un fuerte apoyo personal y financiero, e incluso accedió a sufragar la participación de los sacerdotes procedentes de Nueva York. El organizador oficial de la conferencia lo fue el Rev. Thomas Gildea, C.S.S.R. sacerdote redentorista de la parroquia de San Agustín en Puerta de Tierra, San Juan; los preparativos y planes fueron elaborador en su inmensa mayoría por los sacerdotes Joseph Fitzpatrick, S.J. e Ivan Illich de Nueva York.
La conferencia, primera en su clase, fue dirigida por el Rev. Padre William Ferree, S.M., Rector de la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico. Asistieron a la conferencia 35 sacerdotes de 16 diócesis del continente y 75 sacerdotes de la isla. El propósito de la misma fue el de llevar a cabo una honesta y abierta revisión del cuidado espiritual que se estaba brindando a los puertorriqueños tanto en la isla como en el continente, analizar elementos de su historia, cultura y religiosidad presentes en la historia personal de los migrantes así como el ambiente en los que ellos fueron acogidos al llegar al continente, y discutire metodologías y medidas prácticas que se podrían ofrecer a los sacerdotes que confrontaban el reto de acoger a estos nuevos emigrantes.
El informe final de la conferencia fue elaborado por Padre Ferree, Padre Fitzpatrick y Padre Illich. El Cardenal Spellman se ofreció a cubrir los costos de la publicación del informe y solicitó a Mons. Connolly que se distribuyeran copias suficientes en todas las agencias de la arquidiócesis que estuvieran involucradas en el apostolado hispano, así como también a todos los obispos que tuvieran puertorriqueños en sus diócesis al igual que a los obispos de la Conferencia del Suroeste.
Una consecuencia interesante e importantísimo de la conferencia fue que el Padre Ferree quedó tan impactado por la capacidad del Padre Illich hasta el punto que solicitó al Cardenal Spellman que prestara los servicios del Padre Illich a la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico como Vice-Rector. EL Cardenal estuvo de acuerdo, y al año siguiente el Padre Illich se trasladó a Ponce para asumir esta nueva responsabilidad.

La Política de la Parroquia Integrada

La reacción inicial de las autoridades arquidiocesanas al incremento de la presencia de puertorriqueños y otras personas de origen hispano en Nueva York fue la de utilizar la estructura pastoral para inmigrantes ya probada anteriormente, la parroquia nacional. Cuando el Cardenal Spellman llegó a Nueva York se negó a continuar abriendo parroquias nacionales. En 1939 le encomendó a los Padres Redentoristas el cuidado de la parroquia local o territorial de Santa Cecilia. La parroquia quedó una parroquia geográfica con sacerdotes americanos que continuaban su servicio de los fieles existences irlandeses y alemanes pero que tenían la capacidad de hacer las adaptaciones necessarias en la vida de la parroquia por los recien llegados.
El Cardenal Spellman, basado en la información brindada por el estudio de la población puertorriqueña y su crecimiento y extensión rápidos por la Arquidiócesis, estableció una norma pastoral nueva y radical: en cualquier sitio donde vivían los puertorriqueños la parroquia local debía acomodarse a ellos y comenzar a funcionar en una manera bilingüe y bicultural. El modelo de la parroquia de Santa Cecilia se hizo norma en toda la arquidiócesis, incluso en las parroquias administradas por el clero diocesano. Las consecuencias de esta decisión pastoral fueron enormes: el clero y religiosos locales estaban obligados a utilizar nuevas formas de comunicación e incluso se verían en la necesidad de reclutar clero y religiosos auxiliares de habla hispana; todos los programas, agencias y oficinas diocesanos tenían que acomodarse a la realidad bilingüe y bicultural; y estos nuevos inmigrantes no se encontrarían aislados por parte de la iglesia, sino que serían integrados de inmediato en la vida de la parroquia local.

Razón. La razón fundamental que llevó al Cardenal a tomar estas medidas rápidas y efectivas fue la carencia de sacerdotes puertorriqueños. Hablando del influjo de puertorriqueños, el Cardenal Spellman manifestó: “Ellos llegan a nuestro territorio continental con la cruz sobre su pechos y en sus corazones . . . pero sin sacerdotes que les acompañen en su migración, el primer grupo católico en ese tipo de situación en la historia de la Migración Americana. Es una distinción desafortunada, pero es una distinción inevitable. Sus sacerdotes no vienen con ellos simplemente porque ellos no pueden acompañarles. No hay suficientes sacerdotes en Puerto Rico para que se hagan cargo de los que permanecen en la Isla. En la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York hay 2,500 sacerdotes para atender pastoralmente a 1,400,000 personas. En las dos diócesis de Puerto Rico, San Juan y Ponce, tan solo 310 sacerdotes atienden a 2,250.000 personas. y menos del 25 % de estos sacerdotes son nacidos en Puerto Rico. Aún considerando únicamente estas dos características distintivas de la migración puertorriqueña, la iglesia católica en los Estados Unidos se enfrentaba una vez más con una gran responsabilidad. Es una responsabilidad tan antigua como la misma Migración Americana. La forma de definir esta responsabilidad es “integración” Gracias a la Divina Providencia cada sacerdote en Nueva York se ha convertido en un misionero para este pueblo de Puerto Rico, terriblemente necesitado del cuidado pastoral que sus sacerdotes celosos y heroicos en su pequeña isla nunca pudieron prestarles debido a su escaso número.”
Otra razón, observó el Padre Fitzpatrick fue que “la historia de las parroquias nacionales o de grupos lingüísticos específicos estaba comenzando a mostrar ciertas desventajas de gran importancia. Cuando la tercera generación de alemanes, italianos, o polacos crecieron, pocos de entre ellos aún hablaban el idioma de sus antepasados y la mayoria de ellos habían asimilado el estilo de vida americano y se habían distanciando de la parroquia nacional. Como consecuencia, grupos de antiguas iglesias nacionales, a veces dos y tres en la misma zona, continuaron existiendo con un poquísimos feligreses . . . En la parroquia integrada quizás podrían darse problemas de integración con la primera generación pero estaría libre de los problemas de la parroquia nacional de tercera generación que había perdido su utilidad. Finalmente, dado que los puertorriqueños se instalaban en zonas pobres de donde los primeros habitantes se habían desplazado, las parroquias existentes en esas zonas contaban con recursos valiosos, como los edificios de los templos y las escuelas parroquiales, los cuales podían ser utilizados por los nuevos feligreses. ”

Efectividad. Una limitación a la decision de utilizar parroquias integradas en vez de parroquias nacionales fue que tendía a permanecer en la memoria de los puertorriqueños la sensación de que heredaban algo ya hecho por otros, no que creaban algo por ellos mismos. Además de no tener la confianza de que esa parroquia, templo o escuela fuera “suyos” en el sentido que habían experimentado los primeros emigrantes que habían construido y levantado esas parroquias como “propias”, frecuentemente el templo o escuela heredado estaba viejo, decadente y era muy costoso el repararlo y mantenerlo. Igualmente, al menos al principio, en la parroquia integrada se celebraban misas y se ofrecían servicios especiales en su propio idioma a los puertorriqueños, pero a menudo en una capilla en los sótanos de la iglesia, en un salón de la escuela, o en una capilla en otra parte de la parroquia. Fue inevitable que en muchas parroquias los puertorriqueños se sintieran como feligreses de “segunda clase”.
Hoy en día más de cien parroquias locales de la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York, algo más de una cuarta parte del total, atienden pastoralmente tanto a los puertorriqueños como a otros hispanos en su propio idioma a la vez que en inglés. En gran parte de ellas los hispanos son el grupo étnico y cultural dominante; después de todo, muchas de ellas han llegado a convertirse en parroquias “hispanas”!


IV. EL APOGEO DE LA ACCIÓN CATÓLICA HISPANA

La originalidad de Mons. Connolly fue su visión, planificación y un comienzo audaz, y no necesariamente una paciente perseverancia en la implementación de metas a largo plazo. En 1956 por una serie de razones personales no le prestó el cuidado y la atención necesarios a la oficina del Coordinador de Acción Católica Hispana. En noviembre, otro sacerdote diocesano, el P. Jaime J. Wilson, fue nombrado coordinador en funciones y en mayo de 1957 recibió el título de coordinador permanente en sustitución de Mons. Connolly. Durante los siguientes seis años proveó la coordinación y el liderazgo que lograron una consolidación y expansión del compromiso de la arquidiócesis para con los puertorriqueños y los demás grupos hispanoamericanos.

Expansión de la Fiesta de San Juan Bautista

El nuevo estilo de celebración de la Fiesta de San Juan Bautista en el campus de la Universidad Fordham en junio de 1956 llegó a convertirse en un evento tan exitoso que sobrepasó la capacidad de la universidad de manejarla . Aun así el modelo fue excelente; la Fiesta tenía que tener una dimensión popular en adición a la litúrgica.

En año 1957 el Padre Wilson alquiló el estadio de la ciudad en la Isla de Randall y comunicó que la fiesta se llevaría a cabo en dicho estadio. Como estadio, éste no fue muy accesible. Es difícil de llegar a él aún cuando está cerca de la Isla de Manhattan, especialmente del Harlem hispano, porque es conectado con el Puente Triboro. A pesar de las dificultades reunieron entre 30 y 40 mil personas para la celebración de la Fiesta. Fue un gran espectáculo católico: cientos y miles de Hijas de María marcharon con sus vestidos blancos, se rezó el Rosario, exhibiéndose grandes cartelones y pancartas con los misterios del Rosario, y personas marcharon con las banderas de sus sociedades parroquiales. Una Misa pontifical fue presidida por el Cardenal Spellman en un gran altar especialmente levantado en el centro del campo del estadio. El Cardenal entró el estadio escoltado por una procesión enorme de laicos, monaguillos y sacerdotes y recibido por la concurrencia con aplausos y alegres vivas al Cardenal y a la Iglesia.
A continuación de la celebración de la Misa se llevó a cabo un programa cívico y cultural. Fueron presentados diversos dignatarios allí presentes, hubo discursos y felicitaciones, y se ofreció un entretenimiento de la gran multitud concurrente gracias a la participación de diversos artistas, músicos, y otros, tanto puertorriqueños como latinos en general, tantos profesionales como amateur. Deseaban que fuera una típica fiesta patronal puertorriqueña. Al concluir los actos litúrgicos la gran multitud participante se fue esparciendo a lo largo y ancho de las facilidades del parque. El estadio está ubicado en la parte central del parque grande de la Isla de Randall, y el área se pobló por las familias puertorriqueñas haciendo un picnic, jugando, y cantando, las cuales se entremezcladas con sacerdotes y religiosos con quienes se entendían en español.
Se quedó establecido de esta forma el nuevo modelo de celebración de la Fiesta de San Juan. Durante el tiempo que el Padre Wilson dirigió la organización y puesta a cabo de la fiesta fue creciendo en calidad y organización. Hubo cambios en el espectáculo, asistieron dignatarios nuevos, pero se mantuvó el evento con un carácter religioso, cívico, y cultural. Dado que la fiesta se constituyó en una institución, había competencia entre las personas para ser socios de la misma. El Padres Wilson organizó un Comité de Ciudadanos encargados de planificarla, los cuales se reunían regularmente durante el año para la coordinación y promoción de la misma, llegándose a convertir el Comité en la organización más prestigiosa de la comunidad católica puertorriqueña. Se consideraba un alto privilegio el ser nombrado presidente de la Fiesta al finalizarse los eventos de la misma cada año. Hubo un grupo de distinguidos puertorriqueños, líderes laicos, que tuvieron el honor de ocupar dicho puesto.
En su día la Fiesta de San Juan adquirió una gran importancia en la vida de la comunidad puertorriqueña. Ello va unido a una característica inherente al puertorriqueño: el respeto. En esos momentos todo lo que la opinión pública pensaba de los puertorriqueños en Nueva York era que se trataba de una comunidad pobre, que no hablaban inglés y que estaban llevando a la quiebra a la ciudad. Esta es ciertamente la misma historia de todos los grupos de inmigrantes; lo mismo se había dicho antes de los irlandeses, italianos, negros y los demás. La Fiesta ofreció una oportunidad para demostrar ante la ciudadanía los valores religiosos y culturales de la comunidad puertorriqueña, porque hasta el momento los puertorriqueños no tenían ningun medio de expresión de su cultura, lengua, o dignidad. Este fue el primer evento que hizo pública por toda la ciudad la presencia de la comunidad puertorriqueña; no hubo otro ninguno. A lo largo de unos años fue el evento más importante de la comunidad puertorriqueña en la ciudad de Nueva York.

Formación para el cuidado pastoral de los puertorriqueños

 Una consecuencia de la decisión de tratar de alcanzar parroquias integradas a lo largo de toda la arquidiócesis fue la necesidad de un programa extenso de formación del personal eclesiástico no hispano — seminaristas, sacerdotes y religiosos/as — en la lengua española y en la cultura y catolicismo puertorriqueñas. El envío de sacerdotes y seminaristas a Puerto Rico en los años 1953, 1954 y 1955 ciertamente brindó una experiencia existencial del segundo. El entrenamiento intensivo en español llevado a cabo en la Universidad de Georgetown durante el verano de 1956 para la mitad de los sacerdotes recién ordenados ofreció definitivamente una formación superior en las destrezas del lenguaje.

El Programa en Ponce. El P Iván Illich, en su capacidad nueva de Vice-Rector de la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico sugirió una solución ideal para el entrenamiento del personal eclesiástico. Los seminaristas, sacerdotes y religiosas podrían ser enviados a Puerto Rico. De esta forma vivirían en carne propia el choque que supone el entrar y ajustarse a otra cultura, a la vez que aprenderían a apreciar los valores de Puerto Rico, su gente y su iglesia. Igualmente se beneficiarían con las más recientes técnicas y metodologías en el aprendizaje del idioma. El método de enseñanza para aprender a hablar el español del Instituto de Servicios Extranjeros de la Universidad de Georgetown podría ser utilizado igualmente en la Universidad de Ponce. En el verano de 1957 el Padre Illich inauguró un programa especial de entrenamiento diseñado básicamente para el personal del continente que trabaja con puertorriqueños, bajo la denominación de Instituto de Formación Misionera de la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico.
Si grande fue la sorpresa de los recién ordenados en junio 1956 al reunirse con el Cardenal Spellman donde recibieron la asignación para estudiar en Washington, se puede imaginar las reacciones de los ordenados de la clase de 1957. En ese tiempo el estilo de asignaciones del clero era de corte militar: se daban órdenes y no se preguntaban preferencias. El Cardenal tomó en ese momento una decisión todavía más audaz, la de enviar a la mitad de los nuevos sacerdotes ordenados no ya fuera de la arquidiócesis sino incluso fuera del país. Ese procedimiento fue utilizado en años posteriores y se llegó incluso a ver como una rutina por parte de los sacerdotes recién ordenados la posibilidad de pasar los meses de verano en Puerto Rico estudiando. Para 1959 hubo cierta preocupación para verificar el interés en tal experiencia de parte de los sacerdotes antes de su ordenación, y esta información influyó las decisiones acerca de sus asignaciones. La experiencia había demostrado que la motivación tenía mucho que ver con el éxito en el aprendizaje de la lengua y en la adaptación cultural.
Los sacerdotes no fueron los únicos en ser asignados a Puerto Rico. Un grupo numeroso de religiosos, religiosas al igual que seminaristas fueron enviados cada verano a Ponce, en ocasiones cuarenta o cincuenta en total. El entrenamiento promedio del clero constaba de ocho semanas y lo de los religiosos, de seis semanas. En adicción a las seis o siete horas de ejercicios en español hablado en pequeños grupos, hubo cursos dictados por expertos en los diferentes campos sobre cultura puertorriqueña, latinoamericana y americana y sobre los problemas particulares de la comunicación intercultural. Además del estudio teórico sobre los retos de vivir en una cultura diferente a la propia, vivieron unas experiencias personales enriquecedoras y propulsadas por Padre Illich. Clima, programación, comidas, estilo de organización, actitudes en referencia a la puntualidad, formas de las celebraciones litúrgicas, uso continuo del español — todos juntos conspiraron para “puertorriqueñizar” a los estudiantes.
Una parte del programa especialmente significativa para los sacerdotes fue la asignación para ejercer su ministerio presbiteral los fines de semana en diversas parroquias de la Isla. De una forma u otra, cada uno se vio en una situación profesional en la cual se le exigían la comunicación. La experiencia fue un reto y a la vez enriquecedora. Las interacciones de cada fin de semana les forzaron a la utilización de destrezas en el lenguaje recién adquiridas, les expusieron a los sacerdotes a la cultura puertorriqueña viva, y ello les permitieron experimentar la calidez y afectuosidad de la gente. Generalmente al final del verano los estudiantes, especialmente los sacerdotes, tenían la oportunidad de permanecer cuatro semanas adicionales viviendo en una parroquia puertorriqueña y ayudando en el ministerio pastoral.
La experiencia formativa puertorriqueña influenció profundamente en toda una generación de sacerdotes de Nueva York. El vivir fuera de su propia cultura, aunque hubiera sido por corto tiempo, les ayudó a adquirir una perspectiva crítica de la misma. El contacto con el catolicismo hispano les ayudó a discernir la característica irlandesa de la iglesia de Nueva York. El vivir una experiencia de pluralismo les fue muy útil ya que toda la Iglesia empezaba a cambiar a partir del Concilio Vaticano II. El clero formado en Puerto Rico llegó a hacer la vanguardia pastoral de la arquidiócesis.

El Programa Hayes. Satisfecho por el éxito del programa llevado a cabo en Ponce en 1957, el Cardenal Spellman no sólo decidió que la mitad de los ordenados en 1958 fueran a Puerto Rico, sino que el 30 de julio de ese mismo año “pidió a la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico extender sus cursos de formación misionera a Nueva York con vistas a consolidar la preparación en el tiempo más corto posible de una cantidad adecuada de sacerdotes, religiosas y personal laico con miras a un efectivo trabajo (misionero), entre alrededor de 500,000 hispanos presentes en la Arquidiócesis.”
Mons. Illich elaboró el borrador de una propuesta para un “Plan General de Formación del Personal de la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York para un Apostolado Efectivo con los Hispanohablantes” el cual pensó presentar a la consideración del Cardenal Spellman antes del 15 de noviembre. Dicho documento lo hizo circular entre un grupo selecto para su evaluación, crítica y corrección. El carácter de la propuesta fue que “existe una considerable diferencia entre el personal necesitado y el personal disponible” y que “esta diferencia debe llenarse tan rápido y tanto como sea posible” – i.e., entre diciembre de 1958 y septiembre de 1961. El documento presentaba detalladamente las necesidades básicas de los hispanos en Nueva York y cómo han de ser atendidas por la Iglesia. Pronosticaba cómo el número y distribución de los hispanos necesitados de atención especial cambiaría para 1970, estimaba el número mínimo de sacerdotes y otro personal especializado que se necesitaría, proponía un programa de formación misionera para la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York y, finalmente, presentó un presupuesto a tres años vista para poder llevar a cabo el programa.
De las muchas recomendaciones específicas presentadas por Mons. Illich pocas fueron adoptadas e implementadas. Una de ellas fue un programa de entrenamiento de español para religiosos, similar al que se impartía en Ponce, pero que podría ofrecerse en Nueva York. El 29 de enero de 1959 Mons. John P. Haverty, Superintendente de Escuelas de la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York, anunció que “comenzando el sábado 7 de marzo un curso especial de español de 12 semanas de duración diseñado para maestros de las escuelas católicas de la Arquidiócesis se impartiría en la Escuela Superior Cardinal Hayes. Este programa cuenta con el apoyo de su Eminencia el Cardenal y va a ser dictado bajo el auspicio de la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico.”
La finalidad era tanto la de brindar una continuación del programa de Ponce a los maestros religiosos quienes estudiaron en el verano anterior como también iniciar a los que planificaban estudiar en Puerto Rico el verano siguiente. Profesores laicos interesados, quienes planeaban coger cursos de verano en la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico, fueron igualmente incluidos en los cursos. Las clases consistían en dos sesiones de ejercicios intensivos de español hablado de dos horas, y otra de una hora y media hora de duración.

Instituto de Comunicación Intercultural

Técnicamente, el nuevo programa de primavera y las proyecciones para la continuación fueron un proyecto del Instituto de Formación Misionera de la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico y obviamente, el programa de verano fue la expresión fundamental de este instituto. De hecho el responsable para los dos programas fue un sacerdote de Nueva York y el mismo diseñó ambos programas teniendo en mente las necesidades de Nueva York. En 1959 se determinó referirse a estos programas de una nueva forma, como actividades del Instituto de Comunicación Intercultural, y en diciembre de este año, el recién denominado instituto fue incorporado en el Estado de Nueva York.
La incorporación puso bajo la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York el control total del Instituto. El instituto continuó impartiendo regularmente el programa semanal de enseñanza de lengua española en la Escuela Secundaria Cardinal Hayes durante los semestres de otoño y primavera cada año. Poco a poco se añadió un segundo horario nocturno alternativo de clases en el Cardinal Hayes y, ocasionalmente, tanto en el seminario arquidiocesano como en otros centros regionales. Durante los meses de verano el Instituto de Comunicación Intercultural erróneamente fue identificado como un instituto de la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico. De hecho era un programa especial dirigido por la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York y llevado a cabo en las facilidades físicas de la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico. Mientras ocupó el puesto de vicerector o rector un sacerdote de la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York no hubo necesidad de clarificación alguna. Posteriormente, cuando un laico ocupó el puesto de rector de la universidad y dicho centro adquirió una mayor autonomía, la relación entre la arquidiócesis y la universidad en cuanto al tema del programa de verano se convirtió en un asunto de otra índole exigiéndose un acuerdo contractual formal.
Durante los diez años siguientes el estilo y contenido de ambos programas, el de Ponce y Hayes, permanecieron básicamente iguales. El Cardenal nombró a un sacerdote de la arquidiócesis como director del Instituto. Durante el año escolar era un trabajo a tiempo parcial, convirtiéndose durante el verano en trabajo a tiempo completo. Para hacerse una idea de la importancia y del interés de la arquidiócesis en ambos programas se indica que el presupuesto anual de los mismos era de por lo menos $100,000.

Los Cursillos de Cristiandad

Una meta a corto plazo de la arquidiócesis fue la de entrenar tan rápida y extensamente como fuera posible al clero y a los religiosos no hispanos para que pudieran atender a las necesidades tanto de los puertorriqueños como de los otros hispanos. Una meta a más largo plazo fue el desarrollar un liderazgo nativo en la Comunidad Hispana de Nueva York, primero formando un liderazgo laico de calidad, confiando posteriormente que del mismo surgieran vocaciones religiosas de entre las familias hispanas profundamente ligadas a la Iglesia.
Mons. Wilson estuvo muy interesado en la implementación de un nuevo y muy exitoso programa de evangelización y conversión ampliamente difundido y que tuvo su origen en Ciudad Real, España, y que había tenido un fulgurante desarrollo en España, México y otros puntos de América Latina. Se trataba del Cursillo de Cristiandad, o Curso Breve en Cristiandad. Después de un anterior y frustrado primer experimento, los Cursillos comenzaron a impartirse en la arquidiócesis en septiembre de 1960. En dicha ocasión un equipo de laicos méxico-americanos provenientes de Laredo, Texas, vinieron a dar el primer Cursillo. Aún cuando fue bien recibido y fue muy efectivo, fue una modificación del esquema original pastoral procedente de España. En diciembre de ese año, a invitación de la Arquidiócesis, dos expertos laicos hispanos procedentes de la diócesis donde se originaron los Cursillos en España, vinieron a ofrecer el segundo y tercer cursillos en Nueva York.
El cursillo es una experiencia altamente organizada de tres días, un fin de semana de estudio y retiro, con fuerte énfasis en la experiencia comunitaria. Su contenido está enfocado , especialmente en su forma original, a las distorsiones e inadecuaciones del catolicismo hispanoamericano tradicional y a una comprensión teológica de la vida sacramental, dee madurez cristiana y de la responsabilidad de la persona laica en la Iglesia. Después de asistir a un cursillo, el participante promedio está entusiasmado, muy motivado y dispuesto a participar activamente en el apostolado en su parroquia local.
Al principio los Cursillos fueron dados en el Seminario Tagaste de los Padres Agustinos Recoletos. Para diciembre de 1961 la arquidiócesis estableció el Centro San José en el oeste de la calle 142 en Manhattan para el movimiento de Cursillos y otros trabajos de formación bajo la dirección del Coordinador de la Acción Católica Hispana. La administración quedó bajo la responsabilidad los Agustinos Recoletos. En marzo de 1962 el movimiento de Cursillos tuvo tal crecimiento que se juzgó apropiado se formara la estructura de gobierno a nivel diocesano para el Cursillo, el Secretariado, cuyos miembros son asignados por el Obispo.
Durante los últimos dos décadas el movimiento de Cursillo ha sido el instrumento principal de formación de líderes laicos hispanos dentro de la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York. Miles de personas han “hecho” el Cursillo, y mucho de ellos han recibido una formación avanzada y especializada para el apostolado en los programas asociados al movimiento de Cursillos en el Centro San José. Los Cursillistas formaron el núcleo básico de líderes laicos hispanos en casi todas las parroquias hispanas de la Arquidiócesis. Quizás una razón que explique la rápida expansión, gran popularidad y considerable impacto del Cursillo entre los hispanos de Nueva York lo fue el hecho de que este movimiento diocesano ofreció un marco de referencia y una comunidad para el inmigrante hispano, quien se hubiera visto sumergido en la cultura neoyorquina dominante no hispana, con el peligro de perder su identidad como hispano y como católico. Sus celebraciones religiosas y sus grandes manifestaciones y asambleas, despertaron la conciencia en cada cursillista hispano de que no estaba solo en Nueva York, y a la vez, le ofreció grandes oportunidades para auto expresarse, reconocimiento y liderazgo.

Caballeros de San Juan Bautista

Un intento previo y menos efectivo para fortalecer la identidad católica y brindar un apoyo fraternal a los hombres laicos hispanos fue la institución de los Caballeros de San Juan Bautista, una organización fraternal católica hispana que tuvo su origen en Chicago. Después de tres meses de estudio y planificación, en diciembre de 1957 los Caballeros de San Juan Bautista se organizaron en Nueva York. Se establecieron rápidamente consejos de los Caballeros en las parroquias de Santa Agonía, la Milagrosa. y Nuestra Señora de Lourdes; se tomaron los pasos primeros para establecerlos en las parroquias de Santo Nombre, San Miguel, y la Natividad; y una escuela de formación de líderes funcionaba semanalmente en San Mateo. Se brindaron orientaciones en temas como visitas a los hogares, cooperativas de crédito, vivienda, oportunidades de empleo, y la necesidad de aprender inglés. La formación espiritual se brindaba a través de días de retiro y horas santas.
Mons. Wilson tenía grandes esperanzas de que “este programa de los Caballeros ofreciera grandes posibilidades de servir como una organización de acogida para dar la bienvenida y orientar al nuevo migrante y ponerlo en contacto con la Iglesia y los grupos apostólicos ya existentes. Como una organización católica con presencia en toda la ciudad, ofrece la ventaja de brindar un fuerte apoyo muy necesario para los hombres recientemente llegados y que viven en parroquias donde las sociedades parroquiales todavía no se han preparado para recibir a quienes sólo entienden español.” Estas grandes expectativas nunca se alcanzaron. Los Caballeros nunca llegaron a ser lo que sus fundadores esperaba, pero el movimiento del Cursillo cumplió con creces la mayoría de los sueños para los Caballeros.

La Gran Misión

En unas partes de Latinoamérica al final de 1950, se dio un proyecto misionero especial llamado la Gran Misión el cual tuvo un éxito notable. Un equipo internacional de sacerdotes — clero local, latinoamericanos, y españoles — se concentraban en una ciudad o en una misión diócesana por un período de varios meses. Coordinando sus actividades de acuerdo a un plan y un horario maestros, ellos saturaban pastoralmente un área. La misión incluía una fase pre-misión de algunos meses de visita a los hogares y preparación parroquial; un programa de misión para hombres, mujeres, y jovenes en el estilo clásico de misión parroquial; y un programa posterior, post-misión. Tuvo resultados extraordinarios en relación al número de personas contactadas, sacramentos administrados, y el fervor y entusiasmo provocados.
Mons. Wilson pensó en adoptar esto procedimiento para la revitalización de la comunidad puertorriqueña e hispana en la ciudad de Nueva York. El acercamiento masivo utilizado en ciudades de Latinoamérica no era posible en Nueva York por varias razones. Primero, Nueva York no es una ciudad solamente de habla hispana y católica, por lo que la Gran Misión nunca tendría el impacto total y público para lo que fue diseñada. Igualmente, en el aspecto económico era impensable transportar, albergar, y financiar cientos de predicadores hispanos para una misión. Sin embargo, seis sacerdotes experimentados en la Gran Misión en Latinoamérica y especialistas en censo y técnicas de visita a los hogares vinieron a Nueva York a principios de 1961 por un periodo de tiempo que fluctuaba entre algunos meses a uno o dos años. Trabajaron en las parroquias de Santa Lucia y de la Ascensión en Manhattan y en la parroquia de San Pedro y San Pablo (incluyendo las parroquias nacionales de la Inmaculada Concepción, Nuestra Señora de la Piedad, y San Adalberto) en el Bronx.

Contactos y comunicaciones pastorales

Dado que la Oficina de Acción Católica Hispana llegó a formar parte normal de la vida de la arquidiócesis, empezó a adquirir muchas funciones rutinarias además de estimular nuevas actividades o del establecimiento de nuevos de programas arquidiocesanos. El coordinador era llamado repetidamente para participar en reuniones, inauguraciones, servicios religiosos, banquetes y otras funciones sociales como representante de la arquidiócesis y del cardenal. Además, la oficina llegó a ser una especie de centro de consejería y orientación para toda persona de habla hispana con algún tipo de pregunta, queja o problema. Durante el tiempo que Mons. Wilson estuvo asignado a los asuntos hispanos, se implementaron servicios varios de gran importancia:

Ayuda católica para emigrantes puertorriqueños. A lo largo de muchos años la Legión de María entrevistaba en el aeropuerto de San Juan a todos los puertorriqueños que partían de la Isla con destino al continente, llenando un formulario con todos los datos posibles sobre su identidad, estado religioso y destino. Esta información era enviada a las dióceses del continente para darle seguimiento. Como una forma de cooperación con la Legión, Mons. Connolly había preparado una Guía Católica de las Iglesias Católicas de la arquidiócesis que se entregaba a migrantes en San Juan a la hora de su salida. En Nueva York los formularios acerca de los puertorriqueños que llegaban se comenzaron a recibir en cantidades cada vez mayores. En tiempos de Mons. Wilson un gran trabajo de la oficina del coordinador era el de recibir dichos formularios, determinar la parroquia que le correspondería según la dirección de destino donde el nuevo migrante podría vivir, e informar al pastor o sacerdote de habla hispana para que personalmente o a través de la Legión de María el reciente llegado fuese contactado y ayudado.
En 1959, por ejemplo, Mons. Wilson pudo reportar al Cardenal Spellman que “a través de la ayuda de voluntarios, principalmente de la Legión de María tanto aquí como en Puerto Rico, la Arquidiócesis ha podido darle seguimiento a los emigrantes entrevistados en el aeropuerto de San Juan. Durante los pasados dos años aproximadamente 10,000 fueron visitados por trabajadores preparados de antemano con información útil sobre el estado espiritual del migrante, propósito de su migración, nivel de inglés hablado, etc.”. Es difícil decir cuán efectivo fue el programa. Su inspiración fue muy buena pero de algún modo muy paternalista. Fue más viable en teoría que en la práctica. Frecuentemente la dirección en Nueva York fue tentativa e inexacta, y aunque la persona sea visitada era improbable en muchos casos que los problemas religiosos de larga duración fueran atendidos en medio de tantos retos de supervivencia material. Sin embargo, favoreció miles de encuentros amigables y bienvenidos con los parroquianos, sacerdotes e iglesias locales.

Trabajadores granjeros temporales. Si ponerse en contacto con los nuevos que llegan a la ciudad fue frustrante, más todavía lo fue el cuidado pastoral de los migrantes trabajadores agrícolas. La arquidiócesis de Nueva York nunca tuvo gran cantidad de ellos. Comoquiera, durante los meses de verano regularmente se hacían visitas a los campamentos de los migrantes, donde de vez en cuando se celebraban Misas y otras devociones religiosas, a la vez que se brindaba instrucción catequética a los niños. Fue difícil hacer algo, ya que usualmente los trabajadores estaban en los campos desde muy temprano hasta el atardecer, y estaban presente por corto tiempo. De nuevo, no fue el tiempo oportuno para la mayoría de ellos resolver problemas de prácticas religiosas que tenían por mucho tiempo, pero por lo menos como Mons. Wilson informó, ellos “no son olvidados; reciben servicios e instrucción en español durante su corta estadía, llevando de regreso a Puerto Rico la memoria de la Iglesia Universal sirviéndoles en tierra extranjera, frecuentemente bajo condiciones materiales dificiles y desfavorables”.

Guía Moral de Cine. Mons. Wilson inició un servicio que consistía en publicar en español el equivalente a la guía de la Legión de la Decencia de las clasificaciones morales de las películas actuales. Dicha guía moral también era proveida a la prensa hispana y enviada a cada parroquia y sacerdote de habla hispana.

Notas a Sacerdotes de la Acción Católica Hispana. Regularmente se enviaba un boletín a todos los sacerdotes de habla hispana que trabajaban en la arquidiócesis, e incluso a algunos fuera de ella, para mantenerles informados sobre los acontecimientos pastorales tanto locales como de otros lugares. Del mismo modo se llevaron a cabo reuniones del clero y se dictaron conferencias de forma periódica con el mismo propósito, invitando incluso a conferenciantes de fuera de la diócesis.

Folletos para la Misa. Otro de los servicio de valor llevado a cabo por la oficina del coordinador fue la preparación de folletos en español paras la Misa, con oraciones, himnos y canciones para su uso en las parroquias.

Escuela de Derecho Laboral. Escuelas de Derecho Laboral en español auspiciadas por la A.C.T.U provieron a los trabajadores hispanos de Nueva York con el conocimiento y principios necesarios para defender sus derechos y sequir la doctrina social de la Iglesia.

Reunión inter-diocesana de sacerdotes

En octubre de 1957 Mons. Wilson convocó y presidió una Reunión Inter Diocesano de Sacerdotes sobre el Apostolado para los Hispanos del Este. Asistieron 40 sacerdotes representando a veintidós dióceses. Las finalidades de la reunión eran las de revisar las actividades actuales de las diócesis representadas; de averiguar cuáles habían sido sus mayores dificultades a la vez que sus éxitos; de estudiar las organizaciones mas eficaz; de determinar si la coordinación entre las diversas diócesis era aconsejable y, en caso positivo, de qué manera; de analizar como se puede mejorar la cooperación de las dióceses con la agencia de Ayuda Católica a los Migrantes Puertorriqueños en San Juan; y, finalmente, de decidir si se creía necesaria y conveniente una conferencia abierta ya fuera para los sacerdotes únicamente o para todos los agentes pastorales, sacerdotes y laicos.
Esta reunión fue la primera iniciativa regional de la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York. En años posteriores, debido al crecimiento de la población de habla hispana y del empuje del apostolado hispano dentro de la arquidiócesis, Nueva York se convirtió en un tipo de líder oficioso de las dióceses de la zona del nordeste de Estados Unidos, asistiendoles con información y una variedad de programas. Al establecerse el Centro Pastoral Católico Hispano para el Nordeste hizo que desapareciera el liderazgo y dirección ejercido por Nueva York.



V. ACCIÓN COMUNITARIA HISPANA

Antes de asumir la responsabilidad de Coordinador de la Acción Católica Hispana, Mons. Wilson había vivido siete años en Filipinas, donde dio comienzo su aprendizaje del español, continuando dichos estudios al trasladarse a Nueva York. Al ser nombrado Coordinador de Acción Católica Hispana podía expresarse en español fluidamente, cosa que no ocurría con Mons. Connolly. Más aún, en Filipinas adquirió una perspectiva misionera que influyó en su trabajo en Nueva York. Reconociendo el trabajo valioso que la Iglesia había llevado a cabo en otros pueblos y culturas, fue un defensor acérrimo del aporte de la experiencia puertorriqueña para el clero y religiosos de Nueva York, enfatizando el aprendizaje del idioma como una herramienta evangelizadora, y tratando de implementar programas pastorales desarrollados con éxito en otros lugares, como los Caballeros de San Juan Bautista, los Cursillos de Cristiandad y la Gran Misión.

Mons. Robert Fox

Su sucesor, Mons. Robert J. Fox había recibido parte de su formación en los programas que Mons. Wilson había implementado. Poco tiempo después de su ordenación el Padre Fox fue enviado a la Universidad Católica de América en Washington, D. C. para realizar estudios graduados en Trabajo Social. Durante el verano de 1958 estudió lengua española y cultura puertorriqueña en el Instituto de Formación Misionera de la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico junto con los nuevos sacerdotes ordenados ese año. Después de tres años en la División de Servicios a la Familia de Caridades Católicas de Nueva York, en agosto de 1961, fue elegido como conferenciante por el programa Fulbright para dictar una serie de conferencias sobre trabajo social en Montevideo, Uruguay, durante un año. De ahí que, cuando fue nombrado coordinador de la Acción Católica Hispana en 1963, no sólo hablaba correctamente español, contando con experiencia y estudios sobre la vida de Puerto Rico y Latinoamérica, sino también aportó a su nueva posición el interés y las preocupaciones sociales de un profesional del trabajo social altamente cualificado.
Mons. Fox se hizo cargo de la responsabilidad total de muchos de los proyectos y programas de la Oficina de Acción Católica Hispana iniciados bajo las administraciones de Mons. Connolly y Mons. Wilson, continuándolos. Como dato importante cabe destacar el impulso e inspiración que brindó a muchos jóvenes sacerdotes y religiosos de habla hispana a través de programas audaces e innovadores diseñados para favorecer una interacción personal y un desarrollo comunitario en la ciudad. Como consecuencia, el nombre de la oficina fue cambiado para que reflejara el nuevo impulso dado a la misma. Se convirtió en el Coordinador de Acción Comunitaria Hispana.

Verano en la Ciudad

Al acercarse el verano de 1964, la Hermana Margarita Dowling de las Hermanas de la Caridad del Monte San Vicente tuvo una entrevista con Mons. Fox para presentarle el proyecto de utilizar los servicios de las Hermanas religiosas en los barrios hispanos del centro de la ciudad, siendo estos servicios atendidos por personal voluntario durante el tiempo estival. Mons. Fox elaboró igualmente ese mismo año un plan de trabajo que fue ensayado con gran éxito en la Lilliam Wald Houses, ubicada en la Parroquia de Santa Brígida. El éxito del proyecto fue tan grande que otras comunidades religiosas solicitaron formar en el futuro parte del mismo. Durante el tiempo de otoño e invierno, Mons. Fox se puso en contacto con los sacerdotes de habla hispana de las parroquias de la ciudad, y se planificó extender esta experiencia a treinta y cinco parroquias en el verano de 1965.
Estos planes recibieron un impacto grande gracias al establecimiento durante ese verano de la Oficina Federal de Oportunidades Económicas, la cual formaba parte de la iniciativa presidencial de la “Guerra contra la Pobreza” de Johnson. En un principio el proyecto de verano se planificó en base a una participación voluntaria. La Arquidiócesis llegó al acuerdo de pagar un estipendio nominal de $20 dólares mensuales a cada voluntario religioso a la vez que se les brindaba alojamiento en los conventos y casas religiosas. Puesto que el Proyecto estaba ya listo y la nueva Oficina de Oportunidades Económicas estaba funcionando y preparada para apoyar proyectos comunitarios, se hizo la solicitud de una subvención por valor de un cuarto de millón de dólares, la cual fue concedida. Con ello se pudo iniciar el Programa de Verano en la Ciudad.
El Manual de Funcionamiento para el nuevo programa lo describía como “un esfuerzo combinado de muchas personas tratando de establecer un ambiente que llevara a incrementar la amistad y la comunicación entre personas y grupos dentro de los vecindarios….Muy frecuentemente barreras mucho más profundas que las del idioma apartaban a las personas unas de otras. Presiones externas ocasionadas por la censura social, los estándares de vida e incluso por normas de vestir combinadas con elementos de la personalidad, diferencias de orígenes, constituían obstáculos aparentemente insuperables para una auténtica comunicación de ideas. Expresiones creativas espontáneas crean elementos importantes en el crecimiento y desarrollo de las relaciones humanas. La necesidad de tal respuesta se observa en todas las áreas pero en especial en las zonas deprimidas, donde son evidentes el abandono y el escapismo en sus variadas formas. El crecimiento en la apreciación a uno mismo y a los demás son las bases de una relación genuina.
“Todas las características del programa –educacional, recreacional y cultural- deben ser infundidas con creatividad. La composición del grupo que forma la administración se ha llevado a cabo con personas de distintos trasfondos y orígenes de una forma deliberada. Otro factor conectado con los conceptos de relaciones y creatividad es la visibilidad del programa. Por su naturaleza, si el programa está dirigido a ofrecer una contribución positiva a la comunidad, sus actividades deben llevarse a cabo abiertamente. Todo esfuerzo debe hacerse para involucrar a las personas en los lugares que ellos se congregan habitualmente.”
Los esfuerzos combinados de sacerdotes, religiosos, voluntarios, profesionales en artes creativos, empleados a sueldo de proyectos y recreación de los vecindarios al igual que otros voluntarios, bajo la coordinación y el liderazgo de Mons. Fox tuvieron un éxito enorme e inmediato. Al concluir el Programa “Verano en la Ciudad “en 1965 se llevó a cabo una evaluación, y se hicieron planes para repetirlo en el verano de 1966, para lo que se preparó una propuesta para que fuera financiada por una organización intermediaria, el Instituto para el Desarrollo Humano.

Instituto Neoyorquino para el Desarrollo Humano

Después de algunos meses de planificación, la propuesta para la creación del Instituto fue completada y el mismo fue incorporado legalmente en el Estado de Nueva York el 14 de abril de 1966. De acuerdo al certificado de incorporación, su principal objetivo fue “planificar, establecer y dirigir programas de investigación, entrenamiento, demostración y estudios, encuestas y otras actividades diseñadas para desarrollar, examinar y llevar a cabo formas y vías para investigar y mejorar las causas y efectos de la pobreza y otros problemas sociales y para llenar las necesidades y aspiraciones de los ciudadanos económicamente desventajados y culturalmente aislados en la ciudad de Nueva York y en otras partes; y en consecuencia, promover las relaciones interpersonales y grupales diseñadas para ayudar en la búsqueda de dichos objetivos y para identificar, coordinar y cooperar con programas y recursos comunitarios existentes y futuros, y con programas y recursos federales, estatales, de los gobiernos locales dirigidos a lograr todos o alguno de tales objetivos planeados”.
Aún antes de que el Instituto fuera plenamente incorporado, una propuesta para continuar el programa “Verano en la Ciudad” a lo largo del año, bajo el nombre de Proyecto Enlace, fue elaborada y sometida al Comité de Oportunidades Económicas de New York. Después de nueve meses de deliberaciones por parte de la administración y de varios comités, fue finalmente aprobada para un fondo de $1,200,000 en agosto de 1966. Sin embargo, dado que la Ciudad de Nueva York en aquel momento no cualificaba para recibir nuevos fondos de la Oficina de Oportunidades Económicas y la cada vez más caótica situación del Comité de Oportunidades Económicas del Estado de Nueva York junto con su incomprensible actitud negativa hacia la Iglesia hacía impensable que la propuesta fuera completamente fundada.
Mientras tanto, el segundo programa de “Verano en la Ciudad” llevado a cabo en 1966 tuvo un éxito similar al del año anterior. Mons. Fox informó de que “aunque sólo había fondos para treinta centros, sin embargo el programa Verano en la Ciudad funcionó en cuarenta y seis parroquias. Si bien es cierto que se obtuvieron logros en todas las parroquias, sin embargo se creó una base sólida en treinta de los cuarenta y seis centros . . . En cada una de esas treinta parroquias la Junta de Directores (compuesta por residentes del lugar reclutados para el programa y formados mientras se desarrollaba el mismo) deseaban encarecidamente continuar durante todo el año . . . El ambiente logrado por el programa Verano en la Ciudad fue una realidad impactante en vecindarios donde el letargo y la apatía son problemas importantes . . . El problema más urgente en esos momentos es el de mantener y aprovechar el ímpetu clima de actividad y participación que se había generado en los treinta centros . . . (de manera que fueran) creciendo y llegando a ser grupos de acción comunitaria en los vecindarios realmente capaces de analizar los problemas de la comunidad y de establecer programas preventivos y correctivos para los cuales existían múltiples fuentes de fondos.”

Proyecto “Engage”

En noviembre de 1966, veinticuatro parroquias aceptaron participar en la continuación de sus centros de “Verano en la Ciudad “ bajo el título “Proyecto Engage”. Cada uno de ellos fue presidido por una Junta de Directores diversos en cuyas manos recaía la responsabilidad del programa local. Cada uno de ellos contaba con un presupuesto de $300 mensuales con los cuales se cubría el costo de alquiler de un local y el salario a tiempo parcial de un director. Cada Centro dio comienzo inicialmente con un programa de capacitación denominado “Mansight” el cual estaba diseñado para los directores y dirigido a incrementar su toma de conciencia de la realidad de sus vecindarios a través del análisis y diálogo en grupo de una serie de 32 fotos tomadas y diseñados con dicho propósito. Igualmente, cada centro tuvo asignados tres o cuatro voluntarios religiosos a tiempo parcial para ayudar en el establecimiento de servicios concretos como tutorías, arreglos creativos del local y contactos con la gente del vecindario.
El Instituto para el Desarrollo Humano dio comienzo el 24 de octubre de 1966 con el personal administrativo mínimo necesario para la fase inicial de operaciones, con fondos provenientes de una subvención de la Fundación Grace. Una de sus funciones fue la de ayudar a los centros parroquiales para desarrollar programas por proveer cinco servicios centrales: consultas en desarrollo comunitario, educación y entrenamiento, evaluación e investigación, supervisión fiscal y asesoría para recaudación de fondos, y relaciones públicas. Dado que los requisitos para la obtención de fondos federales cambiaron, hubo que desestimar el plan del Instituto como organización coordinadora para recibir y distribuir fondos para las operaciones de los centros locales, y cada centro debía preparar y someter individualmente sus peticiones de ayuda económica a su junta local.
En el verano de 1967, cada centro parroquial local continuó un programa similar aunque no había un proyecto maestro como tal. Se continuó con la misma dinámica en las diferentes actividades locales, y los tres puntos básicos del programa de Verano en la Ciudad inspiraron todos sus programas: foro público, creatividad, y relaciones. Quizás el ejemplo más dramático de todo esto fue las procesiones por las calles del Harlem Hispano para contrarrestar los disturbios que se estaban llevando a cabo.

La Cosa Primaveral

Los disturbios en las calles y la tensión racial del verano de 1967 fue tan solo uno síntoma del aumento de la polarización en Nueva York entre los pobres del centro de la ciudad y la clase media más confortable y predominante suburbana. Se llegó a un acuerdo conjunto para que los centros parroquiales y las comunidades trataran de enfrentar este problema e intentaran encontrar una respuesta común, personal, creativa, y visible. Durante todo el año se trabajó en la preparación de un evento a llevarse a cabo en la primavera para que se llegarían a los vecindarios pobres del centro los habitantes de los suburbios para encontrar, compartir, y trabajar con los residentes del centro en vistas a mejorar sus condiciones materiales y a celebrar su calidad de vida.
Algo de la magia de “Verano en la Ciudad” animó la planificación de “La Cosa Primaveral.” No fue una acción orientada a lograr objetivos, sino más bien dirigida al establecimiento de relaciones interpersonales.  Cualquiera que fuese la tarea común o celebración fue sobre todo para mediar en las relaciones y construir respeto mutuo, confianza y amistad. Muchísimo tiempo se empleó en la preparación de todas las personas que participarían, especialmente ayudando a la gente de la ciudad a comprender que ellos iban a ser anfitriones, no clientes. El 20 de abril del 1968: “5,000 personas suburbanas e igual número de residentes del centro de la ciudad se unieron en 43 calles del centro a lo largo de Manhattan y el Bronx para un enorme día de renovación. Se limpiaron los patios y los sótanos, se pintaron fachadas de casas, se hicieron reparaciones menores e incluso se pintaron murales en las paredes. Se rejuvenecieron los barrios, que brindó a los vecindarios nueva energía y entusiasmo y hizo los preparativos para las buenas relaciones entre los grupos diversos de gente”.
Después de esa jornada, en doce bloques más se llevaron a cabo experiencias similares de renovación y cerca de cincuenta bloques (a menudo con sus socios suburbanos) crearon centros de entretenimientos, uniones de créditos y cooperativas de consumo, centros preescolares y para después de la escuela, cuartos oscuros, y una café para jóvenes, y comenzaron a reconvertir los patios traseros vacíos y solares vacíos en parques. Gran número de habitantes de los suburbios quienes participaron, continuaron trabajando, creando y recreando con sus amigos en el centro de la ciudad y la experiencia de abril condujo a muchos de ellos a involucrarse en la problemática de sus propias zonas urbanas.
Para el año siguiente, 1969, se planificó un proyecto más ambicioso y similar el cual involucraba a treinta bloques a lo largo de siete sábados de renovación e interacción, con el título, “Los Sábados de Primavera”. Este fue el último plan desarrollado por Mons. Fox como Coordinador de la Acción Comunitaria Hispana, porque era obvio que todos estos programas creativos de acción comunitaria era un trabajo a tiempo completo, por lo cual Mons. Fox pidió a las autoridades arquidiocesanas quedar liberado para dedicarse a ellos.

Los Asociados “Full Circle”

En 1967 recibieron gran cantidad de publicidad y reconocimiento las procesiones efectuadas por las calles para contrarrestar las revueltas ciudadanas, pero también surgieron algunos problemas dentro del Instituto de Desarrollo Humano. No todos los miembros del mismo estuvieron de acuerdo sobre esa intervención o acerca del papel que debían desempeñar los nuevos centros parroquiales o la participación de la clase media de los suburbios. La disensión interna causó que el consejo de directores pidiera la renuncia de la administración. Para una persona como Mons. Fox para quien las relaciones abiertas y sinceras eran la esencia de cualquier programa, la situación era insostenible. El dejó la organización que había fundado y durante los  meses posteriores procedió a reorganizar, con el mismo espíritu, una nueva entidad llamada Full Circle Associates, “una red de personas de toda raza, credo, clase y generación, quienes compartían un convencimiento de que en esta crisis de alienación, división y odio, es la persona humana quien puede hacer la diferencia.”

Programas Pastorales y otras actividades

Aunque Mons. Fox estuvo plenamente envuelto en estos muchos y nuevos programas de acción comunitaria, él se mantuvo también coordinando y dirigiendo los programas ya establecidos al igual que los nuevos que iban surgiendo para el cuidado pastoral de los hispanos en la Arquidiócesis.

El Centro Hispano en Cornwall. Desde su nombramiento como capellán católico del Napanoch Correctional Institute, después de haber trascurrido un año en Puerto Rico inmediatamente después de su ordenación, Mons. Matthew Killian era un modelo de sacerdote misionero con ministro itinerante que andaba visitando a las crecientes comunidades hispanas o puertorriqueñas, dispersas en las pequeñas ciudades y pueblos de las regiones rurales de la arquidiócesis. La necesidad de más personal en esta área era urgente. De manera que cuando la congregación español de los Oblatos del Santísimo Redentor escribió a Mons. Fox en septiembre de 1963 ofreciendo trabajar en Nueva York y establecer una residencia para mujeres jóvenes, él contraargumentó, preguntándoles si ellas podrían estar dispuestas para trabajar en el ministerio pastoral en las áreas rurales.
El año siguiente para las mismas fechas se puso en funcionamiento una estructura de apostolado pastoral. Una granja propiedad de la arquidiócesis en Cornwall fue renovada y convertida en una residencia convento, y un granero colindante fue convertido mas tarde en un salón de actividades. Seis Hermanas vivirían allí y servirían a las comunidades hispanas en pueblos tales como Haverstraw, Ellenville, Newburgh y Beacon. Su trabajo consistiría en visitas a los hogares, catequesis, consejería, educación de adultos, preparación para los sacramentos, y asistencia en la Liturgia, así como toda una gama de referencias para servicios sociales y consejos. Se organizó igualmente un ingenioso y delicado programa de asistencia financiera. Recibirían el apoyo de los párrocos de los pueblos donde ellas desarrollaran sus actividades. La Oficina de Acción Católica Hispana actuaría como mediadora y supervisora. Por varios años este arreglo formó parte del trabajo rutinario del coordinador. Las Hermanas trabajaron cercanamente con Mons. Killian y bajo la dirección de Mons. Fox.

The Catholic Migrant Bureau. En el verano de 1968, bajo el nombre de Catholic Migrant Bureau, se dio comienzo a un programa especial para la asistencia espiritual y social de los migrantes hispanos trabajadores del campo, expandiendo programas informales previos a favor de estos trabajadores. El programa de 1969 consistió en un sacerdote, un diácono, un seminarista y tres Hermanas religiosas quienes desarrollaron su trabajo a tiempo completo en el condado de Orange durante los meses de verano. Se celebraron eucaristías en español los domingos en dos de los campos y los miércoles en otro. El 15 de agosto se celebró una fiesta especial, con eucaristía incluida, en Pine Island. Los seminaristas y Hermanas dedicaron gran parte de su tiempo a visitas, asistencia social y desarrollo de programas recreacionales.

La Fiesta de San Juan. Desde el principio de los años ’60, cada junio un promedio de sesenta mil personas participaban en la Fiesta de San Juan que se llevaba a cabo en la Isla de Randall. Pero todo lo bueno tiene un comienzo y un final, y la fiesta no iba a ser la excepción, por lo menos en lo que se refiere a su formato original. Aunque el día continuó siendo tan popular como siempre, e incluso más, la participación en el programa formal, especialmente en la celebración religiosa, comenzó a declinar drásticamente. Ya los asientos del Downing Stadium no se llenaban más para la procesión y la Misa pontifical, y el carácter de las festividades alrededor del parque durante el día fue criticado como demasiado secular. El primer año Mons. Fox asumió la responsabilidad para que la fiesta continuara en el estilo tradicional, eligiendo como tema especial el tributo de la comunidad de habla hispana al humanismo cristiano del difunto presidente, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
En 1965, 1966 y 1967 para afianzar las dimensiones religiosas y espirituales de la celebración y comprometer a los participantes para que se involucraran más activamente la fiesta comenzaba a las 5:00 am con una misa iniciando un “Servicio del Alba”. La Misa se celebrada a esta hora como un símbolo del “Amanecer” o el volver a despertar de la comunidad hispana a culminar todas sus potencialidades como individuos creativos y participativos. Después de la Misa se servía un ligero desayuno a todos los asistentes. A continuación se llevaban a cabo otras actividades. Por ejemplo, en 1966 a las 7:30 am un Vía Crucis especial fue presentado con catorce estaciones exhibiendo fotos y banderas reflejando aspectos de la vida de la comunidad hispana en relación a la pasión de Cristo, y un decimoquinto estación representado la resurrección. En la tarde se llevó a cabo un elaborado programa incluyendo una procesión, una presentación dramático, Misa y las festividades cívicas tradicionales.
Como resultado del fuerte sentimiento de los que algunos consideraban “experimentos” del formato de la fiesta, la planificación para 1968 fue puesta en manos del Comité de Ciudadanos bajo el liderazgo de Luís Fontánez, retomando completamente las estructuras tradicionales desarrolladas en tiempos de Mons. Wilson. Sin embargo, esta celebración no tuvo mayor éxito de los años anteriores. En 1969 Mons. Fox decidió romper radicalmente con todos los modelos pasados y anunció la celebración de la fiesta en dos partes: la fiesta religiosa que consistiría en una Misa a media noche al aire libre en el Downing Stadium el sábado y la fiesta cívica en el estilo tradicional el domingo en la tarde.
Aún cuando la celebración de la Santa Misa tuvo el decoro y la belleza necesarios, no fue del agrado de muchos de los críticos. Hubo un descontento creciendo entre muchos de los líderes de la comunidad hispana, los cuales habían trabajado en el desarrollo de la fiesta. Percibían que sus puntos de vista y ayuda no eran escuchados ni valorados. No obstante la exactitud de las quejas, se llevó a cabo una protesta pública en la prensa hispana, y el sucesor de Mons. Fox tuvo que afrontarla.

Programas de radio en español. En febrero de 1969 se inició una serie de 24 programas de radio en WBNX, consistiendo de diálogos entre un sacerdote católico y un pastor protestante y continuaron por los meses sucesivos. Tal programa fue en adición a la ayuda para su programación regular que la Oficina de Acción Comunitaria Hispana ofrecía en las emisoras locales durante Navidad, Viernes Santo, y otras fechas especiales. Junto con esto se pautó un programa semanal informativo religioso durante algún tiempo en Radio WADO al igual que una reflexión diaria de breves minutos de duración a las 6:00am titulada “Un minuto con Dios.”

Nueva York Hispano. En 1964, el Padre Marcelino Pando, A.A., director del Centro Católico de Información, fundado unos once años antes por el párroco de la Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de la Esperanza, decidió iniciar una nueva revista en español, “Nueva York Hispano”. Fue bien recibida pero no contaba con ayuda financiera adecuada. Desde el principio el Padre Pando deseaba involucrar a Mons. Fox en el proyecto, y en 1965 apeló directamente al Cardenal Spellman en búsqueda del apoyo económico. Recibió la ayuda solicitada, y la revista continuó con éxito por algunos años.

Movimiento de Cursillos. No obstante que el Centro San José fue originalmente fundado como un proyecto especial de la Acción Católica Hispana bajo la supervisión del coordinador, y con el establecimiento de un secretariado para dirigir el movimiento de Cursillos el coordinador fue ex oficio el delegado episcopal para el movimiento, por algún tiempo el centro y el movimiento de Cursillos habían operado con creciente autonomía. Debido a una serie de razones Mons. Fox encontró dificultades para llenar las expectativas de los líderes del movimiento de Cursillos y la colaboración con ellos se volvió tensa. En 1967 decidió renunciar a su posición de delegado episcopal para el movimiento y supervisor del Centro.

Liturgia. Desde 1964 la Oficina de Acción Comunitaria Hispana estuvo muy envuelta en el desarrollo de materiales de ayuda para el uso correcto del español en las celebraciones litúrgicas. Regularmente suministraba nuevos himnos, traducciones correctas, y sugerencias para las celebraciones a las parroquias que tenían servicios en español. Un proyecto especial fue la composición de una Misa cantada en un estilo que pudiera captar el gusto musical y la imaginación del pueblo hispano de Nueva York.


VI. REORGANIZACION Y COORDINACION PASTORAL

Como Mons. Fox necesariamente se involucró cada vez más en los proyectos comunitarios que había originado e inspirado, se hizo evidente que no le era posible prestar la atención adecuada a la gran variedad de otras preocupaciones administrativas y pastorales asociadas con la oficina del coordinador. El Senado de Sacerdotes de la arquidiócesis se interesó en el futuro de la oficina y nombró un comité ad hoc para evaluarlo. En noviembre de 1968, Mons. Fox recomendó al nuevo arzobispo de Nueva York, Terence J. Cooke, que sea libre de prestar toda su atención a Full Circle Associates y al p. Robert L. Stern, entonces Canciller Asistente de la arquidiócesis, le sucede. Después de mucha consideración, el Cardenal Cooke aceptó la recomendación y nombró al P. Stern como “Director del Apostolado Hispano” por un período de tres años a partir de agosto de 1969.

P. Robert Stern

Como Mons. Fox, P. Stern había sido formado por muchos de los programas que comenzó a supervisar. Ingresó al seminario en 1953, participó en las clases de español recién establecidas allí, y estudió en el programa Ponce en el verano de 1959 y nuevamente en el verano de 1960 como participante en un programa especial de estudios Latinoamericanos. Después de una experiencia pastoral de tres años en una parroquia hispana, recibió capacitación en derecho canónico en Roma como preparación para el trabajo de cancillería. El Arzobispo Maguire había recomendado al Cardenal Spellman que el personal de la cancillería inmediata incluyera un sacerdote de habla hispana con experiencia parroquial en la comunidad hispana. El P. Stern llevó al nuevo puesto de Director del Apostolado Hispano una experiencia práctica de trabajo de base en el centro de la ciudad, así como habilidades administrativas y organizativas de su experiencia en la oficina de la cancillería.

Redirección de la Oficina Hispana

Cuando el Cardenal Cooke nombró al P. Stern, eligió un nuevo nombre para la oficina. Fue bien claro al indicar que el trabajo del director de la Oficina del Apostolado Hispano debía de ser fundamentalmente espiritual y pastoral y que su superior inmediato lo sería el Vicario General, como cabeza de la oficina pastoral de la arquidiócesis. Otro cambio introducido por el Cardenal Cooke fue la consolidación de todos los programas que se desarrollaban en la arquidiócesis con los hispanos, bajo la responsabilidad y supervisión del nuevo director. Finalmente, el cardenal insistió en que el objetivo y el enfoque fundamental de la recién definida oficina debería ser el desarrollo de líderes laicos, especialmente a nivel comunitario y parroquial, a los cuales había que ir preparando gradualmente para que asumieran mayores responsabilidades por la iglesia en Nueva York.[61]

Supervisión de Instituciones y Programas

De acuerdo con la reorganización solicitada por el cardenal Cooke, el director y la oficina central llevaron a cabo la supervisión inmediata de las instituciones y programas existentes del apostolado de habla hispana. Dos programas principales operados directamente por la oficina hispana fueron la Fiesta de San Juan y el programa de verano en la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico en Ponce. Varios otros programas e instituciones existentes estaban afiliados a la oficina hispana y, en cierta medida, estaban bajo su supervisión. Finalmente, la cambiante situación pastoral y los desafíos exigieron nuevas iniciativas programáticas.

La Fiesta San Juan. La primera tarea del P. Stern fue la reorganización de la Fiesta de San Juan. La fiesta estaba en su apogeo alrededor de 1962; desde entonces había estado disminuyendo constantemente a pesar de las iniciativas creativas para reanimarlo. Para 1969 había resentimiento entre muchos líderes cívicos puertorriqueños y otras personas interesadas previamente asociadas con la fiesta por no haber sido consultados al respecto y haber sido excluidos de la toma de decisiones al respecto. El P. Stern celebró una serie de reuniones públicas con líderes cívicos sobre la fiesta y un resultado afortunado de esto fue la reactivación del Comité de Presidentes de la Fiesta, la elección de un nuevo presidente, y un firme compromiso de colaborar juntos en el futuro.
En 1970, en vista de la negativa del Departamento de Parques de la ciudad de Nueva York a permitir que la fiesta se celebrara formalmente un domingo por la tarde debido a la excesiva aglomeración de la isla de Randall el año anterior y también en vista de la escasa asistencia del año anterior al programa cívico y popular dentro del Estadio Downing, se decidió limitar la celebración formal de la fiesta a una Misa de vigilia el sábado por la noche, siguiendo el horario de la liturgia del año anterior.
Con la garantía del apoyo de los líderes cívicos y comunitarios, se decidió esforzarse mucho por revivir la fiesta y restaurarla a su estilo original para 1971. El P. Stern le preguntó a un joven sacerdote puertorriqueño, el P. Luis Rios, A.A., para servir como el primer sacerdote-coordinador de la fiesta. Trabajando en estrecha colaboración con el presidente de la fiesta, contactó a más de siete mil personas con respecto a sugerencias e interés en la fiesta y se revivió el comité ciudadano tradicional para la fiesta; alrededor de doscientas personas interesadas se convirtieron en sus miembros activos. Se invirtió una gran cantidad de tiempo y esfuerzo en organizar la fiesta para ese año. El resultado fue un triunfo organizacional, sanando todas las divisiones dentro de la comunidad cívica, pero una verdadera decepción desde el punto de vista de la participación pública en el estilo del programa planeado
Un resultado positivo de la fiesta de 1971 fue que los líderes laicos ya no atribuyeron el declive de la fiesta a la “experimentación” con su formato o su exclusión de la planificación y la toma de decisiones. Para 1972, la responsabilidad total de la toma de decisiones estaba en manos del Comité de Ciudadanos y del comité de presidentes anteriores, pero la planificación progresó muy lentamente. Mientras tanto, el Comité Coordinador del Apostolado Hispano recomendó que se celebrara una Misa en la Catedral de San Patricio y que se permitiera que la celebración del picnic en la isla de Randall siguiera su propio camino. El Cardenal Cooke, sin embargo, quería que la fiesta se celebrara de la manera tradicional en el Downing Stadium, como lo había sido el año anterior, incluso a riesgo de una baja asistencia.
Es difícil analizar todos los factores involucrados en el declive de la fiesta. Una razón, tal vez, es que ya no ocupaba un lugar único. Durante varios años había sido la única manifestación pública de la fe y la cultura de los puertorriqueños y otros hispanoamericanos en la ciudad de Nueva York. Más tarde, se desarrollaron otras instituciones populares como el Desfile Puertorriqueño, que sin duda fue una gran muestra del poder y la presencia de los puertorriqueños en Nueva York con alrededor de cien mil personas marchando por la Quinta Avenida, y la Fiesta Folklórica Puertorriqueña, que reunió a otras cien mil personas para un gran picnic de verano en Central Park. Ya no había necesidad de que la iglesia fuera el vehículo de expresión de la presencia y cultura puertorriqueña, por lo que la Fiesta de San Juan necesariamente tuvo que reducirse en escala.

Instituto Veraniego en la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico. El programa del Instituto de Comunicación Intercultural de la Universidad Católica de Ponce siempre había sido patrocinado conjuntamente por la universidad y la arquidiócesis. Desde que un sacerdote de Nueva York se había asociado con la universidad y el programa desde el principio, había habido poca necesidad de definir formalmente la relación de la universidad y la arquidiócesis. Sin embargo, cuando el primer rector laico fue designado para la universidad, mostró interés en colocar todos sus programas e institutos de manera formal y profesional. Otros factores que provocaron un nuevo examen de la estructura de responsabilidad del programa de verano fueron la necesidad de reubicar físicamente sus dependencias, la decisión de la universidad de suspender sus propios programas complementarios de formación lingüística y cultural durante el año académico regular, y las críticas a la conducta del programa de verano.
Después de unas reuniones en Nueva York y Ponce, se concluyó un acuerdo por escrito entre la arquidiócesis y la universidad que define el patrocinio conjunto del instituto de verano, el derecho de la universidad a designar al director del instituto después de consultar con la arquidiócesis, y los deberes y responsabilidades del director. El verano de 1971, la universidad asumió una responsabilidad cada vez mayor del programa por sugerencia del Cardenal Cooke. En 1972 asumieron toda la responsabilidad y se nombró al primer director laico.
Debido al creciente número de dominicanos en la arquidiócesis, en el verano de 1970 el P. Stern inició un programa de trabajo pastoral en la República Dominicana además del programa habitual en Puerto Rico para estudiantes en los cursos de idiomas.

Programa de Idiomas en la Escuela Secundaria Cardenal Hayes. Para 1969, el programa de capacitación de idiomas en Hayes necesitaba atención y reorganización. El programa fue completamente reorganizado en septiembre de 1971 con un laico, Miguel Martínez, nombrado como director por primera vez. La antigua corporación del Instituto de Comunicación Intercultural dejó de funcionar y el programa continuó como Instituto de Idiomas de la oficina del Apostolado Hispano. Las clases se ofrecían dos días a la semana en Hayes y ocasionalmente en otros centros locales.
En enero de 1970 se celebró una reunión con el rector del Seminario de San José, el decano de estudiantes, y el director de programas pastorales para discutir formas de familiarizar a los estudiantes con el idioma español y la cultura hispana. Se decidió establecer una rama especial del programa de capacitación en idiomas en el Seminario.

El Centro San José y el Movimiento de los Cursillos.  Con el nombramiento de un nuevo director del Centro de San José en septiembre de 1969 y la asunción del rol de delegado episcopal para el movimiento Cursillo por el P. Stern después de una vacante de dos años, se inició un proceso para redefinir el papel de la Secretaría y los objetivos del movimiento dentro de la arquidiócesis. Además de aclarar y confirmar la relación de trabajo entre los Padres Agustinos Recoletos y la arquidiócesis a través de la oficina hispana, el P. Stern dedicó una tremenda cantidad de tiempo a una renovación organizacional del movimiento de los Cursillos. La secretaría del movimiento se reorganizó y sus responsabilidades se redefinieron con el resultado positivo de que los laicos asumieron una responsabilidad real y mayor por el movimiento de una manera que no había tenido lugar durante los primeros años de su vida.

El ministerio del área de Newburgh-Beacon.  Para agosto de 1969 había una considerable insatisfacción entre los Oblatos del Santísimo Redentor acerca de su trabajo en las áreas del condado y la posibilidad de su retirada total. Después de una serie de visitas y reuniones con ellos, se estableció una reorganización de sus responsabilidades laborales y un financiamiento apropiado con los párrocos del área. Sin embargo, debido a la decisión personal de su recién nombrado provincial, las hermanas se retiraron completamente de la misión el verano siguiente.
En agosto de 1970 se creó un nuevo puesto de Coordinador del Apostolado Hispano para los vicariatos Dutchess-Putnam y Rockland-Orange y el P. Neil Graham le fue asignado. Una de sus responsabilidades principales era coordinar y dirigir el trabajo de las hermanas en el área y dedicó gran parte del año a reclutar a otras hermanas para el trabajo. Él arregló para otra congregación de religiosas españoles, las Hijas de Jesús, para asumir la responsabilidad del Centro Hispano en Cornwall y trabajar en el área. Comenzaron su ministerio en el verano de 1971 y continuaron en el área hasta el verano de 1982.

Ministerio de Migrantes. Después de una evaluación del programa de 1969, se decidió la reorganización completa del mismo. En septiembre de 1979 un sacerdote de habla hispana fue asignado a la parroquia de San José en Middletown teniendo como su responsabilidad pastoral el servicio a los hispanos del área al igual que el programa de migrantes. Se estableció un consejo consultivo para ayudarlo constituido por antiguo personal parroquial quienes trabajaban en el programa, junto con los párrocos del área, y el director del apostolado hispano.

Seminaristas Dominicanos.  En enero de 1970 el P. Stern fue a la República Dominicana para reunirse con algunos de los obispos y discutir formas de una mayor colaboración entre las diócesis dominicanas y la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York con respecto al cuidado pastoral del creciente número de dominicanos en Nueva York. Un resultado de la visita fue una invitación extendida a los seminaristas mayores para trabajar en las parroquias de la arquidiócesis durante los meses de verano a cambio de gastos de viaje, alojamiento, comida y un pequeño estipendio semanal. El propósito de este nuevo programa era doble: brindar asistencia especialmente a aquellas parroquias con un gran número de dominicanos recién llegados y familiarizar a los candidatos para el sacerdocio en la República Dominicana con los desafíos particulares que enfrentan los inmigrantes aquí. Ese verano llegó un grupo de dieciséis y después de dos sesiónes de orientación de un día recibió asignaciones parroquiales. Una vez a la semana se reunían con seminaristas de Nueva York para revisar su trabajo y conocer mejor la ciudad. El programa fue exitoso y se repitió nuevamente durante los próximos años.

Seminaristas Dominicanos con el Cardenal Cooke

Seminario de Teología Pastoral. Además de la decisión de establecer una rama del programa de capacitación en idiomas en el Seminario de San José, se comprometió a desarrollar algún tipo de preparación pastoral integrada en el plan de estudios general del seminario. Por fue un experimento, para sondear a los estudiantes y desarrollar los enfoques para un curso principal, el P. Stern acordó llevar a cabo un seminario especial durante el semestre de primavera de 1970. En lugar de tratar exclusivamente los problemas pastorales relacionados con los hispanos, se adoptó una presentación teológica y sociológica más amplia. Quince a treinta estudiantes asistieron a varias sesiones del seminario. Un fuerte sentimiento entre ellos fue que el curso debería ser no-académico, interdisciplinario, abierto a todos los estudiantes y continuar de manera regular. Lamentablemente, el curso no se repitió y no se logró la integración proyectada de algún tipo de preparación pastoral, especialmente en lo que respecta al ministerio en la comunidad hispana, en el plan de estudios general del seminario.

Desarrollo de planes y estructuras pastorales

Consecuente con el mandato del Cardenal Cooke para una reorganización y redireccionamiento del apostolado hispano, el P. Stern comenzó de inmediato a crear estructuras para promover la participación más amplia posible en la planificación y el desarrollo por parte de los líderes eclesiásticos, clericales, religiosos y laicos existentes en la comunidad católica hispana. En el otoño de 1979, pidió a once personas que aceptaran una responsabilidad especial en algunas áreas de interés pastoral y que desarrollaran un grupo de trabajo para ayudarlos con asesores y expertos según sea necesario. Se organizaron once grupos de trabajo para las áreas de investigación y planificación pastoral; formación lingüística y cultural; apostolado de los religiosos; apostolado de los sacerdotes; formación para el apostolado de los laicos; apostolados laicos; relaciones comunitarias; relaciones ecuménicas; prensa, radio y televisión; liturgia; y catequesis. (cf. Pastoral Planning Organization)

Comité Arquidiocesano de Coordinación. Reuniones periódicas de estos once coordinadores de apostolados particulares comenzaron en octubre. Algunos de ellos desarrollaron con éxito grupos de trabajo y programas durante el primer año; otros por una variedad de razones no pudieron lograr el trabajo proyectado. El grupo de coordinadores adquirió gradualmente las dimensiones de un comité de coordinación central para todas las obras del apostolado hispano. Inicialmente estaba compuesto por el director del apostolado y los once presidentes de los grupos de trabajo; más tarde también incluyó a aquellos sacerdotes, líderes religiosos o laicos que tienen una responsabilidad especial por los movimientos, programas o instituciones al servicio del apostolado hispano. El comité se reunió al menos una vez al mes, generalmente durante un día entero, y durante un período de tres años gradualmente se convirtió en un organismo eficaz de consulta, planificación, y coordinación. También tuvo el efecto de introducir a más hispanos, especialmente laicos, en el liderazgo a nivel diocesano.

Reuniones de Sacerdotes. En abril de l970, el P. Stern invitó a todos los sacerdotes involucrados en el apostolado hispano, diocesanos, religiosos y adjuntos, hispanos y no hispanos, a una reunión de tres días en el Seminario de San José. El propósito declarado era proporcionar una oportunidad muy necesaria para todos los sacerdotes comprometidos en un trabajo similar con preocupaciones comunes para reflexionar juntos sobre los desafíos pastorales planteados por una diócesis donde casi la mitad de los feligreses hablaban en español, para discutir las prioridades y objetivos pastorales totales y comenzar a considerar las posibilidades de la planificación pastoral arquidiocesana y una responsabilidad colegiada para el apostolado. La reunión resultó ser un gran éxito; A las sesiones asistieron sesenta y dos sacerdotes. Un consenso general fue planificar una reunión de dos días con el mismo espíritu cada dos meses.
En junio se celebró una reunión de dos días a la que asistieron cuarenta sacerdotes, incluido el Cardenal Cooke. El foco de la discusión fue el movimiento de los Cursillos en la arquidiócesis. Se realizó una evaluación crítica del movimiento existente y se sugirieron planes para su mayor desarrollo y empuje. Se decidió celebrar reuniones mensuales de un día de duración a partir de septiembre de 1970, cada una centrada en un tema particular de interés pastoral. Los temas tratados ese año incluyeron la parroquia, los movimientos apostólicos y un plan pastoral, el joven hispano y la formación de un movimiento juvenil hispano, la familia hispana y la iglesia, el Movimiento Familiar Cristiano, el diaconado laico, y programas para la formación de liderazgo. En vista de la sugerencia del Cardenal Cooke de que las reuniones de los sacerdotes se celebren con menos frecuencia, el patrón de las reuniones mensuales no continuó el año próximo.

Investigación y planificación pastoral. En diciembre de 1969 el P. Peter Gavigan convocó a la primera reunión de un grupo especial de trabajo sobre investigación y planificación pastoral para el apostolado hispano. Un primer paso inmediato fue la recopilación y visualización de estadísticas básicas de población recopiladas de las diversas fuentes disponibles. Se preparó una encuesta de actitud del clero sobre el movimiento de los Cursillos en la arquidiócesis así como un cuestionario sobre la condición del movimiento en cada parroquia, y se envió a todos los sacerdotes de habla hispana en preparación para su reunión de junio de 1970.
Más tarde, se preparó un cuestionario personal detallado y se envió a todo el clero de cualquier manera identificada como hispanohablante que intentara evaluar la capacitación en español, el grado de fluidez, y el interés en el apostolado de cada uno de los sacerdotes. Se envió otro cuestionario a cada parroquia que se considera “hispanohablante” con el fin de determinar con precisión qué servicios y programas se llevaron a cabo en español o dirigidos a personas de habla hispana. También incluyó preguntas sobre la población parroquial y el número de bautizos y bodas hispanos durante la década anterior. Esta última información ayudó a identificar la dirección del movimiento de los católicos de habla hispana en las zonas urbanas de la arquidiócesis.
Al cierre de 1971, la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York tenía aproximadamente 136 sacerdotes diocesanos de habla hispana, 6 de los cuales hablaban español como lengua materna. Del total, tres estaban en servicio fuera de la diócesis, doce enseñaban, ocho estaban en oficinas arquidiocesanas y dos servían como capellanes de instituciones. De los 111 sacerdotes asignados a parroquias, 89 estaban en parroquias con servicios bilingües completos. De estos, 21 eran pastores y 68 pastores asociados.
Con el desarrollo de la Oficina de Investigación Pastoral y la Junta de Personal Arquidiocesano, cesó la necesidad de esta función dentro de la Oficina del Apostolado Hispano.

Taller para Religiosas. Un taller sobre la mujer puertorriqueña en Nueva York fue patrocinado por el grupo de trabajo sobre el apostolado de los religiosos coordinado por St. Pauline Chirchirillo, P.B.V.M. el 23 de mayo de 1971. Más de sesenta hermanas religiosas asistieron al programa. Comenzó con una discusión sobre teología, cultura, y la experiencia de Nueva York. Durante la tarde hubo una para-liturgia y una presentación cultural, además de paneles y discusiones sobre carreras y actitudes actuales que concluyeron con la cena.

Luz y Vida. El grupo de trabajo para la formación del apostolado laico bajo la coordinación del P. David Arias, O.A.R. se le pidió explorar nuevas formas y programas de formación para el apostolado. Comenzó a enfocar su preocupación en programas dirigidos a despertar a las personas a las implicaciones de la edad adulta cristiana y a equiparlas para asumir una mayor responsabilidad por la obra del Evangelio. El resultado principal de este esfuerzo fue la publicación de una serie de diálogos y paraliturgias centrados en el hogar sobre los conceptos básicos de la fe cristiana llamada “Luz y Vida”. Con la colaboración de líderes laicos del movimiento de los Cursillos, este programa comenzó a implementarse en toda la arquidiócesis en las parroquias locales.

Ministerio Juvenil. En enero de 1970 se realizaron una serie de reuniones de planificación sobre la promoción de un apostolado juvenil bajo los auspicios del grupo de trabajo sobre apostolados laicos coordinado por el Sr. Luis Fontánez. Una primera preocupación del grupo fue evaluar el movimiento Juventud Obrera Cristiana (JOC) existente en la arquidiócesis. Aunque se había establecido durante algunos años con un centro en West 106th Street y Broadway, nunca había florecido ni tenido un reconocimiento formal por parte de la arquidiócesis. Se celebraron reuniones con sus líderes para planificar una revitalización y extensión del movimiento.
Otra preocupación era introducir algún tipo de programa de formación en la arquidiócesis similar a los exitosos movimientos Jornada y Cursillo de Vida en Puerto Rico, la República Dominicana, y México. Se había intentado introducir el programa de Jornada al estilo mexicano algunos años antes y se habían dado varios fines de semana de Jornada en el Centro de San José, pero con poco seguimiento.
Después de una larga consideración, se tomó la decisión de desarrollar un programa total para la formación de adultos jóvenes hispanos de dieciocho a veinticinco años en lugar de solo programas para la formación de líderes apostólicos y militantes. Con el nombramiento de un joven sacerdote de ascendencia puertorriqueña, el P. José McCarthy, O.F.M. Cap., a una responsabilidad de tiempo completo de coordinación del apostolado juvenil, la planificación de este programa total avanzó rápidamente. Gradualmente se diseñó un programa de etapas múltiples: una experiencia de fin de semana diseñada para unir una colección de individuos en un grupo; una serie de reuniones semanales relativamente no dirigidas para reflexionar sobre experiencias y valores de la vida; una experiencia de fin de semana diseñada para despertar a los jóvenes a la naturaleza y los desafíos de la vida cristiana; una serie de reuniones semanales para reflexionar sobre Cristo y las posturas cristianas en situaciones de la vida; y un programa de retiros, formación, y apostolados especializados como el JOC.
A principios de 1972 se recibió financiación especial para el movimiento juvenil de la Campaña para el Desarrollo Humano y el 23 de agosto de ese mismo año, el movimiento se incorporó como “Equipos Unidos”. Se impartió una serie de talleres especiales de capacitación a través de Capacitación para Vivir a grupos juveniles de la parroquia para ayudarlos a desarrollar habilidades de liderazgo y habilidades en procesos y dinámicas grupales. Otro joven sacerdote de ascendencia puertorriqueña, el P. Anthony M. Stevens, C.P., se unió al personal del movimiento juvenil y para fines de ese año, casi trescientos adultos jóvenes habían participado en una u otra fase del movimiento. Los sacerdotes asesores del movimiento fueron sucesivamente el P. McCarthy, P. Stevens y el P. César Ramírez, sacerdote de la Arquidiócesis de San Juan. El movimiento juvenil continuó hasta principios de 1973, cuando las autoridades arquidiocesanas decidieron terminarlo.

Movimiento Familiar Cristiano. Debido a la preocupación por fortalecer la vida familiar de los hispanos en la arquidiócesis, el grupo de trabajo sobre apostolados laicos recomendó el desarrollo de un apostolado especializado para las parejas casadas. Se decidió utilizar el Movimiento Familiar Cristiano. Esto no fue simplemente una traducción al español del Christian Family Movement; el movimiento familiar latinoamericano tuvo una génesis diferente y un estilo diferente. Junto con el movimiento inglés, se ocupó de un estudio serio del matrimonio y la familia y utilizó los métodos familiares de acción apostólica desarrollados por primera vez en los primeros movimientos jocistas.
El movimiento deliberadamente creció lentamente; aun así, en pocos años incluyó a varios cientos de parejas casadas en unas áreas clave de la arquidiócesis. El Director de Desarrollo Cristiano y Familiar y el moderador del Movimiento Cristiano Familiar (en inglés) dentro de la arquidiócesis alentó el desarrollo separado del grupo de habla hispana por parte de la oficina de apostolado hispano.
En el verano de 1968, un grupo de líderes del Movimiento Familiar Cristiano en España vino a los Estados Unidos para presentar el Encuentro Conyugal, un tipo especial de retiro de fin de semana para parejas casadas diseñado para ayudarlas a profundizar su comunicación mutua y confrontar mejor los desafíos de su matrimonio. Desde esa fecha, los Encuentros Conyugales se han ofrecido regularmente en el Centro de San José y, más tarde, a través del Movimiento  Familiar Cristiano arquidiocesano.

Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral. El Comité Coordinador para el apostolado hispano sintió la necesidad de algún programa adicional de formación más extensa para líderes laicos y comenzó a considerar posibilidades diferentes para ello. Después de consultar con sacerdotes, líderes religiosos y laicos  involucrados en el apostolado hispano en una reunión en enero de 1972, se desarrollaron planes para un instituto pastoral arquidiocesano, una especie de escuela para la formación de líderes laicos. Se acordó que este instituto pastoral debería ser un programa para la formación de líderes en general y no limitarse a un programa de diaconado. Sin embargo, se recomendó que fuera tan estructurado que después de dos años un estudiante estaría preparado para la ordenación como diácono si así lo desearan todos los interesados. Otras recomendaciones incluyen que haya un sacerdote-director a tiempo completo asistido por un equipo mixto de hispanos y estadounidenses y que los estudiantes participen en el apostolado.
Después de una revisión preliminar de la idea por el Cardenal Cooke y el vicario general, un subcomité presidido por el P. Thomas Leonard se estableció para desarrollar planes detallados. Una recomendación al cardenal de que se realizara un programa piloto en el Seminario Preparatorio Catedral a partir de febrero de 1973 fue aprobado bajo la supervisión del P. Leonard. Las clases se llevaron a cabo una noche a la semana con cursos de teología, escritura, historia de la iglesia, sociología, y otras disciplinas relacionadas y, en particular, habilidades pastorales. Hasta la fecha, varios cientos de líderes laicos parroquiales han recibido hasta tres años de capacitación en este programa.

Programas de Radio y Televisión. La oficina hispana continuó desarrollando programas de radio y televisión en español bajo el liderazgo del coordinador a tiempo completo, el Sr. Ángel Pérez. Un programa similar al existente “Cara a Cara en el Mundo de Religión” comenzó en el canal 47 de televisión en octubre de 1969 como parte de la serie de programas “Tribuna Hispana” y continuó de forma experimental mensualmente, durante cuatro meses. Para la Navidad de ese año, el canal 47 transmitió un programa ecuménico especial de una hora antes de la Misa del Gallo.
En octubre de 1969, una Misa celebrada en español comenzó a transmitirse en vivo en la radio WBNX todos los domingos desde la Capilla de San Cristóbal en Manhattan. Cada semana, una parroquia diferente venía a celebrar la Misa allí con sus propios celebrante, servidores, lectores y coro. En 1970, la misa comenzó a grabarse en una iglesia parroquial y luego se transmitió unas horas más tarde.
En noviembre de 1969, el Canal 41 comenzó a televisar semanalmente una celebración de la liturgia dominical pregrabada en sus estudios la semana anterior. De nuevo, grupos de parroquias diferentes participaron regularmente en el programa. Al igual que la Misa de radio, aunque se presentó principalmente para encierros y para aquellos que de otra manera no podían asistir a Misa en una iglesia, esta Misa televisada tenía una función importante de difundir el conocimiento de la nueva liturgia y catequizar a las personas para ella. El Domingo de Ramos de 1970, la presentación de la Misa cambió del mediodía a una hora de la tarde. Durante los meses de invierno y primavera, los servicios independientes de calificación de audiencia calcularon que se vio en 20,000 a 30,000 hogares en el área metropolitana.
En febrero de 1970, una transmisión semanal de noticias religiosas ecuménicas de ocho minutos, “Noticiero Religioso”, producida por la oficina hispana, comenzó a ser televisada en vivo por el Canal 47. Además, en la primavera de 1970 se recibió una subvención de la Cofradía de Doctrina Cristiana para programación televisiva litúrgica y catequética.

Liturgia. Cuando se recibió el permiso para introducir el nuevo Ordo de la Misa en uso en la arquidiócesis el primer domingo de Adviento de 1969, la oficina del Apostolado Hispano preparó un correo extenso para todo el clero de la arquidiócesis ofreciéndoles los nuevos textos del Ordo e información sobre la compra de los libros litúrgicos necesarios en español. El P. James Welby, quien coordinó el trabajo de un grupo preocupado por la liturgia en español bajo Mons. Fox y el P. Stern, se le pidió que sirviera en la Comisión Litúrgica Arquidiocesana en julio de 1970 como enlace con el comité litúrgico hispano.

Boletín. A partir de mayo de 1970, se comenzó a enviar a todo el clero, religiosos, y líderes laicos de la arquidiócesis de habla hispana un boletín mensual bilingüe. En diciembre de 1972 fue incorporado en el “Clergy Report” arquidiocesano.

Proyectos Especiales

Las Hermanas. Con la ayuda y el aliento del P. Stern, Sor Armantina Peláez, una joven religiosa cubanoamericana que trabaja en la arquidiócesis, organizó la primera reunión en el área de Nueva York de “Las Hermanas”, la organización nacional para religiosas hispanas, el 6 de noviembre de 1971. El propósito de la reunión fue para considerar la mejor manera de servir al pueblo hispano, profundizar la identidad hispana de las hermanas, y encontrar una forma de organización para profundizar la solidaridad entre las hermanas. Resultó haber un apoyo sólido y suficiente para la organización permanente de Las Hermanas en el área. Se continuaron celebrando reuniones periódicas a través de la oficina hispana, que sirvió como una especie de oficina regional para Las Hermanas, y Sor Rosamaría Elías, M.S.B.T. continuó la promoción de la organización.

Comité Coordinador Inter-diocesano para los Hispanos. En noviembre de 1970, la División para Hispanos de la Conferencia Católica de los Estados Unidos patrocinó una reunión en Manhattan de los coordinadores diocesanos del apostolado hispano en el área metropolitana de Nueva York. Asistieron representantes de las diócesis de Bridgeport, Brooklyn, Camden, Newark, Nueva York, Paterson, Rockville Center y Trenton. Se discutió la necesidad de un patrón de área de comunicación y colaboración interdiocesana, así como la conveniencia de una oficina regional del noreste de la División para Hispanos.
La sugerencia de Stern de que se acordó continuar con el grupo como el “Comité Coordinador Interdiocesano para los Hispanos” con representación de cada una de las ocho diócesis en la región metropolitana triestada de Nueva York. Estaba claro que con el patrón de movilidad dentro de la región de la población hispana y total, el uso compartido de los mismos medios, y los desafíos pastorales comunes que la colaboración era necesaria. El comité acordó reunirse mensualmente para desarrollar la cooperación y colaboración en el apostolado hispano en la región para responder mejor a las necesidades de sus más de dos millones de residentes hispanos.

Taller Pastoral para Sacerdotes. En junio, julio y agosto de 1971, el Comité Coordinador del Apostolado Hispano celebró una serie de reuniones de dos días dedicadas exclusivamente a la discusión de los elementos de un plan pastoral para el próximo año del programa. Estaba claro que el plan tendría que surgir del interés, la necesidad, y la experiencia de los líderes laicos locales, religiosos, y sacerdotes. Se decidió tener dos talleres para reflexionar sobre teología pastoral, planificación, y objetivos, uno para sacerdotes y otro para líderes laicos seleccionados de parroquias y movimientos apostólicos.
Otra decisión importante tomada fue invitar al P. Edgard Beltrán, del departamento pastoral del Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano y director del Instituto Pastoral Latinoamericano, a Nueva York para ser uno de los principales participantes en ambos talleres y ayudar en planificarlos. Sus tres temas principales fueron la eclesiología, la antropología, y las direcciones pastorales. El primer taller, para sacerdotes, se celebró del 21 al 23 de septiembre en el seminario. Se pidió a todas las parroquias con servicios pastorales para hispanos que enviaran al menos un sacerdote representante; También se invitó al clero de las diócesis cercanas en el noreste. Asistieron al taller 94 sacerdotes y religiosos. No solo tuvo éxito como empresa para la planificación pastoral en la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York, sino que también estimuló la planificación pastoral y la colaboración a escala noreste e incluso nacional.

Primer Encuentro Hispano de Pastoral. Al concluir el taller pastoral, “durante una de las discusiones relacionadas con las necesidades y preocupaciones del ministerio hispano, el Padre Edgard Beltrán propuso la idea de un Encuentro Nacional para líderes hispanos de los Estados Unidos. El grupo exploró aún más la importancia y oportunidad de tal Encuentro Nacional y apoyó unánimemente la idea. Las recomendaciones de esta reunión se presentaron luego en noviembre al Comité Coordinador Interdiocesano para los Hispanos . . . (que) delegó al Padre Robert L. Stern de la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York y el Padre John O’Brien, director diocesano de Brooklyn, para discutir la posibilidad con Paul Sedillo, Director Nacional de la División para Hispanos de la Conferencia Católica de los Estados Unidos . . . (Él) apoyó con entusiasmo las recomendaciones del Noreste y del Congreso de Miami (de Educadores Religiosos) y las presentó al Secretario General de la Conferencia Católica de los Estados Unidos en enero de 1972. El Obispo Bernardin apoyó fácilmente la propuesta. Del 9 al 10 de febrero de 1972, un Comité de Planificación ampliado se reunió en el Centro de Educación Continua de la Universidad de Chicago para desarrollar el plan y los detalles de esta primera Conferencia Nacional Hispana que se celebrará en la primavera de 1972 . . .”
Una delegación de dieciocho personas de la arquidiócesis asistió al Encuentro en junio, incluido el vicario general, el director del apostolado hispano, sacerdotes y religiosos de oficinas e instituciones diocesanas relacionadas con los hispanos, y los sacerdotes-asesores y líderes laicos de los movimientos apostólicos hispanos.

Taller Pastoral para Líderes Laicos. El segundo de los dos talleres pastorales, este para líderes laicos, se llevó a cabo del 24 al 26 de septiembre en el Convento de María Reparatrix. Miembros de la secretaría del Movimiento de Cursillos de Cristiandad, la secretaría del Movimiento Familiar Cristiano, el Equipo Central Provisional del Movimiento Juvenil y otros líderes seleccionados de los movimientos fueron invitados. Cuarenta y siete de ellos participaron.
Al concluir el taller, hubo un entusiasmo considerable sobre la posibilidad de continuar esta nueva experiencia de colaboración entre los diversos líderes laicos. Decidieron apartar un fin de semana cada seis meses para llevar a cabo seminarios para líderes laicos y sacerdotes juntos, solicitar al Comité Coordinador que agregue los principales líderes laicos de cada movimiento arquidiocesano a sus miembros, y solicitar una reunión personal de líderes laicos con el cardenal para discutir el apostolado hispano. Para implementar esta última decisión, se eligió un comité especial de dieciocho personas.
El comité especial de los líderes laicos se reunió en octubre. Prepararon un borrador de una carta para el Cardenal Cooke que quisieron haber considerado en una sesión plenaria de los líderes laicos el 8 de enero de 1972. Posteriormente, se decidió invitar a sacerdotes y religiosos de habla hispana también. En esa reunión, las discusiones e ideas fueron más allá de las propuestas originales. Las más de 100 personas que participaron decidieron una serie de recomendaciones prioritarias para el futuro del apostolado hispano. Otra decisión fue reestructurar el comité para incluir también a los miembros del Comité de Coordinación, de modo que fuera representativo de todos los grupos del apostolado hispano en la arquidiócesis. Se acordó que el P. Stern no debía ser considerado parte del comité, ya que él era parte del personal del cardenal, sino que se solicitara su presencia en la reunión.
El P. Romeo F. Saldigloria, SJ, uno de los sacerdotes de la Gran Misión que había venido a trabajar a Nueva York, había preparado un extenso documento para la reunión del 8 de enero titulado, “Problemas religiosos de los hispanos, Ciudad de Nueva York. 1972.” Se acordó incluir algunos de los datos de este informe en la parte preliminar de la carta, aunque se advirtió que no todos sus datos podrían ser precisos.

Reunión de los Líderes del Apostolado Hispano con el Cardenal Cooke

Después de una serie de reuniones preparatorias, el 13 de marzo de 1972 se envió una carta formal al Cardenal Cooke firmada por 159 líderes laicos, religiosos y sacerdotes de habla hispana. La carta cuidadosamente planificada era en sí misma una revisión del estado de la población hispana de la arquidiócesis. Después de presentar algunos datos demográficos y socioeconómicos detallados, la carta pasó a discutir la condición religiosa de los hispanos de Nueva York y a presentar solicitudes específicas de participación en el liderazgo y la toma de decisiones:

La abrumadora mayoría de los migrantes hispanos llegan aquí a Nueva York como católicos . . . No solo hay relativamente pocos sacerdotes para cuidar a los católicos hispanos de la Arquidiócesis, sino que están representados de manera menos proporcional en la toma de decisiones y puestos de liderazgo . . . El cuidado de nuestra gente está abrumadoramente en manos de pastores asociados y sacerdotes visitantes y extra diocesanos . . .
Nuestra migración a Nueva York es la primera gran migración no europea y la primera que no viene acompañada por un clero nativo. Históricamente en las migraciones anteriores, ese clero asumió un papel de liderazgo natural para la comunidad migrante, no solo con respecto al ministerio religioso, sino en todo el proceso de desarrollo del migrante. Las estructuras actuales de la iglesia de Nueva York se desarrollaron en respuesta a las necesidades de un pueblo en particular y en el pasado sirvieron bien a esa gente. Nuestra presencia en Nueva York sin nuestro clero ha presentado un nuevo desafío para esta iglesia, uno al que no se ha respondido adecuadamente.
Somos hispanoamericanos y católicos. Creemos que, aunque lo que se ha hecho hasta ahora es insuficiente, es posible movilizar los recursos de la Iglesia en la Ciudad para promover el desarrollo de nuestra gente como seres humanos y como hijos de Dios. Como primer paso para lograr este objetivo y como un signo de esperanza y liderazgo en la Iglesia Hispana, pedimos lo siguiente:
1. Que se designe un Vicario Episcopal para los hispanohablantes con la consulta del Comité Coordinador del Apostolado Hispano y que la persona elegida sea hispanohablante, totalmente identificada con el pueblo hispano y su cultura, y que tenga todas esas facultades expresadas y implicadas por tal posición de acuerdo con la Ley Canónica.
2. Que en la próxima ocasión del nombramiento de un Vicario General se nombre a un sacerdote de habla hispana.
3. Que el Vicario General y el Vicario Episcopal para Hispanos consulten y trabajen estrechamente con el Comité Coordinador del Apostolado Hispano en todos los asuntos que afecten a la comunidad hispana de la Arquidiócesis.
4. Que en la próxima ocasión del nombramiento de nuevos Obispos Auxiliares en reconocimiento de la comunidad hispana, al menos uno de ellos sea de origen hispano con experiencia en trabajo pastoral en Nueva York y que este nombramiento se haga con la consulta de la comunidad hispana a través del Comité Coordinador del Apostolado Hispano.

La carta concluyó con una solicitud de una cita con el cardenal para una delegación de once personas facultadas para discutir estos asuntos en nombre de los signatarios.
El 29 de marzo de 1972, el cardenal se reunió con la delegación durante dos horas y media. También invitó a participar al vicario general, al director de Caridades Católicas, al secretario de educación, al presidente de la Junta de Personal Arquidiocesano, y al director del apostolado hispano.
Las principales áreas discutidas en la reunión fueron la supuesta discriminación de los pastores y otros sacerdotes hacia los laicos y clérigos hispanos, la necesidad de vocaciones religiosas hispanas y las razones por la falta de ellas, la necesidad de adaptar el programa del diaconado a la situación de los hispanos, las necesidades educativas de los hispanos en las escuelas católicas, la preparación de seminaristas para el apostolado hispano, el desarrollo de líderes hispanos, programas para ayudar a los jóvenes a lidiar con problemas de drogas y delincuencia, la participación de los hispanos en la toma de decisiones y políticas, las cuatro solicitudes en la carta, el papel de la oficina del apostolado hispano, y la disponibilidad del cardenal para la comunicación y consulta. No hubo decisiones ni resoluciones definitivas con respecto a los cuatro puntos específicos presentados. Solo se acordó que el vicario general, Mons. James P. Mahoney y el Sr. Luis Fontánez en nombre de la delegación prepararían un informe conjunto de la reunión.
En el transcurso de la reunión se hizo evidente que había diferentes expectativas sobre sus propósitos y aprensiones mutuas sobre las motivaciones entre sus participantes, pero fueron revelados y discutidos con éxito. Por parte de la delegación, debido al estudio largo y hasta entonces inconcluso de la reorganización del apostolado hispano por parte del vicario general, hubo algunas dudas sobre la sinceridad y la buena voluntad de las autoridades arquidiocesanas. Por parte del cardenal, aunque los preparativos de fondo para la reunión se informaron en el acta de la reunión mensual del Comité Coordinador, en los memorandos semanales dando un informe sobre el apostolado hispano a los jefes administrativos de los departamentos de la arquidiócesis, y en el boletín mensual de la oficina hispana, así como discutidos personalmente de antemano con el vicario general, parecía sospechoso de los motivos de la carta y la delegación y, en ocasiones, enojado con los puntos de vista planteados.
A pesar de las dificultades, la reunión fue muy positiva. Por primera vez, las autoridades de la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York escucharon directamente a los líderes de los católicos hispanos de Nueva York y escucharon tanto su gratitud por los servicios pastorales, educativos y caritativos de la arquidiócesis por ellos como su deseo de compartir una mayor responsabilidad por la iglesia en Nueva York y participar en la toma de decisiones al respecto. Las reuniones simbolizaron una mayoría de edad y, en ese sentido, el cumplimiento del mandato del cardenal Cooke de desarrollar líderes laicos. Los católicos hispanos de la iglesia de Nueva York deseaban ejercer el liderazgo no solo ser una población de clientes; en las palabras del Evangelio, no deseaban ser servidos sino servir.


VII. DESINTEGRACIÓN

El éxito mismo y la rapidez de la reorganización pastoral y el desarrollo de nuevas estructuras para la coordinación y promoción del apostolado hispano por el P. Stern y sus asociados provocaron, irónicamente, un serio cuestionamiento del papel de la oficina del apostolado hispano.

 El futuro de la Oficina Hispana.

En julio de 1971, el nuevo vicario general del cardenal Cooke, Mons. James Mahoney, y Mons. Joseph P. Murphy, canciller de la arquidiócesis, se había reunido con el director del apostolado hispano aparentemente para revisar el programa y el presupuesto del apostolado para el próximo año del programa. Sin embargo, en ese momento, en lugar de examinar el presupuesto propuesto, se planteó la cuestión de los límites del crecimiento y se inició un estudio de los propósitos y el futuro del apostolado hispano y su relación con otras instituciones diocesanas. Las principales preguntas planteadas en esa reunión fueron:
¿Debería el director del apostolado hispano continuar teniendo la responsabilidad administrativa directa de todos los programas operativos de la arquidiócesis relacionados con los hispanos?
¿No debería cada departamento arquidiocesano, oficina, y agencia estar al servicio de todas las personas? es decir, ¿no deberían cada uno tener un enfoque y personal bilingüe, bicultural (o multilingüe, multicultural), en lugar de dejar de prestar atención a la mayoría de los asuntos que afectan a la mitad de la población católica de la arquidiócesis a un departamento necesariamente limitado?
¿No debería la función principal del director del apostolado hispano, las preocupaciones pastorales hispanas, estar estrechamente vinculada a la oficina del vicario general como la que tiene la responsabilidad general de los asuntos pastorales y el título y la autoridad del director revisados ​​en consecuencia?
¿No debería cada programa existente para el apostolado de habla hispana ser asumido por algún otro departamento de la arquidiócesis y la oficina especial para el apostolado hispano como tal, en última instancia, dejar de existir?
Se le pidió a P. Stern que preparara un documento de posición y un borrador de propuesta para el futuro desarrollo y reorganización de la oficina hispana a la luz de la discusión y que lo presentara como base para un estudio posterior.

Asimilación versus Integración. Diecisiete años antes, Mons. Connolly había anticipado las dificultades que surgieron en la reunión. De hecho, por eso había instado firmemente a que el papel del coordinador se disocia de la asunción de responsabilidades apropiadas para los departamentos, agencias, e instituciones arquidiocesanos. En efecto, su diseño, que no fue aceptado, requería que el coordinador fuera una combinación de lo que ahora llamaríamos un vicario episcopal para los hispanos o las preocupaciones hispanas y un defensor del pueblo.
Se puede encontrar una justificación para el desarrollo histórico que tuvo lugar en la evolución de la oficina hispana en uno de los principios básicos articulados por el primer Encuentro Nacional Hispano de Pastoral: “El desarrollo correcto del liderazgo cristiano hispano requiere formas institucionales apropiadas. Este criterio no es separatista sino unificador. La verdadera integración se logra cuando diversos grupos están en posiciones de fuerza y ​​prestigio relativamente iguales y tienen respeto mutuo. El intento de integración de las minorías en las mayorías resulta prematuramente en una asimilación indeseable, no en la integración. Tal asimilación significa absorción cultural o, desde el otro punto de vista, dominación cultural y reemplaza el enriquecimiento mutuo que es el fruto de la verdadera integración”.
En ese sentido, era apropiado que se hubiera creado un departamento para las preocupaciones hispanas, que esa oficina y varios otros programas semiautónomos para el apostolado hispano se hubieran desarrollado y florecido, y también que el tipo de consolidación y centralización ordenado por el Cardenal Cooke han tomado lugar. Lo que ahora estaba en juego era si había llegado el momento de avanzar hacia la integración. El riesgo era que tal movimiento podría ser prematuro y podría producirse una cierta desintegración.

Planificación para la integración. El P. Stern aportó el mismo entusiasmo, creatividad, y habilidades administrativas para trazar la eliminación progresiva de la oficina del apostolado hispano que antes había llevado a su reorganización y desarrollo. Estaba convencido de que esto era apropiado y oportuno y luego informó al cardenal Cooke: “Desde muchos puntos de vista, la oficina hispana desde sus inicios ha sido una anomalía, aunque fue una creación audaz del Cardenal Spellman hace diecinueve años; en cierto sentido, en una diócesis donde la mitad de la población bautizada es de origen hispano, casi puede convertirse en una especie de tokenismo. Me sorprendió y me encantó encontrar este espíritu expresado por Mons. Mahoney cuando comenzó su trabajo como Vicario General de la Arquidiócesis.”
Según lo solicitado, Mons. Stern ofreció un primer borrador de una propuesta para su integración al vicario general. Una semana después, se celebró una segunda reunión con el vicario general y el canciller para considerar la propuesta y un presupuesto revisado que se presentó con ella. Después de la reunión, el P. Stern fue dirigido por el vicario general a reunirse con Mons. Eugene Clark, Director de Comunicaciones, para discutir la asunción de responsabilidad por el contacto y la atención a los medios de comunicación hispanos por ese departamento. A principios de agosto, el Comité Coordinador también revisó el borrador del plan e hizo una serie de sugerencias y recomendaciones que fueron compartidas con el vicario general.
Desde Mons. Mahoney expresó su intención de reorganizar el apostolado hispano para septiembre, se realizó otra reunión con él en agosto para hacer las revisiones finales del plan de reorganización. Fue preparado para su distribución a los jefes de departamento a finales de ese mes. Incluyó siete propuestas específicas:

1. La oficina hispana debe continuar en este momento; sin embargo, no debe considerarse una oficina y departamento permanentes de la Arquidiócesis—idealmente, no debería haber departamentos étnicos; sin embargo, las necesidades inmediatas y particulares de los grupos de inmigrantes requieren una comprensión, atención y programas especiales . . .
2. La responsabilidad administrativa debe estar separada de la responsabilidad pastoral, en la medida de lo posible, y esta última debe ser la principal preocupación de la Oficina hispana . . . la administración de los programas operativos debe ser entregada . . . la supervisión administrativa de las instituciones y los programas autónomas deben ser asumidos por el departamento correspondiente.
3. Si la principal preocupación del vicario general son los asuntos pastorales, entonces el sacerdote con responsabilidad en los asuntos pastorales hispanos debe ser considerado como parte del personal inmediato del vicario general—planificación pastoral para una parte tan grande de la diócesis sin relación al resto es indeseable y necesariamente debilitado en consecuencia—Es necesario aclarar la responsabilidad del sacerdote a cargo de esta área. Debe enfatizarse su relación con él personalmente como una especie de vicario para los hispanos en lugar de un jefe de departamento—Esto colocará claramente todos los asuntos pastorales inmediatamente bajo el vicario general y facilitará la transferencia de programas y funciones de la oficina hispana a otros departamentos . . .
4. La transferencia de programas y funciones a otros departamentos debe ser un proceso gradual durante un período de tiempo—El Departamento de Comunicaciones se está reorganizando y renovando y está en condiciones de funcionar de manera bilingüe; por el momento los demás departamentos no están preparados para una reorganización—Los jefes de departamento necesitan tiempo para planificar y desarrollar programas para que puedan atender eficazmente las necesidades de la comunidad hispana.
5. El vicario para los hispanos debe continuar supervisando los programas pastorales actualmente en desarrollo en el apostolado hispano—En el presente . . . se ha desarrollado una visión unificada y un plan pastoral que no debe fragmentarse—Es necesario tener un plan unificado de formación en todos los programas del apostolado que se apoya en una sólida teología y espiritualidad—El coordinador de los asuntos pastorales hispanos debe continuar sirviendo de enlace y coordinador de los movimientos apostólicos hispano (p. ej. Movimiento de los Cursillos de Cristiandad, Movimiento Familiar Cristiano, Movimiento Juvenil) y otros programas de una naturaleza pastoral.
6. De las funciones existentes de la Oficina Hispana, las siguientes deben ser asumidas y desarrolladas por las agencias y departamentos apropiados de la Arquidiócesis:
Ministerios especiales. La dirección de los ministerios especiales que involucran a los hispanos (por ejemplo, el área de Newburgh-Beacon, el área de Middletown-Pine Island) debe estar bajo el vicario general y la cancillería, al igual que todas las demás asignaciones pastorales.
Liturgia. La responsabilidad de la celebración correcta de la Liturgia en español y de asesorar a los sacerdotes sobre materiales textuales y cambios debe ser asumida por la Comisión Litúrgica Arquidiocesana.
Formación pastoral de seminaristas. Los programas para la formación pastoral de seminaristas y sacerdotes recién ordenados son lógicamente la responsabilidad del seminario. El personal del seminario debe asumir la preocupación por la capacitación de seminaristas en español y por la preparación para trabajar en una situación pastoral bilingüe y bicultural.
Investigación y planificación pastoral. Estas funciones deben ser asumidas por la oficina a ser establecida.
Comunicaciones. En la actualidad, el Canal 47 televisa regularmente una Misa dominical en español y ocasionalmente se presentan programas especiales de radio y televisión. Además, los comunicados de prensa y la información se suministran regularmente a la prensa en español. Todas estas funciones y otras pueden ser asumidas mejor por el Departamento de Comunicaciones.
Centro de San José. Aunque el acuerdo contractual con la Provincia Agustina Recoleta con respecto a la dotación de personal del centro prevé que el trabajo pastoral de los sacerdotes allí se realice bajo la supervisión de la Oficina Hispana, el administrador del centro debe tratar directamente con el departamento financiero de la diócesis en asuntos puramente administrativos.
7. Algunos asuntos, aunque no específicamente pastorales, se dejarían para el presente bajo la responsabilidad de la Oficina Hispana; es decir:
Fiesta de San Juan. El futuro de la Fiesta necesita un estudio considerable. Sin embargo, seguirá representando una función religiosa especial a nivel diocesano para la comunidad española.
Enseñanza de idiomas . . . . Cuando su futuro se estabilice, el Departamento de Educación puede asumir la responsabilidad.

Aplazamientos, revisiones, y retornos. En septiembre, el plan no se sometió a la consideración de los jefes del departamento administrativo, aunque habían seguido siendo informados regularmente sobre el hecho del estudio de reorganización. El vicario general decidió que se necesitaban más estudios y modificaciones del plan y, mientras tanto, no se aprobó ningún presupuesto operativo para la operación continua de la oficina de apostolado hispano.
Después de otra reunión de septiembre con el vicario general y el canciller, se le pidió a P. Stern que presentara “una serie de propuestas particulares . . . para implementar la política discutida y acordada”. Se redactaron 35 propuestas específicas para implementar los deseos del vicario general y el canciller. En resumen, pidieron que se establezca un puesto de vicario para hispanos para reemplazar al director del Apostolado Hispano y que el vicario rinda cuentas directamente al vicario general y sea considerado parte de su personal y oficina; que todos los programas y actividades de la oficina actual del apostolado hispano se transfieran inmediatamente a otras oficinas, departamentos o agencias apropiados o directamente a la supervisión del vicario general; y que la oficina física del nuevo vicario se limite a dos habitaciones con dos miembros del personal.
Este nuevo plan de reorganización, el más radical de todos hasta la fecha. fue revisado y modificado nuevamente por el vicario general en octubre. Aunque estaba satisfecho con las líneas generales de la propuesta, llegó a la conclusión de que no era necesario establecer un vicario para los hispanos y, en cambio, propuso recomendar al cardenal para que el director del apostolado hispano sea nombrado vicecanciller para asuntos pastorales hispanos. El vicecanciller debía rendir cuentas directamente al vicario general y ser considerado parte de su personal y oficina.
Cuando esta revisión final fue presentada al Cardenal Cooke, “apoyó la noción del desarrollo de la atención a los hispanos por parte de todos los departamentos con una transferencia gradual de funciones de la oficina del Director del Apostolado Hispano; no aceptó la recomendación para una redefinición del la responsabilidad y el título de P. Stern según lo propuesto “.

Primera separación de funciones y programas. En diciembre, la responsabilidad de la atención a los medios de comunicación en español se transfirió a la Oficina de Comunicaciones. El P. José Álvarez, que había estado trabajando en esta área a tiempo parcial durante el año pasado, se unió al personal de la oficina de comunicaciones. Además, la Señorita Anita Díaz, del personal de la oficina de apostolado hispano, se fue para unirse al personal del departamento de comunicaciones como traductora a tiempo completo.
Pocos días después, se revisó nuevamente el borrador del presupuesto del Apostolado Hispano. Mons. Murphy solicitó que se presenten presupuestos separados para seis programas (Instituto de Comunicaciones Interculturales, Instituto de Idiomas, Ministerio de Migrantes, Movimiento Juvenil, Ministerio del Área de Newburgh-Beacon, y Fiesta de San Juan), presumiblemente para facilitar su transferencia futura, y un presupuesto muy reducido se estableció para el apostolado hispano como departamento de la oficina pastoral. Solo el último presupuesto fue aprobado provisionalmente en ese momento; los otros continuaron siendo estudiados.

Una crisis de confianza

Después de la reunión de la delegación de líderes hispanos con el Cardenal Cooke en marzo de 1972, el P. Stern tuvo la oportunidad al mes siguiente de discutir personalmente con él el estudio no concluyente y la reorganización del apostolado hispano. Compartió con el cardenal su preocupación de que la inseguridad sobre el futuro y la incapacidad de hacer planes a largo plazo habían tenido un efecto muy grave sobre las actitudes y la moral y que la falta de una definición clara del alcance y la autoridad de su responsabilidad lo estaba haciendo cada vez más difícil de operar.
Posteriormente, el cardenal Cooke le preguntó a Mons. Mahoney y el P. Stern presentará una nueva recomendación conjunta sobre la definición del cargo de director del apostolado hispano.
El vicario general informó al P. Stern en junio que sus planes del año anterior para la oficina hispana se modificaron nuevamente. El vicario general ahora preveía dos posiciones distintas: una, un vicecanciller responsable de asuntos relacionados con parroquias, clero, y asuntos canónicos; la otra, un coordinador de programas de formación apostólica. Primero sugirió que el P. Stern ahora toma la última posición y luego, en agosto, lo instó a considerar aceptar responsabilidad por una parroquia. Al día siguiente, el vicario general se reunió con la delegación al cardenal y les anunció que el nuevo programa de formación de líderes laicos, que había sido planeado y recomendado por el Comité Coordinador y que sería una de las principales responsabilidades del nuevo rol del P. Stern, debía ser iniciado y dirigido por el seminario.
Mientras tanto, el Cardenal Cooke le escribió al P. Stern para expresar su satisfacción con sus primeros tres años de trabajo como director del apostolado hispano y para renovar su nombramiento por otro período de tres años.

El despido de la Señorita Díaz. Después del nuevo nombramiento del cardenal Cooke, el vicario general no discutió ningún plan nuevo para la oficina hispana ni discutió nada más con el P. Stern. Sin embargo, en noviembre surgió una nueva situación que sirvió para erosionar aún más la confianza en las intenciones de las autoridades arquidiocesanas. Mons. Eugene Clark, el director de comunicaciones de la arquidiócesis, terminó el puesto de traductor a tiempo completo debido a un trabajo insuficiente para justificar el puesto. Esto fue motivo de gran preocupación, ya que la Señorita Díaz había sido la coordinadora administrativa y secretaria ejecutiva del apostolado hispano y su reasignación a la oficina de comunicaciones simbolizó el comienzo de la “integración” del apostolado hispano, la primera transferencia de un importante responsabilidad a otro departamento. Los esfuerzos para restaurar esa posición no tuvieron éxito; sin embargo, el P. Álvarez continuó en su responsabilidad con los medios hispanos.
El Comité Coordinador no había sido informado sobre el asunto y se opuso a la decisión tomada. Cuestionaron enérgicamente la sinceridad en el interés por los hispanos por parte de algunas autoridades diocesanas y vieron el despido de Señorita Díaz como un nuevo recorte en la atención y el despliegue de recursos en favor de los hispanos.

Renuncia del Padre Stern. El largo, doloroso e inconcluso proceso de reorganización del apostolado hispano, las directivas frecuentemente cambiantes de sus superiores, los intentos de reducir el presupuesto y el personal. y ahora el cambio en el asunto del departamento de comunicaciones persuadió al P. Stern que lo que estaba ocurriendo no era el proceso de integración que había aceptado tan fácilmente. En diciembre habló con el Cardenal Cooke y solicitó ser relevado de sus responsabilidades como director del apostolado hispano y que se le permitiera un período sabático para descansar, rezar y estudiar. La solicitud fue motivada por la convicción del P. Stern “de que había superado su utilidad en el puesto y carecía de la confianza de sus superiores que sentía necesaria para su continuación”.
El cardenal se reunió nuevamente con el P. Stern en enero para discutir una transición ordenada de responsabilidades a un nuevo director y la orientación futura de la oficina.

El Senado de Sacerdotes. Después del despido del traductor a tiempo completo del Departamento de Comunicaciones, el Comité de Renovación Pastoral del Senado de Sacerdotes de la arquidiócesis comenzó a cuestionar los servicios de traducción de ese departamento. Con la renuncia del P. Stern, el comité comenzó a cuestionar los planes para el apostolado hispano. En enero de 1973, el Senado estableció un Comité Ad Hoc de dieciséis miembros sobre el apostolado hispano que tuvo tres reuniones con el P. Stern para recopilar información y documentación.
El comité se reunió en febrero con el vicario general, quien les presentó una propuesta para crear dos oficinas separadas, un vicecanciller para asuntos hispanos y un director del apostolado de hispano. Dos días después se anunció el nombramiento de un nuevo vicecanciller para los asuntos pastorales hispanos, para sorpresa de los miembros del comité. El comité continuó trabajando para describir las responsabilidades de la oficina de apostolado hispano y para desarrollar un perfil de las características de un nuevo director permanente. El comité presentó su informe final en mayo.

P. Francis Gorman

El Vicecanciller para Asuntos Pastorales Hispanos. Aunque el vicario general se había reunido no solo con el comité del Senado sino también el día anterior con el Comité Coordinador para el apostolado hispano, en ambos casos para compartir con ellos sus planes para el futuro del apostolado, ninguno de los grupos estaba preparado para el repentino anuncio de que el P. Francis P. Gorman fue nombrado Vicecanciller para Asuntos Pastorales Hispanos y Director Interino del Apostolado Hispano. Este anuncio parecía haberse hecho en respuesta a una consulta telefónica realizada ese mismo día por el New York Daily News pidiendo comentarios oficiales sobre un artículo que estaban preparando sobre la arquidiócesis y los hispanos, incluida la condición de la oficina hispana y la renuncia del P. Stern.
Unos días después el P. Stern recibió un permiso de ausencia de su puesto de director del apostolado hispano y se fue a Roma con una beca del cardenal para asistir a un programa de renovación teológica de tres meses allí.


VIII. LA OFICINA HISPANA REDUCIDA

El P. Gorman había regresado a la arquidiócesis en mayo de 1972 después de servir durante tres años en la parroquia de San Francisco de Asís en la arquidiócesis de Caracas, Venezuela, una parroquia patrocinada y atendida por la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York desde su inicio en 1969 hasta la diócesis de Nueva York lo entregó a la diócesis de Caracas en diciembre de 1974. Hablaba español con fluidez y estaba familiarizado con los problemas pastorales latinoamericanos. Sin embargo, no tenía un trabajo envidiable. Elegido bruscamente y relativamente poco familiarizado con la coordinación diocesana del apostolado hispano, tuvo que enfrentar de inmediato no solo un conjunto complejo y ahora ambiguamente definido de responsabilidades administrativas, sino una reacción fuerte y en algunos casos pública ante los acontecimientos del pasado inmediato. Inicialmente hubo manifestaciones, la organización de un grupo de protesta, cristianos hispanoamericanos por la justicia, y más publicidad crítica en The New York Times y Daily News. El Comité Coordinador y el Comité Ad Hoc del Senado de Sacerdotes continuaron presionando para obtener una explicación satisfactoria de la reorganización de la oficina hispana y para ofrecer sugerencias para un director permanente.
Una responsabilidad inmediata y exigente que enfrenta el P. Gorman fue la organización de la tradicional Fiesta de San Juan y el programa de estudio de idiomas de verano de la arquidiócesis, además de todas las tareas rutinarias de la oficina hispana. Con el nombramiento de un director permanente del apostolado hispano seis meses después, pudo concentrarse en sus responsabilidades de cancillería. Gradualmente, su participación principal en el apostolado hispano como tal se convirtió en la dirección del Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral, la supervisión del ministerio del área de Newburgh-Beacon y la supervisión y participación en el programa del ministerio de migrantes en el área de Middletown-Pine Island.
En agosto de 1977 dejó su puesto en la cancillería para asumir un pastorado en el área donde había estado trabajando en el ministerio de migrantes. Ningún sucesor fue nombrado.

El Primer Director Hispano de la Oficina Hispana.

P. Joaquín Beaumont

En agosto de 1973 se hizo una cita innovadora cuando el primer hispano fue nombrado por un período de tres años como director del apostolado de habla hispana para reemplazar al p. Gorman en su calidad de director interino. Se seleccionó a Joaquín B. Beaumont, un sacerdote de España con experiencia en parroquias de Nueva York y luego en proceso de incardinación en la arquidiócesis.
Una dificultad implícita para el P. Beaumont fue definir su propia responsabilidad laboral. A pesar de todos los estudios sobre el futuro del apostolado hispano, no se le había comunicado nada específicamente para redefinir el puesto. La relación entre las dos posiciones arquidiocesanas también fue ambigua. Aunque el cargo de vicecanciller implicaba una buena medida de autoridad canónica por su parte y se lo consideraba parte del personal inmediato del vicario general, el director del apostolado hispano también era un jefe de departamento que informaba al vicario general. Afortunadamente, la relación entre los dos hombres fue amistosa y se evitaron con éxito conflictos de autoridad y jurisdicción.
En mayo de 1974 el p. Beaumont pudo informarle al Cardenal Cooke que “después de casi un año en el nuevo puesto y después de una comunicación continua con los canales adecuados, llegué a la siguiente comprensión de mi puesto: … creo que es el trabajo del Director del Apostolado Hispano para dirigir y/o coordinar y asesorar tres áreas diferentes de actividades … ÁREA I: Preparar al personal para trabajar mejor con la parte hispana de la Arquidiócesis y ayudar a los sacerdotes y hermanas hispanos a integrarse mejor en la Iglesia de Nueva York. Esta área incluye dos tipos diferentes de programas: … Instituto de Idiomas … Instituto Intercultural … ÁREA II: Esta área incluye la organización, coordinación, y dirección de celebraciones religiosas hispanas anuales en Nueva York … ÁREA III: Esta oficina coordina los movimientos apostólicos donde participan los hispanos. . .”

Instituto Intercultural. El verano que el P. Beaumont comenzó a trabajar como director de apostolado hispano el programa de idiomas fue organizado por el P. Gorman. Siguiendo la política de formación de clérigos y religiosos en otras áreas además de Puerto Rico, envió un gran grupo para estudiar idiomas durante el verano a Bogotá, Colombia. Tan pronto como el P. Beaumont asumió la responsabilidad del programa de verano, prestó considerable atención a su mejora y reorganización. Cuando la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico se negó a ofrecer el programa habitual de verano, la capacitación se concentró en Bogotá y en la República Dominicana.

La Fiesta de San Juan. Inicialmente el P. Beaumont continuó el modelo de la fiesta de San Juan que había heredado, con una celebración religioso-cívico-cultural en el Downing Stadium en la isla de Randall. En 1974 para aclarar cualquier duda sobre la naturaleza de la fiesta, el comité ejecutivo de la fiesta enfatizó que “es una manifestación religiosa … del pueblo puertorriqueño … en unión y comunidad con los otros hispanos bajo la supervisión de la jerarquía de la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York.” A pesar del los mejores esfuerzos del P. Beaumont, así como los de sus predecesores, resultó imposible de presentar un espectáculo religioso digno y popular en la isla de Randall y se acordó trasladar la celebración a un lugar en el corazón de la ciudad, Central Park. Un estilo reducido de celebración de la fiesta en Central Park demostró ser mucho más manejable que los anteriores y este formato todavía se sigue en la actualidad.

La Misa de la Fiesta de S. Juan en Central Park

Celebración de Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia. El 12 de enero de 1973 se celebró la primera celebración pública de la fiesta de Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia, Patrona de la República Dominicana, en la Catedral de San Patricio. La celebración fue organizada por el P. Milton Ruiz bajo la supervisión del P. Stern. Unas cuatro mil personas se congregaron en la catedral para una liturgia especial celebrada por el Arzobispo Coadjutor Hugo Polanco de Santo Domingo, y el cardenal Cooke se dirigió a la congregación después de la comunión.
El P. Beaumont continuó alentando la celebración de la fiesta y comenzó a involucrar más directamente a la oficina hispana en la organización de la celebración de 1975. Esto comenzó a establecer un patrón para otras celebraciones religiosas en la catedral de carácter nacional y en los próxima años se iniciaron una variedad de nuevas celebraciones anuales que reflejan la creciente diversidad del país de origen de los católicos hispanos de Nueva York.

Celebración del Día de la Raza. Durante varios años, un desfile bien organizado y de gran acogida marcó una celebración anual de la celebración del descubrimiento de América, el Día de la Raza. En 1974 el P. José Álvarez del departamento de comunicaciones de la arquidiócesis ayudó al comité del desfile a organizar una celebración religiosa en la Catedral de San Patricio junto con el desfile. El P. Beaumont decidió asumir toda la responsabilidad de la celebración religiosa del próximo año y convertirla en un evento realmente hispano, no solo español. Esto continuó siendo una participación anual de la oficina hispana.

El Encuentro Arquidiocesano. El exitoso primer Encuentro Hispano de Pastoral nacional celebrado en junio de 1972 provocó una serie de encuentros regionales y diocesanos. En los años siguientes, hubo un genuino “movimiento de encuentro” en todo el país. En Nueva York, el Comité Coordinador para el apostolado hispano sugirió al nuevo director, el Padre. Beaumont, que se celebrara un encuentro diocesano. Las pocas reuniones de líderes laicos convocadas por el P. Stern había sido bien recibido y productivo, pero fueron suspendidos después de su partida de la oficina hispana. El tiempo parecía oportuno para una consulta aún más amplia y reunir a los líderes de la comunidad católica hispana en la arquidiócesis. El Comité Coordinador desarrolló aún más la idea y estableció un subcomité especial de trabajo presidido por el Padre Beaumont para preparar para el encuentro. En su informe al Cardenal Cooke, el P. Beaumont caracterizó el plan sugerido para un encuentro como “algo que puede ser arriesgado y desafiante, pero hoy en día inevitable. Me parece que puede ser muy útil para el apostolado hispano … Hemos sido cuidadosos en la planificación y la gente parece estar en el espíritu correcto … “
El encuentro se celebró el 15 de junio de 1974 con gran éxito. Fue una experiencia positiva, proporcionando una oportunidad muy necesaria para el clero, los religiosos, y los líderes laicos de las parroquias locales, así como para aquellos en puestos de responsabilidad a nivel diocesano para compartir y expresar sus preocupaciones. Una serie de recomendaciones prioritarias surgieron del encuentro para el desarrollo futuro del apostolado hispano, algunas de las cuales luego fueron respondidas efectivamente por la arquidiócesis:

la Iglesia debería establecer un centro de inmigración para orientar a los inmigrantes sobre asuntos relacionados con la residencia legal, los documentos adecuados, el trabajo y otros servicios sociales.
la arquidiócesis debe iniciar programas para la ordenación de diáconos hispanos permanentes.
la Iglesia debe reorganizar y revivir el Movimiento Juvenil Hispano y ofrecerle todo su apoyo e intentar obtener un centro para sus actividades.

El Encuentro Regional del Nordeste. En noviembre de 1974 se realizó el primer Encuentro Regional del Noreste en Holyoke, Massachusetts. Originalmente fue convocado a través de la División para Hispanos de la Conferencia Católica de los Estados Unidos. En los meses anteriores al evento, se llevaron a cabo reuniones periódicas de planificación en las que participaron los directores diocesanos del apostolado hispano de las diócesis de la región y sacerdotes, religiosos, y líderes laicos en el apostolado. Asistió una gran delegación de la arquidiócesis encabezada por el cardenal Cooke.
En el encuentro, se eligió un Comité Pastoral Regional del Nordeste para Hispanos que comenzó a reunirse regularmente en enero de 1975. El comité se concentró en la preparación de un centro pastoral regional del noreste para hispanos. El centro fue inaugurado en febrero de 1976. Aunque no fue un proyecto de la arquidiócesis como tal, fue fuertemente apoyado por las autoridades arquidiocesanas desde su inicio. La diócesis de Nueva York es su principal fuente de apoyo financiero diocesano y en agosto de 1977 el centro trasladó su sede al Centro Católico de Nueva York.

Servicios de Consejería. Aunque la oficina hispana como tal era un departamento pastoral-administrativo de la arquidiócesis, cada vez que alguien de habla hispana venía al Centro Católico de Nueva York con una necesidad personal que no era identificable como perteneciente al servicio de cualquier otro departamento, esa persona era enviada a la oficina hispana. El P. Beaumont alentó esto y trató de hacer de la oficina un centro donde las personas recibieran una cálida acogida y recibieran atención y asesoramiento comprensivos, buscando una solución a sus problemas y no solo una derivación a una agencia apropiada.
Un problema frecuente presentado en la oficina se refería al estado civil de los inmigrantes, la difícil situación de los recién llegados indocumentados a Nueva York. El P. Beaumont se preocupó cada vez más por esto, al igual que muchos otros, ya que estaba involucrado un porcentaje tan alto de la población católica hispana de Nueva York. Jugó un papel decisivo al convocar a un grupo de sacerdotes para estudiar y discutir el asunto, y se ofreció a los sacerdotes y líderes laicos hispanos un taller general sobre la realidad de los indocumentados y las leyes y políticas sobre inmigración. Un resultado específico de ese taller fue el reconocimiento de la necesidad de algún tipo de oficina o programa arquidiocesano especializado para asuntos de inmigración.

Reuniones de Sacerdotes. No había habido reuniones regulares para los sacerdotes en el apostolado hispano desde que las reuniones regulares habían sido desalentadas en 1971. Muchos habían expresado su deseo de tal reunión, por lo que el P. Beaumont decidió planificar un día que proporcionaría una oportunidad fácil e informal para el diálogo, así como una oportunidad para la oración y la convivencia. En junio de 1976 se celebró un programa de todo el día en Dunwoodie, el seminario mayor de la arquidiócesis. Cincuenta y un sacerdotes visitaron o participaron en una parte u otra de la reunión, veintiún hispanos y treinta no-hispanos.
El programa ofreció una oportunidad muy necesaria para la fraternización entre los participantes hispanos y no-hispanos. Desde el desarrollo de la Asociación de Sacerdotes Hispanos tres años antes, los sacerdotes hispanos habían disfrutado de frecuentes ocasiones de diálogo entre ellos, pero, paradójicamente, este mismo éxito los estaba distanciando un poco del clero no-hispano o “estadounidense”. Hubo satisfacción general y un deseo expreso de más reuniones de este tipo en el futuro inmediato.

Pasos hacia delante y hacia atrás

Cuando el P. Beaumont aceptó su mandato de tres años en 1973, era muy optimista sobre las posibilidades de desarrollo del apostolado hispano y la oficina hispana y estaba convencido de que con suficiente tacto y deferencia por su parte se podría lograr un progreso considerable. Sin embargo, al final de ese período, se dio cuenta de que su optimismo era algo ingenuo. Aunque aportó a su posición una considerable experiencia pastoral y una visión psicológica, ya que tenía una especialización profesional en ese campo, estaba en desventaja por su relativa falta de familiaridad con la estructura y el funcionamiento de la burocracia administrativa de la arquidiócesis. Poco a poco experimentó la misma frustración con respecto a la falta de definición de sus responsabilidades y de una clara delimitación de su autoridad como lo había experimentado su predecesor y decidió solicitar el regreso a una tarea pastoral al final de su mandato.

P. Ignacio Lazcano, CRL

En octubre de 1976 fue reemplazado por otro sacerdote distinguido por su experiencia pastoral y efectividad en la comunidad hispana, el P. Ignacio Lazcano, C.R.L.. P. Lazcano, un vasco de España y miembro de la congregación religiosa de los Canónigos Regulares de Letrán, había sido uno de los miembros del equipo misionero de esa orden activo en el trabajo parroquial en la arquidiócesis durante muchos años. Directo, sincero y profundamente comprometido con el desarrollo del liderazgo laico, inmediatamente abrazó el curioso paquete mixto de responsabilidades que era la oficina del director de apostolado hispano. Para el observador atento, su nombramiento tenía un simbolismo ambivalente. Por un lado, un hispano nativo, activista, pastoral y creativo, fue nombrado para un puesto de liderazgo diocesano, que también tenía la dimensión positiva adicional de reconocer el importante papel desempeñado por el clero religioso en la vida de la arquidiócesis. Por otro lado, la diócesis había cerrado el círculo: antes de 1953, la responsabilidad principal del apostolado hispano estaba en manos del clero religioso, predominantemente el hispano nativo, y ahora, simbólicamente, de nuevo estaba en sus manos.

El Pueblo Habla. Casi inmediatamente después de asumir su nueva responsabilidad, el Padre Lazcano comenzó una extensa preparación arquidiocesana para el segundo Encuentro Nacional Hispano, “El Pueblo Habla”, que se celebrará al año siguiente. El plan nacional requería una amplia consulta de los hispanos a nivel de base en los Estados Unidos. En Nueva York, un grupo de trabajo que P. Lazcano convocó preparó un cuestionario detallado que se envió a más de 12,000 personas en toda la arquidiócesis, incluidas todas las parroquias, movimientos apostólicos, grupos y programas especiales, y consulados.
Las respuestas fueron cuidadosamente estudiadas, tabuladas, puestas en orden de prioridad y presentadas a una amplia convocatoria diocesana de 355 líderes laicos y 75 sacerdotes que representaban a todas las parroquias y movimientos hispanos de la arquidiócesis. Los participantes finalizaron las recomendaciones diocesanas para el Encuentro nacional y seleccionaron una delegación de 12 personas para representar la arquidiócesis en el mismo.

Inmigrantes Indocumentados. Otra preocupación recibiendo la atención inmediata del P. Lazcano fue la necesidad de una atención arquidiocesana oficial a las necesidades especiales de los inmigrantes indocumentados. El Encuentro Arquidiocesano de 1974 había solicitado el establecimiento de un centro de inmigración y el P. Beaumont había convocado reuniones y talleres para abordar el problema.
Reuniones de planificación continuaron siendo realizadas por el P. Lazcano y se desarrolló un diseño para una red de centros de asesoramiento de nivel vicariato. Las autoridades arquidiocesanas estuvieron muy de acuerdo con los planes y se aprobó un presupuesto para el desarrollo de los servicios de inmigración. Un punto que no se decidió por completo fue si el programa sería exclusivamente hispano asociado con la oficina de apostolado hispano o un programa general asociado con la Oficina de Desarrollo Social de la arquidiócesis.

Reclutamiento de Clero Hispanos adjunto.  Un problema creciente entre los preocupados por el personal del clero de la arquidiócesis fue la falta de sacerdotes de habla hispana. A pesar de las proyecciones hechas por Mons. Kelly y Mons. Connolly en 1953 y los planes y recomendaciones posteriores de Mons. Illich, los programas de capacitación en idiomas de la diócesis habían disminuido proporcionalmente en lugar de expandirse. Una causa importante fue el aumento del elemento de personalismo en la capacitación de los seminaristas y en las asignaciones del clero. Durante varios años, en lugar de que la mitad de la clase de sacerdotes recién ordenados fuera asignada a estudios de lengua española, solo un porcentaje mucho menor recibió capacitación como voluntarios para la experiencia como seminaristas. En el seminario en sí hubo renuencia a exigir competencia en el idioma español y fue solo en 1981 que algunos estudios de español se convirtieron en un requisito general.
En lugar de avanzar en la dirección de hacer de un bilingüismo mínimo una condición previa para la ordenación en la arquidiócesis, las autoridades diocesanas optaron por un reclutamiento deliberado del clero extranjero de habla hispana. A principios de 1977, una delegación de funcionarios diocesanos, incluido el P. Lazcano y el P. Gorman fue a España para establecer contactos oficiales con la jerarquía española para el préstamo contractual del clero diocesano español a la arquidiócesis para el ministerio aquí por períodos específicos de años. Esto complementaba contactos y acuerdos previos similares con los superiores religiosos mayores de varias congregaciones religiosas hispanas que tenían casas en Nueva York con respecto al préstamo del clero para otros servicios que no fueran sus propios ministerios en la arquidiócesis.
El esfuerzo simbolizó otro cerrado del círculo. El apostolado hispano en Nueva York había comenzado con el clero religioso predominantemente español. Un gran logro del Cardenal Spellman había sido la movilización del clero arquidiocesano para el apostolado hispano. Ahora ese empuje se tambaleaba y lo que algunos considerarían un paso pastoralmente regresivo se estaba tomando como una solución inmediata a la situación creada por una respuesta inadecuada a un desafío pastoral de larga duración. Sin embargo, para bien o para mal, la misión de reclutamiento tuvo poco éxito y no se continuó con ninguna seriedad.

Obispos Auxiliares de Habla Hispana.  En junio de 1977, el semanario católico de la arquidiócesis anunció que tres sacerdotes de habla hispana serían ordenados obispos, auxiliares del arzobispo de Nueva York. Esto se representó oficialmente como una respuesta excelente y sin precedentes al creciente número de católicos hispanos en la arquidiócesis y sus necesidades pastorales, y uno de ellos, el obispo Francisco Garmendia, fue nombrado también como “Vicario Episcopal para el Desarrollo Pastoral Hispano”.

El Obispo Francisco Garmendia

El obispo Garmendia era un sacerdote vasco que pocos años antes había dejado su congregación religiosa de los Cánones Regulares de Letrán para ser incardinado en la arquidiócesis. Durante muchos años había servido con distinción en las parroquias locales hispanas y disfrutaba de la reputación de un sacerdote parroquial dedicado, trabajador, de mentalidad tradicional. y totalmente al servicio de su pueblo. Su ordenación como obispo lo catapultó a un rol y un nivel de responsabilidad completamente nuevos. Anteriormente casi nunca había estado involucrado en ninguna actividad pastoral a nivel diocesano y ahora era prominente incluso a nivel nacional como el primer obispo auxiliar hispano de la arquidiócesis.
A los pocos meses de su nombramiento como vicario para el desarrollo pastoral hispano, la oficina del vicecanciller para asuntos pastorales hispanos fue desocupada y dejó de funcionar. El nuevo vicario heredó la misma ambigüedad de relación con el director del apostolado hispano que había existido anteriormente en el caso del vicecanciller. Canónicamente, el vicario episcopal disfrutó de la plena autoridad del ordinario de la diócesis en su área designada de responsabilidad, pero en la práctica fue el pastor de una parroquia relativamente pobre en el centro de la ciudad sin espacio de oficina o personal en la cancillería. Después de algunas tentativas bien intencionadas y frustradas de hacerse cargo de la dirección total del apostolado hispano de la arquidiócesis, el obispo Garmendia llegó a asumir un papel de liderazgo simbólico y representación oficial del cardenal, además de las responsabilidades consultivas asociadas a su cargo como vicario episcopal. El director del apostolado hispano continuó con sus responsabilidades tradicionales, ambos hombres colaboraron amigable y fraternalmente, y la oficina del vicario para el desarrollo pastoral hispano permaneció en gran parte ceremoniosa.
Los otros dos obispos de habla hispana eran ambos funcionarios arquidiocesanos no hispanos, Mons. Theodore E. McCarrick, el secretario del Cardenal Cooke, y Mons. Austin B. Vaughan, el rector del Seminario de San José. Mons. McCarrick había ayudado a Mons. Illich durante los meses de verano en la dirección del Instituto de Formación Misionera de la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico en 1959 y 1960 y había dirigido el programa él mismo durante los próximos tres veranos. Se desempeñó con distinción como rector de la Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico durante cuatro años antes de su regreso a la arquidiócesis en 1969. Aunque ni él ni Mons. Vaughan había estado activo en el apostolado hispano dentro de la arquidiócesis antes de su ordenación episcopal, como obispos, ambos comenzaron a involucrarse en las funciones y actividades hispanas. El obispo McCarrick fue nombrado vicario episcopal para el lado este de Manhattan, incluido el Harlem Hispano, y se entregó de inmediato a las preocupaciones pastorales locales, además de sus considerables actividades administrativas y de desarrollo arquidiocesanas, y continuó en ese cargo hasta su nombramiento como obispo de la nueva diócesis. de Metuchen en 1981. El obispo Vaughan llegó a ser el pastor de la parroquia de San Patricio en Newburgh, Nueva York, y vicario episcopal del condado de Orange.

La Renuncia del Padre Lazcano. El nombramiento del P. Garmendia como obispo auxiliar tuvo una consecuencia totalmente imprevista e impredecible, la renuncia del P. Lazcano del cargo de director del apostolado hispano. El obispo Garmendia había sido durante muchos años miembro de la congregación religiosa del P. Lazcano. Los antiguos asociados del obispo y todavía buenos amigos y compatriotas en la congregación que trabajaban en la arquidiócesis consideraron la falta total de consulta con las autoridades religiosas de la congregación por parte del Delegado Apostólico sobre la aptitud del P. Garmendia para el cargo episcopal ser una grave irregularidad. Sintieron que alguna expresión de sus sentimientos era apropiada. Impulsado especialmente por estas circunstancias, el p. Lazcano pidió ser relevado de su oficina. En diciembre de 1977 fue reasignado a una parroquia, y en febrero de 1978 el P. David Arias, O.A.R. fue nombrado como su sucesor.

 La Oficina Hispana en el Presente

P. David Arias, OAR

El nombramiento del P. Arias tenía algunas similitudes con el de su predecesor. Era un sacerdote de una orden religiosa española, miembro de la Provincia de San Agustín de los Padres Agustinos Recoletos, y había trabajado en la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York durante los últimos ocho años. A diferencia de sus predecesores, su experiencia en la arquidiócesis no fue un ministerio parroquial, sino la del director del Centro de San José y sacerdote-asesor del Movimiento de los Cursillos de Cristiandad de la arquidiócesis. Como tal, trajo a su nueva responsabilidad un amplio conocimiento personal de los líderes laicos hispanos parroquiales y una experiencia de la formación de liderazgo laico, así como una familiaridad con la planificación pastoral a nivel diocesano y cierta participación en ella desde la época del P. Stern.

Fortaleciendo de los programas existentes. Además de proporcionar la supervisión administrativa y la orientación de los programas de capacitación de idiomas durante el año y el verano, el P. Arias comenzó a dedicar gran parte de su tiempo y preocupación a continuar y fortalecer los movimientos apostólicos y los programas relacionados de la diócesis. La secretaría del Movimiento Familiar Cristiano fue revisada y renovada y se realizaron dos seminarios anuales para los líderes del movimiento de las veinticinco parroquias con equipos activos. El P. Lazcano había ayudado al Movimiento Juvenil Camino a trasladarse a la nueva Grace House para el ministerio juvenil. El P. Arias los ayudó a establecerse allí y ayudó en la formación del consejo juvenil de Camino y en la organización de la escuela de líderes.
Luz y Vida, un programa creativo para la formación del liderazgo laico, había desarrollado por el grupo de trabajo sobre formación para el apostolado laico presidido por el P. Arias y se había propagado ampliamente por toda la arquidiócesis durante su mandato como director del Centro de San José. Continuó brindándole todo su apoyo y comenzó a convocar dos talleres cada año, uno para los coordinadores parroquiales del programa y otro para todos los líderes de grupos locales. La primera de estas convocatorias en la parroquia de Holy Cross tenía más de doscientas personas presentes que representaban a aproximadamente doscientos grupos locales en cuarenta parroquias diferentes. El segundo se celebró en la parroquia de Santo Nombre.
En mayo de 1980 organizó un exitoso y bien asistido “Simposio Arquidiocesano” como seguimiento y respuesta al simposio regional del noreste sobre las conclusiones del segundo Encuentro Nacional Hispano. Más de trescientas personas asistieron al simposio, incluidos delegados de cada una de las parroquias hispanas de la arquidiócesis. El simposio ofreció muchas recomendaciones pastorales para el futuro del apostolado de habla hispana.

Servicios de Inmigración. Una actividad importante del P. Arias durante su primer año en la oficina hispana fue la de continuar y finalizar la planificación para el desarrollo de asesoramiento y servicios legales para inmigrantes que fue iniciada por sus predecesores. El resultado fue que en septiembre de 1978 se estableció una Oficina Arquidiocesana de Servicios de Inmigración bajo la dirección del P. Francisco Domínguez, A.A. para asesorar y ayudar a los inmigrantes en todos los asuntos relacionados con su estado y el de sus familias. Aunque no es específicamente un programa diseñado para inmigrantes hispanos, son la mayoría de los clientes atendidos.
En la primavera de 1980, la arquidiócesis estableció un programa de reasentamiento cubano en respuesta a la llegada masiva de cubanos en ese momento. Esto fue en realidad un renacimiento de la Oficina de Reasentamiento Cubana anterior, que había sido terminada como un proyecto especial unos años antes después de instalar a unos 25,000 refugiados cubanos en un período de tres o cuatro años.

Celebraciones nacionales. Desde la inauguración de la celebración arquidiocesana de la fiesta de Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia en la catedral en 1973, se establecieron otras diez celebraciones nacionales, de las cuales la más reciente fue la celebración de Nuestra Señora de la Divina Providencia, patrona de Puerto Rico, en noviembre. de 1981. En casi todos los casos, la celebración consiste en una liturgia solemne en la Catedral de San Patricio que involucra música y estilos de celebración típicos, dignatarios eclesiásticos de oros países, funcionarios consulares y cívicos, y una congregación de capacidad. Bajo el P. Arias, el papel de enlace con cada uno de los comités de planificación y la participación activa en su trabajo ha llegado a ser una función importante de la oficina hispana.

Medios de Comunicación. En 1980 el P. Arias organizó un programa semanal de media hora, “Pueblo en Marcha”, que se presentará en español en el canal 47 de televisión. El programa se colocó bajo la dirección de la Oficina de Comunicaciones de la arquidiócesis y tenía un formato de revista que incluía especialmente entrevistas de personas activas en la comunidad hispana y en el trabajo de la iglesia. Continuó durante aproximadamente un año. También arregló la reanudación, después de un lapso de varios años, de una misa dominical televisada semanalmente en español en el Canal 41 que comienza el domingo de Pentecostés en 1982. El programa también está dirigido por la oficina de Comunicaciones. Además de estos programas, en septiembre de 1982 se inauguró un nuevo boletín mensual en español para líderes laicos.

Programas Diocesanos Independentes de la Oficina Hispana

Por razones particulares de cada caso, cuatro programas de formación desarrollados desde la centralización de las actividades del apostolado hispano a principios de la década de 1970 continuaron relativamente independientes de la oficina hispana. Además, la Oficina de Investigación Pastoral de la arquidiócesis realizó un estudio independiente de la situación religiosa y social de la comunidad hispana en la arquidiócesis.

El Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral. Como se describió anteriormente, el Cardenal Cooke aceptó las recomendaciones del Comité Coordinador para el apostolado hispano para la creación de un instituto pastoral para la formación del liderazgo laico a principios de 1973; sin embargo, la supervisión y la gobernanza del nuevo programa e instituto no estuvieron asociadas con el Comité Coordinador ni con la oficina de apostolado hispano, sino que fueron entregadas al P. Thomas Leonard, aparentemente por su posición en el personal del seminario mayor.
Cuando el P. Leonard fue transferido a la oficina de la cancillería, la responsabilidad del instituto lo acompañó allí. Después de su partida de esa oficina, fue asumido por el P. Gorman como vicecanciller para asuntos pastorales hispanos. Después de la transferencia de P. Gorman fue administrativamente en el limbo con una responsabilidad de dirigir el instituto dado personalmente a la Hna. Marian Pohlner, una religiosa hispana adscrita a la oficina de Desarrollo Cristiano y Familiar. A instancias de la facultad del programa, se estableció una junta directiva para el mismo, y el programa se colocó bajo la supervisión del vicario general a través de directores designados por él.

Movimiento Juvenil Camino. Un gran interés de la secretaría arquidiocesana para el movimiento de los Cursillos era tener algún tipo de programa para el desarrollo espiritual de la juventud, especialmente los hijos e las hijas de personas que habían sido fuertemente influenciadas por la experiencia del cursillo. Después de la terminación del Movimiento Juvenil en 1973, no había ningún programa para la formación de liderazgo juvenil e incluso ese no había sido considerado adecuado para satisfacer la necesidad sentida por algunos líderes del cursillo. El comité coordinador compartió el interés en revivir el movimiento juvenil hispano o desarrollar un nuevo programa para la formación de jóvenes hispanos y coincidió con las recomendaciones del Encuentro Arquidiocesano de junio de 1974.
En noviembre de 1974, la secretaría del Cursillo patrocinó un “Retiro para Jóvenes Hispanos” durante todo el día en el Centro de San José con gran éxito. El programa fue diseñado para la situación de los jóvenes hispanos y fue de estilo bilingüe y bicultural. Se repitió en enero de 1975 en la parroquia de San Pablo Apóstol en Manhattan y en mayo en la parroquia del Sagrado Corazón. Los desarrolladores del programa realmente querían que se convirtiera en una experiencia de tres días algo así como el cursillo mismo. Se presentó una oportunidad para utilizar un edificio de la parroquia de la catedral de la diócesis de Paterson, por lo que el programa ampliado de fin de semana comenzó a ofrecerse allí. El retiro se llamaba “Camino”. Después de ser administrado en el centro de Paterson durante dos años, se trasladó a la nueva Grace House para el ministerio juvenil que se abrió en Manhattan en la primavera de 1978.
Ha tenido un gran éxito y ha sido muy eficaz en la comunicación con y motivación de los jóvenes hispanos. Un equipo grande de personas ha cooperado en la presentación de los retiros, y todo el programa está guiado por un consejo de Camino que involucra a los jóvenes mismos. También se estableció una escuela de capacitación para líderes juveniles de Camino y se llevan a cabo sesiones semanales durante todo el año.

P. Raúl del Valle

Programa de Diaconado Permanente.  En el verano de 1975, el Cardenal Cooke decidió autorizar un programa por separado en español para la formación de candidatos hispanos para el diaconado permanente. El P. Raúl del Valle fue nombrado director asociado del programa de diaconado permanente arquidiocesano con el mandato especial de desarrollar el programa hispano. Una de sus primeras decisiones fue establecer un comité asesor compuesto por sacerdotes involucrados en el apostolado y la formación hispanos.
En septiembre se decidieron las pautas generales para la admisión de candidatos y para el programa de capacitación. Se acordó utilizar los cursos impartidos en el Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral como parte de la formación para el diaconado, pero además se realizaría una capacitación y formación específica para el diaconado semanalmente, y se tendrían retiros y reuniones especiales periódicas para los candidatos y sus esposas.
El Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral estaba entonces en su tercer año de operaciones. Durante los primeros dos años a medida que el programa estaba en desarrollo, los cursos se agregaron gradualmente según fuera necesario. A principios de 1975 se decidió tener un programa de tres años que consistía en tres trimestres cada año, y el segundo y el tercer años del programa se presentarían en años alternos. Se sugirió que el propósito del Instituto se redefiniera como “el desarrollo más extenso de los líderes laicos hispanos y la selección y formación de diáconos permanentes de la comunidad cristiana”.
Se adoptó un programa especial acelerado para un grupo selecto de candidatos con amplia formación personal previa a través del Instituto y en otros lugares, y en junio de 1976 los primeros diáconos hispanos permanentes para la archidiócesis fueron ordenados por el Cardenal Cooke en la Catedral de San Patricio. Se han llevado a cabo ordenaciones sucesivas anualmente desde entonces.
En marzo de 1980, la junta asesora recomendó que después de cuatro años de experimentación con el diaconado permanente para hispanos se realizara una evaluación seria del programa de capacitación y también del ministerio de los diáconos hispanos ordenados. Además, se sugirió que se modificara la estructura del programa para que fuera más flexible con respecto al plan de estudios y los lugares de enseñanza, y que se nombrara un director a tiempo completo para el programa con responsabilidad adicional para la educación continua y el desarrollo espiritual de los diáconos hispanos ordenados. El asunto está actualmente bajo asesoría.

Centro Carismático Católico Hispano. El obispo Garmendia, el vicario para el desarrollo pastoral hipano, tenía un fuerte interés personal en el movimiento para renovación carismática. Pensó utilizar el antiguo edificio del convento de su nueva parroquia de Santo Tomás de Aquino en el Bronx como centro para el movimiento entre los católicos hispanos. Expuso sus planes al Cardenal Cooke y en enero de 1978 el cardenal lo nombró director de la renovación carismática hispana y aprobó el establecimiento de un Centro Carismático Católico Hispano que se inauguró en el otoño de ese año. Las responsabilidades del obispo incluían la formación de líderes del movimiento y la salvaguarda de su unidad y desarrollo correcto. Después de que el personal fue reclutado para la dirección del centro, cursos, talleres, reuniones, y retiros comenzaron a celebrarse allí regularmente para los líderes laicos parroquiales hispanos del movimiento.
Al año siguiente, el obispo Garmendia decidió llevar a cabo programas de formación principalmente a través de centros pastorales en los vicariatos en lugar de hacerlo en el propio Centro Carismático. En el otoño, se iniciaron programas en el arquidiocesano Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral y en el Instituto para el Ministerio de la Conferencia Católica del Área del Lower East Side; en el invierno, en el Centro Pastoral del Sur del Bronx. El Centro Carismático continuó como un lugar de reunión y centro de recursos disponible para los católicos hispanos y es utilizado por la mayoría de los ochenta y cuatro grupos locales de oración parroquial. Allí se presenta una amplia variedad de programas y actividades.

El Estudio Hispano.  A principios de 1979, tanto el comité hispano de la Comisión Litúrgica Arquidiocesana como el Comité Ad Hoc para la Evangelización Hispana recomendaron al cardenal Cooke que se hiciera un estudio de la situación religiosa y social de la comunidad hispana en la arquidiócesis. El cardenal aceptó su recomendación y encargó a la Oficina de Investigación Pastoral de la arquidiócesis que realizara el estudio y la investigación.
Como primer paso, en julio, la Sra. Ruth Doyle, directora de la Oficina de Investigación Pastoral, convocó a una reunión de personas involucradas en el ministerio hispano en la arquidiócesis en muchas áreas diferentes y con niveles diferentes de responsabilidad y propuso que sirvieran como un comité timón y de asesoría para el estudio. El comité comenzó a funcionar y a delinear los propósitos, desafíos, y expectativas del estudio. Para octubre se redactó una propuesta detallada y se presentó al cardenal con la recomendación del comité directivo. Durante el año siguiente se acercó a las fundaciones para obtener fondos importantes y se celebraron reuniones; un comité técnico de sociólogos desarrolló el diseño. En 1981 se contrató personal y se inició el estudio. La fecha objetivo de finalización es el otoño de 1982.

Programas al nivel de vicariato y región

Las necesidades locales en tres áreas diferentes de la arquidiócesis impulsaron el desarrollo de programas regionales y locales de formación de laicos, además de los que ya ofrecidos en el Centro St. Joseph y el Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral.

Instituto para Ministerio LESAC.  La Conferencia Católica del Área del Lower East Side, una asociación de veintiuna parroquias y otras instituciones católicas ubicadas en el Lower East Side de Manhattan, durante el otoño de 1974 y la primavera de 1975 preparó un plan maestro pastoral para toda el área que incluía un llamado para que se establecerá un centro pastoral como “una posible base para un enfoque específicamente a nivel de área para la vida de la iglesia y un centro de recursos para las parroquias para programas de liturgia, educación religiosa, capacitación de líderes laicos y otros asuntos”. Uno de los principales desarrollos del trabajo del centro pastoral fue el Instituto para Ministerio, que se describió a sí mismo como “una escuela patrocinada y dirigida por la Conferencia Católica del Área del Lower East Side diseñada para preparar a los laicos, el clero y los religiosos de la área para una participación activa, educada y experta en el ministerio de la Iglesia en los vecindarios del Lower East Side “.
En la primavera de 1976, las primeras clases del instituto se impartieron en inglés y en español. Los cursos son tanto teóricos como prácticos y periódicamente se complementan con talleres de capacitación en ciertos ministerios. El instituto funciona en un ciclo de tres años, con dos semestres de diez sesiones semanales cada uno en la primavera y el otoño. Se ofrecen programas de capacitación en las áreas de liturgia, iglesia y comunidad, oración, educación religiosa, familias y jóvenes. La primera clase de graduados del instituto fue de catorce personas y una medida de su éxito fue que durante sus primeros tres años más de cuatrocientas personas se inscribieron en uno o más de los programas del instituto.

 Centro Pastoral del Sur del Bronx. En septiembre de 1978 comienza un programa similar en el vicariato del sur del Bronx. La idea de este Centro Pastoral del Sur del Bronx surgió de la preocupación de la Asociación Católica del Sur del Bronx por la educación religiosa de adultos y el desarrollo del liderazgo laico, el llamado del vicario episcopal del Sur del Bronx por una escuela de ministerio, y la experiencia de Instituto para el Desarrollo Apostólico de la parroquia Nuestra Señora de la Victoria. El Centro se describió a sí mismo como “una escuela y centro de capacitación para personas que desean prepararse para participar más plenamente en la vida de sus iglesias y comunidades locales. Ofrece programas en inglés y en español que están diseñados para familiarizar a las personas que participan en ellos con las raíces de sus tradiciones religiosas y culturales y equiparlos para ejercer una responsabilidad mayor en la configuración de la calidad de vida en sus comunidades “.
El centro ofrece cursos tres veces al año, en otoño, invierno y primavera. Cada curso consta de diez sesiones semanales. Hay dos tipos principales de cursos o programas de capacitación. El programa de cuatro años de formación general de liderazgo cristiano consiste en cursos en las áreas de estudios religiosos y habilidades de comunicación; los programas más breves y especializados de capacitación tienen que ver con la formación de ministerios litúrgicos, sacramentales, educativos, catequéticos y de acción comunitaria a nivel parroquial.
En septiembre de 1979, el centro comenzó a funcionar con un personal a tiempo completo con un director sacerdote asignado por el Cardenal Cooke. Está organizada como una corporación sin fines de lucro del estado de Nueva York operada bajo la dirección de una junta directiva de veintiún miembros y la supervisión de la arquidiócesis. Hasta la fecha, más de mil hombres y mujeres laicos de cuarenta y nueve parroquias diferentes han recibido capacitación a través del Centro.

“South Bronx People for Change”. Otro programa patrocinado por la Asociación Católica de South Bronx para el vicariato de South Bronx fue South Bronx People for Change. Comenzó a funcionar con un director a tiempo completo en enero de 1979 después de varios meses de planificación y una serie de talleres de capacitación realizados el año anterior. La génesis del programa fue una preocupación generalizada por la revitalización del área del sur del Bronx y un deseo de ayudar a los laicos a convertirse en agentes de cambio social por ayudarles a analizar las estructuras vecinales, nacionales y mundiales, destacar sus interrelaciones y organizarse en torno a cuestiones vitales. Su objetivo a largo plazo es desarrollar a las personas de la Iglesia como líderes y aumentar en ellos la conciencia de los asuntos de la comunidad y las estructuras de poder para que puedan ser enviados de manera competente para representarse a sí mismos y a sus valores cristianos en posiciones responsables de liderazgo dentro de la comunidad.
Hasta la fecha, el movimiento y el programa se han establecido en siete vecindarios del sur del Bronx a través de las parroquias locales. El personal de South Bronx People for Change, en colaboración con el personal parroquial, ha reclutado, capacitado y ayudado a funcionar a grupos de acción comunitaria del vecindario. Actualmente hay más de doscientos miembros del movimiento, y varios cientos más están afiliados a través de varias organizaciones y proyectos locales. El movimiento funciona bajo la dirección de una junta directiva compuesta principalmente por los miembros de los grupos locales.

Escuela de Ministerios del Noroeste del Bronx. En el otoño de 1979, se llevó a cabo un programa de capacitación ministerial intensivo y bilingüe de cuatro semanas de duración en el noroeste del Bronx para 140 personas de habla inglesa y 40 de habla hispana. Fue patrocinado por el Comité de Evangelización del Noroeste del Bronx, un comité conjunto del Consejo del Área del Noroeste del Bronx y la Conferencia de Clero del Noroeste del Bronx. Se ofreció un programa similar y más extenso con gran éxito en el otoño de 1981.

CONCLUSIÓN

Hoy, ochenta años después del establecimiento de la primera parroquia hispana en la arquidiócesis y treinta años después de la inauguración de programas arquidiocesanos especiales para hispanohablantes, los hispanos están a punto de llegar a ser—o en la estimación de algunos son—la mayoría de los población católica bautizada. Ya no son abrumadoramente puertorriqueños y la inmigración de otros países del Caribe, América Central y América del Sur está aumentando rápidamente. Son los grupos étnicos o nacionales más jóvenes, de más rápido crecimiento, y más pobres de la arquidiócesis.
Más de una cuarta parte de las 412 parroquias de la arquidiócesis están ministrando a los hispanos en su propio idioma y en inglés, y en algo más de la mitad de estas parroquias hay un pastor de habla hispana. Siete de los dieciocho vicarios episcopales de la arquidiócesis hablan español, dos de los cuales son hispanos nativos. Además de las oficinas e instituciones especiales que existen exclusiva o predominantemente para hispanos, la mayoría de las oficinas y agencias diocesanas tienen secciones hispanas o miembros del personal de habla hispana.
Probablemente ninguna otra diócesis en los Estados Unidos haya hecho tanto como la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York para responder al desafío pastoral que le planteó la llegada masiva de tantos católicos de habla hispana en el lapso de una generación. Aunque otras diócesis pueden incluir más hispanos y pueden haber estado allí por más tiempo, es difícil encontrar un paralelo con la experiencia de Nueva York en términos de números, rapidez de inmigración, y alcance de respuesta. Una pregunta legítima es, ¿la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York ha hecho lo suficiente?
Está claro que hay etapas y direcciones discernibles en la respuesta pastoral a la migración hispana por parte de la arquidiócesis de Nueva York. La década de 1950 fue una época de grandes comienzos y entusiasmo. No se cumplieron todas sus proyecciones ni se cumplieron todas sus esperanzas, pero comenzó un gran movimiento de concientización y desarrollo pastoral que aún no ha perdido por completo su ímpetu. A medida que la parte hispana de la arquidiócesis creció, paradójicamente, las estructuras e instituciones establecidas para el desarrollo del ministerio hispano comenzaron a sobrepasar su utilidad. Cuando los hispanos eran una minoría, eran mejor atendidos por estructuras especializadas; a medida que se acercan a la mayoría, se necesita una dimensión bilingüe y bicultural para casi todos los aspectos de la vida de la arquidiócesis.
Mirando hacia atrás, hay momentos de gran audacia y dinamismo en la historia de la evolución del ministerio hispano en la arquidiócesis y también momentos de vacilación y pérdida de dinamismo. No todo ha sido perfecto, pero aún hay un orgulloso registro de logros.
El verdadero bien de todo lo que ha sucedido debería verse tal vez desde una perspectiva completamente diferente. Celebremos no tanto lo que ha logrado la Arquidiócesis de Nueva York para sus miembros hispanos como el enriquecimiento y la revitalización providenciales de la iglesia de Nueva York por parte de los puertorriqueños y otros pueblos hispanos que han llegado a ser parte de ella.

(Una traducción del inglés)

Pastoral Planning Organization

RESEARCH & PASTORAL PLANNING

Coordinator:
Fr. Peter Gavigan

Members:
Fr. Donald Johnson, St. Lucy, Manhattan
Fr. Gerard Waldorf, SJ, St. Rita, Bronx
Mr. Enrique Romero, Catholic Big Brothers
Fr. Edmund Tobin, Our Lady of Angels, Bronx
Mrs. Judy Feliciano, St. Agatha Home, Bronx office
Fr. Thomas McDonald, St. Stephen, Manhattan
Sr. Catherine Meany, Cardinal McCloskey Home
Fr. Valeriano Alonso, SJ, St. Anne, Manhattan
Mr. George Trejos, St. Joseph’s Seminary
Fr. Willard Keane, St. Patrick, Newburgh
Fr. Michael Quinn, OFM Cap., St. John, Manhattan
Fr. William Toohy

Advisors:
Msgr. James Mahoney, Personnel Board Director
Fr. Philip Murnion, St. Gregory, Manhattan
Sr. Mary O’Brien, OP, Dominican College, Blauvelt
Fr. Joseph Fitzpatrick, SJ, Fordham University, Bronx
Mr. Robert Paul, Housing & Urban Renewal
Msgr. William McCormack, Propagation of the Faith
Msgr. James Murray, Secretary to Cardinal Cooke
Msgr. Joseph O’Keefe

NATIONAL PARISHES (Subsection)

Members:
Fr. Thomas Oldfield, OAR, Most Holy Crucifix
Fr. José Valcarcel, CM, Holy Agony
Fr. William DuBois, AA, Our Lady of Esperanza
Fr. Arturo Lerga, CM, Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal
Fr. Charles F. Lavoie, AA, Our Lady of Guadalupe
Fr. George Coll, TOR, St. Benedict the Moor

EXPERIMENTAL PARISHES (Subsection)

Members:
Fr. John Drew, St. Rita
Fr. Matthew Thompson, St. Brigid

Advisor (Subsections):
Msgr. Thomas Heneghan, Chancellor

LANGUAGE & CULTURAL FORMATION

Coordinator:
Fr. Peter Ensenat

Members:
Br. Bernard Sheridan, FMS, Institute of Inter. Comm.
Mr. Juan Áviles
Mr. Odo Betanzos, Ascension, Manhattan
Fr. Michael Noonan, St. Catherine of Genoa
Mrs. Margarita Morales, Movimiento Familiar Cristiano
Mr. José Morales, St. Joseph’s Seminary
Sr. Kathleen Dempsey, OP, St. Helena, Bronx
Sr. Anne Corrigan, OP
Mr. Miguel Martínez, Institute
Miss Sonia Rivera, Institute
Mr. Patrick Hennessy, St. Joseph’s Seminary
Mrs. Ruby Hernández, Institute
Fr. Anthony Stevens, CP
Mr. Americo Badillo, Fordham University

Advisors:
Bishop James McManus, Port Ewen
Fr. Thomas Leonard, St. Joseph’s Seminary

INSTITUTE OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIONS (Subsection)

Members:
Archbishop John Maguire, President
Msgr. Joseph O’Brien, President
Msgr. Robert Fox, Vice President
Fr. Matthew Thompson, Secretary

Advisors (Subsection):
Msgr. Theodore McCarrick, Secretary for Education
Msgr. Raymond Smith, Cathedral Preparatory Seminary
Fr. Jerome Maron, Diocese of Brooklyn

APOSTOLATE OF PRIESTS

Coordinator:
Fr. John Drew

DIOCESAN PRIESTS (Subsection)

Members:
Fr. Neil Graham, St. Emeric, Manhattan
Fr. Ray Byrne, St. Paul, Manhattan
Fr. John Sullivan, St. Mary, Newburgh
Fr. Edward Finn, Holy Family, Manhattan
Fr. Thomas Neilson, Our Lady of Good Counsel
Fr. Terence Attridge, St. Barnabas, Bronx
Fr. John Manning, St. Gregory, Manhattan
Fr. John Flynn, St Raymond, Bronx
Fr. Peter O’Donnell, St. Jude, Manhattan
Fr. Neil Connolly, St. Athanasius, Bronx
Fr. Thomas Fenlon, St. Thomas, Staten Island
Fr. Edward O’Donnell, St. Mary, Yonkers
Fr. Hugh Corrigan, St. Charles Borromeo, Manhattan
Fr. George Hommel, Blessed Sacrament, New Rochelle
Fr. Joseph Martin, St. Patrick, Yorktown
Fr. James McCarthy, St. Denis, Sylvan Lake
Fr. James Borstelmann, St. Catherine, Blauvelt
Fr. Daniel Croston, St. Peter, Kingston
Fr. Donald Gollinge, Sacred Heart, Bronx

Advisor:
Msgr. Patrick Ahern, Our Lady of Angels, Bronx

RELIGIOUS ORDER PRIESTS (Subsection)

Members:
Fr. Timothy Whooley. OFM Cap., Our Lady Queen of Angels
Fr. Kevin Sheehan, CSP, St. Paul the Apostle, Manhattan
Fr. José Luis Galdos, CRL, St. Lucy, Manhattan
Fr. Edward Whalen, CSsR, St. Cecilia, Manhattan
Fr. Raymón Gaitán, OAR, Most Holy Crucifix, Manhattan
Fr. Sebastian Buccellato, OFM, St. Sebastian, Manhattan
Fr. Leopoldo Laredo, SchP, Calasanz Residence
Fr. Luis Rios, AA
Fr. Dario Casado, OSA, St. Nicholas of Tolentine, Bronx
Fr. Brennan Maiers, OSB, St. Benedict, Bronx

Advisor:
Fr. Adrian Hebert, SSS, St. Jean Batiste, Manhattan

APOSTOLATE OF RELIGIOUS

Coordinator:
Sr. Anne Corrigan, OP

SISTERS (Subsection)

Members:
Sr. Eileen Doherty, OP, Full Circle
Sr. Pauline Chirchirillo, PBVM, St. Teresa, Manhattan
Sr. Haydeé Diaz, Sisters of Charity
Sr. Roseanne, CCSsR, Spanish Center, Cornwall
Sr. Fidelia García, St. Luke, Bronx
Sr. Monica Cunningham, Sts. Peter & Paul, Bronx
Sr. Mary Lynch, OP, St. Pius V, Bronx
Sr. María, Sts. Peter & Paul, Bronx

Advisors:
Fr. John Mescall, Vicar for Religious
Sr. Eileen Ford, OP, Superintendent of Schools
Mo. Evelyn Schneider, Chair, Council of Major Superiors
Sr. Genis Meléndez, St. Jerome, Bronx

Brothers (Subsection)

Members:
Br. José Florio, Little Brothers
Br. Albert Welch, FSC, Manhattan College
Br. James Corcoran, FSC, Immaculate Conception, Bronx
Br. John Quinn, CFC, St. Cecilia
Br. Michael Deering, FSC, Ascension, Manhattan

Advisor:
Fr. John Mescall, Vicar for Religious

FORMATION FOR LAY APOSTOLATE

Coordinator:
Fr. David Arias, OAR

Members:
Fr. John Mortell, St. Rita, Bronx
Fr. Ricardo Arias, Holy Child, Staten Island
Mr. Melanio Tirado, St. Teresa, Manhattan
Mrs. Amparo Tirado, St. Teresa, Manhattan
Sr. Ida Robles, St. Theresa (Ronkonkoma)
Mr. Víctor Muñoz, Blessed Sacrament, Bronx
Mr. José Ithíer, Ascension, Manhattan
Miss Hadeé Borges, St. Martin of Tours, Bronx
Fr. Thomas Thompson, Incarnation, Manhattan
Mr. Pedro Orellana, St. Augustine, Bronx
Mr. Luis Fontánez

Advisor:
Mr. José Jiménez, St. Elizabeth, Manhattan

CURSILLO (Subsection)

Members:
Fr. José Viana, OAR, St. Joseph’s Center, Manhattan
Fr. José Arias, OAR, St. Joseph’s Center, Manhattan
Fr. Vincent Resta, Holy Rosary, Manhattan
Fr. Juan Luengo, OP, St. John Chrysostom
Fr. Juan Oleaga, CRL, St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral, Manhattan
Fr. Thomas Kearney, Holy Name, Manhattan
Fr. Francisco Garmendia, CRL
Fr. Elias Isla, SchP, Sts. Peter & Paul, Bronx
Mr. Juan Baez, St. Teresa, Manhattan
Mr. Hector Comacho, St. James, Manhattan
Fr. Denis Cornelisse, AA, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Manhattan
Mr. Ángel Palmer, St. Columba, Manhattan
Mr. Eduardo Kalbflelisch, St. Paul the Apostle, Manhattan
Mr. Manuel Gandía, St. Paul the Apostle, Manhattan
Mr. Felipe Martínez, St. Paul, Manhattan
Mr. Luis Fontánez
Mr. Rafael Conner, Our Lady Queen of Angels, Manhattan
Dr. Jerónimo Domínguez, Our Lady of Esperanza, Manhattan
Mr. Alberto Torres, Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, Manhattan
Mr. Miguel Cordona, St. Rita, Bronx
Mr. Wilfredo Escobar, St. Jerome, Bronx
Mr. Jesús López, Holy Cross, Bronx
Mr. Justo Rivera, St. Athanasius, Bronx
Mr. Fernando Fajardo, Holy Cross, Bronx
Mr. Pedro Santiago, St. Martin of Tours, Bronx
Mrs. Maria Navarro, St. Charles Borromeo, Manhattan
Mrs. Conchita Figueroa, Our Lady of Lourdes, Manhattan
Miss Ana Maria Panting, Corpus Christi, Manhattan
Mr. Víctor Caraballo, St. Joseph, Yonkers
Mr. Luis Vega, St. Martin of Tours, Bronx
Mrs. Ramonita Rosas
Mrs. Conchita Sarnago, Holy Spirit, Bronx
Mrs. Elba Cifredo, St. Raymond, Bronx
Mrs. Juanita Colón, Holy Cross, Bronx
Fr. Edward Keehan, St. Peter, Haverstraw
Pedro Santiago ?, St. Martin of Tours, Bronx

LAY APOSTOLATE

Coordinator:
Mr. Luis Fontánez

– FAMILY (Subsection)

Members:
Fr. John Grange, St. Columba, Manhattan
Mr. Serafín Vilariño, Comité Cubano Católico
Mrs. Hilda Vilariño, Comité Cubano Católico
Fr. Richard Adams, St. Athanasius, Bronx
Mr. Félix Acosta, St. James, Manhattan
Mrs. Mercedes Acosta, St. James, Manhattan
Fr. Patrick McCabe, St. Mary, Manhattan
Mr. Conrado Torres, St. Luke, Bronx
Mrs. Victoria Torres, St. Luke, Bronx
Mr. Pedro Lousa, Holy Rosary, Manhattan
Mrs. Lucy Lousa, Holy Rosary, Manhattan
Fr. David Arias, OAR
Fr. Vincent Resta, Holy Rosary, Manhattan
Mr. Carlos Mercado, Holy Cross, Bronx,
Mrs. ? Mecado, Holy Cross, Bronx
Fr. Anthony Stevens, CP

Advisors:
Msgr. Hugh Curran, Family Life Bureau
Mr. Raul Dávila
Mrs. ? Dávila
Fr. Henry Mansell, LFM Director

YOUTH & STUDENTS (Subsection)

Members:
Fr. John McIvor, Incarnation, Manhattan
Miss Virginia Medrano, JOC
Fr. Peter Meehan, St. Teresa, Manhattan
Fr. John Duffell, Sacred Heart, Manhattan
Miss Denia Ferrer, St. Catherine of Genoa, Manhattan
Mr. Lino Acevedo, St. Lucy, Manhattan
Mr. Adolfo Ramírez, Ascension, Manhattan
Mr. José Sosa, Ascension, Manhattan
Miss Norma Rodríguez, Aspira, Bronx
Mr. Normando Mustafá
Fr. Enrique Rueda, Sts. Peter & Paul
Fr. Joaquín Beaumont, Our Lady of Lourdes, Manhattan
Mr. Antonio Ortiz, Our Lady of Lourdes, Manhattan
Mr. Yoric Piña, Ascension, Manhattan

Advisors:
Msgr. Philip Murphy, CYO
Fr. Thomas Connellan, CSP, University Apostolate
Fr. Ronald Ciaravolo, St. Patrick Old Cathedral, Manhattan
Fr. Oscar Lynch, Columbia University

SOCIETIES (Subsection)

Members:
Mr. Peter Sánchez, K of C, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bronx
Fr. John Leonard, Sacred Heart, Bronx
Msgr. Raul Del Valle, Notre Dame, Manhattan
Fr. Walter Birkle, St. Vincent de Paul Society + St. Brigid, Manhattan
Mr. Miguel Ramos, St. Luke, Bronx
Fr. Charles Genet, Big Brothers + Incarnation, Manhattan
Mrs. Jenny Raven, St. Athansius, Bronx
Mrs. Jenny Rodríguez, St. Columba, Manhattan
Mrs. Vincenta Rodríquez, St. Brigid, Manhattan
Mr. Domingo Martínez, Ascension, Manhattan
Mr. Luis Espada, St. Paul, Manhattan
Mr. Rafael Hidalgo, Our Lady Queen of Martyrs, Manhattan
Mrs. Cristina Toosie, Catholic Daughters

Advisors:
Msgr. Edward Reynolds, Legion of Mary
Msgr. Charles Brennan, Holy Name Society
Msgr. Daniel Byrne, Apostleship of Prayers

SOCIAL ACTION (Subsection)

Members:
Miss Margarita Olivieri, 524 East 119th Street (cf. Fr. Drew)
Sr. Maureen Clark, All Saints, Manhattan
Rev. Mr. John Jennick, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bronx
Fr. James Doyle, Anunciation, Manhattan
Sr. Genis Meléndez, OSU, St. Jerome, Bronx
Sr. Patricia Connolly, MSSI, Catholic Charities, Bronx
Mr. Ricardo Puerta, Credit Unions
Mrs. Yvette Puerta, Credit Unions
Fr. William O’Brien, Napanoch Reformatory
Mr. Andres Castellanos, U.N.
Mr. Matthew Killion

Advisors:
Msgr. Harry Byrne, Social Justice Task Force
Fr. Henry Browne, St. Gregory, Manhattan
Msgr. Cyril Potocek
Sr. Marita Anna Fox, Adult Education
Fr. Vincent Fox. A.C.T.U.
Mr. John Lubey, Adult Education

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Coordinator:
Fr. Edward Byrne

Members:
Fr. John Calhoun, St. Thomas More, Manhattan
Sr. Gonzaga, RCD, St. James, Manhatten
Fr. José McCarthy, OFM Cap., St. John the Baptist, Manhattan
Mr. Frank Miranda, St. Athanasius, Bronx
Sr. Mary Noel, OSF, St. Rita, Bronx
Fr. Neil Connolly, St. Athanasius, Bronx
Miss María Soto, Ascension, Manhattan
Sr. Mary Jean, HHS, Mary of Providence Club, Manhattan
Sr. Consuela, COSsR, Spanish Center, Cornwall
St. Catherine Carden, Manhattan College, Bronx
Sr. Miram, Nativity, Manhattan
Miss Cindy Shanks
Sr. Mary Tully, PBVM, St. Teresa, Manhattan
Fr. Thomas Gileece, Immaculate Conception, Manhattan
Fr. Brian Joyce, Manhattan College, Bronx

Advisors:
Fr. William Tobin, C.C.D.
Msgr. John Doherty, Director of Religious Education
Miss Cristienne Brusselmans, Fordham University
Br. Gabriel Moran, FSC, Manhattan College, Bronx
Sr. Gloria Heineman, RC, C.C.D.
Mr. William Reedy, Sadlier
Br. Bernard Mark, FSC, C.C.D.

WORSHIP

Coordinator:
Fr. James Welby

Members:
Fr. Philip Fabiano, OFM Cap., St. John Vianney, Bronx
Mr. William Romagoza, Manhattan College, Bronx
Fr. Timothy Bryden, St. Francis of Assisi, Bronx
Br. James Furlong, FSC, Incarnation, Manhattan
Fr. John Calhoun, St. Thomas More, Manhattan
Fr. Charles Quinn, Anunciation, Manhattan
Miss Marta Morell, Manhattanville College
Fr. Juan Luengo, OP, St. John Chrysostom, Bronx
Fr. William Lombardy, St. Mary, Bronx

Advisors:
Msgr. John Doherty, Liturgical Commission
Fr. J. Gallen, SJ, Woodstock

– MUSIC (Subsection)

Members:
Mr. Alvaro Silva
Fr. Francisco Domínguez, AA, Our Lady of Esperanza, Manhattan
Fr. Francisco Madina, CRL
Sr. Laura Portuando
Fr. Elias Isla, SchP, Sts. Peter & Paul, Bronx
Mr. Armando Ruiz, St. Brigid, Manhattan
Fr. José Valcarcel, CM, Holy Agony, Manhattan
Mr. Angel Pérez

Advisor
Mr. Matthew Cvetic

COMMUNICATIONS

Coordinator:
Mr. Angel Pérez

PRESS (Subsection)

Members:
Fr. Fidel Robledo, St. Mary, Manhattan
Miss Sonia Ellis, El Diario
Mr. Víctor Mangual, El Diario
Mr. Juan Brass, (El Tiempo)
Dr. Angel Saviñon, El Tiempo
Sr. Cristino Paguana, Our Lady of Esperanza, Manhattan
Sr. Yolanda de Mola, Holy Cross Academy, Mahattan
Fr. Vincent McNamara, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bronx
Mr. Jerónimo Berenguer, V.P. International
Mr. Solerio, Life en Español

Advisors:
Msgr. Thomas McGovern, Bureau of Information
Mr. Paul Hoffman, The New York Times

RADIO & TELEVISION (Subsection)

Members:
Fr. José Valcarcel, CM, Holy Agony, Manhattan
Sr. Leguri, I.T.V.
Mr. Humberto López, Channel 13
Miss Puppi Hurtado, WBNX
Mr. Lumen Román, WHOM
Mr. José Lanza, Channel 47
Mr. Leandro Blanco, Channel 41
Fr. Philip Treanor, Holy Rosary, Manhattan
Mr. Miguel Rosas, St. James, Manhattan
Mr. Rafael Mangual, Our Lady of Pity, Bronx
Miss Marina Mercado, Ascension, Manhattan
Mr. Miguel Llao
Miss Ana Diaz

Advisors:
Msgr. Thomas McGovern, Bureau of Information
Miss Elisa Mandell
Msgr. John Healy, I.T.V.

ECUMENICAL RELATIONS

Coordinator:
Fr. Ignacio Lazcano, CRL

Members:
Sr. Eileen Storey, SC, Mount St. Vincent, Bronx
Fr. Thomas Farrelly, St. Gregory, Manhattan
Mr. Guillermo Alonso, St. James, Manhattan
Fr. José Aguilar, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bronx
Mr. José Carrero, Incarnation, Manhattan
Fr. Robert Jeffers, St Augustine, Bronx
Mr. Vicente Meléndez, Ascension, Manhattan
Fr. Charles Kelly, Our Lady of Lourdes, Manhattan
Sr. Thomas, St. Athanasius, Bronx

Advisors:
Msgr. John Doherty, Ecumenical Commission
Rev. Pablo Coto, Riverside Church Center
Mr. Angel Pérez
Rev. Razziel Vázquez
Mr. ? Shaw, Cardinal Hayes High School
Fr. Robert Imbelli, Yale University

COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Coordinator:
Mrs. Amalia Betanzos

Members:
Mrs. Encarnación Armas
Fr. Herculano Izquierdo, Tribunal
Fr. Louis Gigante, St. Athanasius, Bronx
Mrs. ? Aviles, Cypress Community Center
Mrs. Frieda Montalvo, Catholic Immigration Center
Prof. Enildo García
Miss Lourdes Cabezudo
Mrs. Rosa Merced
Fr. Dermod McDermott, St. Brigid, Manhattan
Fr. Denis Kelly, St. Luke, Bronx
Miss Raquel Kreitoff, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Mr. Mario Abreu, Union
Br. Raymond Shirvell
Sr. Eileen Tierney

Advisors:
Msgr. John Ahearn, Commission for Community Planning
Msgr. James Wilson, St. Teresa, Manhattan
Fr. Harry Salmon, St. Charles Borromeo, Manhattan
Rev. Rubén Dario Colón
Sr. McKenny, OP, St. Luke, Bronx

SAN JUAN FIESTA (Subsection)

Members:
Mr. Nick Ortiz, Banco Popular
Fr. Joseph McGill, St. Anne (12th Street), Manhattan
Fr. James Fanning, Ascension, Manhattan
Fr. John Burke, St. Jerome, Bronx
Mrs. Luisa Quintero, El Diario
Mr. Alberto Algorín, St. Brigid, Manhattan
Miss Marta Valle
Fr. William Bradley, Holy Name, Manhattan
Miss Margie Rivera, St. Teresa, Manhattan
Fr. Robert Banome, St. Joseph, Bronx

Bienvenidos, But . . . Hispanics and the New York Archdiocese, 1952-1982

[Published, somewhat modified, as “Evolution of Hispanic Ministry in the New York Archdiocese” in Hispanics in New York: Religious, Cultural and Social Experiences, Hispanos en Nueva York: Experiencias Religiosas, Culturales y Sociales (New York: Office of Pastoral Research, Archdiocese of New York, 1982), Volume 11, pp. 283-366.]

INTRODUCTION

Fr. Felix Varela

The diocese of New York was established in 1808. Within the first twenty years a Cuban priest, Fr. Felix Varela, exiled by the Spanish crown for his advocacy of Cuban independence, came to work in New York at the mother parish of St. Peter in Manhattan. He became the first pastor of Christ Church parish, divided in 1827 into St. James and Transfiguration. After serving as the pastor of St. James, he later became vicar general of the diocese. Another Spanish exile, Fr. Ildefonso Madrano, founded the parish of St. Peter on Staten Island.
As Teilhard De Chardin remarked in his great work on evolution as human development, “Nothing is so delicate and fugitive by its very nature as a beginning . . . Beginnings have an irritating and essential fragility, and one that should be taken to heart by all who occupy themselves with history.”(( Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (second Harper Torchbook edition; New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965), pp. 120-121.)) And so, with the beginnings of the Spanish speaking population of New York. There have been Spaniards and Hispanic Americans in New York City from colonial times. There were Puerto Ricans living there before the Revo1utionary War. The port and the city have always been one of the great gateways to the United States, and Hispanics have always passed through it.
What follows is a summary overview of the development of special ministry to Hispanics in the Archdiocese of New York, especially the first three decades of unprecedented efforts to respond to the massive immigration of Puerto Ricans and other Spanish speaking people in the second half of the twentieth century. To treat the topic in detail requires a far more scientific and elaborate study than this study affords. I have tried to call attention to all the significant beginnings and moments of decision that I am aware of. No office, agency, institution or program is explained in detail or its internal history described except the archdiocesan Spanish office. The story of each parish and its Hispanic ministry would fill its own book. Every agency of Catholic Charities and pastoral department could call attention to a long history of achievements. For the most part none of that is treated here.
Naturally what is selected, described and highlighted and the very pattern of organization of the study reflect an interpretation and a point of view. My goal has been to be as nearly objective as I possibly can, to be candid and concise and to display what I believe is a proud record of achievement by the Archdiocese of New York. In some areas I would like to have included a greater precision of detail, but limitations of time and accessibility of records and persons precluded that.
I am grateful to the many people who so helpfully shared their time and reflections with me and especially to Mrs. Carmen Goytia and Ms. María Quiñones for their clerical assistance.

I. ETHNIC PARISHES AND INSTITUTIONS

From the beginnings of New Amsterdam in 1609 till its conquest by the English in 1664, about the only Catholic appearance of which we know anything was Isaac Jogues’ passage through the colony to England after his rescue from the Iroquois. A Catholic, Thomas Dongan, was named governor of New York in 1682 and brought some Jesuits here and adopted a bill of rights for the colony guaranteeing religious freedom. The development of the Catholic Church in New York was nipped in the bud by the revolution of 1688, and by 1693 the Church of England was established by law, followed by penal legislation against Catholics.(( John Tracy Ellis, American Catholicism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956), pp. 29-30. ))
When Fr. John Carroll, prefect apostolic of the Church in the United States, submitted his report to the Congregation of the Propaganda in 1785, he spoke of a Catholic population of at least 1,500 in the state of New York.(( John Gilmary Shea, Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll Bishop and First Archbishop of Baltimore Embracing the History of the Catholic Church in the United States 1763-1815 (New York: John G. Shea, 1888), p. 257.)) When Fr. Charles Whelan, O.F.M. Cap. was appointed to the care of the Catholics in the city of New York by Fr. Carroll. he had a congregation of two hundred, who incorporated themselves and began to build a church in I785.(( Theodore Roemer, O.F.M Cap, The Catholic Church in the United States (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1950,), p. 92.)) The Church in New York from its beginnings was a minority in an overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture.

The Ethnic Identity of the New York Church

The first Catholic population in New York was mostly English and Irish. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the Irish constituted the greatest number of Catholic immigrants to the United States.(( Ellis, op. cit., p.48.)) By 1850, with the massive arrival of so many more Irish immigrants, the majority of whom were Catholic, the dominant nationality of the New York church was clearly Irish. In terms of total population, it continued so for the next hundred years; in terms of the ordained leadership, it remains so today. Witness the succession of New York bishops: Concanen, Connolly, Dubois, Hughes, McCloskey, Corrigan, Farley, Hayes, Spellman and Cooke.
From the earliest years of the Church in New York there were non-English speaking Catholics, minorities within the predominantly Irish Catholic community, itself a minority within the larger American society. In 1810, Fr. Anthony Kohlman, S.J. was named the administrator of the new Diocese of New York after the death of its first bishop, Luke Concanen, O.P., who had died in Naples, Italy, before taking possession of his see. A special reason for Fr. Kohlman’s appointment was to care for German speaking Catholics. Ironically, it was he who founded the cathedral parish of St. Patrick.(( Roemer, op. cit., pp. 152-153.))
As European immigration increased during the nineteenth century. the American church and the New York church as well became ever more diverse in terms of the nationalities and cultures of its members. Writing about Puerto Ricans in 1954, the priest-sociologist George Kelly observed, “The American Church and dioceses like New York are unique in the history of the Universal Church, in this respect at least, that at no time did any local branch of the Mystical Body over so long a period have to work with so many newcomers whose background, culture and religious customs, as well as languages, were so varied. One would have to go back to Spain, Gaul and Italy of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. to find an invasion of people paralleling the American experience.”(( George A. Kelly, “The Puerto Rican and the Church in New York,” Integrity, April, 1954, p. 36.))

National Parishes

For New York’s Irish Catholic immigrant population, the parish became the focus of the life of their communities. Discriminated against and not accepted as equals in the larger society, the Irish built their churches and schools with great sacrifice. The parish served as a center of social life and organization and as an instrument of preservation of their religious, cultural and national identity. Through the clergy the children of the immigrants attained positions of respect, eminence and influence, and the Church served generally as a force for the upward socio-economic mobility of its members.
As other ethnic and cultural groups arrived in greater numbers they too had the same need to consolidate and strengthen their identity and culture, but the parishes they found had too much of an Irish character to serve this purpose for them. So gradually other churches were established for the various immigrant groups: German, Italian, French, Spanish, Polish, Hungarian, Croatian, Slovak, Lithuanian and Chinese. To distinguish them from the parishes serving the dominant Irish population in the diocese, they were considered ethnic or “national” parishes.
Besides helping the immigrant communities keep their Catholic faith and national culture, the national parishes provided for all of them a bridge into American society and the “American” church. “The national parish provided an opportunity for a gradual transition to American ways. The slow drift from the national parish was associated with a gradual adjustment to American customs and a growing familiarity with the ways in which the faith was practiced in the United States. Therefore, by the time the immigrant children had become American, they had learned also how to be a Catholic in an American way.”(( Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, S.J., “Sociological Aspects of Migration and their Impact on Religious Practice,” Report on the First Conference on the Spiritual Care of Puerto Rican Migrants Held in San Juan, Puerto Rico April 11th to 16th, 1955 (New York: Archdiocese of New York, 1955), section II, paper 9, p.2. (Mimeographed.)))

National Parishes for the Spanish Speaking

Our Lady of Guadalupe Church

At the turn of the last century there was some concern among members of the New York church and archdiocesan authorities for the pastoral care of the increasing numbers of Mexican and other Hispanic workers and their families in Manhattan, especially in the dock area at the end of West 14th Street. At that time there was an Assumptionist priest serving as the chaplain of their sisters in New York who heard of the interest in establishing a parish for these Spanish speaking people. The Assumptionist Fathers (Augustinians of the Assumption) offered to assume responsibility for such a parish and in 1902 a small building on West 14th Street was made into a chapel, the beginnings of the parish of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Our Lady of Esperanza Church

A few years later, an upper class Spanish lady, María De Barril, who lived in the fashionable area around West 155th Street, asked for an uptown Spanish church although there were hardly any Spanish speaking people living in that neighborhood. She spoke to Mr. Archer Huntington, the founder of the museum of the Hispanic Society of America, whose personal estate was the block bounded by West 155th Street, Riverside Drive, West 156th Street and Broadway. He offered a piece of his property for a site for a church and pledged a matching grant for its construction. A committee was set up, interest was aroused and the archdiocese gave approval for a fundraising drive under the direction of the Assumptionist Fathers. The church of Our Lady of Esperanza was built and inaugurated as New York’s second Spanish national parish in 1912 and continued in the care of the Assumptionist Fathers until 1982.
In 1926 an old synagogue just north of Central Park became New York’s third Spanish national parish, Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal or “La Milagrosa” as it came to be known by a generation of Hispanic New Yorkers. The parish was entrusted to the care of the American Spanish branch of the Vincentian Fathers of Madrid and in 1930 another parish, Holy Agony, on the east side of Manhattan was inaugurated and staffed by the same Vincentian Fathers. In its day Milagrosa was the center of Hispanic Catholic life for the West Side and upper Manhattan but with the later development of services for Spanish speaking in most of the area’s churches its importance declined and in 1978 it was canonically closed and incorporated into Holy Agony parish.
The concept of a Spanish “national” parish is somewhat anomalous. For most nationalities, there is a coincidence between national and linguistic identity. In the case of Spanish speaking peoples there are twenty different nationalities. It is more appropriate to consider these four parishes as centers for the Spanish speaking rather as “national.” In any case there was no further establishment of national parishes for Hispanics, although religious orders, especially Spanish orders, continued to be requested to provide staff to existing parishes or even to take on full responsibility for their staffing, often of parishes previously established for other ethnic groups.

Religious Order Staffing of Parishes for Spanish Speaking Ministry

Cardinal Francis Spellman

By the later part of the 1930’s there were so many Puerto Rican people living in what came to be called Spanish Harlem, the area centered around East 116th Street, that the ministrations of the Spanish Vincentian Fathers at Milagrosa and Holy Agony needed to be assisted by other clergy. Since the new archbishop of New York, Francis J. Spellman, was personally familiar with the pastoral work in Puerto Rico of the Redemptorist Fathers of the Baltimore Province who had missions there and in Paraguay for many years, he decided to request their help in New York.

St. Cecilia Church

In 1939 they took over the parish of St. Cecilia on East 106th Street from the diocesan clergy. In its early years it was the center of a thriving Irish-American neighborhood. Now it took on the same role for Puerto Ricans. The Redemptorists made it a matter of policy to assign only bilingual personnel to the parish. For the most part they were American priests and religious who had pastoral experience in Puerto Rico and other parts of Latin America and for whom Spanish was a second language.
In 1948 a Calasanzian priest came to New York to serve as chaplain to the sisters of San José de la Montaña who staffed the San José Day Nursery. The following year he was asked to serve at St. Paul’s parish on East 117th Street in Spanish Harlem as well and later at Corpus Christi parish. Others of his congregation joined him and in 1949 the Calasanzian Fathers organized a central house in 2nd Street to coordinate and provided a community base for the work of their members in various parishes of the diocese otherwise staffed by the diocesan clergy. In 1977 they assumed full responsibility for the staffing of Annunciation parish in Manhattan from the archdiocese and the rectory there supplanted the central house.
In 1953 the parish of St. Benedict the Moor on West 53rd Street, established since 1883 for Black Catholics, was entrusted to the care of the Franciscan Fathers Third Order Regular of the Province of the Immaculate Conception in Spain and became a center of pastoral care and ministry for Hispanic people in that area.
A year or two later the Augustinian Recollect Fathers of the Province of St. Augustine began to staff Most Holy Crucifix parish on the lower East Side. The parish had been founded in 1925 to serve the needs of the Italian population of the area. The Augustinians offered Spanish language services as well as English and utilized the parish as a center and home base for other priests who had been assisting at other parishes where there was need for the use of the Spanish language, such as St. Rose of Lima in upper Manhattan and Sts. Peter and Paul and St. Augustine in the Bronx. The Augustinians continued their work there until 1981, when the parish was turned over to still another group of predominantly Italian religious.
The model of a central house for a group of priests with a missionary outreach was followed by the Canons Regular of the Lateran as well. This group of Basque priests adopted this innovative form of community life and pastoral mission. The members of the congregation were assigned to local parishes otherwise staffed by diocesan priests and lived and worked there. However they assembled weekly at their central house in the Bronx to maintain and nourish their community life and spirit. The first member of the congregation came to New York in 1961. In 1976 the Canons assumed responsibility for the staffing of Our Saviour parish in the Bronx, previously cared for by diocesan clergy
For a brief while the Augustinian Recollect Fathers of the Province of St. Augustine took pastoral responsibility for the parish of St. Rita of Cascia in the Bronx. They relieved the diocesan clergy there in 1973. However because of difficulties in providing an adequate number of staff, they in turn entrusted the responsibility to the Augustinian Recollect Fathers of the Province of St. Nicholas of Tolentine in 1976. This latter congregation in 1974 had taken over St. Roch parish in the Bronx, originally established for the Italian community.
In 1978 the archdiocese asked the Augustinians of the Holy Name Province of the Philippine Islands to take on the pastoral care of Holy Rosary parish in East Harlem. Previously this too was a parish especially at the service of the Italian community.

Pastoral Care of Spanish Speaking in Other Religious Order Parishes

Besides the religious congregations staffing specifically national or ethnic parishes or supplying priest personnel to other parishes staffed by diocesan clergy, many congregations found that the parishes that they had been serving for many years were becoming, as a matter of fact if not of canon law, overwhelmingly Hispanic. As part of their pastoral responsibility they either trained their members to speak Spanish or assigned priests and other religious to those parishes who were native Hispanics or who had pastoral experience in Hispanic countries. Among the congregations so concerned for the Spanish speaking should be mentioned the Benedictines, Capuchins, Carmelites, Franciscans, Jesuits, Paulists, Redemptorists and Salesians

Non-Parochial Institutions for the Spanish Speaking

New York’s first Hispanic neighborhood was the area of the West side around 14th Street and the Church of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Besides the services offered by the parish there, in 1916 a group of Spanish religious, the sisters of San José de la Montaña or Mothers of the Helpless, came to New York to start a day care program for children of Hispanic working mothers. That work still continues at the San José Day Nursery on West 20th Street. In 1964 the same sisters began a residence for young working women without families in New York, the Sacred Heart Residence on West 20th Street, for the purpose not only of supplying them with a decent place to live but also of providing guidance and moral support.
In 1927, Fr. Adrien of the Assumptionist Fathers at Guadalupe began Casa María, a residence originally for Spanish working girls, later for other nationalities as well, on West 14th Sweet near the parish church. In 1907 when a group of Sisters Servants of Mary were en route from Spain to Mexico one of their number died in New York and was buried by Fr. Adrien. Twenty years later, when he began Casa María, Fr. Adrien thought to invite the Sisters Servants of Mary to staff it, and they did so until 1964. At that time the work was continued by the Religious of Mary Immaculate. The Sisters Servants of Mary, who are primarily visiting and nursing sisters, also opened a convent in the Bronx in 1931 as a center for their apostolate of free care for the sick at home or in hospitals.
The Religious of Mary Immaculate who took over the Casa María in 1965 carried on the work under the title of Centro María. It continued to be a residence for young, single and poor Hispanic working girls, with the sisters supplying lodging, care and counsel. In 1981 the center was moved to West 54th Street.
In the early 1930s a small group of Catholic lay people founded a kind of settlement house in “El Barrio” (Spanish Harlem) for Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics. The foundresses, the Sullivan sisters, were concerned about the fact that the Puerto Ricans were not being attended by the local churches. They began to work in a small, converted apartment house. When the Hispanic children they sent to the neighborhood parish for religious instruction were ignored, they collaborated with the Spanish Vincentians at Milagrosa to set up a religious education program there. Gradually other activities such as a summer day camp were added. The Center, Casita María, moved to the Carver Houses where it was responsible for the recreational program. At the beginning of the 1960s it moved to Simpson Street in St. Athanasius parish in the Bronx where it continues to offer a wide variety of programs to the neighborhood.

II. THE TURNING POINT

Pastoral responsibility for the church in New York is commonly understood to be in the hands of the Archbishop of New York and the clergy, both diocesan and religious, associated with him. There is no question but that there was a sense of responsibility for all the ethnic groups in the diocese including the Spanish speaking. The early initiatives to establish Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal and Holy Agony parishes are to the credit of the archdiocese, as well as the invitation to the Redemptorist Fathers to staff St. Cecilia Parish.
It is interesting to note that in the period before the World War II, the time when the four national parishes were founded and St. Cecilia parish was entrusted to the Redemptorists, pastoral responsibility for Hispanic Catholics was being delegated almost in its entirety to religious congregations. The diocesan clergy, with few exceptions, did not seem to be conscious of any special, personal responsibility to serve Spanish speaking Catholics nor were they being challenged to do so by the archdiocesan authorities. If there was a fault to be found, perhaps it was that of complacency. The thriving and booming predominantly Irish-American parishes seemed to be the main business of the New York Church; ministry to Hispanics and other ethnic groups seemed to be only a kind of special interest and apostolate for those so inclined. In so far as they were integrated into the general population Hispanics were served by all the institutions of the archdiocese; otherwise they were left, for the most part, to the care of Spanish speaking religious.

The Puerto Rican Migration

Although there was a sizable population of Puerto Ricans in New York in Spanish Harlem or “El Barrio” before World War II, at the conclusion of the war a massive migration of Puerto Ricans to the mainland United States began, the majority of whom settled in and around New York City. For the early years after the war, the net emigration from Puerto Rico to the mainland was as follows:

          1945 – 13,573            1948 – 32,775            1951 – 49,436
          1946 – 39,911            1949 – 25,696           1952 – 59,000 (roughly)
          1947 – 24,551            1950 – 34,703            1953 – 73,000((“Some Statistical Data,” Report on the First Conference on the Spiritual Care of Puerto Rican Migrants Held in San Juan ,Puerto Rico April 11th to 16th, 1955, op. cit., section IV, appendix 1, p. 1.))

To the sensitive and thoughtful observer the implications of this population trend were very serious. A great new immigration of non-English speaking Catholics was underway, this time from Latin America not from Europe. The new arrivals from Puerto Rico were native Spanish speaking United States citizens. They came from a country and culture that were deeply Catholic but with hardly any native clergy, so unlike previous immigrant groups they had no immigrant clergy to accompany and minister to them. They were for the most part from rural parts of Puerto Rico, very poor and generally little schooled or skilled. And, the rate of their arrival raised important questions about the future of the New York church.

Fr. Joseph Fitzpatrick, SJ

One of the first to perceive the dimensions and implications of this great migration was a Jesuit sociologist on the faculty of Fordham University, Fr. Joseph P. Fitzpatrick. He began to study this movement of people and call attention to it in the academic and church communities. In fact, during the ensuing years he gradually became the foremost expert on the Puerto Rican migration, publishing many articles and books and widely lecturing and teaching on the topic.
In 1952 he was joined in his advocacy by a brilliant young Dalmatian priest, just recently arrived in the New York diocese and assigned to pastoral work in Incarnation parish on Manhattan’s upper West Side, Ivan D. Illich. Fr. Illich had been trained in Rome for service in the diplomatic corps of the Holy See but preferred to work in New York. He came highly recommended to Cardinal Spellman and in later years always enjoyed a privileged relationship to him. Shortly after Fr. Illich’s arrival in Incarnation he went to Puerto Rico, quickly learned the language, familiarized himself with the condition of the people and the church on the island and returned to New York to begin a creative and innovative ministry to them.
Another sensitive and thoughtful observer of the phenomenon of the Puerto Rican migration was the chancellor of the archdiocese, Msgr. John J. Maguire, later coadjutor archbishop of New York. He saw the implications of this new population for the Church and as well the need for hard data about its present status in relationship to the church as a basis for pastoral planning. In the fall of 1952 he asked Fr. George A. Kelly, a young priest-sociologist then stationed at St. Monica parish, to do a scientific study on the Puerto Ricans and the church. During the next year Fr. Kelly gathered a tremendous amount of data and prepared a research document that offered a bold and blunt challenge to the archdiocese, a document remarkably prescient about the growth and development of New York’s Puerto Rican population.(( George A. Kelly, “Catholic Survey of Puerto Rican Population in the Archdiocese of New York” (unpublished), Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York.))

The “Catholic Survey”

As Fr. Kelly mentioned in the introduction to his final report, “This survey of the Puerto Rican population in the Archdiocese of New York is highly experimental. A sociological analysis of a religious problem, having in view the development of a program to meet that problem, is a novel enterprise for the diocese.”((Ibid., 1. Introduction.)) And, anticipating the conclusion of the study, he asserted, “…there is little doubt that the Archdiocese has on its hands a pastoral and a missionary problem of such magnitude as to tax its resources, ingenuity and manpower for years to come….one of the first jobs that lie ahead is to create a milieu among the Puerto Ricans in New York that will be friendly to priestly and pastoral efforts by the Church. In this connection the education of the priests and religious of New York in the nature and scope of the problem is an outstanding imperative. To honestly present to them the exact extent of the evils at hand, to create sympathy for the Puerto Ricans, to inspire enthusiasm for work among them, to prepare priests not now directly involved to meet a problem which is quickly moving their way—all these ends this survey can further. But there must be some plain talking and some publication of salient information for Catholic priests and within Catholic circles.”((Ibid.))

Content. The survey attempted to gather and interpret data and make broad projections and recommendations for the future development of the New York church. After an introductory chapter on the size and distribution of the Puerto Rican population, the survey treated Spanish speaking priests and teachers, the administration of sacraments to Puerto Ricans, Mass attendance, parochial school enrollment and other religious educational programs, and Catholic societies and organizations. It focused especially on the growth of the Puerto Rican community from the 1950 federal census to the time of the survey itself. The following sampling of some of its findings gives some indications of the scope and flavor of the work.

According to the latest estimates that can be made, there were more than 300,000 Puerto Ricans in Manhattan and the Bronx in 1952.((Ibid., 3. Size and Distribution of the Puerto Rican Population.))
Within eight years the Puerto Ricans population of the Archdiocese will be approximately 880,000.((Ibid., Conclusions to Chapter 3.))
. . . within ten years the Puerto Rican Catholics of New York will form perhaps a majority of the nominal Catholics within the Archdiocese.((Ibid., 2. General Summary, Magnitude of the Problem.))
The Puerto Rican people of Manhattan are not at all served adequately by Spanish-speaking priests, and in this respect, the Bronx is twice as bad off as Manhattan. The worst off sections of New York are Lower Harlem, the West Side, and Spanish Bronx, which need such priests badly. Only twelve New York priests speak Spanish.((Ibid., Conclusions to Chapter 4 (Spanish-Speaking Priests—Teachers and the Puerto Ricans).))
Religious priests up to now have been carrying this burden but will require much greater assistance from diocesan parishes in the future, since Puerto Rican migration in the City is making this a problem mainly for diocesan parishes in the next ten years.((Ibid.))
The teachers of New York are even less prepared to speak Spanish, particularly the brothers and the lay teachers.((Ibid.))
. . . there are approximately…only thirty teaching sisters who are competent to work among the Puerto Ricans.((Ibid., General Summary, Spanish-Speaking.))
There is almost a reluctance on the part of pastors of diocesan parishes to plunge into Puerto Rican work wholeheartedly or to have their parishes known as Puerto Rican, even where large minority of the Catholics, and in some places a majority, are Puerto Rican.((Ibid., General Summary, Diocesan and Religious Parishes.))
Granting the growth of Puerto Ricans in the Archdiocese and granting the principle of commensurate service, by 1960 there ought to be 500 Spanish-speaking priests and 1,500 Spanish-speaking sisters. (These estimates do not consider the needs of Puerto Ricans in the educational and welfare agencies of the Archdiocese.)((Ibid., General Summary, Spanish-Speaking.))
In view of present conditions and future prospects, it does not seem that a voluntary system of training future priests in Spanish for work in the New York Archdiocese will meet the demand. It would almost seem imperative that every priest being ordained speak Spanish and that his training in this language be compulsory.((Ibid.))
About one-half of the Puerto Rican children born each year (at present) is baptized Catholic.((Ibid., Conclusions to Chapter 5. (Baptism and the Puerto Ricans).))
Protestant ministers witness as many marriages of American-born Puerto Ricans and twice as many marriages of native-born Puerto Ricans as priests.((Ibid., Conclusions to Chapter 7 (Marriage and the Puerto Ricans).))
Slightly more than one-third of the Catholics of New York attend Sunday Mass. . . . Not much more than one out of ten New York Puerto Ricans attend Sunday Mass.((Ibid., Conclusions to Chapter 8 (Sunday Mass and the Puerto Ricans).))
Out of 43,000 Puerto Rican children attending New York elementary schools, 5,000 attend parochial schools, 9,000 receive released time instruction, and 29,000 are out of touch with the church.((Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York.))

Importance, The survey marshaled a tremendous array of data, for the most part hitherto not collected or assembled, calculated to awaken any reader to the tremendous pastoral need and challenge facing the New York church. The very fact of the survey and the information it was uncovering put into the hands of Msgr. Maguire the factual data he needed to persuade Cardinal Spellman of the need for innovative and urgent action on behalf of New York’s Puerto Ricans. The conclusions of the survey became the stimulus for a complete redirection of the response of the archdiocese to the Puerto Rican migration.
In conducting the survey Fr. Kelly found himself being called upon and enthusiastically received by a variety of Puerto Rican groups and organizations. They found in him a representative of the archdiocese concerned with Puerto Rican and Hispanic interests. It became clear that such a role was necessary on an official and permanent basis. So, even before the survey was concluded, it was decided to create a new office within the archdiocese with the responsibility of representing the interests of the archdiocese within the Hispanic community and of advocating Hispanic interests within the parishes and other institutions of the archdiocese.

The Coordinator of Spanish Catholic Action

Msgr. Joseph Connolly

On March 24, 1953 on the recommendation of Msgr. Maguire, Cardinal Spellman appointed Msgr. Joseph F. Connolly to the newly created position of Coordinator of Spanish Catholic Action in the Archdiocese of New York. The official press release about the appointment stated, “This new post has been established in order to integrate the work being done for New York’s Puerto Rican people by Catholic religious, educational and social agencies and to develop the scope of the present program to provide more extended facilities for our newly arriving co-religionists. Monsignor Connolly will have his headquarters at the Chancery Office of the Archdiocese of New York, 451 Madison Avenue.”(( Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York.))
From the tenor of the press release it is clear that an important factor was “image.” The new office was clearly meant to be a high level and prestigious one. In itself the appointment was an important message to the Puerto Rican community and reflected a new sense of responsibility on the part of the archdiocese for Puerto Ricans. Msgr. Connolly was an intelligent and dynamic priest of the archdiocese, Roman trained, a former faculty member of the seminary and a domestic prelate. He contributed drive, creativity and sense of importance to this new office and his designation was well received by the spokesmen for New York’s Puerto Ricans. And, it should be noted, his residence in Incarnation parish enabled him to share ideas, enthusiasm and plans with Fr. Illich.

III. NEW DIRECTIONS

Msgr. Connolly felt the need for a bold and imaginative beginning, for some signs or gestures indicating that a whole new era was beginning as far as the archdiocese and the Puerto Rican community was concerned. Two such signs were given within the first two months of the new office: the institution of the feast of St. John the Baptist and the first official training it of New York diocesan clergy in Puerto Rico. Both proclaimed loud and clear that the archdiocese directly and immediately through its own clergy was cognizant of and responding to Puerto Ricans in New York.

The San Juan Fiesta

On June 24, l953 “forty-five hundred people were present at St. Patrick’s Cathedral for a Solemn Pontifical Mass celebrated in the presence of His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Spellman. The sermon was in Spanish.”(( Joseph F. Connolly, “Coordination of a Pastoral Program for the Spiritual Care of Spanish-Americans in New York,” Report on the First Conference on the Spiritual Care of Puerto Rican Migrants Held in San Juan, Puerto Rico April 11th to 16th, 1955, op. cit., section II, paper 5, p. 9.)) This terse description of Msgr. Connolly marked the beginning of a New York tradition and an important one in the development of the Puerto Rican community. At that time there were not yet any large public manifestations of Puerto Rican presence, culture or religiosity. The special Mass for the feast of the patron saint of Puerto Rico’s capital was consciously meant to be by Msgr. Connolly “the Spanish-American equivalent of a ‘St. Patrick’s Day’.”((Ibid.))
The celebration of the feast was repeated in the cathedral again in 1954 and in 1955. Bishops from Puerto Rico attended, Spanish songs and hymns were sung, all the seminarians studying Spanish were urged to attend and dignitaries from the Puerto Rican community in New York were in attendance. The cathedral was filled to excess again in 1954((Ibid.)) and 1955. in 1954 the Spanish sermon was preached by one of the first two New York priests trained in Puerto Rico who had just returned from a year on the island.
After the third celebration of the fiesta in the cathedral in 1955, at the suggestion and urging of Fr. Illich a whole new style of celebration was planned for 1956. With the help of Fr. Fitzpatrick and Mrs. Encarnación Armas, an outdoor celebration was arranged at Fordham University’s Rose Hill campus in the Bronx. The idea was to create something of the ambience of a typical Puerto Rican “Fiesta Patronal” with elements of religious, civic and popular celebration. Besides the field Mass to open the fiesta, there was a Puerto Rican style barbecue, speech-making, songs, entertainments and children’s games. When a hoard of children and adults, scrambled for the sweets and gifts that fell from the piñata, the Irish-American police rushed to cover Cardinal Spellman fearing he might be in danger of being assaulted!
The Fordham celebration of the fiesta was a great popular success. However, the thirty thousand people who attended proved to be too much for Fordham’s campus. For the next year the rapidly growing event needed even more space and accessibility—it was decided to put it into a public stadium on Randall’s Island.

New York Diocesan Clergy in Puerto Rico

Also in June of 1953, a less public but equally important step was taken. Within a few weeks of their ordination, two of the new class of New York diocesan priests received a special assignment to reside and work in a parish in Puerto Rico for one year and hopefully to learn as much as they could of Puerto Rican ways and the Spanish language. Further, a group of six major seminarians interested in learning or bettering their knowledge of Spanish was sent to help out as lay assistants in one or another of the island parishes for six weeks of their summer vacation.
This same procedure was followed again in 1954 and 1955. The seminarians and priests sent to Puerto Rico certainly became familiar with the island and its people and there was a growing awareness of Puerto Rico among the seminarians in general. The program had its limitation, however. First, there was little formal study of the Spanish language. Not everyone can easily “pick up” a new language just by being exposed to it, especially the seminarians who were there for a relatively short while. Second, the rate of increase of the Puerto Rican population in New York was so great that not even two priests a year was enough deployment of personnel for them.
In 1956 Cardinal Spellman made an even more bold and unusual decision. After their ordination one-half of the new class of priests was assigned for summer study at the Foreign Service Institute of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.. There they had a two months intense, total immersion program in conversational Spanish utilizing one of the most effective and advanced language teaching methods available anywhere. Like the fiesta, the program for training the newly ordained in spoken Spanish quickly outgrew its new location. The next year half the class of newly ordained priests was assigned to summer study of spoken Spanish according to the same methodology, but this time in Puerto Rico itself. The best features of the previous years were combined with other dimensions of pastoral practice, and training in intercultural communication skills was added.

1958 New Priests Leaving for Puerto Rico

The Coordination Plan

What was especially dear to Msgr. Connolly’s heart was a grand design for an overall “. . . Plan of Coordination of Spanish Catholic Action for the Archdiocese of New York.” He gave his immediate attention to it. In his own words, “The plan has been formulated only after careful thought about the survey of Father George Kelly, after deliberate reflection upon the functions of the various Archdiocesan departments, and after six months of active personal experience with many of the priests, people and problems of the Spanish-American Catholic population of New York.”(( Joseph F. Connolly, “ A Suggested Basic Plan for the Coordination of Spanish Catholic Action in the Archdiocese of New York,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 885. (quoted, with minor emendations, in “Coordination of a Pastoral Program for the Spiritual Care of Spanish-Americans in New York,” op. cit., p. 3.).))
Msgr. Connolly told the tale of the p1an’s development and adoption: “The first draft was submitted in its entirety to the Cardinal Archbishop and to the priests heading the very many separate departments of the Archdiocese. Their commentaries were incorporated, in one way or another, into the final draft. The final plan was discussed at a meeting attended by sixteen or eighteen priests outstanding in the Apostolate for the Spanish-Americans in New York. His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Spellman, who had previously supplied a written commentary on the plan, presided. During the course of the meeting, which lasted between two and a half and three hours, oral discussions served to highlight and clarify elements in the plan which were still doubtful or debatable. The plan, in its basic elements, was approved.”(( Connolly, op. cit. (“Coordination of a Pastoral Program for the Spiritual Care of Spanish-Americans in New York.”).))

The Coordinating Council. The first part of the plan called for the creation of a “Coordinating Council of Archdiocesan Departments” for Spanish Catholic Action consisting of priests representing the various departments. To this purpose Msgr. Connolly devised a kind of table of organization of the archdiocese with eleven major department heads. The rationale for this coordination mechanism was excellent and of value as a permanent principal: “The problems and needs of the Spanish-American Catholics are of the same variety (and) . . . are substantially as staggering in volume as the problems and needs of the rest of the Catholic population. Consequently the Spanish-American problems should be referred to and resolved by the department already existing in the particular sphere to which the problem belongs. The particular department already has an organization, staff and experience for its own proper work. It simply extends its efforts to encompass more and new peoples having these problems pertaining to its function. . . .Any alternate plan of coordination seems impossible, if it be a matter of one person trying to handle matters pertaining to any and all existing Archdiocesan departments. . . . Briefly, the principle underlying the plan of a ‘Coordinating Council’ is the principle of unity. There should not be two distinct departments performing the same function.”(( Connolly, op. cit. (“A Suggested Basic Plan for the Coordination of Spanish Catholic Action in the Archdiocese of New York” (original draft).) (revised draft substantially quoted in “Coordination of a Pastoral Program for the Spiritual Care of Spanish-Americans in New York,” op. cit., pp. 4-5.).))

The Laymen’s Committee. The second part of the plan called for the creation of a “Committee of Laymen for Spanish Catholic Action” along the lines of “The Coordinating Council of Catholic Lay Organizations in the Archdiocese of New York.” Apparently the main purpose of such a committee was to ensure a representation of the archdiocese at any and all “ecclesiastical and secular Spanish-American societies” and “at all and sundry ‘conferences,’ ‘workshops,’ ‘seminars,’ ‘committees,’ etc.”((Ibid., (pp. 5-6.).))

The Office of Coordinator. The third part of the plan called for a continuation, along new lines of definition, of the office of “Coordinator of Spanish-Catholic Action.” The principal function of the office was defined as “to serve as the clearance center for and liaison between the Spanish-American people and our own Coordinating Council and Committee of the Laity, as well as the many other ecclesiastical, civic and social agencies in New York pursuing similar activities.”((Ibid., (p. 6.).)) Specifically, the functions of the office were described as threefold: “1. clearance of all matters affecting the Spanish-American population to the proper departments of the Archdiocese; 2. contact with all agencies and individuals, ecclesiastical and civil, concerned with matters affecting the Spanish-American population of the Archdiocese, active or passive; 3. communication with all agencies and individuals, ecclesiastical and civil, concerned with matters affecting the Spanish-American population of this Archdiocese.”((Ibid., (p. 9.).))

The three-part general plan, as described above, was followed by a section that offered a mine of information and specific recommendations concerning priests, parishes, chaplaincies, Catholic Charities, the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, the Marriage Tribunal, the Displaced Persons office, colleges, the Catholic Teachers Association, adult education, catholic schools, radio and television programs, vicar for religious, the major and minor seminaries, social action (legal matters, educational matters, housing) and vocations.((Ibid.,( pp. 6-8.).))

Importance. The coordination plan was a magnificent vision and design for the mobilization of the archdiocese on behalf of the Puerto Ricans. It took the scientific data of Fr. Kelly’s survey and his suggestions and elaborated and translated them into a highly specific set of recommendations—a complete program of development and action. The thoroughness of the plan, the process of individual consultation with department heads, the discussions involving the cardinal, all in themselves helped to create a new and deeper awareness of the needs of the Puerto Rican community and of the archdiocese’s responsibility. A special value of the plan was its articulation of the principle of unity for pastoral action in behalf of Hispanics and its call for “an integration of these, our newest and numerous Catholic citizens, into the existing pattern of archdiocesan life” so as to “avoid the unhappy and undesirable evolution, in effect, of a separate diocese within the Archdiocese.”((Ibid.))
Unfortunately this elaborate and well thought out design was never implemented as planned. Many important components such as the Coordinating Council and the Laymen’s Committee were never set up as Msgr. Connolly had hoped, although sixteen years later in another situation one of his successors did establish a kind of coordinating council along somewhat different lines. The Spanish Catholic Action office did continue as a growing and effective advocate of Hispanic interests and concerns and as an agency for specifically Hispanic actions.

Activities in Other Departments

As a result of the coordination plan itself or independent of it, a great variety of new programs were initiated and existing programs and institutions were mobilized better to serve the needs of the Puerto Ricans:

Clergy. In April of 1955 Msgr. Connolly reported, “New York now has more Spanish- speaking clergy, very many of them native New Yorkers, than the Diocese of Ponce in Puerto Rico. There are now seventy-two parishes in New York with at least one Spanish-speaking priest listed.”((Connolly, op. cit. (“Coordination of a Pastoral Program for the Spiritual Care of Spanish-Americans in New York,”) p. 6.))

Catholic Charities. From the beginning the staff of Catholic Charities was cognizant of the numbers and needs of the Puerto Ricans in New York and responded accordingly. A special study was undertaken within the organization, and a program inaugurated at the central and district offices.((Connolly, op. cit. (“A Suggested Basic Plan for Coordination of Spanish Catholic Action in the Archdiocese of New York.”).)) In 1954 approximately one-third of the population served by the thirty-nine agencies of the Child Care Department were Puerto Rican. The percentage of Puerto Rican clients seen at each of the four offices of the Family Service Department was 98% in East Harlem, 34% in the central office, 23% in the Bronx, and 13% in Washington Heights. An even higher percentage of Spanish speaking staff served in that department.(( Edward Head, “Direct Service of Catholic Charities,” Report of the First Conference on the Spiritual Care of Puerto Rican Migrants Held in San Juan, Puerto Rico April 11th to 16th, 1955 (New York: Archdiocese of New York, 1955), section III, pp. 8-9. (Mimeographed.).)) Msgr. Connolly reported in April, 1955, “Let it be sufficient to say that this program is probably the largest single organized effort of the Church for Puerto Ricans—on or off the Island of Puerto Rico—with the possible exception of the Catholic Education program in Puerto Rico.”((Connolly, op. cit. (“Coordination of a Pastoral Program for the Spiritual Care of Spanish-Americans in New York.”), p. 7.))

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. A library of Spanish catechetical materials was assembled. A teacher training program for bilingual catechists to teach adults was inaugurated. Spanish pre-Cana and Cana conferences were prepared.((Ibid.))

Marriage tribunal. Two Spanish speaking priest canon lawyers were added to the staff of the curia, forms were prepared in Spanish for the many Spanish speaking clients and procedures were modified and adjusted better to meet the needs of Hispanics with matrimonial problems.((Harry J. Byrne, “What the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of New York is Doing to Meet the Special Needs of Puerto Rican Migrants Who Are Involved in a Marriage Problem Requiring a Decision of the Tribunal,” Report on the First Conference on the Spiritual Care of Puerto Rican Migrants Held in San Juan, Puerto Rico April 11th to 16th, 1955 (New York: Archdiocese of New York, 1955), section III, pp. 10-13. (Mimeographed.).))

Adult education. A variety of successful adult education programs were inaugurated or carried on in parishes such as Holy Name, St. Cecilia, St. Paul, St. Stephen and St. John Chrysostom and in Casita María by the local clergy and religious, Los Trabajadores Sociales Católicos Españoles, the A.C.T.U. and others.((Joseph F. Connolly, “The Spanish American Population – Some Points of View,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box  885 and Connolly, op. cit. (“A Suggested Basic Plan for the Coordination of Spanish Catholic Action in the Archdiocese of New York” and “Coordination of a Pastoral Program for the Spiritual Care of Spanish-Americans in New York,” p. 7.).))

Catholic schools. Msgr. Connolly reported in April, 1955, “On the grade and high school levels, the number of Puerto Rican pupils has notable increased. Individual schools are attempting various measures to meet the educational needs of Puerto Ricans.”(( Connolly, op. cit. (“Coordination of a Pastoral Program for the Spiritual Care of Spanish-Americans in New York”), p. 7.)) A model of such attention was Commander Shea School, founded in 1942 as an annex to St. Cecilia’s school. The school was overwhelmingly Puerto Rican and classes were grouped, graded and divided in creative ways better to attend to the children’s needs. An active parents association existed as well. Cathedral Girls High School was especially receptive to Puerto Rican girls graduating from Commander Shea and some even went on to Marymount College.

The Catholic Hour. The first radio programming in Spanish by the archdiocese was a weekly fifteen minute program on WHOM Saturday evenings at 9:45, the “Spanish-Catholic Hour.”((Ibid. p. 8 and Connolly, op. cit. (“A Suggested Basic Plan for the Coordination of Spanish Catholic Action in the Archdiocese of New York.”).))

Seminary. Six seminarians studied in Puerto Rico during the summer of 1953. In October Msgr. Connolly spoke to the student body about the work of Spanish Catholic Action. Weekly workshops led by the seminarians who went to Puerto Rico were held. A “Spanish Catholic Action Room” was set up. A series of conferences and discussions involving priests and laity active in the Hispanic community were given. A rapid Spanish language course, “Spanish Through Pictures,” was added to an existing Advanced Spanish Seminar led by Fr. Leandro Mayoral, C.M.. In 1954 seminarians went to the island again and by the next year there were fifty-five seminarians in the rapid course and twenty or so in the advanced.((Ibid. and Connolly, op. cit. (“The Spanish American Population –Some Points of view.”).))

Other Activities of the Spanish Catholic Action Office

In addition to the inauguration of the San Juan Fiesta and the language training programs the Coordinator of Spanish Catholic Action began several other programs:

Guía Católica. A directory of Catholic churches in New York with Spanish language services was published by the Spanish Catholic Action Office. One hundred thousand copies were distributed in New York and another one hundred thousand copies were sent to Puerto Rico for distribution to people leaving the island for New York.(( Connolly, op. cit. (“Coordination of a Pastoral Program for the Spiritual Care of Spanish-Americans in New York”), p. 6.))

Migrant farm workers. In July of 1954 a program of visiting camps of the approximately 300 Puerto Rican farm workers working in the Kerhonkson valley, west of Kingston, was begun. On August 15, 1954 Mass began to be celebrated on the camp grounds on Sunday evenings for the duration of the season.(( Gerard Micera, “Assistance to Migrant Farmers,”  Report of the First Conference on the Spiritual Care of Puerto Rican Migrants Held in San Juan Puerto Rico, April11th to 16th, 1955 (New York: Archdiocese of New York, 1955), section III, p. 13. (Mimeographed.).))

Marian Year pilgrimage. A Marian Year pilgrimage with all prayers and hymns in Spanish brought 2,400 people to St. Patrick’s Cathedral on September 12, 1954.(( Connolly, op. cit. (“Coordination of a Pastoral Program for the Spiritual Care of Spanish-Americans in New York,” p. 9 and “The Spanish American Population — Some Points of View.”).))

New York Excelsior. A Spanish language Catholic weekly for the Archdiocese of New York was inaugurated on March 25, 1955 with an initial circulation of 5,200 copies. The paper, a New York edition of the national newspaper Excelsior, included the general features of the national edition and two pages of news of the archdiocese under the responsibility of the Coordinator of Spanish Catholic Action.(( Joseph F. Connolly, “Memorandum for His Eminence (Francis Cardinal Spellman),” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 885 and Connolly, op. cit. (“Coordination of a Pastoral Program for the Spiritual Care of Spanish-Americans in New York”), p. 9.))

The Conference on the Spiritual Care of Puerto Rican Migrants

A very important meeting took place in San Juan, Puerto Rico in April of 1955, the first Conference on the Spiritual Care of Puerto Rican Migrants. Although it was convened under the auspices of the bishops of the two Puerto Rican dioceses of San Juan and Ponce, Cardinal Spellman gave it his strong personal and financial support and agreed to underwrite the participation of the priests from the mainland who attended. The official organizer of the conference was Fr. Thomas Gildea, C.SS.R. of St. Augustine’s parish in San Juan; most of the preparations and plans were made by Fr. Joseph Fitzpatrick, S.J. and Fr. Ivan Illich from New York.
The conference, the first of its kind ever held, was directed by Fr. William Ferree, S.M., Rector of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico. Thirty-five priests from sixteen mainland dioceses attended and seventy-five priests from the two dioceses in Puerto Rico. The purpose of the conference was to make an honest and open review of the spiritual care that was being provided for Puerto Ricans on the island and the mainland; to examine some historical, cultural and religious elements in their background and the surroundings into which they were plunged after arrival on the mainland; and to discuss methods and practices which could be suggested for the consideration of priests faced with this challenge.(( William Ferree,  Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, and John D. Illich, “Foreword,” Report on the First Conference on the Spiritual Care of Puerto Rican Migrants Held in San Juan, Puerto Rico April 11thto 16th , 1955 (New York; Archdiocese of New York, 1955), pp. 1-2. (Mimeographed.).))
The final report on the conference was prepared by Fr. Ferree, Fr. Fitzpatrick and Fr. Illich. Cardinal Spellman offered to underwrite the cost of its publication and he asked Msgr. Connolly to distribute copies in sufficient number to all the agencies of the archdiocese which were engaged in the apostolate for the Spanish speaking as well as to all bishops who had Puerto Ricans in their dioceses and to the bishops of the Southwest Conference.(( Francis Cardinal Spellman, “Dedication,” Report of the First Conference on the Spiritual Care of Puerto Rican Migrants Held in San Juan, Puerto Rico April 11th to 16th, 1955 (New York; Archdiocese of New York, 1955), pp. 3-4. (Mimeographed.).))
The conference had one interesting and very important consequence. Fr. Ferree was so impressed by the capabilities of Fr. Illich that he requested Cardinal Spellman to loan his services to the Catholic University of Puerto Rico as vice-rector. The Cardinal agreed and the following year Fr. Illich went to Ponce to assume this new position.

The Policy of the Integrated Parish

The initial reaction of the archdiocesan authorities to the increasing presence of Puerto Ricans and other Spanish speaking people in New York had been to utilize the tried and tested pastoral structure for immigrants, the national parish. When Cardinal Spellman came to New York he declined to continue to establish national parishes; in 1939 he turned the local or territorial parish of St. Cecilia over to the care of the Redemptorists. The parish remained a geographical one staffed by American priests who continued to serve the earlier Irish and German parishioners but who also could make the adaptations in parish life needed for the newcomers.(( Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, Puerto Rican Americans (Englewood Cliffs: Prentiss Hall, 1971), pp. 124-125.))
With the data acquired through the survey about the sheer number of Puerto Rican immigrants and the extent of their rapid dispersal throughout the city, a radical new approach to pastoral care was established by Cardinal Spellman: wherever Puerto Ricans lived, the local parish would adopt itself to them. Wherever necessary, parishes would begin to function in a bilingual, bicultural way. The model of St. Cecilia was made normative for the archdiocese, except now it applied to the parishes staffed by the diocesan clergy as well. The implications of this pastoral decision were enormous: local clergy and religious would have to acquire new communication skills and adjunct, Spanish speaking clergy and religious would have to be recruited; all diocesan programs, offices and agencies would have to begin to address themselves to a bilingual, bicultural reality; and these new immigrants would not be ecclesiastically isolated but involved immediately in the life of the local parish.(( Robert L. Stern, “The Archdiocese of New York and Hispanic Americans,” Migration Today, Vol. V, No. 3 (June, 1977), p. 18.))

Rationale, The principal reason prompting this decision of the cardinal was the lack of Puerto Rican priests. Speaking of the influx of Puerto Ricans, Cardinal Spellman observed, “They arrive on our Continental Mainland with the Cross about their necks and in their heart . . . but with no priests to attend their migration. Theirs is the first such Catholic group in the history of the American Migration. It is an unfortunate distinction. But it is an unavoidable distinction. Their priests do not come with them only because they cannot come with them. There are not enough priests in Puerto Rico to care for those remaining at home. In the Archdiocese of New York 2,500 priests serve 1,400,000 people. In the two dioceses of Puerto Rico, San Juan and Ponce, 310 priests serve 2,250,000 people. And less than 25 percent of these priests are native Puerto Ricans. Considering these two only of the very many distinctive features of the Puerto Rican Migration, the American Catholic is faced once again with a responsibility. It is not a new responsibility. It is a responsibility as old as American Migration. The term for that responsibility is ‘integration’…By Divine Providence every priest in New York has become a missionary to these people of Puerto Rico, so desperately in need of the priestly ministrations the heroic, zealous priests on their own little island could never have given because they are so few in number.”(( Spellman, op. cit., p. 2.))
Another reason, Fr. Fitzpatrick observed, was that “the history of the national or language parishes was beginning to reveal important disadvantages. When the third generation of Germans, Italians or Polish had grown up, few of them still spoke the language of their forebears and most had become assimilated to American ways and were moving away from the area of the language parish. As a result, clusters of old national churches, sometimes two and three in a few square blocks, continued to exist with a handful of members, . . . The integrated parish might involve problems of adjustment for the first generation, but it would be free of the problems of the third generation national parish that had lost its usefulness. Finally, as Puerto Ricans moved into poor areas from which older residents had departed, the existing geographical parish had valuable resources in the form of church buildings and parochial schools which could be used for the newcomers.”(( Fitzpatrick, op. cit., p. 125.))

Effectiveness. An inherent limitation of the decision to have integrated, not national parishes was that it tended to perpetuate among the Puerto Ricans the feeling that they were newcomers who were inheriting something established rather than creating something of their own. Besides not having the confidence of knowing that this parish, church or school was “theirs” in the sense in which previous immigrant groups knew the national parish was “theirs,” often the church or school they inherited was old, decaying and in need of costly repairs and maintenance. Also, in practice, the integrated parish, at least initially, meant that special Masses and services were provided for Puerto Ricans in their own language, but often in a basement chapel, a school hall or a small chapel elsewhere in the parish.(( Fitzpatrick, op.cit., p. 124.)) It was inevitable that in many parishes the Puerto Ricans felt themselves to be “second class” parishioners.
T0day more than one hundred of the local parishes of the Archdiocese of New York, over one-quarter of the total number, are ministering to Puerto Ricans and other Hispanic people in their own language as well as in English. In very many of them the Hispanics are now the dominant ethnic and cultural group; many have become “Spanish” parishes after all!

IV. THE HEYDAY OF SPANISH CATHOLIC ACTION

The genius of Msgr. Connolly was vision, planning and bold beginnings; it was not necessarily patient perseverance in long-range implementation of goals. By 1956 for a variety of personal reasons he was not in the position to give the care and attention to the office of in Coordinator of Spanish Catholic Action that it required. In November, another diocesan priest, Fr. James J. Wilson, was named acting coordinator and in May of 1957 he was named permanently to the position to replace Msgr. Connolly. During the next six years he provided the coordination and leadership that achieved a real consolidation and expansion of the archdiocese’s commitment to Puerto Ricans and other Hispanic Americans.

Expansion of the Fiesta of San Juan Bautista

The new style of observance of the feast of St. John the Baptist at Fordham University in June of 1956 had proved to be an outstanding success—too much of a success, actually, for Fordham to cope with it. The model was excellent however; the fiesta had to have a popular dimension in addition to the liturgical.

For 1957 Fr. Wilson hired the city stadium on Randall’s Island and announced the celebration of the fiesta there. As stadiums go, it was out of the way. Although near to Manhattan island, especially the Spanish Harlem neighborhood, the stadium was adjacent to the Triboro Bridge approach and hard to get to. Even so about thirty or forty thousand people turned out for the fiesta. It was a great Catholic spectacle: hundreds and thousands of Hijas de María marched in their white dresses, the rosary was recited, great floats with tableaux of the mysteries of the rosary passed and people marched with their parish society banners. A pontifical Mass was celebrated at a great altar especially erected in the center of the stadium’s field. Cardinal Spellman was escorted into the stadium by a huge procession of laity, altar servers and clergy. He was greeted with shouts of !Viva el Cardenal!, !Viva la Iglesia! and great roars of applause.(( Robert Stern, “Hispanics and New York — Happenings and Pastoral Plans,” Clergy Report, Vol. 8, No. 9 (November 1978), p. 1.))
The Mass was followed by an elaborate civic and cultural program. Special dignitaries were introduced, long and short speeches were given, congratulations were offered on all sides and a distinguished assemblage of artists, musicians and other entertainers, Puerto Rican and Latin in general, both professional and amateur, entertained the crowd. The celebration was meant to be a typical Puerto Rican fiesta patronal. As the formalities of the liturgy concluded, the great crowd gradually dissolved into clusters of family picnics, games and song. The stadium is in the center of a vast public park on Randall’s Island and the area was carpeted with Puerto Rican families intermixed with the clergy and religious who spoke their language.
The new pattern of the San Juan Fiesta was set. From year to year under Fr. Wilson’s guidance it became bigger and better. The spectacle varied, there were ever new dignitaries present, but the combination of religious-civic-cultural events held. As the fiesta became an institution, people vied to become associated with it. Fr. Wilson organized a Citizens’ Committee for the fiesta that met regularly during the year to plan and promote it and which became in its day one of the most prestigious of Puerto Rican Catholic organizations. A high honor was the naming of the new president of the fiesta at the conclusion of each year’s ceremonies. A distinguished roster of Puerto Rican lay leaders tells the tale of this office.
In its day, the San Juan Fiesta was a very important thing in the life of the Puerto Rican community. It corresponded to a deeply held Puerto Rican value: respeto. At that time all of what the public at large thought they knew about Puerto Ricans in New York was that they were poor, they didn’t speak the language and they were the ones that were ruining the city. Of course that is the story of every immigrant group; it was said about the Irish, the Italians, the Blacks and everybody else. The fiesta offered an opportunity for a public demonstration of the religious and cultural values of the Puerto Rican community, for until then they had no special expression of their culture, language or dignity. It was the first city-wide event that recognized the presence of the Puerto Ricans; there was nothing else. For several years it remained the main Puerto Rican event in New York.((Ibid., p. 2.))

Formation for the Pastoral Care of Puerto Ricans

The necessary concomitant to the policy decision to strive for integrated parishes throughout the archdiocese was the need of an extensive program of training of non-Hispanic church personnel—seminarians, priests and religious—in the spoken Spanish language and in Puerto Rican culture and Catholicism. The sending of seminarians and priests to Puerto Rico in 1953, 1954 and 1955 certainly provided experience of the latter. The intensive language training at Georgetown University in the summer of 1956 of half the newly ordained class of priests definitively gave a superior formation in the language.

The Ponce program. Now Msgr. Ivan Illich, in his new capacity of Vice-Rector of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, suggested an ideal solution for the training of church personnel. The seminarians, priests and religious would be sent to Puerto Rico. They would experience the shock of adjustment to another culture and learn to appreciate the values of Puerto Rico, its people and its church. But they would also have the benefit of the most up-to-date and effective methodology in language training. The Foreign Service Institute method of teaching spoken Spanish at Georgetown University would be utilized as well at the Catholic University in Ponce. In the summer of 1957 Msgr. Illich inaugurated a special training program primarily designed for mainland church personnel working with Puerto Ricans under the title of the Institute of Missionary Formation of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico.
If the newly ordained priests who met with Cardinal Spellman in June of 1956 were surprised to receive an assignment to Washington, imagine the reactions of the class of 1957. In those days the style of assignment of clergy was quasi-military: orders were given and no preferences were asked. The cardinal now made the even bolder move of assigning half of his new priests not just out of the diocese but, so to speak, out of the country. The same procedure was followed for the next few years, so the possibility of a summer assignment to Puerto Rico became a routine expectation of the newly ordained New York priest. By 1959 there began to be some concern to ascertain the degree of interest in such an experience among the priests to be ordained and this influenced the decision about assignment. Experience proved that motivation had a lot to do with success in learning the language and adapting to the culture.
The Puerto Rican assignment was not just for priests. A large group of religious sisters and brothers as well as seminarians were sent each summer to Ponce, sometimes forty or fifty in all. Usually the clergy had an eight-week language training program and the religious, six. In addition to the six or seven hours a day of drill in small groups in spoken Spanish, there were courses given on Puerto Rican, Latin American and American culture and in the particular problems of intercultural communication by a variety of experts in all these different fields. Besides the theoretic study of the challenges of operating in a culture other than one’s own, there was a highly personal experience of these challenges, deliberately heightened and aggravated by Fr. Illich. Climate, scheduling, food, style of organization, attitudes about punctuality, the manner of celebration of the liturgy, the constant use of Spanish—all conspired together to “Puerto-Ricanize” the unsuspecting students.
A specially significant part of the program for the priests were weekend assignments to assist at one or another of the parishes of the island. For better or worse, each was thrown into a professional situation with a demand for communication. The experience was challenging and enriching. The interactions on the weekends forced the utilization of newly acquired language skills, exposed the priests to the living Puerto Rican culture and enabled them to experience the warmth and affection of the people. Usually at the end of the summer there was an opportunity for the students, especially the clergy, to spend an additional four weeks living in a Puerto Rican parish and assisting in pastoral ministry there
The Puerto Rican experience profoundly influenced a generation of New York priests. Standing outside their own culture, however briefly, they acquired a critical perspective of it. The contact with Hispanic Catholicism helped them to discern the Irish quality of New York’s church. The experience of pluralism stood them in good stead as the whole Church began to change in the days of Vatican II. The Puerto Rican trained clergy became the pastoralist vanguard of the archdiocese.

The Hayes program. Pleased by the success of the Ponce program in 1957, Cardinal Spellman not only assigned half of his 1958 class of priests to Puerto Rico but on July 30, 1958 he “requested Catholic University of Puerto Rico to extend its courses of Missionary Formation to New York in order to insure the preparation in the shortest possible time of an adequate supply of priests, sisters and lay people for effective (missionary) work among some 500,000 ‘hispanos’ in the Archdiocese.”(( Ivan D. Illich, “General Plan for the Preparation of New York Archdiocesan Personnel for Effective Apostolate among Spanish Speakers,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box  885.))
Msgr. Illich prepared a draft of a proposal for a “General Plan for the Preparation of New York Archdiocesan Personnel for Effective Apostolate among Spanish Speakers” which he planned to present to Cardinal Spellman before November 15th and circulated it among a select group for evaluation, criticism and correction. The tenor of the paper was that “a considerable lag still exists between personnel needed and personnel available” and that “this lag must be filled as quickly and as well as possible”—i.e. between December 1958 and September 1961. The paper proceeded to outline the specific needs of the Spanish speaking in New York and how they were to be met by the church, to forecast how the number and distribution of Spanish speaking in need of special attention would change by 1970, to estimate the minimum number of priests and other specially prepared personnel that would be needed, to propose a program of missionary formation for the Archdiocese of New York and finally, to estimate a three-year budget for the operation of the proposed program.((Ibid.))
Not many of the large number of specific recommendations of Msgr. Illich were adopted or implemented; one that was, was that for a language training program for religious similar to that given in Ponce, but which could be offered in New York. January 29, 1959 Monsignor John P. Haverty, Superintendent of Schools of the Archdiocese of New York, announced that “a special twelve-week course in Spanish designed for teachers in the Catholic schools of the Archdiocese will be given at Cardinal Hayes High School…commencing Saturday, March 7th. This program enjoys the sponsorship of His Eminence the Cardinal and is being given under the auspices of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico.”(( John P. Haverty, “Memorandum to the Reverend Superiors and the Reverend Directors and Directresses of Studies of Communities Teaching in the Elementary Schools of Manhattan and the Bronx,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 1012.))
The purpose was both to provide a continuation of the Ponce program to the teaching religious who studied there the previous summer and to initiate those who planned to study in Puerto Rico the following summer. Interested lay teachers who planned to take summer courses at the Catholic University of Puerto Rico were also welcomed to these classes. The classes consisted of two sessions of intensive drill in spoken Spanish of two hours and of one and one-half hours in duration.((Ibid.))

Institute of Inter-Cultural Communication

Technically the new spring program and the projections for its continuance were a contracted project of the Institute of Missionary Formation of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico and, of course, the summer program was the basic expression of this institute. As a point of fact, it was a New York priest who was responsible for both programs and who had designed both with the needs of New York foremost in mind. In 1959 it was determined to refer to these programs in a new way as activities of the Institute of Inter-Cultural Communication and in December of that year the newly named institute was incorporated in New York State.
The incorporation placed full control of the institute in the hands of the Archdiocese of New York. The institute continued to operate regular weekly language training programs at Cardinal Hayes High School for the fall and spring semester each year and gradually it added a second, alternative evening of class at Hayes and occasional classes at the archdiocesan seminary and other regional centers. During the summer months the Institute of Inter-Cultural Communication ambiguously was identified as an institute of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico. In fact it was a special program directed by the New York archdiocese utilizing the services and buildings of the Catholic University. While a New York priest was vice-rector or rector of the university, there was no great need to clarify some of the ambiguity. Later, when the university had a lay rector and a somewhat more proper autonomy, the relationship between the archdiocese and the university as regards the summer program became a matter of formal, contractual agreement.
For the next ten years the style and substance of both programs, Ponce and Hayes, remained basically the same. A New York archdiocesan priest was named by the cardinal as the director of the institute, a part-time job during the school year and a full-time one during the summer. A measure of the degree of importance and the extent of involvement of the archdiocese in both these programs was that they represented an annual expenditure of at least $100,000.

The Cursillos de Cristiandad

A short range goal for the archdiocese was to train as quickly and as extensively as possible non-Hispanic clergy and religious to minister to the needs of its Puerto Rican and other Hispanic peoples. A very long range goal was the development of indigenous leadership in New York’s Hispanic community, first a well formed lay leadership and then, hopefully, religious vocations from strongly church affiliated Hispanic Catholic families.
Msgr. Wilson was very interested in the importation of a new and widely successful instrument of evangelization and conversion developed in Ciudad Real, Spain, that was producing electrifying results in Spain and in Mexico and other parts of Hispanic America, the Cursillo de Cristiandad, or Brief Course in Christianity. After an earlier, first and unsuccessful experiment, the Cursillos began to be given on a regular basis in the archdiocese in September of 1960. At that time a team of Mexican American laymen from Laredo, Texas, came to give the first cursillo. Although it was enthusiastically received and extremely effective, it was the original Spanish pastoral design twice removed. In December, at the archdiocese’s invitation, an expert pair of Spanish laymen came from the mother diocese of the Cursillo movement in Spain to give New York’s second and third cursillos.
The cursillo is actually a highly and tightly organized, three-day, study-retreat weekend with a strong emphasis on community experience. In content it addressed itself, especially in its original form, to the distortions and inadequacies of traditional popular Hispano-American Catholicism and to a theological understanding of the sacramental life, Christian maturity and the responsibilities of the lay person in the Church. After attending a cursillo, the average participant is enthused, highly motivated and disposed to active involvement in the apostolate in his local parish.(( Stern, op. cit. (“The Archdiocese of New York and Hispanic Americans”), p. 19.))
At first the Cursillos were given at Tagaste Seminary of the Augustinian Recollect fathers. By December of 1961 the archdiocese established St. Joseph’s Center on West 142nd Street in Manhattan for the Cursillo movement and other works of formation under the direction of the Coordinator of Spanish Catholic Action. The Augustinian Recollects undertook to staff it. In March of 1962 the Cursillo movement had grown to such an extent that it was deemed appropriate to set up the recommended diocesan structure of governance for it, the Secretariat, the members of which are named by the bishop of the diocese.
During the past two decades and more the Cursillo movement has been the chief instrument of Hispanic lay leadership formation within the Archdiocese of New York. Several thousand lay men and women have “made” a Cursillo and thousands of them have received further and specialized formation for the apostolate in the associated programs of the Cursillo movement at St. Joseph’s Center.((Ibid.)) The “cursillistas” have provided the nucleus of Hispanic lay leadership in almost every Hispanic parish of the archdiocese. Perhaps one reason for the rapid spread, great popularity and considerable impact of the Cursillo among New York’s Hispanics is that this diocesan-wide, city-wide movement provided a framework and community to the individual Hispanic immigrant otherwise submerged in New York’s dominant non-Hispanic culture and in danger of losing his identity as Hispanic and Catholic. Its religious celebrations and great rallies and assemblages both made each Hispanic cursillista very aware that he was not alone in New York and gave him great opportunities for self-expression, recognition and leadership.

Caballeros de San Juan Bautista

An earlier and less effective attempt to strengthen their Catholic identity and to provide fraternal support to Hispanic lay men was the institution of the Caballeros de San Juan Bautista, or Knights of St. John the Baptist, a Catholic Hispanic fraternal organization begun in Chicago. After three months of study and planning, in December of 1957 the Caballeros de San Juan Bautista were organized in New York. Councils were quickly established in Holy Agony, Milagrosa and Our Lady of Lourdes parishes; beginnings were made at Holy Name, St. Michael and Nativity parishes and a school for prospective leaders was held weekly at St. Matthew’s parish. Orientation lectures were given on such subjects as house visitation, credit unions, housing, employment opportunities and the necessity of learning English. Spiritual formation was promoted by days of recollection and holy hours.(( James J. Wilson, “June Report to His Eminence the Cardinal, 1958,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 979.))
Msgr. Wilson had great hopes that “this program of the Caballeros has great possibilities of serving as a transition organization to welcome and orient the new migrant and put him in touch with the Church and established Church societies. As a city-wide Catholic organization it has the advantage of providing a much needed anchor for men recently arriving and living in parishes where parish societies have not yet made provision for those who only understand Spanish.(( Wilson, loc. cit.)) These great expectations were never realized. The Caballeros never became what its founders hoped for, but the Cursillo movement more than fulfilled most of the dreams for the Caballeros.

The Gran Misión

In several parts of Latin America in the late l950’s a special missionary project called the Gran Misión had remarkable success. An international team of priests—local clergy, other Latin Americans and Spaniards—would concentrate on a city or diocesan-wide mission over a period of several months. Coordinating their activities according to a master plan and timetable, they would pastorally “saturate” an area. The mission included a pre-mission phase of some months of home visitation and parish preparation; a full mission program for men women, and young people in the classic parish mission style and a post-mission, follow-up program. It had astounding results in numbers of people contacted, sacraments administered and the fervor and enthusiasm it provoked.
Msgr. Wilson thought of adopting this technique for the revitalization of the Puerto Rican and Hispanic community in New York City. The massive approach utilized in the Latin American cities was not possible in New York for a variety of reasons. First, New York was not an entirely Spanish-speaking and Catholic city, so the Gran Misión could never have the public and total impact it was designed for. Also, financially it was unthinkable to transport, house and finance hundreds of Hispanic mission preachers. However six priests experienced in the Gran Misión in Latin America and specialists in census and home visitation techniques did come to New York early in 1961 for a period of time ranging from a few months to a year or two and worked in St. Lucy and Ascension parishes in Manhattan and in Sts. Peter and Paul parish (including the national parishes of Immaculate Conception, Our Lady of Pity and St. Adalbert) in the Bronx.(( James J. Wilson, “Memo for the Use of His Eminence at the Priests’ Retreats, June, 1961,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 979.))

Pastoral Contacts and Communications

As the Spanish Catholic Action office became a regular part of the life of the archdiocese it began to acquire dozens of routine functions in addition to the stimulation of new activities or the establishment of new archdiocesan level programs. The coordinator would be called on repeatedly to attend meetings, dedications, religious services, banquets and other social functions to represent the archdiocese and the cardinal. Further, the office became a kind of counseling and orientation center for any and all Spanish speaking persons with any kind of question, complaint or problem. During the course of time that Msgr. Wilson served there several important services were rendered:

Ayuda Católica para Emigrantes Puertorriqueños. For many years at the airport in San Juan the Legion of Mary would interview all Puerto Ricans leaving the island for the mainland, filling out a data form giving as many particulars as possible about their identity, religious status and destination. These forms would be forwarded to the mainland dioceses for follow-up. By way of cooperation with them, Msgr. Connolly had prepared the Guía Católica to Catholic churches in the archdiocese which was given to migrants in San Juan as they left. In New York the forms about arriving Puerto Ricans began to be received in increasing quantities. By the time of Mgr. Wilson, a major task of the coordinator’s office was to receive these forms, determine by the address of destination the parish where the new arrival would be living and inform the pastor or Spanish speaking priest there so that personally or through the Legion of Mary the newly arrived could be contacted and assisted.
In 1959, for example, Msgr. Wilson could report to Cardinal Spellman that “through volunteer aid, principally the Legion of Mary both here and in Puerto Rico, the Archdiocese has been able to follow up contacts made with migrants at the San Juan airport. During the last two years approximately 10,000 were visited by workers armed beforehand with useful information as to the migrant’s spiritual status, purpose of migration, degree of English spoken, etc.”(( James J. Wilson, “Report on Spanish Catholic Action (Prepared for the Ad Limina Visit of the Cardinal in 1959),” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 979.)) It is hard to say how effective the program was. Its inspiration was very good but somewhat paternalistic. It was more feasible in theory than in practice. Often the New York address was tentative and inaccurate, and even if the person was visited it was unrealistic in many cases that religious problems of long-time duration would be addressed by the migrant in the midst of so many immediate challenges to material survival. But, it did provide thousands of friendly and welcome contacts with local parishioners, priests and churches.

Seasonal farm workers. If contact with new arrivals to the city was a frustrating business, even more so was the pastoral care of migrant farm workers. The New York archdiocese never had very large numbers of them. However, continually during the summer months there would be visits to the migrant camps, occasional Masses and other religious devotions, and catechetical instruction for children. It was difficult to do much, for usually the workers were out in the fields from dawn to dusk and they were present here only for a short while. Again, it was not the opportune time for most of them to resolve long-standing problems of religious practice, but, at least, as Msgr. Wilson reported, they “are not forgotten; they receive services and instruction in Spanish during their comparatively short stay, carrying back to Puerto Rico the memory of the Universal Church serving them in a strange land, often under trying and unfavorable material conditions.”((Ibid.))

Guía Moral del Cine. A service initiated by Msgr. Wilson was to publish the Spanish language equivalent of the Legion of Decency’s ratings of current motion pictures. This was made available to the Spanish language press in New York City as well as sent to each parish and Spanish speaking priest.

Notes to priests on Spanish Catholic Action. A regular newsletter was mailed to all Spanish speaking priests in the archdiocese and to many outside it to keep them informed of interesting pastoral developments locally and elsewhere. Also, clergy meetings and conferences were held periodically for the same purpose, often with guest speakers from within or outside the archdiocese.

Mass booklets. Another valuable service rendered by the coordinator’s office was the preparation of Spanish language Mass booklets, with prayers, hymns and songs for use in the parish.

Labor schools. Labor schools in the Spanish language under the auspices of the A.C.T.U. helped to provide New York Hispanic workers with the knowledge and principles necessary to defend their rights and to follow the social encyclicals.((Ibid.))

Inter-Diocesan Meeting of Priests

In October, 1957 in New York City, Msgr. Wilson convoked and presided at an Inter-Diocesan Meeting of Priests Concerning the Apostolate to the Spanish-Speaking of the East. Forty priests were present representing twenty-two dioceses. The purposes of the meeting were to review the present activity of the dioceses represented; to determine what their major difficulties and their most successful methods were; to discuss what organizations had been most effective; to decide whether coordination between the dioceses was advisable and, if so, what form it should take; to determine how the dioceses could cooperate better with Catholic Aid to Puerto Rican Migrants in San Juan; and, finally, to decide whether a large scale conference, either of clergy alone or of clergy and laity, was necessary or advisable.(( “Report of the Inter-Diocesan Meeting  of Priests Concerning the Apostolate to the Spanish Speaking People in the East,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 1105.))
This meeting was the first regional initiative of the Archdiocese of New York. In subsequent years, because of the sheer numbers of its Spanish speaking population and because of the great development of the apostolate to the Spanish speaking within the archdiocese, New York continued to exercise a kind of informal leadership of the dioceses of the northeast and to assist them with information and programs of various kinds. It was only with the establishment of the Northeast Catholic Pastoral Center for Hispanics many years later that this role ceased.

V. SPANISH COMMUNITY ACTION

Some years before he took on the responsibility of Coordinator of Spanish Catholic Action, Msgr. Wilson had spent seven years in the Philippine Islands where he had begun to study Spanish. He had continued that study upon his return to New York. Consequently, unlike Msgr. Connolly, when Msgr. Wilson was named coordinator he could express himself fluently in that language. More important, in the Philippines he had acquired a missionary perspective which influenced his work in the archdiocese of New York. Appreciating the value of the Church’s work in other countries and cultures, he strongly advocated the Puerto Rican experience for New York clergy and religious, encouraged mastery of the language as an apostolic tool and drew upon pastoral programs tried with success in other places such as the Caballeros de San Juan Bautista, the Cursillos de Cristiandad and the Gran Misión.

Msgr. Robert Fox

His successor, Msgr. Robert J. Fox, was formed in part by the very programs Msgr. Wilson helped to initiate. Shortly after his ordination Fr. Fox was sent to the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. for graduate studies in social work. During the summer of 1958 he studied spoken Spanish and Puerto Rican culture at the Institute of Missionary Formation of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico together with the newly ordained priests of that year. After three years in the Family Service Division of New York Catholic Charities, in August of 1961 he was appointed to a Fulbright lectureship in social work in Montevideo, Uruguay, for a year. Consequently, when he was named Coordinator of Spanish Catholic Action in July of 1963, he not only was totally fluent in Spanish and had experienced and studied the life of Puerto Rico and Latin America but also brought the interests and social concerns of a highly trained social work professional to his new position.
Msgr. Fox inherited responsibility for the many projects and programs of the Spanish Catholic Action Office developed under Msgr. Connolly and Msgr. Wilson and continued to develop them. But, more importantly, he galvanized and inspired the many young, trained Spanish speaking priests and religious, till then left pretty much to their own devices in terms of pastoral care and programs, by a series of creative and innovative programs designed to promote personal interaction and community development in the inner city. In fact the very name of the Spanish office was changed to reflect this new emphasis. He became the Coordinator of Spanish Community Action.

Summer in the City

As the summer of 1964 drew near. Sr. Margaret Dowling of the Sisters of Charity of Mt. St. Vincent approached Msgr. Fox with the idea of utilizing the services of religious sisters in inner-city Hispanic neighborhoods on a volunteer basis during the vacation months. Msgr. Fox came up with a project that was tried out with great success at the Lillian Wald Houses in St. Brigid parish that year—with so much success, as a matter of fact, that requests came from other communities of religious to become so involved in the future. During the fall and winter, Msgr. Fox communicated and met with the Spanish speaking priests in the inner-city parishes and plans were made for extending the same experience to thirty-five parishes in the summer of 1965.
The plans were seriously and positively affected by the establishment that winter of the federal Office of Economic Opportunity, the beginning of President Johnson’s “war on poverty.” Originally the summer project was planned to operate on a completely volunteer basis. The archdiocese had agreed to give each participating religious a nominal stipend of $20 a month and to provide housing in convents for all. Since a complete project description was already drafted and the new Office of Economic Opportunity was ready and willing to fund local community programs, an application was made and a grant for a quarter of a million dollars was received. Summer in the City was launched!
The organizational manual for the new program described it as “a combined effort of many persons attempting to establish an environment conducive to increased relationship and communication between persons and among groups within a neighborhood.…Too frequently barriers, deeper than language, separate persons one from the other. External pressures rising from social censures, living standards, and even norms of dress combine with internal forces founded in traits of personality (and) differences of background to form seemingly insurmountable obstacles to genuine communication of ideas.…Spontaneous creative expression is an important element in the growth and development of human relationships. . . . The need of such a response is seen in all areas but especially in depressed sections where withdrawal and escapism in their varied forms are evident. Growth in appreciation of oneself and appreciation of another’s individuality are the foundations of genuine relationship. . . .(( “Summer in the City, Information for Center Directors, Board members, etc.,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 99, p. 9.))
“All aspects of the program—educational, recreational, and cultural—must be infused with creativity. . . . The composite group of distinct persons making up the staff is a deliberate effort to foster relationship among persons of varied backgrounds. . . . Another factor necessarily connected with the concepts of relationship and creativity is the visibility of the program. By its very nature, if the program is to make a worthwhile contribution to the neighborhood, activities must be conducted in the open forum. Every effort must be made to involve people in places where they naturally congregate.”((Ibid., pp. 9-10.))
The combined efforts of the priests, religious volunteers, professionals in creative arts, paid project and recreation assistants from the neighborhoods and other volunteers under the leadership and coordination of Msgr. Fox had immediate and enormous success. At the close of Summer in the City in 1965 and after an evaluation of the experience, plans were made to repeat it in the summer of 1966, and a proposal was developed for an umbrella funding organization, the Institute for Human Development.

New York Institute for Human Development

After some months of planning, the proposal for the institute was completed and it was incorporated as a New York State membership corporation on April 14, 1966. According to its certificate of incorporation, its prime purpose was “to plan, establish and conduct programs of research, training and demonstration and studies, surveys and other activities designed to develop, test and carry out ways and means of ascertaining and ameliorating the causes and effects of poverty and other social problems and satisfying the needs and aspirations of economically disadvantaged and culturally deprived citizens in the City of New York and elsewhere; and in connection therewith to promote interpersonal and intergroup relationships designed to aid in the attainment of such objectives, and to identify, coordinate and cooperate with existing and future community programs and resources and existing and future Federal, state and local governmental programs and resources directed toward the achievement of such objectives or any of them.”(( Certificate of Incorporation of New York Institute for Human Development, Inc., Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 979, p. 1.))
Even before the Institute was fully incorporated a proposal for a continuation during the year of the work of Summer in the City under the name of Project Engage was drafted and submitted to the New York Economic Opportunity Committee. After nine months of deliberation by its staff and various committees, it was finally approved for $1,200,000 of funding in August of 1966. However the fact that the City of New York was not then eligible for any new funds from the Office of Economic Opportunity and the increasingly chaotic state of the New York Economic Opportunity Committee coupled with its unmistakably negative attitude toward the church made it unlikely that the proposal would ever be fully funded as proposed.(( Robert J. Fox, “Memorandum for Archbishop Maguire, Re.: Follow-up for Summer in the City, September 7, 1966,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 986, p. 1.))
Meanwhile, the second Summer in the City program in 1966 had a success similar to that of the year before. Msgr. Fox reported that “although funds were allocated for only thirty centers, Summer in the City operated in forty-six parishes. While it is true that some good was accomplished in all of the parishes, we feel that a sound base for a continuing operation was established in thirty of the forty-six centers . . . In each of these thirty parishes the board (of local residents which was recruited for the program and formed during its operation) is anxious to continue on a year round basis . . . the momentum achieved by Summer in the City is a significant reality in neighborhoods where apathy and lethargy are major problems. . . . the urgent problem at this moment is to maintain and employ the momentum which has been generated in the thirty centers. . . . (so that they will) grow into neighborhood community action groups truly capable of analyzing community problems and generating remedial and preventative programs for which multiple sources of funds are avai1able.”((Ibid., pp. 1-2.))

Project Engage

By November of 1966, twenty-four parishes had agreed to participate in the continuing operation of their Summer in the City centers under the title of Project Engage. Each of them had a non-sectarian board of directors in whose hands responsibility for the local program was vested. Each of them had a budget of S300 per month to cover the cost of renting a storefront and employing a part-time director. The beginning step in each center was a training program for the board members called “Mansight,” a program geared to increase their awareness of the realities of the city neighborhood through considering together and discussing a series of thirty-two pictures selected for the purpose. Also, each center was assigned three or four part-time religious volunteers to assist with beginning concrete services such as tutoring, creative arrangement of the storefront and contacting neighborhood people.(( Robert J. Fox, “Progress Report, Memorandum to: Archbishop Maguire, Bishop Cooke, November 22, 1966,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 979, p. 4.))
The Institute for Human Development had begun to function on October 24, 1966 with the minimal staff necessary for the initial phase of operations with funds provided by a grant from the Grace Foundation. One of its functions was to assist the local parish centers to develop programs by providing five central services: consultation in community development, education and training, evaluation and research, fiscal supervision and funding consultation, and public relations.((Ibid.)) As guidelines for federal funding changed, the plan of the institute to be an umbrella organization to receive and disperse monies for the operation of the local centers had to be dropped and each local center had to prepare and submit individual funding proposals to its own community board.
In the summer of 1967 each of the local parish centers continued a similar programming although there was no overall project as such. The same spirit and style permeated all the different local activities and the same three cardinal principles of Summer in the City inspired the execution of all their programs: public forum, creativity and relationship. Perhaps the most dramatic example of this at work were the street processions in Spanish Harlem to counteract the riots there.

The Thing in the Spring

The street riots and racial tensions of the summer of 1967 were but one symptom of the increasing polarization in New York between the inner-city poor and the more comfortable and predominantly suburban middle class. It was agreed that the networks of parish centers and communities together would try to address themselves to this problem and to find some common, personal, creative and visible response to it. All during the year preparations were made for an event in the spring where suburbanites would come to the inner-city neighborhoods to meet, share and work with the local residents in the improvement of their material conditions as well as in celebrating their quality of life.
Some of the magic of Summer in the City filled the plans for The Thing in the Spring. It was not so much a task-oriented project as relationship-oriented. Whatever common task or celebration took place was above all else to mediate relationships and build mutual respect, trust and friendship. A tremendous amount of time went into preparing all the people who would participate, especially helping the city folk to realize that they were to be hosts not clients. On April 20, 1968, “5,000 suburbanites and an equal number of inner-city residents came together on 43 inner-city streets all over Manhattan and the Bronx for a massive day of renovation. They cleaned backyards and basements, painted the facades of houses, made minor repairs and even painted wall murals. They gave a dramatic face-lift to the blocks, helping fill the neighborhood with enthusiasm and energy and providing the groundwork for relationship between peoples.”(( “The Saturdays of Spring,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 986.))
After that day twelve more blocks experienced similar days of renovation and nearly fifty blocks went on (often with their suburban partners) to develop block clubrooms, credit unions and consumer cooperatives, pre-school and after school centers, darkrooms and a teen cafe and to make a start at turning empty backyards and lots into parks. Numbers of the suburbanites who participated continued to work, create and recreate with their inner-city friends and the April experience led many of them to deeper and more creative involvement in the problems of their own suburban towns.((Ibid.))
For the next year, 1969, a more ambitious and similar project was planned involving thirty blocks for seven Saturdays of renovation and interaction with the title, “The Saturdays of Spring.” This proved to be the last of the plans developed by Msgr. Fox as the Coordinator of Spanish Community Action however, for by now it was clear that all these creative community action programs were a full-time job in themselves and he asked the archdiocesan authorities to be freed to work with them.

Full Circle Associates

The 1967 street processions to counteract the riots received a tremendous amount of publicity and acclaim, but they also triggered some disturbances within the Institute for Human Development. Not all the staff members were agreed about that intervention or about the role of the newly developed parish centers or the involvement of suburbanites. The internal dissension culminated in the board of directors asking for the resignation of the staff. For someone like Msgr. Fox for whom trusting and open relationships were the essence of any program the situation was untenable. He left association with the organization he had founded and during the next six months proceeded to reorganize with the same spirit a new entity called Full Circle Associates, “a network of people of all races, creeds, classes and generations who share a conviction that in this crisis of alienation, division and hatred it is (the human person) who can make the difference.”((Ibid.))

Pastoral Programs and Other Activities

Although Msgr. Fox was fully involved in these many new programs of community action, he was still at the same time providing the coordination and direction of existing and newly established programs for the pastoral care of Hispanics in the archdiocese.

The Spanish center in Cornwall. Since his assignment to Eastern Correctional Institute in Napanoch, New York as Catholic chaplain after a year spent in Puerto Rico following his ordination, Msgr. Matthew Killian was a kind of circuit rider and visiting missionary priest for the many growing Puerto Rican and Hispanic communities scattered in the small cities and towns of the rural regions of the archdiocese. The need for more personnel in the area was urgent. So, when the Spanish congregation of the Oblates of the Most Holy Redeemer wrote to Msgr. Fox in September of 1963 offering to work in New York and to establish a residence for young women there,(( Robert L. Fox, “Memorandum, To: Bishop Maguire, Subject: Letter from Sister Isidora de los Ángeles, September 16, 1963,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 880.)) he countered by asking them if they would be willing to work in pastoral ministry in the rural areas.
By the same time next year a whole structure of apostolate was worked out. A farm property in Cornwall belonging to the archdiocese was renovated as a convent residence and an adjoining barn was later converted into an all-purpose hall. Six sisters would live there and minister to Hispanic communities in towns such as Haverstraw, Ellenville, Newburgh and Beacon. Their work consisted of home visitation, catechetical instruction, counseling, adult education, preparation for the sacraments and assistance with liturgy as well as all kinds of social service referrals and advice. Also an ingenious but awkward funding arrangement was set up. The pastors of the parishes in the towns where they worked would jointly support the sisters. The Spanish Catholic Action office would act as a middleman and broker. For several years this arrangement continued as one more routine task of the coordinator. The sisters worked closely with Msgr. Killian and under Msgr. Fox’s direction.

The Catholic Migrant Bureau. Under the name of Catholic Migrant Bureau a special program of spiritual and social assistance for Spanish speaking migrant farm workers was begun in the summer of 1968, expanding the previous informal programs in favor of these workers. The 1969 program consisted of a priest, deacon, seminarian and three religious sisters working full time in Orange County during the summer months. Masses were celebrated in Spanish on Sundays at two camps and on Wednesday at a third. A special fiesta and Mass were celebrated on August 15th at Pine Island. The seminarians and sisters spent most of their time in visiting, social assistance and in developing recreational programs.(( Robert L. Stern, “Annual Report, September 1, 1969 – August 31, 1970,” (personal files of the author), p. 3.))

The San Juan Fiesta. By the early 1960s sixty thousand people were attending the San Juan Fiesta on Randall’s Island every June. But all good things begin to come to an end and so it was with the fiesta, at least in its original style. Although the day continued to be as popular as ever if not more so, the participation in the formal program especially in the religious celebration began to decline drastically, No longer would the crowd fill the stands of Downing Stadium for the procession and pontifical Mass and the character of the festivities throughout the park during the day was increasingly critized as too secular. The first year Msgr. Fox had responsibility for the fiesta he continued it in the traditional style, choosing as a special focus the theme of the Spanish speaking community’s tribute to the Christian humanism of the late president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
In 1965, 1966 and 1967. to reemphasize the religious and spiritual dimensions of the celebration and to challenge its participants to a more active involvement in them, the fiesta began at 5:00 a.m. with a Mass initiating a “Dawn Service.” The Mass was celebrated at this time as a symbol of the “dawning” or the reawakening of the Spanish community to a realization of their full potentialities as creative, integrated individuals. After the Mass a light breakfast was served to all attending. Various other events followed. For example in 1966 at 7:30 a.m. a special Way of the Cross was presented with fourteen stations exhibiting photos and banners portraying aspects of the life of the Spanish community in relation to the passion of Christ and a fifteenth station depicting the resurrection. In the afternoon there was an elaborated program involving a procession, dramatic presentation, Mass and the traditional civic festivities.(( Archdiocese of New York, Bureau of Information, “News Release,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 997.))
As a result of strong feelings about what some considered “experimentation” with the format of the fiesta, the planning for 1968 was left to the Citizen’s Committee under the leadership of Luis Fontánez and the fiesta was returned completely to the traditional structure developed in the days of Msgr. Wilson. But there was no greater success with this form of celebration then than there had been a few years before. In 1969 Msgr. Fox decided to make a complete break with all past models and announced a two part fiesta celebration: the religious fiesta consisting of an outdoor, midnight Mass in Downing Stadium on Saturday night and the civic fiesta in traditional style on Sunday afternoon.
Although the Mass was reverent and beautiful, this too did not satisfy many of the critics. There had been a growing discontent among many of the lay leaders in the Spanish speaking community who usually worked to develop the fiesta. They felt that their views and assistance were not solicited or valued. The accuracy of the complaints notwithstanding, a public protest was made in the Spanish press which had to be confronted by Msgr. Fox’s successor.

Spanish language radio programming. In February of 1969 a series of twenty-four radio dialogues in Spanish between a Catholic priest and a Protestant minister were begun on WBNX radio and continued through the succeeding months. This was in addition to the regular program assistance that the Spanish Community Action office had been giving for Christmas, Good Friday and other special observances to area radio stations. In addition a weekly religious information program was presented for some time over WADO radio and a daily program of a few minutes at 6:00 a.m., “A Minute With God.”

Nueva York Hispano. In 1964, Fr. Marcelino Pando, A.A., director of the Centro Cató1ico de Información, founded eleven or twelve years before by the pastor of Our Lady of Esperanza Church, decided to initiate a new Spanish language magazine, “Nueva York Hispano.” It was y well received but lacked adequate financial support. From the start Fr. Pando desired to draw Msgr. Fox into involvement with the enterprise and in 1965 he appealed directly to Cardinal Spellman for financial assistance.(( Marcelino Pando, A.A., letter to His Eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman, May 25, 1965, Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 880.)) Help was given and for a few years the magazine continued with some success.

Cursillo movement. Although St. Joseph’s Center was originally set up as a special project of Spanish Catholic Action under the supervision of the coordinator and, with the establishment of a secretariat to govern the Cursillo movement, the coordinator was ex officio the “delegado episcopal” or bishop’s delegate for the movement, for some time the center and the Cursillo movement had been operating with increasing autonomy. For a variety of reasons, Msgr. Fox found it difficult to satisfy the expectations of the Cursillo movement leaders and found collaboration with them strained. He decided in 1967 to resign his position as delegado episcopal to the movement and as supervisor of the center.

Liturgy. From 1964 the Spanish Community Action office was increasingly involved with the development of materials to assist in the greater utilization of Spanish in liturgical celebrations. It regularly supplied new hymns, correct translations and suggestions for celebrations to the parishes that had services in Spanish. A special project was the creation of a sung Mass in a style that would truly capture the musical taste and imagination of New York’s Hispanic people.

VI. PASTORAL REORGANIZATION AND COORDINATION

As Msgr. Fox necessarily became more and more involved in the community projects that he had originated and inspired, it became clear that it was not possible for him to give adequate attention to the wide variety of other administrative and pastoral concerns associated with the coordinator’s office. The Senate of Priests of the archdiocese became interested in the future of the office and appointed an ad hoc committee to evaluate it. In November of 1968, Msgr. Fox recommended to the new archbishop of New York, Terence J. Cooke, that he be free to give all his attention to Full Circle Associates and Fr. Robert L. Stern, then Assistant Chancellor of the archdiocese, succeed him. After much consideration Cardinal Cooke accepted the recommendation and named Fr. Stern as “Director of the Spanish-Speaking Apostolate” for a three-year term beginning in August of 1969.

Fr. Robert Stern

Like Msgr. Fox, Fr. Stern had been formed by many of the programs he began to supervise. He had entered the seminary in 1953, participated in the newly established Spanish language classes there and studied in the Ponce program in the summer of 1959 and again in the summer of 1960 as a participant in a special program of Latin American studies. After a pastoral experience of three years in a Hispanic parish he was trained in Canon Law at Rome as a preparation for chancery work. Archbishop Maguire had recommended to Cardinal Spellman that the immediate chancery staff include a Spanish speaking priest with parish experience in the Hispanic community. Fr. Stern brought to the new position of Director of the Spanish Speaking Apostolate a practical grassroots experience of work in the inner city as well as administrative and organizational skills from his experience in the chancery office.

Redirection of the Spanish Office

When Cardinal Cooke gave Fr. Stern his appointment the cardinal choose a new name for the office. He made it quite clear that the work of the director of the Spanish speaking apostolate should be primarily spiritual and pastoral and that his immediate working superior should be the vicar general as the head of the pastoral office of the archdiocese. Another change introduced by Cardinal Cooke was the consolidation of all the operational programs of the archdiocese involving the Spanish speaking under the responsibility and supervision of the new director. Finally, the cardinal stressed that a major goal and focus of the newly defined office should be the development of lay leaders, especially at the grass roots and parish levels, who would be prepared gradually to take on increasing responsibilities for the church in New York.(( Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to Terence Cardinal Cooke, Re: Meeting on April 29, 1972, May 15, 1972,” (personal files of the author.).))

Supervision of Institutions and Programs

In accordance with the reorganization called for by Cardinal Cooke, the immediate supervision of existing institutions and programs of the Spanish speaking apostolate was undertaken by the director and the central office. Two major programs regularly operated directly by the Spanish office were the San Juan Fiesta and the summer program at the Catholic University of Puerto Rico in Ponce. Several other existing programs and institutions were affiliated with the Spanish office and to some extent were under its supervision. Finally the changing pastoral situation and challenges called for some new programmatic initiatives.

San Juan Fiesta. The first task of Fr. Stern was the reorganization of the San Juan Fiesta. The fiesta was at its peak around 1962; since then had been steadily declining in spite of creative initiatives to reanimate it. By 1969 there was resentment among many Puerto Rican civic leaders and other interested persons previously associated with the fiesta that they were not consulted about it and were excluded from decision making concerning it. Fr. Stern held a series of public meetings with civic leaders about the fiesta and a fortunate outcome of this was the revival of the Committee of Fiesta Presidents, the election of a new president and a firm commitment to collaborate together in future.
In 1970, in view of the refusal of the New York City Department of Parks to allow the fiesta to be formally celebrated on a Sunday afternoon because of the excessive crowding of Randall’s Island the previous year and also in view of the poor attendance the previous year at the civic and popular program within Downing Stadium, it was decided to limit the formal fiesta observance to a vigil Mass on Saturday night, following the schedule of the previous year’s liturgy.
With the assurance of support from civic and community leaders it was decided to try very hard to revive the fiesta and restore it to its original style for 1971. Fr. Stern asked a young Puerto Rican priest, Fr. Luis Rios, A.A., to serve as the first priest-coordinator of the fiesta. Working closely with the fiesta president he contacted over seven thousand people concerning suggestions and interest in the fiesta and the traditional citizen’s committee for the fiesta was revived; about two hundred interested persons became its active members. A tremendous amount of time and effort went into organizing the fiesta for that year. The result was an organizational triumph, healing all of the divisions within the civic community, but a real disappointment from the point of view of public participation in the style of program planned.
One positive result of the 1971 fiesta was that the lay leaders no longer blamed the decline of the fiesta on “experimentation” with its format or on their exclusion from planning and decision making. For 1972, full responsibility for decision making was in the hands of the Comité de Ciudadanos and the committee of past presidents, but planning progressed very slowly. Meanwhile the Coordinating Committee for the Spanish Speaking Apostolate recommended that a Mass be held in St. Patrick’s Cathedral and the picnic celebration on Randall’s Island be allowed to go its own way. Cardinal Cooke, however, wanted the fiesta be celebrated in the traditional way in Downing Stadium as it had been the year before even at the risk of poor attendance.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Annual Report, September 1, 1969 – August 31, 1970”); Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Terence Cardinal Cooke, Re: Meeting on April 29, 1972, May 15, 1972”); and Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to Terence Cardinal Cooke, Re.: San Juan Fiesta, May 17, 1972,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 3396.))
It is difficult to analyze all of the factors involved in the decline of the fiesta. One reason, perhaps, is that it no longer occupied a unique place. For several years it had been the only public manifestation of the faith and culture of Puerto Ricans and other Hispanic Americans in New York City. Later, other popular institutions developed such as the Desfile Puertorriqueño or Puerto Rican Day Parade, which certainly was a great show of the power and presence of Puerto Ricans in New York with about a hundred thousand people marching up Fifth Avenue, and the Fiesta Folklórica Puertorriqueña or Puerto Rican Folk Festival, which gathered another hundred thousand people for a great midsummer picnic in Central Park. There was no longer any need for the church to be the vehicle of expression of Puerto Rican presence and culture, so the San Juan Fiesta necessarily had to become reduced in scale.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Hispanics and New York – Happenings and Pastoral Plans”).))

Summer institute at the Catholic University of Puerto Rico. The program of the Institute of Inter-Cultural Communication at the Catholic University of Ponce had always been jointly sponsored by the university and the archdiocese. Since a New York priest had been associated with the university and the program from the beginning, there had been little need to formally define the relationship of the university and the archdiocese. However, when the first lay rector was appointed to the university, he displayed an interest in placing all of its programs and institutes on a formal, professional basis. Other factors prompting a reexamination of the structure of responsibility for the summer program were the need to physically relocate its quarters, the decision of the university to discontinue its own complimentary programs of linguistic and cultural formation during the regular academic year and criticism of the conduct of the summer program.
After meetings in New York and Ponce, a written agreement was concluded between the archdiocese and the university defining the joint sponsorship of the summer institute, the right of the university to appoint the director of the institute after consultation with the archdiocese and the duties and responsibilities of the director. The summer of 1971 the university assumed an increasing share of responsibility for the program at Cardinal Cooke’s suggestion. In 1972 they assumed full responsibility for it and the first lay director was appointed.
Because of the increasing number of Dominicans in the archdiocese, in the summer of 1970 Fr. Stern initiated a program of pastoral work in the Dominican Republic in addition to the usual program in Puerto Rico for students in the language courses.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Annual Report, September 1, 1969 – August 31, 1970”) and Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Terence Cardinal Cooke, Re: Meeting on April 29, 1972, May 15, 1972”).))

Language training program at Cardinal Hayes High School. By 1969 the language training program at Hayes needed attention and reorganization. The program was completely reorganized in September of 1971 with a layman, Miguel Martínez, named as director for the first time. The old Institute of Inter-Cultural Communication corporation was allowed to lapse and the program continued as the Language Institute of the office for the Spanish Speaking Apostolate. Classes were offered two days a week at Hayes and occasionally at other local centers.
In January of 1970 a meeting was held with the rector of St. Joseph’s Seminary, the dean of students and the director of pastoral programs to discuss ways of familiarizing the students with the Spanish language and Hispanic culture. It was decided to establish a special branch of the language training program at the Seminary.((Ibid.))

St. Joseph’s Center and the Cursillo movement. With the appointment of a new director of St. Joseph’s Center in September of 1969 and the assumption of the role of episcopal delegate for the Cursillo movement by Fr. Stern after a vacancy of two years, a process of redefining the role of the Secretariat and the goals of the movement within the archdiocese was initiated. In addition to clarifying and confirming the working relationship between the Augustinian Recollect Fathers and the archdiocese through the Spanish office, Fr. Stern gave a tremendous amount of time to an organizational renewal of the Cursillo movement. The secretariat of the movement was reorganized and its responsibilities were redefined with the positive result that there began to be real and major assumption of responsibility for the movement by laymen in a way that had not taken place for the first several years of its life.((Ibid.))

Newburgh-Beacon area ministry. By August of 1969 there was considerable dissatisfaction among the Oblates of the Most Holy Redeemer about their work in the county areas and a possibility of their complete withdrawal. After a series of visits and meetings with them, a reorganization of their work responsibilities and an appropriate financing were established with the pastors in the area. Due however to the personal decision of their newly appointed provincial, the sisters retired completely from the mission the following summer.
In August of 1970 a new position of Coordinator of the Spanish-Speaking Apostolate for the Dutchess-Putnam and Rockland-Orange vicariates was created and Fr. Neil Graham was assigned to it. One of his prime responsibilities was to coordinate and direct the work of the sisters in the area and he devoted much of the year to recruiting other sisters for the work. He arranged for another congregation of Spanish religious, the Hijas de Jesús, to assume responsibility for the Spanish Center in Cornwall and to work in the area. They began their ministry in the summer of 1971 and continued in the area until the summer of 1982.1

Migrant ministry. After an evaluation of the 1969 program it was decided to reorganize the program entirely. In September of 1979 a Spanish speaking priest was assigned to St. Joseph’s parish in Middletown with responsibility for the Spanish speaking there and for the migrant program as well. An advisory board consisting of previous church personnel who worked in the program, the pastors of the area and the Spanish Apostolate director was established to assist him.1

Dominican seminarians. In January of 1970 Fr. Stern went to the Dominican Republic to meet with some of the bishops and to discuss ways of greater collaboration between the Dominican dioceses and the Archdiocese of New York as regards the pastoral care of the increasing number of Dominicans in New York. One result of the visit was an invitation extended to major seminarians there to work in parishes in the archdiocese for the summer months in exchange for travel expenses, room, board and a small weekly stipend. The purpose of this new program was twofold: to provide assistance especially to those parishes with large numbers of recently arrived Dominicans and to familiarize candidates for the priesthood in the Dominican Republic with the particular challenges confronted by immigrants here. That summer a group of sixteen arrived and after a two-day orientation session was given parish assignments. Once a week they met together with New York seminarians to review their work and to get to know the city better. The program was successful and was repeated again for the next few years.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Annual Report, September 1, 1969 – August 31, 1970”) and Stern, op. cit. (“The Archdiocese of New York and Hispanic Americans”), p. 21.))

Dominican Seminarians with Cardinal Cooke

Pastoral theology seminar. In addition to the decision to establish a branch of the language training program at St. Joseph’s Seminary, a commitment was made to develop some kind of pastoral preparation integrated into the overall curriculum of the seminary. By was of experiment, to sound out the students and develop the approaches for a major course, Fr. Stern agreed to conduct a special seminar during the spring semester of 1970. Rather than treat exclusively of pastoral problems relating to the Spanish speaking, a broader theological and sociological presentation was adopted. Fifteen to thirty students attended various sessions of the seminar. A strong sentiment among them was that the course should be non-academic, inter-disciplinary, open to all students and continued on a regular basis. Regrettably the course was not repeated and the projected integration of some kind of pastoral preparation especially as regarding ministry in the Hispanic community into the overall seminary curriculum was not accomplished.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Annual Report, September 1, 1969 – August 31, 1970.”).))

Development of Pastoral Plans and Structures

Consequent to the mandate of Cardinal Cooke for a reorganization and redirection of the Spanish speaking apostolate, Fr. Stern began immediately to create structures to promote the broadest possible participation in planning and development on the part of existing church leaders, clerical, religious and lay, in the Hispanic Catholic community. In the fall of 1979 he asked eleven people each to accept special responsibility for some are of pastoral concern and to develop a working group to assist them with advisors and experts as needed. Eleven task forces were organized for the areas of research and pastoral planning; linguistic and cultural formation; apostolate of religious; apostolate of priests; formation for the lay apostolate; lay apostolates; community relations; ecumenical relations; press, radio and television; liturgy; and catechetics (cf. Pastoral Planning Organization).

Archdiocesan Coordinating Committee. Regular meetings of these eleven coordinators of particular apostolates began in October. Some of them successfully developed working groups and programs during the first year; others for a variety of reasons were unable to accomplish the work projected. The coordinators group gradually acquired the dimensions of a central coordinating committee for all works of the Spanish speaking apostolate. Initially it was composed of the director of the apostolate and the eleven task force chairpersons; later it also included those priests, religious or lay leaders having a special responsibility for movements, programs or institutions at the service of the Spanish speaking apostolate. The committee met at least monthly, usually for an entire day, and over a period of three years gradually matured into an effective organism of consultation, planning and coordination. It also had the effect of introducing more Hispanics, especially lay persons, into leadership on the diocesan level.((Ibid.; Stern, op. cit. (“The Archdiocese of New York and Hispanic Americans”), p. 21 and Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum Re.: Spanish Speaking Apostolate.” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 3396.))

Priests’ meetings. In April of 1970, Fr. Stern invited all the priests involved in the Spanish speaking apostolate, diocesan, religious and adjunct, Hispanic and non-Hispanic, to a three-day meeting at St. Joseph’s Seminary. The stated purpose was to provide a much needed opportunity for all the priests engaged in similar work with common concerns to reflect together on the pastoral challenges posed by a diocese that was almost half Spanish speaking, to discuss overall pastoral priorities and goals and to begin to consider the possibilities of archdiocesan  pastoral planning and a collegial responsibility for the apostolate. The meeting proved to be a great success; the sessions were attended by sixty-two priests. A general consensus was to plan a two-day meeting in the same spirit every two months.
A two-day meeting was held in June attended by forty priests including Cardinal Cooke. The focus of the discussion was the Cursillo movement in the archdiocese. A critical evaluation of the existing movement was made and plans for its further development and thrust were suggested. It was decided to have monthly meetings of one-day duration beginning in September of l970, each focused on a particular topic of pastoral concern. Topics treated that year included the parish, apostolic movements and a pastoral plan, the young Hispano and the formation of a Hispanic youth movement, the Hispanic family and the church, the Movimiento Familiar Cristiano, the lay diaconate, and programs for leadership formation. In view of Cardinal Cooke’s suggestion that meetings of the priests be held less frequently, the pattern of monthly meetings was not continued the next year.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Annual Report, September 1, 1969 – August 31, 1970.”).))

Research and pastoral planning. In December of 1969 Fr. Peter Gavigan convoked the first meeting of a special task force on research and pastoral planning for the Spanish speaking apostolate. An immediate first step was the collection and display of basic population statistics gathered from the various available sources. An attitudinal survey of the clergy concerning the Cursillo movement in the archdiocese as well as a questionnaire concerning the condition of the movement in each parish was prepared and sent to all Spanish speaking priests in preparation for their June 1970 meeting.
Later a detailed personal questionnaire was prepared and sent to all the clergy in any way identified as Spanish speaking which attempted to assess the training in Spanish, degree of fluency and interest in the apostolate of each of the priests. Another questionnaire was sent to each parish considered to be “Spanish speaking” for the purpose of determining precisely what services and programs were conducted in Spanish or were directed towards Spanish speaking persons. It also included questions about the parish population and the number of Spanish baptisms and weddings during the previous decade. This latter information helped to identify the direction of the movement of Spanish speaking Catholics in the urban areas of the archdiocese.((Ibid.))
At the close of 1971 the Archdiocese of New York had approximately 136 Spanish speaking diocesan priests, 6 of whom spoke Spanish as a native language. Of the total, three were in service outside the diocese, twelve were teaching, eight were in archdiocesan offices and two served as chaplains of institutions. Of the 111 priests assigned to parishes, 89 were in parishes with full bilingual services. Of these, 21 were pastors and 68 associated pastors.(( Spanish Speaking Apostolate Newsletter, January, 1972 (personal files of the author.).))
With the development of the Office of Pastoral Research and the Archdiocesan Personnel Board the need for this function within the Spanish Speaking Apostolate Office ceased.

Workshop for women religious. A workshop on the Puerto Rican woman in New York was sponsored by the task force on the apostolate of religious coordinated by St. Pauline Chirchirillo, P.B.V.M. on May 23, 1971. Over sixty religious sisters attended the program. It began with a discussion of theology, culture and the New York experience. During the afternoon there was a para-liturgy and a cultural presentation plus panels and discussions of careers and current attitudes concluding with supper.((Ibid., May and June, 1971.))

Luz y Vida. The task force for formation for the lay apostolate under the coordination of Fr. David Arias, O.A.R. was asked to explore new ways and programs of formation for the apostolate. It began to focus its concern on programs directed towards awakening people to the implications of Christian adulthood and equipping them to assume greater responsibility for the work of the Gospel. The main result of this effort was the publication of a series of home-centered dialogues and paraliturgies concerning the basics of Christian faith called “Luz y Vida.” With the collaboration of lay leaders of the Cursillo movement this program began to be implemented throughout the archdiocese in the local parishes.(( Stern, op. cit. (“The Archdiocese of New York and Hispanic Americans”), p. 21.))

Youth ministry. In January of 1970 a series of planning meetings concerning the promotion of a youth apostolate were held under the auspices of the task force on lay apostolates coordinated by Mr. Luis Fontánez. A first concern of the group was to evaluate the existing Juventud Obrera Cristiana (JOC) or Young Christian Workers movement in the archdiocese. Although it had been established for some years with a center at West 106th Street and Broadway, it had never flourished or had formal recognition by the archdiocese. Meetings were held with its leaders to plan a revitalization and extension of the movement.
Another concern was to introduce some kind of formation program into the archdiocese similar to the successful Jornada and Cursillo de Vida movements in Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and Mexico. An attempt had been made to introduce the Mexican style Jornada program some years before and several Jornada weekends had been given at St. Joseph’s Center but with little fallow-up.
After lengthy consideration a decision was made to develop a total program for the formation of Hispanic young adults from eighteen to twenty-five years of age rather than just programs for apostolic leadership formation and militants. With the appointment of a young priest of Puerto Rican descent, Fr. José McCarthy, O.F.M. Cap., to a full-time responsibility of coordination of the youth apostolate, the planning for this total program advanced rapidly. Gradually a multi-stage program was designed: a weekend experience designed to knit a collection of individuals together into a group; a relatively non-directed series of weekly meetings to reflect on life experiences and values; a weekend experience designed to awaken young people to the nature and challenges of the Christian life; a series of weekly meetings to reflect on Christ and Christian stances in life situations; and a program of retreats, formation and specialized apostolates such as the JOC.
At the beginning of 1972 special funding for the youth movement was received from the Campaign for Human Development and on August 23rd of that same year the movement was incorporated as “Equipos Unidos.” A series of special training workshops through Training for Living were given to parish youth groups assisting them to develop leadership skills and skills in group processes and dynamics. Another young priest of Puerto Rican descent, Fr. Anthony M. Stevens, C.P., joined the youth movement staff and by the end of that year almost three hundred young adults had participated in one or another phase of the movement. Successively the priest assessors of the movement were Fr. McCarthy, Fr. Stevens and Fr. César Ramírez, a priest of the Archdiocese of San Juan. The youth movement continued until early 1973 when the archdiocesan authorities decided to terminate it.((Ibid. and Stern, op. cit. (“Annual Report, September 1, 1969 – August 31, 1970.”).))

Movimiento Familiar Cristiano. Out of a concern for strengthening the family life of Hispanics in the archdiocese, the task force on lay apostolates recommended the development of a specialized apostolate for married couples. It was decided to utilize the Movimiento Familiar Cristiano. This was not merely a Spanish translation of the Christian Family Movement; the Latin American family movement had a different genesis and a different style. Along with the English movement, it was concerned with a serious study of marriage and family and used the familiar methods of apostolic action first developed in the early Jocist movements.
The movement deliberately grew slowly; even so within a few years it included several hundred married couples in several key areas of the archdiocese. The Director of Christian and Family Development and the moderator of the (English language) Christian Family Movement within the archdiocese encouraged the separate development of the Spanish speaking group by the Spanish apostolate office.
In the summer of 1968 a group of leaders of the Movimiento Familiar Cristiano in Spain came to the United States to introduce the Encuentro Conyugal or Marriage Encounter, a special kind of weekend retreat for married couples designed to help them deepen their mutual communication and better to confront the challenges of their marriage. Since that date Encuentros Conyugales have been offered regularly at St. Joseph’s Center and, later, through the archdiocesan Movimiento Familiar Cristiano.((Ibid.))

Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral. The Coordinating Committee for the Spanish speaking apostolate felt the need for some additional program of further formation for lay leaders and began to consider different possibilities for it.(( Minutes of the Coordinating Committee, December 11, 1971 (personal files of the author.).)) After consultation with priests, religious and lay leaders involved in the Spanish speaking apostolate at a meeting in January of 1972,99 José L. Álvarez, “Conclusiones de la Reunión de Sacerdotes, Religiosos y “Líderes laicos envueltos en Apostolado con Hispanos” (personal files of the autor.).)) plans were developed for an archdiocesan pastoral institute, a kind of school for the formation of lay leaders.(( Minutes of the Coordinating Committee, February 5, 1972, March 4, 1972, May 6, 1972, November 4, 1972, December 9, 1972 (personal files of the author.).)) It was agreed that this pastoral institute should be a program for the formation of leaders in general and not be limited to a diaconate program. However it was recommended that it be so structured that after two years a student would be prepared for ordination as a deacon if desired by all concerned. Other recommendations included that there be a full-time priest-director assisted by a mixed American and Hispanic team and that students be involved in the apostolate.
After a preliminary review of the idea by Cardinal Cooke and the vicar general, a sub-committee chaired by Fr. Thomas Leonard was established to develop detailed plans. A recommendation to the cardinal that a pilot program be held at Cathedral Preparatory Seminary beginning February 1973 was approved under the supervision of Fr. Leonard. Classes were conducted one evening a week involving courses in theology, scripture, church history, sociology and other related disciplines and in particular pastoral skills. To date several hundred select parish lay leaders have had up to three years of training in this program.(( Stern, op. cit. (“The Archdiocese of New York and Hispanic Americans.”).))

Radio and television programming. The Spanish office continued to develop Spanish language radio and television programs under the leadership of the full-time coordinator, Mr. Ángel Pérez. A similar program to the existing “Cara a Cara en el Mundo de Religión” began on Channel 47 television in October, 1969 as part of the program series “Tribuna Hispana” and continued on an experimental basis monthly, for four months. For Christmas of that year a special one hour ecumenical program was broadcast by Channel 47 preceding the Midnight Mass.
In October of 1969 a Mass celebrated in Spanish began to be broadcasted live on WBNX radio every Sunday from St. Christopher’s Chapel in Manhattan. Every week a different parish came to celebrate the Mass there bringing its own celebrant, servers, lectors and choir. In 1970 the Mass was begun to be taped at a parish church instead and then broadcast a few hours later.
In November of 1969 Channel 41 began to televise weekly a celebration of the Sunday Liturgy pre-taped in their studios the week before. Again, groups from different parishes participated regularly in the program. Like the radio Mass, although primarily presented for shut-ins and those otherwise impeded from attending Mass in a church, this televised Mass had an important function of diffusing knowledge of the new liturgy and of catechizing people for it. On Palm Sunday of 1970 the presentation of the Mass was switched from noon to a prime evening hour. During the winter and spring months independent audience rating services calculated that it was viewed in 20,000 to 30,000 homes in the metropolitan area.
In February of 1970 a weekly eight-minute ecumenical religious news broadcast, “Noticiero Re1igioso,” produced by the Spanish office began to be televised live on Channel 47. Also, in the spring of 1970 a grant was received from the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine for liturgical and catechetical television programming.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Annual Report, September 1, 1969 – August 31, 1970.”).))

Liturgy, When permission was received to introduce the new Ordo of the Mass into use in the archdiocese on the first Sunday of Advent of 1969, the Spanish Speaking Apostolate office prepared an extensive mailing for all the clergy of the archdiocese offering them the new texts of the Ordo and information concerning the purchase of the necessary liturgical books in Spanish. Fr. James Welby, who coordinated the work of a group concerned with Spanish Liturgy under Msgr. Fox and Fr. Stern, was asked to serve on the Archdiocesan Liturgical Commission in July of 1970 as a liaison with the Spanish speaking liturgical committee.((Ibid.))

Newsletter. Starting May 1970 a monthly bilingual newsletter was sent to all the Spanish speaking clergy, religious and lay leaders of the archdiocese. In December of 1972 it was incorporated into the archdiocesan “Clergy Report.”

Special Projects

Las Hermanas. With the assistance and encouragement of Fr. Stern, Sr. Armantina Peláez, a young Cuban-American religious working in the archdiocese, organized the first meeting in the New York area of “Las Hermanas,” the national organization for Hispanic women religious, on November 6, 1971. The purpose of the meeting was to consider how better to serve the Spanish speaking people, to deepen the sisters’ own Hispanic identity and to find a form of organization to promote so1idarity among the sisters.(( Spanish Speaking Apostolate Newsletter, November, 1971 (personal files of the author.).)) There proved to be solid and sufficient support for the permanent organization of Las Hermanas in the area. Regular meetings continued to be held((Ibid., January, 1972.)) and through the Spanish office—which served as a kind of regional office for Las Hermanas—Sr. Rosamaría Elías, M.S.B.T. continued the promotion of the organization.

Interdiocesan Coordinating Committee for the Spanish Speaking. In November of 1970 the Division for the Spanish Speaking of the United States Catholic Conference sponsored a meeting in Manhattan of the diocesan coordinators of the Spanish speaking apostolate in the metropolitan New York area. Representatives of the dioceses of Bridgeport, Brooklyn, Camden, Newark, New York, Paterson, Rockville Center and Trenton attended. The need for an area pattern of inter-diocesan communication and collaboration was discussed as well as the advisability of a northeastern regional office of the Division for the Spanish Speaking.((Ibid., December, 1970.))
At Fr. Stern’s suggestion it was agreed to continue the group as the “Interdiocesan Coordinating Committee for the Spanish Speaking” with representation from each of the eight dioceses in the tri-state New York metropolitan region. It was clear that with the pattern of mobility within the region of the Hispanic and total population, the shared use of the same media and the common pastoral challenges that collaboration was necessary. The committee agreed to meet monthly to develop cooperation and collaboration in the Spanish speaking apostolate in the region better to respond to the needs of its over two million Spanish speaking residents.((Ibid., January, 1971.))

Pastoral workshop for priests. In June, July and August of 1971 the Coordinating Committee of the Spanish Speaking Apostolate had a series of two day meetings devoted exclusively to the discussion of the elements of a pastoral plan for the next program year. It was clear that the plan would have to arise from the interest, need and experience of local lay leaders, religious and priests. It was decided to have two workshops to reflect on pastoral theology, planning and goals, one for priests and another for selected lay leaders of parishes and apostolic movements.(( Minutes of the Coordinating Committee, June 11-12, July 9-10 and August 13-14, 1971 (personal files of the author.).))
Another important decision taken was to invite Fr. Edgard Beltrán of the pastoral department of the Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano and director of the Instituto Pastoral Latinoamericano to New York to be one of the principal participants at both workshops and to assist in planning them. Their three main themes were ecclesiology, anthropology and pastoral directions. The first workshop, for priests, was held from September 21st to 23rd at the seminary. Every parish with pastoral services for the Spanish speaking was asked to send at least one priest representative; clergy from nearby dioceses in the northeast were also invited.((Ibid. and September 19, 1971 and Spanish Speaking Apostolate Newsletter, May and September, 1971 (personal files of the author.).)) The workshop was attended by 94 priests and religious. It was not only successful as an enterprise for pastoral planning in the Archdiocese of New York but it also gave a stimulus to pastoral planning and collaboration on a northeast and even national scale.

Primer Encuentro Hispano de Pastoral. At the conclusion of the pastoral workshop, “during one of the discussions related to the needs and concerns of the Spanish speaking ministry, Father Edgard Beltrán proposed the idea of a National Encuentro for Spanish Speaking leaders of the United States. The group explored further the importance and timeliness of such a National Encuentro and unanimously supported the idea. The recommendations of this meeting were then presented in November to the Interdiocesan Coordinating Committee for the Spanish Speaking . . . (which) delegated Fr. Robert L. Stern of the Archdiocese of New York and Father John O’Brien, Diocesan Director of Brooklyn to discuss the possibility with Paul Sedillo, National Director of the Division for the Spanish Speaking, United States Catholic Conference. . . . (He) enthusiastically supported the recommendations from the Northeast and Miami Congress (of Religious Educators) and presented them to the General Secretary of the United States Catholic Conference in January 1972. Bishop Bernardin readily endorsed the proposal. On February 9-l0, 1972, an expanded Planning Committee met at the Center for Continuing Education, University of Chicago to develop the plan and details of this first National Spanish Speaking Conference to be held in the Spring of 1972. . . ”((Ibid. and September 19, 1971 and Spanish Speaking Apostolate Newsletter, May and September, 1971 (personal files of the author.).))
A delegation of eighteen persons from the archdiocese attended the Encuentro in June including the vicar general, the director of the Spanish speaking apostolate, priests and religious from diocesan offices and institutions relating to Hispanics, and the priest-assessors and the lay leaders of the Hispanic apostolic movements.

Pastoral workshop for lay leaders. The second of the two pastoral workshops, this one for lay leaders, was held from September 24th to 26th at the Convent of Mary Reparatrix. Members of the secretariat of the Movimiento de Cursillos de Cristiandad, the secretariat of the Movimiento Familiar Cristiano, the Equipo Central Provisional of the Movimiento Juvenil and selected additional leaders of the movements were invited. Forty-seven of them participated.(( Minutes of the Coordinating Committee, August 13-14, 1971 and Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, September 29, 1971, Re.: Weekly report of activities” (personal files of the author.).))
At the conclusion of the workshop there was considerable enthusiasm about the prospect of continuing this new experience of collaboration among the various lay leaders. They decided to set apart a weekend every six months to conduct seminars for lay leaders and priests together, to request the Coordinating Committee to add the principal lay leaders of each archdiocesan movement to its membership and to request a personal meeting of lay leaders with the cardinal to discuss the Spanish speaking apostolate, To implement this last decision, a special committee of eighteen persons was elected.(( Antonio M. Stevens Arroyo, Prophets Denied Honor (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1980), 43. Lay People’s Encounter Workshop, pp. 146-150.))
The lay leaders’ special committee met in October. They prepared a draft of a letter to Cardinal Cooke which they wished to have considered by a plenary session of the lay leaders on January 8, 1972. Subsequently it was decided to invite Spanish speaking priests and religious to it as well. At that meeting, the discussions and ideas went beyond those originally proposed. The more than 100 persons participating decided on a series of priority recommendations for the future of the Spanish speaking apostolate. Another decision was to restructure the committee to include members of the Coordinating Committee as well, so that it would be representative of all the constituencies of the Spanish speaking apostolate in the archdiocese. It was agreed that Fr. Stern was not to be considered part of the group since he was part of the cardinal’s staff but that his presence at the meeting be requested.(( Minutes of the Coordinating Committee, February 5, 1972 and Robert L. Stern,  “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, January 12, 1972, Re.: Report on activities, December 12, 1971 – January 8, 1972” (personal files of the author.).))
Fr. Romeo F. Saldigloria, S.J., one of the priests of the Gran Misión who had come to work in New York, had prepared an extensive document for the January 8th meeting entitled, in Spanish, “Religious Problems of the Hispanics – New York City – 1972.”(( Stevens, op. cit., 49. Religious Problems of the Hispanos in the City of New York, pp. 166-169.)) It was agreed to include some of the data from this report in the prefatory part of the letter although it was cautioned that not all his data might be accurate.

Spanish Apostolate Leaders’ Meeting with Cardinal Cooke

After a series of preparatory meetings, on March 13, 1972 a formal letter was sent to Cardinal Cooke signed by 159 Spanish speaking lay leaders, religious and priests. The carefully planned letter was in itself a review of the status of the Hispanic population of the archdiocese. After presenting some detailed demographic and socioeconomic data, the letter went on to discuss the religious condition of New York’s Hispanics and to present specific requests for involvement in leadership and decision making:

The overwhelming majority of the Spanish speaking migrants arrive here in New York as Catholics. . . . Not only are there relatively few priest to care for the Hispanic Catholics of the Archdiocese, but they are even less proportionately represented in decision making and leadership positions. . . . Pastoral care of our people is overwhelmingly in the hands of associate pastors and visiting and extra-diocesan priests. . . .
Our migration to New York is the first great non-European migration and the first to come unaccompanied by a native clergy. Historically in former migrations, that clergy assumed a role of natural leadership for the migrant community, not only with regards to the religious ministry, but in the whole process of the development of the migrant. The present structures of the New York church were developed in response to the needs of a particular people and in the past served well that people. Our presence in New York without our clergy has presented a new challenge to this church, one that has not been adequately responded to.
We are Hispano-Americans and we are Catholics. We believe that, although what has been done thus far is insufficient, it is possible to mobilize the resources of the Church in the City to further the development of our people as human beings and as children of God. As a first step towards achieving this goal and as a sign of hope and leadership in the Hispanic Church we ask the following:
1. That an Episcopal Vicar for the Spanish speaking be appointed with the consultation of the Coordinating Committee of the Spanish Speaking Apostolate and that person chosen be Spanish speaking, totally identified with the Spanish people and their culture, and have all those faculties expressed and implied by such a position in accordance with Canon Law.
2. That on the next occasion of appointment of a Vicar General a Spanish speaking priest be named.
3. That the Vicar General and the Episcopal Vicar for the Spanish speaking consult and work closely with the Coordinating Committee of the Spanish-Speaking Apostolate in all matters affecting the Spanish speaking community of the Archdiocese
4. That on the next occasion of appointment of new Auxiliary Bishops in recognition of the Spanish speaking community at least one of them be of Hispanic origin and experienced in pastoral work in New York and that this appointment be made with the consultation of the Spanish speaking community through the Coordinating Committee of the Spanish Speaking Apostolate.((Letter to Terence Cardinal Cooke, March 13, 1972, Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 3396.))

The letter concluded with a request for an appointment with the cardinal for a delegation of eleven persons empowered to discuss these matters on behalf of the signatories.
On March 29, 1972 the cardinal met with the delegation for two and one-half hours. He invited the vicar general, the director of Catholic Charities, the secretary of education, the chairman of the Archdiocesan Personnel Board and the director of the Spanish speaking apostolate to be present as well.(( Luis M. Fontánez, “Report on the Meeting of March 29, 1972 with Cardinal Cooke,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 3390.))
The main areas discussed in the meeting were alleged discrimination by pastors and other priests towards Hispanic laity and clergy, the need for Hispanic religious vocations and the reasons for the lack of them, the need for accommodating the diaconate program to the situation of Hispanics, the educational needs of Hispanics in Catholic schools, the preparation of seminarians for the Spanish speaking apostolate, the further development of Hispanic leaders, programs to help youth deal with problems of drugs and crime, the participation of Hispanics in decision and policy making, the four requests in the letter, the role of the office for the Spanish Speaking Apostolate and the availability of the cardinal for communication and consultation. There were no decisions or definite resolutions as regards the four specific points presented. It was agreed only that the vicar general, Msgr. James P. Mahoney, and Mr. Luis Fontánez on behalf of the delegation would prepare a joint report of the meeting.((Ibid. and “Results of the Meeting of March 29, 1972 with Cardinal Cooke,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 3390.))
In the course of the meeting it became clear that there were different expectations about its purposes and mutual apprehensions about motivations among its participants but they were successfully brought to light and discussed. On the part of the delegation, because of the long and till then inconclusive study of the reorganization of the Spanish speaking apostolate by the vicar general, there was some questioning of the sincerity and good will of the archdiocesan authorities. On the part of the cardinal, although the background preparations for the meeting had been reported in the minutes of the monthly meeting of the Coordinating Committee, the weekly memoranda giving a report on the Spanish Speaking Apostolate to the administrative staff heads of the archdiocese, and the monthly newsletter of the Spanish office as well as discussed personally beforehand with the vicar general, he appeared suspicious of the motives of the letter and the delegation and occasionally annoyed at the points of view raised.(( Fontánez, op. cit..))
Despite the difficulties the meeting was a very positive one. For the first time the authorities of the Archdiocese of New York heard directly from the leaders of New York’s Hispanic Catholics and heard both their gratitude for the archdiocese’s pastoral, educational, and charitable services to them and their desire to share greater responsibility for the church in New York and to participate in making decisions about it. The meetings symbolized a coming of age and, in that sense, the fulfillment of Cardinal Cooke’s mandate to develop lay leaders. The Hispanic Catholics of the church of New York wished to exercise leadership, not just be a client population; in the words of the Gospel, they wished not to be served but to serve.

VII. DISINTEGRATION

The very success and the rapidity of the pastoral reorganization and development of new structures for coordination and promotion of the Spanish speaking apostolate by Fr. Stern and his associates provoked, ironically, a serious questioning of the role of the office for the Spanish Speaking Apostolate.

The Future of the Spanish Office

In July of 1971, Cardinal Cooke’s new vicar general, Msgr. James Mahoney, and Msgr. Joseph P. Murphy, chancellor of the archdiocese, had met with the director of the Spanish speaking apostolate ostensibly to review the program and budget of the apostolate for the coming program year. However, at that time rather than examine the proposed budget the question of the limits of growth was placed and a study of the purposes and future of the Spanish speaking apostolate and its relation to other diocesan institutions was initiated.(( Minutes of the Coordinating Committee, August 13-14, 1971, op. cit.)) Major questions raised at that meeting were:
Should the director of the Spanish speaking apostolate continue to have direct administrative responsibility for all operational programs of the archdiocese concerning the Spanish speaking?
Should not each archdiocesan department, office, and agency be of service to all the people; that is to say, should they not each have a bilingual, bicultural (or multilingual, multicultural) approach and staff, rather than leave attention to most matters touching half the Catholic population of the archdiocese to one necessarily limited department?
Should not the prime function of the director of the Spanish speaking apostolate, Hispanic pastoral concerns, be closely tied into the office of vicar general as the one with overall responsibility for pastoral matters and the title and authority of the director revised accordingly?
Should not each existing program for the Spanish speaking apostolate be assumed by some other department of the archdiocese and the special office for the Spanish speaking apostolate as such ultimately cease to exist?((Ibid. ))
Fr. Stern was asked to prepare a position paper and a draft proposal for the future development and reorganization of the Spanish office in light of the discussion and to submit it as a basis for further study.((Ibid.; Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Terence Cardinal Cooke, Re.: Meeting on April 29, 1972, May 15, 1972”) and Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to Msgr. Mahoney, July 23, 1971, Re.: Coordination of Pastoral Care of Spanish Speaking,” (personal files of the author.).))

Assimilation versus integration. Seventeen years earlier, Msgr. Connolly had anticipated the very difficulties brought up at the meeting. In fact, that was why he had strongly urged that the coordinator’s role be disassociated from the assumption of responsibilities appropriate to archdiocesan departments, agencies, and institutions. In effect his design, which was not accepted, called for the coordinator to be a combination of what we would now call an episcopal vicar for the Spanish speaking or Hispanic concerns and an ombudsman.
A rationale to justify the historical development that did take place in the evolution of the Spanish office can be found in one of the basic principles articulated by the first national Encuentro Hispano de Pastoral: “The right development of Spanish speaking Christian leadership necessitates appropriate institutional forms. This criterion is not separatist but unifying. True integration is achieved when diverse groups are at positions of relatively equal strength and prestige and have mutual respect. Attempted integration of minorities into majorities prematurely results in an undesirable assimilation, not integration. Such assimilation means cultural absorption or, from the other point of view, cultural domination and replaces the mutual enrichment which is the fruit of true integration.”((Proceedings of the Primer Encuentro Hispano de Pastoral, op. cit., p. J1.))
In that sense it was appropriate that a department for Hispanic concerns had been created, that that office and several other semi-autonomous programs for the Spanish speaking apostolate should have developed and flourished, and also that the type of consolidation and centralization mandated by Cardinal Cooke should have taken place. What was now at stake was whether the time was ripe to move towards integration. The risk was that such a move might prove to be premature and a certain disintegration might occur.

Planning for integration. Fr. Stern brought the same enthusiasm, creativity, and administrative skills to charting the phasing out of the office of the Spanish speaking apostolate as he earlier had brought to its reorganization and development. He was convinced that this was appropriate and opportune, and he later reported to Cardinal Cooke, “From many points of view, the Spanish office from its beginnings has been an anomaly, although it was a bold creation of Cardinal Spellman nineteen years ago; in a certain sense, in a diocese where half the baptized population is of Hispanic origin, it almost can become a kind of tokenism. I was surprised and delighted to find this spirit expressed by Msgr. Mahoney when he began his work as Vicar General of the Archdiocese.”(( Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Terence Cardinal Cooke, Re.: Meeting on April 29, 1972, May 15, 1972.”).))
As requested, Msgr. Stern offered a first draft of a proposal for integration to the vicar general.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Msgr. Mahoney, July 23,1971, Re.: Coordination of Pastoral Care of Spanish Speaking.”).)) A week later a second meeting was held with the vicar general and chancellor to consider the proposal and a revised budget that was submitted with it.(( Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to Msgr. James P. Mahoney, August 17, 1971, Re: Coordination of Pastoral Care of Spanish Speaking (2),” (personal files of the author.).)) Subsequent to the meeting Fr. Stern was directed by the vicar general to meet with Msgr. Eugene Clark, Director of Communications, to discuss the assumption of responsibility for contact with and attention to the Spanish mass media by that department. In early August the Coordinating Committee also reviewed the draft plan and made a series of suggestions and recommendations that were shared with the vicar general.(( Minutes of the Coordinating Committee, August 13-14, 1971, op. cit.))
Since Msgr. Mahoney expressed his intention of reorganizing the Spanish speaking apostolate by September, another meeting was held with him in August to make final revisions of the reorganization plan. It was readied for distribution to department heads by the end of that month.(( Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to Msgr. James P. Mahoney, August 27, 1971, Re: Coordination of Pastoral Care of Spanish Speaking (3),” (personal files of the author.).)) It included seven specific proposals:

1.  The Spanish office should be continued at this time; however, it should not be considered a permanent office and department of the Archdiocese—ideally, there should not be ethnic departments; however the immediate and particular needs of immigrant groups do require special understanding, attention, and programs . . .
2.  Administrative responsibility should be separate from pastoral responsibility, in so far as possible, and the latter should be the prime concern of the Spanish Office— . . . administration of operational programs should be surrendered— . . . administrative supervision of autonomous institutions and programs should be assumed by the appropriate department.
3.  If the prime concern of the vicar general is pastoral matters, then the priest with responsibility for Spanish pastoral affairs rightly should be considered as part of the immediate staff of the vicar general — pastoral planning for such a large part of the diocese without relation to the rest is undesirable and necessarily weakened accordingly — There is a need to clarify the responsibility of the priest in charge of this area. Its relation to him personally as a kind of vicar for the Spanish-speaking rather than to a department head should be stressed — This will clearly place all pastoral affairs immediately under the vicar general and will facilitate the transfer of programs and functions from the Spanish office to other departments . . .
4.  The transfer of programs and functions to other departments should be a gradual process over a period of time — The Communications Department is being reorganized and renewed and is in a condition to function on a bilingual basis; not all other departments are about a reorganization at present — Heads of departments need time to plan and develop programs so that they can effectively service the needs of the Spanish community.
5.  The vicar for the Spanish speaking should continue to supervise the pastoral programs presently under development in the Spanish-speaking apostolate — At the present . . . a unified vision and pastoral plan has been developed that should not be fragmented — There is a need to have a unified plan of formation in all the programs of the apostolate that is supported by sound theology and spirituality — The coordinator of Spanish pastoral affairs should continue to serve as the liaison with and the coordinator of apostolic movements among the Spanish-speaking (e.g. Movimiento de Cursillos de Cristiandad, Movimiento Familiar Cristiano, Movimiento Juvenil) and other programs of a pastoral nature.
6.  Of the existing functions of the Spanish Office, the following should be assumed and developed by the proper agencies and departments of the Archdiocese.
Special ministries. The direction of special ministries involving the Spanish speaking (e.g. Newburgh-Beacon area, Middletown-Pine Island area) should be under the vicar general and chancery as are all other pastoral assignments.
Liturgy. Responsibility for the correct celebration of the Liturgy in Spanish and for advising priests of textual materials and changes should be assumed by the Archdiocesan Liturgical Commission.
Pastoral formation of seminarians. Programs for the pastoral formation of seminarians and newly ordained priests are logically the responsibility of the seminary. Concern for the training of seminarians in Spanish and for the preparation to work in a bilingual, bicultural pastoral situation should be assumed by the seminary staff.
Research and pastoral planning. These functions should be assumed by the to-be-established office.
Communications. At present Channel 47 regularly televises a Sunday mass in Spanish and occasional special radio and television programs are presented. Further, news releases and information are regularly supplied to the Spanish Language press. All these functions and others might be best assumed by the Department of Communications.
St. Joseph’s Center. Although the contractual agreement with the Augustinian Recollect Province concerning the staffing of the center provides for the pastoral work of the priests there to be conducted under the supervision of the Spanish Office, the center administrator should deal directly with the financial department of the diocese in purely administrative matters.
7. Some matters, although not specifically pastoral, would best be left for the present under the responsibility of the Spanish Office; that is:
San Juan Fiesta. The future of the Fiesta needs considerable study. However, it still will represent a special religious function on the diocesan level for the Spanish community
Language Schooling. . . . When its future is stabilized, responsibility for it may be assumed by the Department of Education.((Ibid.))

Deferrals, revisions and reversals. In September the plan was not submitted to the consideration of the administrative department heads, although they had continued to be informed regularly of the fact of the reorganization study.(( Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, July 28, 1971, Re.: Weekly report on activities;” “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, August 4, 1971, Re.: Weekly report on activities;” “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, September 1, 1971, Re.: Weekly report on activities;” “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, September 29, 1971, Re.: Weekly report on activities;” “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, October 20, 1971, Re.: Weekly report on activities;” “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, November 10, 1971, Re.: Weekly report on activities;” “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, December 1, 1971, Re.: Weekly report on activities;” ”Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, December 15, 1971, Re.: Biweekly Report on Activities (December 2-11);” “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, Re.: Report on Activities (February 20 – March 4,1972), March 8,1972;” and “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, Re.: Report on Activities (August 20 – September 2, 1972), September 6, 1972.” (personal files of the author.).)) The vicar general decided further study and modification of the plan was needed and in the interim no operating budget was approved for the continued operation of the Spanish speaking apostolate office.
After another September meeting with the vicar general and chancellor, Fr. Stern was requested to submit “a series of particular proposals . . . to implement the policy discussed and agreed on.”(( Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to Msgr. James P. Mahoney, September 29th, 1971,  Re: Coordination of Pastoral Care of Spanish-speaking (4),” (personal files of the author.).)) Thirty-five specific proposals were drafted implementing the wishes of the vicar general and chancellor. In summary, they called for a position of vicar for Spanish speaking to be established to replace the director of the Spanish Speaking Apostolate and for the vicar to be accountable directly to the vicar general and be considered part of his staff and office; for all programs and activities of the existing Spanish Speaking Apostolate office to be transferred immediately to other, appropriate offices, departments, or agencies or directly to the supervision of the vicar general himself; and for the new vicar’s physical office to be limited to two rooms with two staff members.((Ibid.))
This new plan for reorganization, the most radical of all to date. was further reviewed and modified once again by the vicar general in October(( Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, Oct. 20, 1971, Re: Weekly report on activities.”).)) Although he was satisfied with the general lines of the proposal, he had come to the conclusion that it was not necessary to establish a vicar for the Spanish speaking and instead proposed to recommend to the cardinal that the director of the Spanish speaking apostolate be made a vice-chancellor for Spanish pastoral affairs.(( Minutes of the Coordinating Committee, November 13, 1971, (personal files of the author.).)) The vice-chancellor was to be accountable directly to the vicar general and considered part of his staff and office.
When this final revision was submitted to Cardinal Cooke he “endorsed the notion of the development of attention to Spanish-speaking by all departments with a gradual transfer of function from the office of the Director of the Spanish-Speaking Apostolate; he did not accept the recommendation for a redefinition of Fr. Stern’s responsibility and title as proposed.”((Ibid.))

First separation of functions and programs. In December responsibility for attention to the Spanish language communications media was transferred to the Office of Communications. Fr. José Álvarez, who had been working in this area on a part-time basis for the past year, joined the staff of the communications office. Further, Miss Anita Díaz of the Spanish speaking apostolate office staff left to join the communications department staff as a full-time translator.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, December 1, 1971, Re: Weekly report on activities.”).))
A few days later the draft budget of the Spanish Speaking Apostolate was reviewed once again. Msgr. Murphy asked for separate budgets to be submitted for six programs (Institute for Inter-cultural Communications, Language Institute, Migrant Ministry, Movimiento Juvenil, Newburgh-Beacon Area Ministry, and San Juan Fiesta), presumably to facilitate their future transfer, and a very reduced budget was established for the Spanish Speaking Apostolate as a department of the pastoral office. Only the latter budget was tentatively approved at that time;(( Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, December 15, 1971 Re: Biweekly report on activities.”).)) the others continued to be studied.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, Re: Report on activities (February 20 – March 4, 1972), March 8, 1972.”).))

A Crisis of “Confianza”

After the meeting of the delegation of Hispanic leaders with Cardinal Cooke in March of l972, Fr. Stern had an opportunity the following month to discuss personally with him the inconclusive study and reorganization of the Spanish Speaking Apostolate. He shared with the cardinal his concern that the insecurity about the future and the inability to make long range plans had had a very serious effect upon attitudes and morale and that the lack of a clear definition of the scope and authority of his responsibility was making it increasingly difficult to operate.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Terence Cardinal Cooke, Re: Meeting on April 29, 1972, May 15, 1972.”).))
Subsequently Cardinal Cooke asked Msgr. Mahoney and Fr. Stern to submit a new joint recommendation as regards the definition of the office of director of the Spanish-speaking apostolate.(( Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to His Eminence, Terence Cardinal Cooke, Re: Director of the Spanish-Speaking Apostolate, January 24, 1973,” (personal files of the author.),))
The vicar general informed Fr. Stern in June that his plans of the previous year for the Spanish office were again modified. The vicar general now envisaged two distinct positions: one, a vice-chancellor with responsibility for matters concerning parishes, clergy, and canonical affairs; the other, a coordinator of programs of apostolic formation. He first suggested that Fr. Stern now take the latter position and then in August he urged him to consider accepting a pastorate. The next day the vicar general met with the delegation to the cardinal and announced to them that the new program of lay leadership formation, which had been planned and recommended by the Coordinating Committee and which was to be one of the chief responsibilities of Fr. Stern’s new role, was to be initiated and directed by the seminary.((Ibid.))
Meanwhile, Cardinal Cooke wrote to Fr. Stern expressing his satisfaction with his first three years of work as director of the Spanish speaking apostolate and renewing his appointment for another period of three years.(( Terence Cardinal Cooke, letter to Reverend Robert L. Stern, August 30,1972, (personal files of the author.).))

The dismissal of Miss Díaz. After the reappointment by Cardinal Cooke, the vicar general did not discuss any new plans for the Spanish office nor did he discuss anything further with Fr. Stern. However in November a new situation arose which served further to erode confidence in the intentions of the archdiocesan authorities. Msgr. Eugene Clark, the director of communications of the archdiocese, terminated the position of full-time translator on the basis of insufficient work to justify the position.(( Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, Re: Report on Activities (November 5 – December 9, 1972), December 13, 1971,” (personal files of the author.),)) This was of great concern, since Miss Diaz had been the administrative coordinator and executive secretary of the Spanish speaking apostolate and her reassignment to the office of communications symbolized the beginning of the “integration” of the Spanish speaking apostolate, the first transfer of a major responsibility to another department. Efforts to restore that position were unsuccessful;(( Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to His Eminence, Terence Cardinal Cooke, Re: Director of the Spanish Speaking Apostolate, January 24, 1973.”).)) however, Fr. Álvarez did continue in his responsibility for the Spanish media.
The Coordinating Committee had not been informed concerning the matter and took issue with the decision made. They strongly questioned the sincerity of interest in the Spanish speaking on the part of some diocesan authorities and saw the dismissal of Miss Díaz as a further cutback in attention to and deployment of resources in favor of the Spanish speaking.(( Minutes of the Coordinating Committee, December 9, 1972, (personal files of the author.).))

Fr. Stern’s resignation. The long, painful, and inconclusive process of reorganization of the Spanish speaking apostolate, the frequently changing directives of his superiors, the attempts to reduce budget and staff. and now the reversal in the matter of the communications department persuaded Fr. Stern that what was taking place was not the process of integration that he had so readily embraced. In December he spoke with Cardinal Cooke and asked to be relieved of his responsibilities as director of the Spanish speaking apostolate and to be allowed a sabbatical for rest, prayer, and study.(( Robert L. Stern, letter to His Eminence, Terence Cardinal Cooke, January 5, 1973 and “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, Re: Report on activities (December 10, 1972 – January 20, 1973), January 24, 1973,” (personal files of the author.).)) The request was motivated by Fr. Stern’s conviction “that he had outstayed his usefulness in the post and lacked that confidence of his superiors that he felt necessary to his continuance.”(( Minutes of the Coordinating Committee, January 6, 1973, (personal files of the author.).))
The cardinal met again with Fr. Stern in January to discuss an orderly transition of responsibilities to a new director and the future orientation of the office.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, Re: Report on activities (December 10, 1972 – January 20,1973), January 24,1973.”))

The Senate of Priests. Subsequent to the dismissal of the full-time translator from the Communications Department, the Pastoral Renewal Committee of the Senate of Priests of the archdiocese began to question the translation services of that department. With the resignation of Fr. Stern, the committee began to question plans for the Spanish speaking apostolate. In January of 1973 the Senate established a sixteen member Ad Hoc Committee on the Spanish-Speaking Apostolate which had three meetings with Fr. Stern to gather information and documentation.(( Senate of Priests, Archdiocese of New York, ” Progress Report,” January, 1973; Ad-Hoc Committee (on the Spanish-Speaking Apostolate) Minutes, (Senate of Priests, Archdiocese of New York), January 25, 1973, (personal files of the author); and Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, Re: Report on activities (January 21- February 3, 1973), February 7,1973,” (personal files of the author.).))
The committee met in February with the vicar general who outlined to them a proposal to create two separate offices, a vice-chancellor for Spanish affairs and a director of the Spanish speaking apostolate. Two days later the appointment of a new vice-chancellor for Spanish pastoral affairs was announced, much to the committee members’ surprise. The committee continued to work even so to describe the responsibilities of the Spanish-Speaking Apostolate office and to develop a profile of the characteristics of a new permanent director.(( Senate of Priests, Archdiocese of New York, “Progress Report,” March, 1973.)) The committee submitted its final report in May.(( Senate of Priests, Archdiocese of New York, “Progress Report,” May, 1973.))

Fr. Francis Gorman

The Vice-Chancellor for Spanish Pastoral Affairs. Although the vicar general had met not only with the Senate committee but also the previous day with the Coordinating Committee for the Spanish speaking apostolate,(( Robert L. Stern, “Memorandum to Coordinating Committee, Re: Meeting of the Committee, February 16, 1973,” (personal files of the author.).)) in both cases to share with them his plans for the future of the apostolate, neither group was prepared for the sudden announcement that Fr. Francis P. Gorman was named Vice-Chancellor for Spanish Pastoral Affairs and Interim Director of the Spanish-Speaking Apostolate. This announcement seemed to have been made in response to a telephone inquiry earlier that same day from the New York Daily News asking for official comment about an article they were preparing concerning the archdiocese and Hispanics including the condition of the Spanish office and Fr. Stern’s resignation.(( Ana María Díaz Ramírez. “The Life, Passion, and Death of the Spanish-speaking Apostolate of the Archdiocese of New York,” Prophets Denied Honor, Antonio M. Stevens Arroyo, op.cit., p. 213.))
A few days later Fr. Stern was given a leave of absence from his position of director of the Spanish speaking apostolate and left for Rome with a scholarship from the cardinal to attend a three-month theological renewal program there.

VIII. THE DIMINISHED SPANISH OFFICE

Fr. Gorman had returned to the archdiocese in May of 1972 after serving for three years in the parish of San Francisco de Asís in the archdiocese of Caracas, Venezuela, a parish sponsored and staffed by the Archdiocese of New York from its inception in 1969 until the New York diocese turned it over to the Caracas diocese in December of 1974. He was a fluent Spanish speaker and familiar with Latin American pastoral problems. However he did not have an enviable job. Abruptly chosen and relatively unfamiliar with the diocesan coordination of the Spanish Apostolate, he had to confront immediately not only a complex and now ambiguously defined set of administrative responsibilities but a strong and in some cases public reaction to the events of the immediate past. Initially there were demonstrations, the organization of a protest group, Spanish American Christians for Justice, and further critical publicity in The New York Times and Daily News. The Coordinating Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee of the Senate of Priests continued to press for a satisfactory explanation of the reorganization of the Spanish office and to offer suggestions for a permanent director.
An immediate and demanding responsibility facing Fr. Gorman was the organization of the traditional San Juan Fiesta and the summer language study program of the archdiocese, in addition to all the routine tasks of the Spanish office. With the appointment of a permanent director of the Spanish speaking apostolate six months later, he was able to concentrate on his chancery responsibilities. Gradually his principal involvement in the Spanish speaking apostolate as such became the direction of the Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral, supervision of the Newburgh-Beacon area ministry, and the supervision of and participation in the migrant ministry program in the Middletown-Pine Island area.
In August of 1977 he left his chancery position to assume a pastorate in the area where he had been working in migrant ministry. No successor was named.

The First Hispanic Director of the Spanish Office

Fr. Joaquin Beaumont

In August of 1973 an innovative appointment was made when the first native Hispanic was named to a three-year term as director of the Spanish speaking apostolate to replace Fr. Gorman in his capacity as interim director. Fr. Joaquín B. Beaumont was selected, a priest from Spain with experience in New York parishes and then in the process of incardination into the archdiocese.
An implicit difficulty for Fr. Beaumont was to define his own job responsibility. In spite of all of the studies about the future of the Spanish apostolate, nothing specifically had been communicated to him by way of redefining the position. The relationship between the two archdiocesan positions was also ambiguous. Although the position of vice-chancellor implied a good measure of canonical authority on his part and he was considered part of the immediate staff of the vicar general, the director of the Spanish speaking apostolate was also a departmental head who reported to the vicar general. Fortunately the relation between the two men was amicable and conflicts of authority and jurisdiction were successfully avoided.
In May of 1974 Fr. Beaumont was able to report to Cardinal Cooke that “after almost one year in the new position and after continuous communication with the proper channels, I reached the following understanding of my position:…I think that it is the job of the Director of the Spanish-Speaking Apostolate to direct and/or coordinate and advise three different areas of activities…AREA I: Preparing personnel to work better with the Spanish portion of the Archdiocese and helping Spanish speaking Priests and Sisters to become better integrated into the Church of New York. This area includes two different types of programs:…Language Institute…Intercultural Institute…AREA II: This area includes the organization, coordination and direction of annual Hispanic religious celebrations in New York…AREA III: This office coordinates the apostolic movements where Hispanics are involved.”(( Joaquín B. Beaumont, “Memorandum to His Eminence, Terence Cardinal Cooke, Re: Report to His Eminence, May 30, 1974,” Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 3396.))

Intercultural institute. The summer that Fr. Beaumont began to work as Spanish apostolate director the language program was organized by Fr. Gorman. Following the policy of training clergy and religious in other areas besides Puerto Rico, he sent a large group for summer language study to Bogotá, Colombia. As soon as Fr. Beaumont assumed responsibility for the summer program he gave considerable attention to its improvement and reorganization. When the Catholic University of Puerto Rico declined to offer the usual summer program, training was concentrated in Bogotá and in the Dominican Republic.

San Juan Fiesta. Initially Fr. Beaumont continued the model of the San Juan fiesta that he had inherited, with a religious-civic-cultural celebration in Downing Stadium on Randall’s Island. In 1974 to clarify any doubts concerning the nature of the fiesta, the executive committee of the fiesta stressed that it “is a religious demonstration…from the Puerto Rican people…in union and community with the other Hispanics under the supervision of the hierarchy of the Archdiocese of New York.”((Ibid.)) In spite of Fr. Beaumont’s best efforts as well as those of his predecessors, it proved impossible to present a dignified and popular religious spectacle at Randall’s Island and it was agreed to move the celebration to a location in the heart of the city, Central Park. A reduced style of fiesta observance in Central Park proved to be far more manageable than the previous ones and this format is still followed at present.

San Juan Fiesta Mass in Central Park

Our Lady of Altagracia celebration. On January 12, 1973 the first public celebration of the feast of Our Lady of Altagracia, Patroness of the Dominican Republic, had been held at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. The celebration was organized by Fr. Milton Ruiz under the supervision of Fr. Stern. About four thousand persons jammed the cathedral for a special liturgy celebrated by Coadjutor Archbishop Hugo Polanco of Santo Domingo, and Cardinal Cooke addressed the congregation after communion.(( Stern, op. cit. (“Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, Re: Report on activities (December 10, 1972 – January 20, 1973), January 24, 1973” and “Memorandum to Administrative Staff Heads, Re: Report on Activities (January 21 – February 3, 1973), February 7, 1973.”).))
Fr. Beaumont continued to lend encouragement to the celebration of the feast and began to involve the Spanish office more directly in the organization of the celebration for 1975. This began to set a pattern for other religious celebrations in the cathedral of a national character and in the next few years a variety of new annual observances were initiated reflecting the increasing diversity of country of origin of New York’s Hispanic Catholics.

Hispanic Columbus Day observance. For several years a tastefully staged and well organized parade had marked an annual observance of the celebration of the discovery of America, el Día de la Raza. In 1974 Fr. José Álvarez of the communications department of the archdiocese assisted the parade committee in organizing a religious celebration in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in conjunction with the parade. Fr. Beaumont decided to take full responsibility for the next year’s religious celebration and to make it into a really Hispanic, not just Spanish, event.(( Beaumont, op.cit.)) This continued to be an annual involvement of the Spanish office.

The Encuentro Arquidiocesano. The very successful first national Encuentro Hispano de Pastoral held in June of 1972 sparked a series of regional and diocesan encuentros.((Proceedings of the Primer Encuentro Hispano de Pastoral, op. cit., p. J4.)) In the next few years, there was a genuine “encuentro movement” across the entire country. In New York, the Coordinating Committee for the Spanish speaking apostolate suggested to the new director, Fr. Beaumont, that a diocesan encuentro should be held. The few lay leaders’ meetings convoked by Fr. Stern had been well received and productive but they were suspended after his departure from the Spanish office. The time seemed ripe for an even more broad consultation and bringing together of the leaders of the Hispanic Catholic community in the archdiocese. The Coordinating Committee developed the idea further and established a special working subcommittee chaired by Fr. Beaumont to prepare for the encuentro.(( Joaquín B. Beaumont, circular letter to participants and others interested in the archdiocesan encuentro, undated (probably July, 1974), Record Retention Center of the Archdiocese of New York, box 3396.)) In his report to Cardinal Cooke, Fr. Beaumont characterized the suggested plan for an encuentro as “something that can be risky and challenging, but nowadays unavoidable. It seems to me that it can very useful for the Spanish Apostolate….We have been careful in the planning and people seem to be in the right spirit…”(( Beaumont, op. cit. (“Memorandum to His Eminence, Terence Cardinal Cooke, Re: Report to His Eminence, May 30, 1974.”) .))
The encuentro was held on June 15, 1974 with great success. It was a positive experience, providing a much needed opportunity for clergy, religious and lay leaders from local parishes as well as those in positions of responsibility on the diocesan level to share and express their concerns. A series of priority recommendations emerged from the encuentro for the future development of the Spanish apostolate, some of which were later effectively responded to by the archdiocese:

the Church should establish an immigration center to orient immigrants about matters concerned with legal residency, proper papers, work and other social services.
the archdiocese should initiate programs for the ordination of Hispanic permanent deacons.
the Church should reorganize and revive the Hispanic Movimiento Juvenil (youth movement) and offer it full support and try to obtain a center for its activities.((Beaumont, op. cit. (circular letter to participants and others interested in the archdiocesan encuentro.).))

The Northeast Regional Encuentro. In November of 1974 the first Northeast Regional Encuentro was held at Holyoke, Massachusetts. It was originally convoked through the Division for the Spanish Speaking of the United States Catholic Conference. In the months preceding the event regular planning meetings were held involving the diocesan directors of the Spanish speaking apostolate of the dioceses of the region and priests, religious and lay leaders in the apostolate. A large delegation from the archdiocese attended headed by Cardinal Cooke.
At the encuentro a Northeast Regional Pastoral Committee for Hispanics was elected and began to meet on a regular basis in January of 1975. The committee concentrated on the preparation of a northeast regional pastoral center for Hispanics. The center was inaugurated in February of 1976. Although not a project of the archdiocese as such, it was strongly supported by the archdiocesan authorities from its inception. The New York diocese is its major source of diocesan financial support and in August of 1977 the center moved its headquarters to the New York Catholic Center.

Counseling services. Although the Spanish office as such was a pastoral-administrative department of the archdiocese, whenever someone Spanish speaking came to the New York Catholic Center with a personal need not obviously identifiable as falling within the scope of service of any other department, that person was sent to the Spanish office. Fr. Beaumont encouraged this and tried to make of the office a center where people were warmly received and would receive sympathetic attention and counseling, looking towards a solution of their problems and not just a referral to an appropriate agency.
A frequent problem brought to the office concerned the civil status of immigrants, the plight of undocumented newcomers to New York. Fr. Beaumont became increasingly concerned with this as did many others as well since such a high percentage of the Hispanic Catholic population of New York was involved. He was instrumental in calling together a group of priests to study and discuss the matter and a general workshop on the undocumented and immigration law and policies was offered for priests and lay leaders. One Specific result of that workshop was the recognition of the need of some kind of specialized archdiocesan office or program for immigration concerns.

Priests’ meetings. There had been no regular get-togethers for the priests in the Spanish speaking apostolate since the regular meetings had been discouraged in 1971. Many had expressed a desire for such a meeting, so Fr. Beaumont decided to plan a day that would provide an easy and informal opportunity for dialogue as well as an opportunity for prayer and convivencia. In June of 1976 an all-day program was held at Dunwoodie, the archdiocesan major seminary. Fifty-one priests visited or participated in one part or another of the meeting, twenty-one Hispanics and thirty non-Hispanics.(( Francisco T. Dominguez, A.A., “Report on the Spanish Apostolate Day at Dunwoodie, June  1, 1976,” (personal files of the author.).))
The program offered a much needed opportunity for fraternization among the native Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants. Since the development of the Asociación de Sacerdotes Hispanos three years before, native Hispanic priests had enjoyed frequent occasions for dialogue among themselves but, paradoxically, this very success was distancing them somewhat from the non-Hispanic or “American” clergy. There was general satisfaction and an expressed desire for more such gatherings in the immediate future.((Ibid.))

Steps Forward and Backward

When Fr. Beaumont accepted his three year term of office in 1973, he was very optimistic about the possibilities of development of the Spanish speaking apostolate and the Spanish office and convinced that with sufficient tact and deference on his part considerable progress could be achieved. However by the end of that period he realized that his optimism was somewhat naïve. Although he brought to his position considerable pastoral experience and psychological insight, for he had a professional specialization in that field, he was disadvantaged by his relative unfamiliarity with the structure and workings of the administrative bureaucracy of the archdiocese. He gradually experienced the same frustration as regards the lack of definition of his responsibilities and of clear delineation of his authority as had his predecessor and he decided to ask for a return to a pastoral assignment at the conclusion of his term.

Fr. Ignacio Lazcano, CRL

In October of 1976 he was replaced by another priest distinguished by his pastoral experience and effectiveness in the Spanish speaking community, Fr. Ignacio Lazcano, C.R.L.. Fr. Lazcano, a Basque from Spain and a member of the religious congregation of the Canons Regular of the Lateran, had been one of the members of the missionary team of that order active in parish work in the archdiocese for many years. Forthright, candid and deeply committed to lay leadership development, he immediately embraced the curious, mixed package of responsibilities that was the Spanish apostolate director’s office. To the thoughtful observer his appointment had an ambivalent symbolism. On the one hand an activist, pastoral and creative native Hispanic was named to a position of diocesan leadership, which also had the additional positive dimension of providing recognition of the important role played by religious clergy in the life of the archdiocese. On the other hand, the diocese had come full circle: Before 1953 the main responsibility for the Spanish apostolate had been in the hands of the religious clergy, predominantly the native Hispanic, and now, symbolically, it was theirs once again.

“El Pueblo Habla.” Almost immediately upon assuming his new responsibility Fr. Lazcano began an extensive archdiocesan preparation for the second Encuentro Nacional Hispano, “El Pueblo Habla,” to be celebrated the following year. The national plan called for a broad consultation of the Hispanic people at the grass roots level across the United States. In New York a working group Fr. Lazcano convoked prepared a detailed questionnaire that was sent to over 12,000 people throughout the archdiocese, including all parishes, apostolic movements, special groups and programs, and consulates.
The replies were carefully studied, tabulated, placed in priority order and presented to a diocesan wide convocation of 355 lay leaders and 75 priests representing all the Hispanic parishes and movements of the archdiocese. The participants finalized the diocesan recommendations for the national Encuentro and selected a delegation of 12 persons to represent the archdiocese at it.

Undocumented immigrants. Another concern receiving Fr. Lazcano’s immediate attention was the need for some official archdiocesan attention to the special needs of undocumented immigrants. The Encuentro Arquidiocesano of 1974 had requested the establishment of an immigration center and Fr. Beaumont had convoked meetings and workshops to address the issue.
Planning meetings continued to be held by Fr. Lazcano and a design for a network of vicariate level counseling centers was developed. The archdiocesan authorities were very supportive of the plans and a budget for the development of immigration services was approved. A point not entirely decided was whether the program would be an exclusively Hispanic one associated with the Spanish Speaking Apostolate office or a general program associated with the Social Development Office of the archdiocese.

Recruitment of Spanish adjunct clergy. A growing problem among those concerned with the clergy personnel of the archdiocese was the lack of Spanish speaking priests. In spite of the projections made by Msgrs. Kelly and Connolly in 1953 and the later plans and recommendations of Msgr. Illich, the language training programs of the diocese had proportionately declined instead of expanding. A major cause was the increased element of personalism in seminary training and clergy assignments. For several years, instead of half the newly ordained class of priests being assigned to Spanish language studies, only a much smaller percent were trained who had volunteered for the experience as seminarians. In the seminary itself there was a reluctance to demand proficiency in the Spanish language and it was only in 1981 that some study of Spanish became a general requirement.
Rather than move in the direction of making a minimum bilingualism a pre-condition for ordination in the archdiocese, the diocesan authorities opted for a deliberate recruitment of foreign, Spanish speaking clergy. Early in 1977 a delegation of diocesan officials including Fr. Lazcano and Fr. Gorman went to Spain to establish official contacts with the Spanish hierarchy for the contractual loan of Spanish diocesan clergy to the archdiocese for ministry here for specified periods of years. This supplemented similar previous contacts and agreements with major religious superiors of several Spanish-based religious congregations having houses in New York concerning the loan of clergy for other than their own ministries in the archdiocese.(( Stern, op, cit. (“The Archdiocese of New York and Hispanic Americans”), p. 22.))
The effort symbolized another coming full circle. The Spanish apostolate in New York had begun with predominantly Spanish religious clergy. A great achievement of Cardinal Spellman had been the mobilization of the archdiocesan clergy for the Spanish speaking apostolate. Now that thrust was faltering and what some would consider a pastorally retrogressive step was being taken as an immediate solution to the situation created by an inadequate response to a long standing pastoral challenge. However, for better or worse, the recruitment mission had little success and it was not further pursued with any seriousness.

Spanish speaking auxiliary bishops. In June of 1977 the Catholic weekly newspaper of the archdiocese heralded that three Spanish speaking priests were to be ordained bishops, auxiliaries to the archbishop of New York. This was officially represented as a great and unprecedented response to the increasing numbers of Hispanic Catholics in the archdiocese and their pastoral needs and one of them, Bishop Francisco Garmendia, was named also as “Episcopal Vicar for Spanish Pastoral Development.”

Bishop Francisco Garmendia

Bishop Garmendia was a Basque priest who just a few years before had left his religious congregation of the Canons Regular of the Lateran to become incardinated into the archdiocese. For many years he had served with distinction in local Spanish speaking parishes and enjoyed the reputation of a dedicated, hard-working, traditionally minded parish priest totally at the service of his people. His ordination as bishop catapulted him into an entirely new role and level of responsibility. Previously he had hardly ever been involved in any pastoral activities at the diocesan level and now he was prominent even nationally as the archdiocese’s first Hispanic auxiliary bishop.
Within a few months of his appointment as vicar for Spanish pastoral development the office of vice-chancellor for Spanish pastoral affairs was vacated and allowed to lapse. The new vicar inherited the same ambiguity of relationship to the director of the Spanish speaking apostolate that had existed earlier in the case of the vice-chancellor. Canonically the episcopal vicar enjoyed the full authority of the ordinary of the diocese in his designated area of responsibility but in practice he was the pastor of a relatively poor inner city parish with no chancery office space or staff. After a few frustrated, well-intentioned attempts to take over the total direction of the Spanish apostolate of the archdiocese, Bishop Garmendia came to assume a role of symbolic leadership and official representation of the cardinal in addition to the consultative responsibilities attached to his office as episcopal vicar. The director of the Spanish speaking apostolate continued in his traditional responsibilities, both men collaborated amicably and fraternally, and the office of vicar for Spanish pastoral development remained largely ceremonious.
The two other Spanish speaking bishops were both non-Hispanic archdiocesan officials, Msgr. Theodore E. McCarrick, the secretary of Cardinal Cooke, and Msgr. Austin B. Vaughan, the rector of St. Joseph’s Seminary. Msgr. McCarrick had assisted Msgr. Illich during the summer months in the direction of the Institute of Missionary Formation of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico in 1959 and 1960 and had directed the program himself for the next three summers. He served with distinction as the rector of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico for four years previous to his return to the archdiocese in 1969. Although neither he nor Msgr. Vaughan had been active in the Spanish speaking apostolate within the archdiocese previous to their episcopal ordination, as bishops they both began to involve themselves in Hispanic functions and activities. Bishop McCarrick was named episcopal vicar for the east side of Manhattan including Spanish Harlem and gave himself immediately to local pastoral concerns in addition to his considerable archdiocesan administrative and developmental activities, and he continued in that office until his appointment as the bishop of the new diocese of Metuchen in 1981. Bishop Vaughan became the pastor of St. Patrick’s parish in Newburgh, New York, and episcopal vicar of Orange County.

The resignation of Fr. Lazcano. The appointment of Fr. Garmendia as auxiliary bishop had one entirely unforeseen and unpredictable consequence, Fr. Lazcano’s resignation of the office of director of the Spanish speaking apostolate. Bishop Garmendia had been for many years a member of Fr. Lazcano’s religious congregation. The bishop’s former associates and still good friends and compatriots in the congregation who were working in the archdiocese considered the total lack of consultation with the congregation’s religious authorities by the Apostolic Delegate concerning Fr. Garmendia’s fitness for episcopal office a serious irregularity. They felt that some expression of their sentiments was appropriate. Prompted especially by these circumstances Fr. Lazcano asked to be relieved of his office. In December of 1977 he was reassigned to a parish and in February of 1978 Fr. David Arias, O.A.R. was named as his successor.

The Spanish Office at Present

Fr. David Arias, OAR

The appointment of Fr. Arias had some similarities to that of his predecessor. He was a Spanish religious order priest, a member of the Province of St. Augustine of the Augustinian Recollect Fathers, and had been working in the Archdiocese of New York for the previous eight years. Unlike his predecessors, his experience in the archdiocese was not parochial ministry but that of director of St. Joseph’s Center and priest-advisor of the archdiocesan Movimiento de Cursillos de Cristiandad. As such he brought to his new responsibility an extensive personal knowledge of parish Hispanic lay leaders and experience of lay leadership formation as well as a familiarity with diocesan level pastoral planning and some participation in it since the time of Fr. Stern.

Strengthening of existing programs. In addition to providing the administrative supervision and guidance of the during-the-year and the summer language training programs, Fr. Arias began to give much of his time and concern to continuing and strengthening the apostolic movements and related programs of the diocese. The secretariat of the Movimiento Familiar Cristiano was revised and renewed and twice a year seminars were held for the leaders of the movement from the twenty-five parishes with active teams. Fr. Lazcano had assisted the Camino Youth Movement to relocate to the new Grace House for youth ministry. Fr. Arias helped them get established there and assisted in the formation of the Camino youth council and the organization of the school of leaders.
A creative program for lay leadership formation, Luz y Vida, had been developed by the task force on formation for the lay apostolate chaired by Fr. Arias and had been propagated widely throughout the archdiocese during his tenure as director of St. Joseph’s Center. He continued to give it his fullest support and began to convoke two workshops each year, one for the parish coordinators of the program and another for all the local group leaders. The first of these convocations at Holy Cross parish had over two hundred persons present representing the approximately two hundred local groups in forty different parishes. The second one was held at Holy Name parish.
In May of 1980 he organized a successful and well attended “Simposio Arquidiocesano” as a follow up and response to the northeastern regional symposium on the conclusions of the second Encuentro Nacional Hispano. Over three hundred persons attended the symposium including delegates from each of the Hispanic parishes of the archdiocese. The symposium offered many pastoral recommendations for the future of the Spanish speaking apostolate.(( Spanish-Speaking Apostolate, Archdiocese of New York, “Conclusiones del Simposio Arquidiocesano Hispano, Mayo 23-25, 1980,” (personal files of the author.).))

Migration services. A major activity of Fr. Arias during his first year in the Spanish office was to continue and finalize the planning for the development of counseling and legal services for immigrants that was initiated by his predecessors. The result was that in September of 1978 an archdiocesan Office of Immigration Services was established under the direction of Fr. Francisco Dominguez, A.A. to counsel and assist immigrants in all matters concerning their status and that of their families. Although not specifically a program designed for Spanish speaking immigrants, they are the majority of the clients served.
In the Spring of 1980 a Cuban Resettlement Program was set up by the archdiocese in response to the massive arrival of Cubans at that time. This was actually a revival of the earlier Cuban Resettlement Office which had been terminated as a special project a few years before after settling about 25,000 Cuban refugees over a period of three or four years.

National celebrations. Since the inauguration of the archdiocesan observance of the feast of Our Lady of Altagracia in the cathedral in 1973, ten other national celebrations were established, the most recent of which was the celebration of Our Lady of Divine Providence, patroness of Puerto Rico, in November of 1981. In almost every case the celebration consists of a solemn liturgy in St. Patrick’s Cathedral involving typical music and styles of celebration, visiting ecclesiastical dignitaries, consular and other civic officials and a capacity congregation. Under Fr. Arias the role of liaison with each of the planning committees and active participation in their work has come to be a major function of the Spanish office.

Communications media. In 1980 Fr. Arias arranged for a half-hour weekly program, “Pueblo en Marcha,” to be presented in Spanish on Channel 47 television. The program was placed under the direction of the Office of Communications of the archdiocese and had a magazine format especially involving interviews of persons active in the Hispanic community and the work of the church. It continued for about one year. He also arranged for the resumption, after a lapse of several years, of a weekly televised Sunday Mass in Spanish on Channel 41 beginning on Pentecost Sunday in 1982. The program is also directed by the Communications office. In addition to these programs, a new monthly newsletter in Spanish for lay leaders was inaugurated in September of 1982.

Diocesan Programs Independent of the Spanish Office

For reasons particular to each case, four formation programs developed since the centralization of activities of the Spanish speaking apostolate in the early 1970s continued relatively independent of the Spanish office. Also, the Office of Pastoral Research of the archdiocese undertook an independent  study of the religious and social situation of the Hispanic community in the archdiocese.

Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral. As previously described, the recommendations of the Coordinating Committee for the Spanish speaking apostolate for the creation of a pastoral institute for lay leadership formation were accepted by Cardinal Cooke in early 1973; however the supervision and governance of the new program and institute were not associated with the Coordinating Committee nor the Spanish speaking apostolate office but were given to Fr. Thomas Leonard, ostensibly because of his position on the major seminary staff.
When Fr. Leonard was transferred to the chancery office, the responsibility for the institute accompanied him there. After his departure from that office it was taken on by Fr. Gorman as vice chancellor for Spanish pastoral affairs. After Fr. Gorman’s transfer it was administratively in limbo with responsibility for directing the institute given personally to Sr. Marian Pohlner, a Spanish speaking religious attached to the office of Christian and Family Development. At the urging of the faculty of the program a board of directors was established for it and the program was placed under the supervision of the vicar general through directors appointed by him.

Camino youth movement. A strong interest of the archdiocesan secretariat for the Cursillo movement was to have some kind of program for the spiritual development of youth, especially the sons and daughters of people who themselves had been strongly influenced by the cursillo experience. After the termination of the Movimiento Juvenil in 1973 there was no program at all for youth leadership formation and even that one had not been considered adequate to satisfy the need felt by some cursillo leaders. The interest in reviving the Hispanic youth movement or developing a new program for formation of Hispanic youth was shared by the Coordinating Committee and coincided with the recommendations of the June 1974 Encuentro Arquidiocesano.
In November of 1974 the Cursillo secretariat sponsored an all day “Hispanic Youth Retreat” at St. Joseph’s Center with great success. The program was designed for the situation of Hispanic young people and was bilingual and bicultural in style. It was repeated in January of 1975 at St. Paul the Apostle parish in Manhattan and in May at Sacred Heart parish. The developers of the program really wanted it to become a three-day experience somewhat like the cursillo itself. An opportunity presented itself to use a building of the cathedral parish of the diocese of Paterson, so the expanded weekend program began to be offered there. The retreat was called “Camino.” After being given at the Paterson center for two years it was relocated to the new Grace House for youth ministry opened in Manhattan in the spring of 1978.
It has enjoyed tremendous success and has been very effective in communicating with and motivating Hispanic young people. A large team of people have cooperated in presenting the retreats and the entire program is guided by a Camino council involving the youth themselves. A training school for Camino youth leaders was established as well and weekly sessions are held throughout the year.(( Bruce Nieli, C.S.P., “Camino,” Clergy Report. Vol. 8, No. 4, (April 1978).))

Msgr. Raul Del Valle

Permanent diaconate program. In the summer of 1975 Cardinal Cooke decided to authorize a separate program to be conducted in Spanish for the formation of Hispanic candidates for the permanent diaconate. Fr. Raúl del Valle was named an associate director of the archdiocesan permanent diaconate program with the special mandate to develop the Hispanic program. One of his first decisions was to establish an advisory committee composed of priests involved in the Spanish apostolate and formation.(( Raúl Del Valle, “Memorandum to His Eminence Terence Cardinal Cooke, Subject: Progress Report concerning the Permanent Diaconate Program for Hispanics, October 3, 1975,” (personal files of the author.).))
In September general guidelines for the admission of candidates and for the training program were decided upon. It was agreed to utilize the courses given at the Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral as part of the formation for the diaconate but in addition specific training and formation for the diaconate was to be conducted on a weekly basis and periodic special retreats and meetings for the candidates and their wives were to be held.((Ibid.))
The Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral was then into its third year of operations. For the first two years as the program was in development courses were gradually added as needed. By early 1975 it was decided to have a three-year program consisting of three trimesters each year, the second and third years of which would be presented on alternate years. It was suggested that the purpose of the Instituto be redefined as “the further development of Hispanic lay leaders and the selection and formation of permanent deacons of the Christian community.”(( Francis P. Gorman, letter to all members of the Admissions Board for the Hispanic Branch of the Permanent Diaconate Program, October 8, 1975, (personal files of the author.).))
A special, accelerated program was adopted for a select group of candidates with extensive previous personal formation through the Instituto and elsewhere and in June of 1976 the first Hispanic permanent deacons for the archdiocese were ordained by Cardinal Cooke in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Successive ordinations have been held annually since then.
In March of 1980 the advisory board recommended that after four years of experimentation with the permanent diaconate for Hispanics a serious evaluation of the training program and also of the ministry of the ordained Hispanic permanent deacons be conducted. Further it was suggested that the structure of the program be modified to make it more flexible in regard to the curriculum and the places of teaching and that a full time director be appointed to the program with additional responsibility for the continuing education and spiritual development of the ordained Hispanic deacons.(( Raúl del Valle, “Memorandum to His Eminence Terence Cardinal Cooke, Archbishop of New York, the Rev. Msgr. Joseph T. O’Keefe, V.G., the Rev. Msgr. John J. Mescall, and the members of the Advisory Board of the Permanente Diaconate Program for Hispanic Candidates, Subject: Progress report on the special program to train Hispanic Candidates to the Permanent Diaconate, May 18, 1980,” (personal files of the author.).)) The matter is presently under advisement.

Centro Carismático Católico Hispano. Bishop Garmendia, the vicar for Spanish pastoral development, had a strong personal interest in the movement for charismatic renewal. He thought to utilize the former convent building of his new parish of St. Thomas Aquinas in the Bronx as a center for the movement among Hispanic Catholics. He broached his plans to Cardinal Cooke and in January of 1978 the cardinal appointed him director of the Hispanic charismatic renewal and approved the establishment of a Centro Carismático Católico Hispano which was inaugurated in the fall of that year. The bishop’s responsibilities included the formation of leaders of the movement and the safeguarding of its unity and correct development. After staff was recruited for the direction of the center, courses, workshops, meetings and retreats began to be held there on a regular basis for Spanish speaking parish lay leaders of the movement.
The following year Bishop Garmendia decided to conduct formation programs principally through existing vicariate pastoral centers rather than at the Centro Carismático itself. In the fall, programs were initiated at the archdiocesan Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral and at the Lower East Side Catholic Area Conference’s Institute for Ministry; in the winter, at the South Bronx Pastoral Center. The Centro Carismático continued as a meeting place and resource center available to Hispanic Catholics and is utilized by most of the eighty-four local parish prayer groups. A wide variety of programs and activities continue to be presented there.

The Hispanic study. Early in 1979 both the Hispanic committee of the Archdiocesan Liturgical Commission and the Ad Hoc Committee for Hispanic Evangelization recommended to Cardinal Cooke that a study be made of the religious and social situation of the Hispanic community in the archdiocese. The cardinal accepted their recommendation and commissioned the Office of Pastoral Research of the archdiocese to conduct the study and investigation.
As a first step, in July Mrs. Ruth Doyle, director of the Pastoral Research Office, convoked a meeting of persons involved in Hispanic ministry in the archdiocese in many different areas and at different levels of responsibility and proposed that they serve as an advisory and steering committee for the study. The committee began to function and to delineate the purposes, issues and expectations of the study. By October a detailed proposal was drafted and submitted to the cardinal with the steering committee’s recommendation. During the following year foundations were approached for major funding and meetings were held; a technical committee of sociologists developed the design. In 1981 staff was hired and the study initiated. The target date for completion is the fall of 1982.

Vicariate and Area Programs

Local needs in three different areas of the archdiocese prompted the development of regional and local programs of lay formation in addition to those already offered by St. Joseph’s Center and the Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral.

LESAC Institute for Ministry. The Lower East Side Catholic Area Conference, an association of twenty-one parishes and other catholic institutions located on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, during the fall of 1974 and spring of 1975 prepared an area wide pastoral master plan which included a call for a pastoral center to be established as a “possible base for a specifically area-level approach to church life and a resource center to the parishes for programs in liturgy, religious education, lay leadership training and other matters.”(( L.E.S.A.C., “A Report to the Archdiocesan Pastoral Council on the Lower East Side Catholic Area Conference,” (personal files of the author.).)) One of the major developments of the pastoral center’s work was the Institute for Ministry, which described itself as “a school sponsored and conducted by the Lower East Side Catholic Area Conference designed to enable lay persons, clergy, and religious of the area to prepare for an active, educated, and skilled participation in the ministry of the Church in the neighborhoods of the Lower East Side.”(( L.E.S.A.C., “Institute for Ministry” (personal files of the author.).))
In the spring of 1976 the first classes of the institute were given in English and in Spanish. Courses are both theoretical and practical and periodically are complemented by workshops for training in certain ministries. The institute runs on a three-year cycle, with two semesters of ten weekly sessions each in the spring and fall. Training programs are offered in the areas of liturgy, church and community, prayer, religious education, families and youth.(( L.E.S.A.C., “Report to the American Board of Catholic Missions,” (personal files of the author), pp. 4-7.)) The first graduating class of the institute numbered fourteen persons and a measure of its success was that during its first three years over four hundred persons registered for one or more of the institute’s programs.(( L.E.S.A.C., “Report for the 1978-1979 Pastoral Year,”  (personal files of the author), p. 8.))

South Bronx Pastoral Center. In September of 1978 a similar program begin in the South Bronx vicariate. The idea for this South Bronx Pastoral Center grew out of the concern of the South Bronx Catholic Association for adult religious education and the development of lay leadership, the call of the episcopal vicar of the South Bronx for a school of ministry, and the experience of the Institute for Apostolic Development of Our Lady of Victory Parish. The Center described itself as “a school and training center for persons who wish to prepare themselves to participate more fully in the life of their local churches and communities. It offers programs in English and in Spanish that are designed to acquaint the persons who participate in them with the roots of their religious and cultural traditions and to equip them for exercising greater responsibility in shaping the quality of life in their communities.”(( South Bronx Pastoral Center, catalogue, “General Information,” (personal files of the author.).))
The center offers courses three times a year, in the fall, winter and spring. Each course consists of ten weekly sessions. There are two main types of courses or training programs. The four-year program of general Christian leadership formation consists of courses in the areas of religious studies and communication skills; the shorter, specialized training programs are concerned with formation for liturgical, sacramental, educational, catechetical and community action ministries on the parish level.(( South Bronx Pastoral Center, “Proposal for Funding of the South Bronx Pastoral Center,” (personal files of the author.).))
In September of 1979 the center began to operate with a fulltime staff with a priest director assigned by Cardinal Cooke. It is organized as a New York State not-for-profit corporation operated under the direction of a twenty-one member board of directors and the supervision of the archdiocese. To date over one thousand lay men and women from forty-nine different parishes have received training through the Center.

South Bronx People for Change. Another program that was sponsored by the South Bronx Catholic Association for the South Bronx vicariate was South Bronx People for Change. It began to function with a full-time director in January of 1979 after several months of planning and a series of training workshops conducted the previous year. The genesis of the program was a wide-spread concern for the revitalization of the South Bronx area and a desire to assist lay people to become agents of social change by assisting them to analyze neighborhood, national and world structures, to spotlight their interrelationships and to organize themselves around vital issues. Its long-range goal is to develop Church people as leaders and to heighten within them the awareness of community affairs and power structures so that they may be competently sent forth to represent themselves and their Christian values in responsible positions of leadership within the community.(( Neil A. Connolly, circular letter to members of the Church in the South Bronx, May 15, 1978.))
To date the movement and program have been established in seven neighborhoods in the South Bronx through the local parishes. Neighborhood community action groups have been recruited, trained and assisted to function by the staff of South Bronx People for Change in collaboration with the parish staffs. There are over two hundred members of the movement at present, with several hundred others affiliated though various local organizations and projects. The movement functions under the direction of a board of directors made up mostly of the members of the local groups.

Northwest Bronx School of Ministries. In the fall of 1979 an intensive and bilingual ministerial training program of four week’s duration was conducted in the northwest Bronx for 140 English and 40 Spanish speaking persons. It was sponsored by the Northwest Bronx Evangelization Committee, a joint committee of the Northwest Bronx Area Council and the Northwest Bronx Clergy Conference. A similar and more extensive program was offered with great success in the fall of 1981.

CONCLUSION

Today, eighty years after the establishment of the first Spanish parish in the archdiocese and thirty years after the inauguration of special archdiocesan programs for the Spanish speaking, Hispanics are on the verge of becoming—or in the estimation of some are—the majority of the baptized Catholic population. They no longer are overwhelmingly Puerto Rican and immigration from other Caribbean countries, Central America and South America is rapidly increasing. They are the youngest, fastest growing and poorest of the ethnic or national groups in the archdiocese.
Over one-quarter of the 412 parishes of the archdiocese are ministering to Hispanic peoples in their own language as well as in English and in somewhat more than half of these parishes there is a Spanish speaking pastor. Seven of the eighteen episcopal vicars of the archdiocese speak Spanish, two of whom are native Hispanics. In addition to the special offices and institutions that exist exclusively or predominantly for Hispanics, most diocesan offices and agencies have either Hispanic sections or Spanish speaking staff members.
Probably no other diocese in the United States has done as much as the Archdiocese of New York did to respond to the pastoral challenge posed to it by the massive arrival of so many Spanish speaking Catholics in the span of one generation. Although other dioceses may include more Hispanics and they may have been there longer, it is hard to find a parallel to the New York experience in terms of numbers, rapidity of immigration and scope of response. A legitimate question to pose is, has the Archdiocese of New York done enough?
It is clear that there are discernible stages and directions to the pastoral response to the Hispanic migration by the New York archdiocese. The 1950’s were a time of great beginnings and enthusiasm. Not all of its projections were realized nor all of it hopes fulfilled but a great movement of “concientización” and pastoral development began which has still not entirely lost its impetus. As the Hispanic part of the archdiocese grew, paradoxically the very structures and institutions established for the development of Hispanic ministry began to outgrow their usefulness. When Hispanics were a minority they were best served by specialized structures; as they approach a majority there is need instead for a bilingual and bicultural dimension to almost every aspect of the life of the archdiocese.
Looking backwards, there are moments of great boldness and dynamism in the history of the evolution of Hispanic ministry in the archdiocese and moments of hesitation and loss of dynamism as well. Not all has been perfect, but still there is a proud record of achievement.
The real good of all that has happened should be seen perhaps in an entirely different perspective. Let us celebrate not so much what has been accomplished by the Archdiocese of New York for its Hispanic members as the providential enrichment and revitalization of the church of New York by the Puerto Rican and other Hispanic peoples who have become part of it.

(Available in
Spanish translation)

ENDNOTES


  1. Ibid. [] []

The South Bronx Pastoral Center

There was a dead mouse in the bathtub! I guess he slipped in and found himself in an overwhelming situation he couldn’t get out of—but died trying. Somehow he seemed like a symbol and a warning as we three priests took possession of a rubbish-filled and moldering South Bronx parish rectory in the summer of 1973. The church and school building next door was a fit companion: a graffiti-covered and stained brick facade, dirty and peeling interior walls, and a couple of hundred school families poised on the brink of transferring their kids elsewhere. The first countersign to all this ugly disorder that the new pastoral team could give was to be there. The next step was to clean, repair, and put in some kind of attractive order whatever we could: buildings and grounds as well as organizations and programs.
We did a lot of talking and praying and planning, among ourselves, with lay leaders of the parish, and later with the two religious sisters who came to work with us. The twenty-one story housing project buildings towering over the church and marching down the street in ordered files seemed to mock our best efforts by asserting that whatever we did was only a drop in the bucket, that the sheer numbers of people and multiplicity of problems would certainly overwhelm us. Even so, we opted to work in depth with the people with whom we were in contact, rather than launch any massive programs of outreach. We were afraid of superficiality and of squandering our limited resources, but more than that we believed that Church was primarily a matter of discipleship and that all its members were called to share in its mission and to serve. We had to help them become better disciples and better leaders. Pastorally we decided to be more a quartermaster corps than a vanguard!
During the first Lent and Easter time we had offered an extensive program for the formation of adults who had not received sacraments. Surprisingly, thirty or forty others participated as well. There seemed to be a hunger for solid religious formation. Encouraged by the experience, that fall we announced a sixteen-week formation program to prepare adults already involved in some kind of apostolic service. Borrowing from the Mansight program, we mixed dialogue-reflections on provocative photos of inner-city realities with an introduction to the Bible and its different kinds of writings. The rationale was to reflect on others’ experiences of a life of faith (the Bible) and to examine in faith our own lives and realities.
The course was enthusiastically attended. At the end, almost everybody asked for more, especially more Scripture. We made a “part two” that spring. At the end, almost everybody asked for more, especially more Scripture! We made a “part three” the next fall and repeated “part one” too. By the time we reached the third year we realized that a long-range leadership formation program had evolved, shaped by the interests and experiences of the predominantly Hispanic and black inner-city residents who had participated in it and by the faith and ecclesial vision of the priests and sisters providing the formation.
A couple of years later, one of those providential and happy convergences took place: by 1978 we had had some considerable and, thanks be to God, successful experience in the formation of lay leaders in our small parish. Also, for a couple of years previously the members of the South Bronx Catholic Association, a voluntary organization of clergy, religious, and lay leaders of the area parishes, had been expressing concern for adult religious formation and development of lay leadership. Finally, the dynamic, full-time episcopal vicar of the South Bronx was calling for a school of ministry. Why not use us, we suggested. The offer was duly considered, accepted, and blessed, and the South Bronx Pastoral Center was born.
At first we just ran a new flag up the pole—it was still the original parish program, somewhat reorganized, with participants from nearby parishes. But it started to catch on. At the recommendation of the episcopal vicar, in the fall of 1979 Cardinal Terence Cooke decided to set up the Pastoral Center as a separate entity with its own bilingual staff, budget, and governing board. The center began to offer two main types of courses and trainings, both in English and in Spanish: a long-range, general leadership formation program which was a refinement and elaboration of the original parish program and a variety of specialized programs concerned with formation for specific parish ministries and community services.
The four-year leadership formation program is divided into two areas: religious studies and communication skills. The courses in religious studies have to do with a study of the roots and development of Christianity and the Church with the purpose of communicating a fuller Christian vision and ideology. They consist of a series of five ten-week courses in biblical studies, two courses in Church history, and one course in the theology of Church and ministry. The courses in communication skills offer practical training in skills of communication and leadership with the purpose of enabling their participants better to develop, express, and implement their ideas, especially as members of groups. Courses in this area include public speaking, group decision making, group dynamics, and parliamentary procedure.
One lesson we learned early on: there is no fast way to prepare leaders. It is a slow and patient process of providing people with opportunities to develop their self-image, acquire an awareness of their potential resources, and motivate their involvement in local parish and community problems. Especially it has to do with providing them with an understanding of the roots of their Catholic traditions and of a Christian vision of life as a basis for their activities. It has to do with that most radical of empowerments: the nurture of faith, hope, and love.
Although there are many starting points for such a personal, pastoral, and theological formation, we use the Bible. The people with whom we work have a deep thirst for the word of God and a great desire to know the Scriptures. Usually they begin with very simple and pietistic kinds of religious attitudes and are seeking to turn from the world and towards the Lord. As they are introduced to basic methods of Bible study and as the inner dynamism of the word touches them, they gradually. move to a more integrated and adult religious perspective that involves a sense of mission and social responsibility. It’s a beautiful process to see!
It’s not enough to have the word in your mind and heart; you must be able to utter it effectively. Accordingly another major component of this general leadership formation program is equipping its participants with the practical communication and organizational skills necessary to exercise responsibility in their local communities and parishes. Simple training in public communication, providing techniques of speaking and opportunities to practice under supervision, usually proves to be a powerful experience of liberation. After a few weeks, you may see someone who previously never spoke before a group standing up at a local parish meeting confidently making an effective and articulate contribution!
Besides this in-depth and extensive Christian leadership formation, the Pastoral Center offers or projects a wide variety of specialized training programs for liturgical and sacramental ministries, for catechists and other ministers of the word, and for various forms of community development and social action ministries. Usually these training programs are conducted, locally in the parish to prepare parishioners for specific pastoral responsibilities there. In one parish, for example, we meet weekly with a dozen parishioners for ten sessions to form a baptism apostolate team. The sessions involve familiarizing them with a format of prayer, reflection, and practical training in how to interview parents, conduct a home visit, prepare parents and godparents in formal classes, assist in the liturgical celebration of infant baptism, and maintain contact with the family after the ceremony.
In other parishes we’ve conducted similar programs to form a parish lector team, to train catechists of children, to prepare teams to conduct home-centered programs of evangelization, to educate those responsible for the faith development of adults, to form prayer group leaders, to train eucharistic ministers, and to familiarize community leaders with the political system and people’s rights. Also from time to time we offer retreats and reflection days to provide a solid personal and spiritual foundation to the many people training for ministry and leadership.
To date we’ve been active in nine different parishes besides maintaining a full range of programs at the center itself, a former parochial school building that we use on a part-time basis. The first year there were 209 men and women participating in our classes and programs; the second year, 265; the third, 448; currently there are even more. In the past four years we’ve been in touch with and offered some training to 1,005 persons. In the process we’ve developed detailed lesson plans and class outlines in Spanish and in English for forming parish apostolic groups and for teaching Scripture, Church history, some theology, communication skills, and catechetics to inner-city adults with little schooling.
In summary, the Pastoral Center represents a new and creative approach to the renewal of local parishes and the development of lay leadership and ministries. It’s now offering specialized, auxiliary, and complementary pastoral services to the twenty-four parishes of the South Bronx Vicariate and to another twenty-six parishes in neighboring areas. Its obvious and direct purpose is to assist in the recruitment, training, and utilization of lay leaders—tasks which the numerically reduced and over-burdened pastoral staffs of the parishes are unable to accomplish adequately. Its more subtle purpose is to affect the vision of Church of the local parishes, to assist in developing more evolving and developing models of parish and mission, and to institutionalize new structures for lay ministry in the ongoing life of the local parish.
We haven’t transformed the world yet; we haven’t even changed the face of the South Bronx. But in the midst of all the social ills and physical blight there’s just a little more hope, a little more vision, and a little more joining of hands of brothers and sisters in Christ in the work of building the Church and renewing the face of the earth.

[Published in
New Catholic World, 225:1347, May/June 1982)

Hispanics and New York Happenings and Pastoral Plans

[A talk given at the annual meeting of the National Pastoral Planning Conference as part of the session on pastoral planning and cultural pluralism.]

Right now I’m the administrator of a parish in the South Bronx, actually part of a team in pastoral ministry there, and before that I was Director of the Spanish-speaking Apostolate of the New York Archdiocese. Because of these experiences I was invited to speak to you, and it was suggested that I share some specific examples, both of successes and failures, in these experiences of ministry in the Hispanic community in the Archdiocese of New York.
In 1953 Cardinal Francis Spellman had appointed a priest as Coordinator of Spanish Catholic Action. After the Second World War there were many Puerto Ricans arriving in New York City, at least a couple of hundred thousand, especially in Manhattan. Archbishop John Maguire, the vicar general, persuaded the Cardinal to do something about it. Although there wasn’t a plan all that formal, the idea of appointing a responsible priest at the diocesan level with the mission of developing the Church in the Puerto Rican community was a big step in those days; after all that was twenty-five years ago. A lot of things were born from that decision.

Fiesta

An interesting thing happened the first year: They said, let’s observe the feast of St. John the Baptist, San Juan Bautista, to give some identity to Puerto Ricans. So in St. Patrick’s Cathedral a pontifical, solemn Mass was celebrated in Spanish. Now that doesn’t seem like too much right now, but in 1953 that was really breaking the ice! And that was done for the next two years too—and the Cathedral was full each time!
Someone had a visionary idea: it was a priest named Ivan Illich and a fantastic Puerto Rican lady named Encarnación Armas. They said, look, if you really want to capture the imagination of the Hispanics, you’ve got to make it more of a fiesta. Puerto Ricans don’t celebrate a fiesta just by going to Mass. They have the Mass in the church, and in the plaza, in front of the church, there’s all kinds of fun going on. So Cardinal Spellman—who was really an adventurous soul at heart—said okay to their plan.
Fordham University has a lovely campus up in the Bronx, so they said—in 1956—let’s put the fiesta outdoors on the Fordham campus and let’s do some typically Hispanic things: have a piñata with little children to break it; roast a pig—lechón—and serve a meal, a barbecue, and stuff like that. So they transferred the San Juan Fiesta to the university, and great crowds of people came. When the time came to break the piñata, of course everybody ran to get one of the pieces of candy that fell from it. So many thousands of people converged on the scene that the Irish-American police instantly threw a security ring around Cardinal Spellman presuming that the “crazy natives” were about to mob him, and the thing got really almost out of control! But it was a great success actually, because thousands of people came to the campus of the university.
So, thinking big, next year we rented a city stadium on Randall’s Island and announced the fiesta there. As stadiums go, it’s out of the way. If you know New York, it’s on the Triboro Bridge approach, and although it’s near Manhattan it’s hard to get to. Well, about thirty or forty thousand people turned out for the fiesta in Randall’s Island in 1957. And, it was a great, old-fashioned Catholic spectacle: hundreds and thousands of Hijas de María—Daughters of Mary—in white dresses marched, rosaries were recited, great floats with tableaux of the mysteries of the rosary passed, other people marched with their Santo Nombre—the Holy Name Society—and their Sagrado Corazón—the Sacred Heart Society—banners. And then a pontifical Mass was celebrated al aire libre. A huge procession escorted Cardinal Spellman into the stadium. He was greeted by shouts of Viva el Cardenal! Viva la Iglesia! and great roars of applause. Of course the Cardinal liked it, and he was convinced we were on the right track!
But, you know, that fiesta was a very important thing, because it corresponded to a deeply Puerto Rican value, which I would call respeto—respect. You see, at that time all anybody knew about Puerto Ricans in New York was that they were poor, they didn’t speak the language, and they were the ones that were ruining the city and destroying everything. Of course that’s the story of every immigrant group! They said that about the Irish, the Italians, the Blacks, and everybody else. Well the fiesta offered an opportunity for a demonstration of the values of the Puerto Rican community, for they had no visible expression of their culture or language or dignity. It was the first city-wide event that gave presence to the Puerto Ricans, because there was nothing else. And so that fiesta, with its Mass and its religious spectacle and its refreshments and everything else, was very important. For several years it was the only expression of Puerto Rican culture and religious values in the city.
Then in later years it began to decline. Right now it’s not so significant anymore, because since then we have the Desfile    Puertorriqueño—the Puerto Rican Day Parade—when about a hundred thousand people march up Fifth Avenue. That’s a show of power! Then we have the Fiesta Folklórica Puertorriqueña in Central Park which is to show Puerto Rican culture and art and music—and that’s a great midsummer picnic with another hundred thousand people. So there’s no need anymore for the Church to be the vehicle of expression of presence and culture, and the San Juan Fiesta now has come down in scale.
Now that was an example of something innovative—I don’t want to say precisely of pastoral planning, but of something happening.

Spanish-Speaking Clergy

A very big step that Cardinal Spellman took in 1956, which was very much a matter of pastoral planning, was when the new priests were ordained. They got a surprise, because, when the week after ordination they all went down to get their assignments from the Cardinal, half of them found they were to be assigned to Georgetown University in Washington for the summer where they were to be oriented. They were exposed to the conversational Spanish techniques developed by the Foreign Service Institute for the State Department. So for seven or eight hours a day they had spoken Spanish beaten into them! And they spent the whole summer down there. When they came back they were assigned to Spanish-speaking areas in the diocese.
Well, the Cardinal the next summer made an even bolder move with the newly ordained, because when they came down for their assignments they found out that half of them were leaving a few days later on a plane for San Juan, Puerto Rico and then for Ponce, Puerto Rico! They went down there and had the same things in spades, because then they were going to live in Puerto Rico while they learned conversational Spanish. And so for several years, half of the newly ordained class of priests were “Puerto-Ricanized!” It was an experience.
I remember—I was ordained in 1958—I remember going down to Puerto Rico. First of all, it was before jets. We’d have the  sending-off ceremony at midnight when we all traipsed out to     the airport and the Cardinal was there for the despedida. They packed us into a plane, jam-packed with all the people returning home to San Juan, sweating, squeezed, tired, and we stayed that way for about seven or eight hours. We landed in San Juan, and this unusual Yugoslavian monsignor called Illich grabbed us, rushed us to a church in Hato Rey so that we could all celebrate our Masses, rushed us up to the governor’s palace in Old San Juan for a formal reception with drinks and refreshments, and then they piled us into little, tiny aircraft with about eight or ten people to each. We went flying over the central mountains of Puerto Rico, the plane going like crazy. We landed in Ponce, we were rushed off to residences in some kind of old barracks behind the Catholic University, which is really a couple of buildings in an old cane field, and that’s how we got initiated.
Illich was great on exposing us to Puerto Rican customs and culture.
Every weekend when you were exhausted from studying Spanish, you were sent out on “pastoral assignment.” He’d say, now, go up to Orocovis. You’d say, how do you get to Orocovis? He’d say, you go down the plaza and find out where the public cars leave from; they’re bound to take you there. When you get to Orocovis, the pastort says, ah, help! I can take a break and go away this weekend! Go hear confessions, preach, say Mass, baptize the babies, and everything else! My God, what’s happening?. . . Actually it was great! It was a very good program, because it forced you to experience and interact with the language and the culture. Believe it or not, in two months of this type of training you do begin to speak the language!

 Bilingual and Bicultural Parishes

So a very radical program that Cardinal Spellman had begun was this. Behind it was a philosophy. He said, the Puerto Ricans are not going to stay in one place and they’re too numerous, so we’re not going to use the old method of national parishes to take care of them. We’re going to make every parish where they go to live in any numbers bilingual and bicultural, so that that parish will begin to serve their needs. It was a very ambitious plan; now we have over a hundred parishes in the diocese, out of four hundred and some, that operate that way. It was a very bold step, not to encourage the creation of ghettos and national parishes but to accommodate the Puerto Ricans wherever they go in their own language.
Now, many years later, we can look at this decision and say, maybe it wasn’t enough! There are things in practice not quite anticipated in theory. For example, fresh back from Puerto Rico, the newly ordained priest is assigned to a parish with a large population of Hispanics. Let’s say that in the parish the pastor’s an old Irish-American monsignor who maybe doesn’t give a darn. Sure, you can work with those people, only do all the other regular duties too. And if anybody knocks at the door and the Irish receptionist opens the door and says, oh, you want the Spanish priest! Now, sit over there! And, if the “Spanish priest” isn’t home, well no other priest is about to take care of them, because after all the others aren’t the Spanish priest! And the Mass for those people is going to be in the basement church, because you can’t offend the sensibilities of our regular parishioners by putting them in the main church.
So, it doesn’t always work! You see, if the pastor of.the parish is bilingual and bicultural you have a fighting chance; but, New York twenty-five years later has just begun to have that kind of pastor. And so the plan has its limitations.
Another limitation is that the traditional ethnic parish, the national parish, was the center for supporting the culture and the identity of the immigrant groups. The danger of the bilingual, bicultural parish is that it proves to be not quite so bilingual and bicultural as it seems. Often the main attention is for the, whatever you want to call them, the English-speaking, and the secondary attention is for the Hispanics, and they’re urged to accommodate as quickly as possible to the other groups in the parish. It’s very hard to have a total respect for another person’s point of view if you aren’t immersed in that culture and even then there are limitations.
This leads to another of the needs that became clear for us over the years, the problem of Hispanic leadership in the Church. It’s not enough to have priests who speak Spanish, even very well. You still need models for people to identify with. You have to have visible Spanish leadership.

Vocations

Cardinal Terence Cooke, and Cardinal Spellman before him, has been very concerned about vocations. I think if you say vocations to the Cardinal you can get his support for almost anything, because he’s really deeply concerned about the future of the Church; but there’s a blind spot in the concern for getting vocations too. We’re willing to spend thousands and thousands of dollars in preparing Spanish language materials and brochures and go around to talk to Spanish kids urging that they become priests and everything like that, but there may be a more serious and less obvious problem with seminary formation.
For the point is, there is some change needed in our seminaries, and with the best of intentions there’s a thing called institutionalized cultural bias that creeps in—it is this. For example, you have a seminary: It’s started by the Sulpicians and continued by predominantly Irish-American diocesan clergy. You’re kidding yourself if you think that the seminary’s style is truly catholic and attractive to every type of person—it isn’t! Because its customs, its traditions, its way of doing things are really designed according to the cultural patterns and needs of a certain period and a certain kind of people, necessarily so. If you come from a German background or Irish background, perhaps you can deal comfortably with it; the students who come from an Italian background, often become accommodated to it at the price of many of their cultural values, but the Puerto Ricans don’t. We don’t have in our whole diocesan clergy of New York more than two or three priests with somewhat Puerto Rican background. After all these years! And we have about a million Spanish Speaking in our diocese.
There are two ways of looking at it: You either can look at it and say there’s something wrong with those people because they won’t become priests. Maybe it’s impossible for them to be celibate—that’s an argument we’d all like to use!—or maybe they haven’t enough faith! Or, maybe they don’t have enough religious formation, or they never had enough priests down in Puerto. Rico, so how are they going to have priests up here. Or, it’s not a value in the Hispanic family; but these are terrible points of view! It’s a great insult to persons and a culture that are deeply Christian!
If you don’t question the quality of the people, maybe you need to question the Holy Spirit! But, it can’t be that the Holy Spirit is not working in half the Catholic population of New York City. Maybe the right point of view should be to question how well we discern the Spirit. Maybe we don’t know how to recognize the legitimate call that many people have concerning the ministry, because we are insisting on perceiving it according to certain criteria which are traditional for us, not for them.
Is it a solution that we create two seminaries, one for English-speaking and one for Spanish-speaking? I don’t know. The problem is a subtle thing in the mentality we have. For example, a few years ago I was asked to give a course in our seminary concerning intercultural communication and the Hispanic population of the city and its reality. After much planning of the course, it was decided to present it as an elective on an off-hour, because it was a specialty item! At a later date the seminary accepted that the students be obligated to study a pastoral language, either Spanish or Italian.
Since working in Spanish neighborhoods is considered a special interest and since seminarians are given a lot of scope to develop their own preferences, most of them opt to work in the suburbs where they have a situation that they’re familiar with. Almost nobody wants to work in the inner city because they’re unfamiliar and uncomfortable with it, naturally. I wouldn’t have worked in the inner city, except in the old days nobody asked you—you were just sent there! Yet I ended up spending most of my life to date with Puerto Ricans and being immensely enriched and made happy by it. The problem of mentalities is subtle.
Another example of New York’s successes and failures in planning: We started a permanent diaconate program several years ago. For a couple of years everyone kept asking why aren’t there Hispanics in the permanent diaconate program? It’s a natural for them! And I said, well, I can give you two good reasons: one, the courses are at the major seminary two nights a week and you can’t get there without a car, and, two, the courses are in English. Still for a long time the non-participation of Hispanics remained a puzzle. When, after two or three years it became so distressing to have no Hispanic candidates, a Spanish language program with sessions in the city was established—with immediate participation by qualified persons.

Culture and Religion

A couple of years ago there were some workshops for priests, religious, and Hispanic lay leaders about comunidades de base. A lot of the lay leaders, men and women, felt that a representative group of them should talk to Cardinal Cooke—but to talk to the archbishop was a big step, so they spent five or six months and a few preliminary meetings just to get ready! Not to hatch plots, but out of their great respect for the person they wanted to see. When the Cardinal was appraised of their request for a meeting, he was alarmed—most groups want to complain or protest; but it wasn’t that at all.
You see, personalism is a very important value for Hispanics. If you obey your bishop, you just can’t get letters from him and deal with his staff. You have to see him and talk to him; you have to have the chance to open your heart to him and share your hopes and fears and aspirations with him; you even need the chance to pat him on the back and hug him!
What else to say? On the local level in the average parish there’s a real attempt to use the language and accommodate to the customs and style of the Hispanic people. For example, it’s wonderful to share the enthusiastic liturgies incorporating typical music, instruments, and songs. It’s great when there’s a full participation of ministers too; but sometimes there are snags because we’re not altogether aware of what’s typical of our own mentality. A lot of people who come to Mass don’t come every Sunday. Not missing Mass is a very high value in American Catholicism, but it’s not so high a value in Latin American Catholicism.
I have all kinds of really good people in my parish who don’t come to Mass every Sunday. I wouldn’t think of criticizing them. They’re obviously good Christians. A lot of the kids love to serve Mass; but when they don’t serve, they don’t come to Mass at all in some cases. Well, I guess I don’t raise a question about that either. If it’s not interesting enough to grab them, then we priests have to do something!
Another example: In Puerto Rico, common-law marriages are very common, and its not uncommon to have good families that are not married by the church. Now this is becoming a general problem in American culture too—Puerto Ricans were a little bit ahead! What should your attitude be? Are you not going to let the kids in when they come to go to the parochial school, and you say to their parents, well, let me see the marriage certificate, are you married by the priest, and they’re not? Now I’m not saying that it’s not important to be married in the Church, but maybe we don’t all have the same cultural tolerance of not doing it.
The best way to avoid cultural bias is to involve Hispanics in the pastoral planning process itself. In 1969 when Cardinal Cooke decided to reorganize the Spanish-speaking apostolate of the archdiocese, a dozen or so working committees were formed of experienced and interested lay leaders, priests, and religious, Hispanic and non-Hispanic together. There were groups for catechetics, liturgy, ecumenism, lay formation, lay apostolates, mass media, priests, religious, linguistic and cultural formation, community relations, and research and planning!
We went through a very elaborate planning process, studying needs, setting goals and priorities of action, and developing new programs. Each group had its own responsible coordinator, I guess you could say—and they met together as a kind of central coordinating committee with the priest delegated by the Cardinal for the Spanish-speaking Apostolate. A lot of things came out of that.
Since 1960 the diocese had the Cursillo de Cristiandad movement. It’s a powerful instrument of formation for lay persons; it motivates them to live out the sacraments and to become involved in the life of the local parish. Now two new programs were added to it: one for young people, the Movimiento Juvenil—Youth Movement—and one for married couples, the Movimiento Familiar Cristiano—the Spanish Christian Family Movement. In the planning process both had been identified as areas where little was being done; most parishes were more child-centered and concerned with sick, aged, and dependent people.
Another need and priority set by the committee was how to reach people who come from a Catholic background, but who hardly know anything about their religion. They decided to try to develop a series of themes that could be discussed at home in small groups and that would help people be introduced to a better understanding of their faith. Well, it turned out to be a series of 12 or 15 topics, and teams of Hispanic lay leaders began to use it all over the diocese—it’s called Luz y Vida—Light and Life.

Pastoral Planning

I guess I could go on and on with experiences that we’ve had in New York. In fact you’re probably wondering, is there any thread that ties all this together? I’m wondering too! But, seriously, I think it’s the idea that under the label of “Spanish Apostolate” a tremendous amount of pastoral planning has been going on for years. In fact it’s in the Hispanic part of the Church where the most pastoral planning has been done.
Maybe it’s because Hispanics found themselves in a new place with strange customs and they had less resistance to change. Maybe, too, it’s because the hierarchy and clergy has had to face such a massive and rapid migration of Catholics of another tradition. Whatever . . . They say, necessity is the mother of invention. Well, the challenge posed by the Hispanic reality in the Church did produce a response—both unplanned and planned!
In fact, in 1972 when the first national Encuentro Hispano de Pastoral was convoked by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and held in Washington, it confidently and explicitly declared its purpose was to draft pastoral plan for the Hispanic Catholics of our country. And, in New York, I remember my own experience as Spanish-speaking apostolate director, very consciously about the business of a pastoral plan for the diocese.
In conclusion, it’s been a great thing to be invited to meet with pastoral planners, and a good thing that the association is aware and appreciative of the pastoral planning that Hispanics and other Spanish-speaking church personnel have been engaged in. I hope that this new collaboration and sharing can continue and grow and develop.
Thanks for being such good listeners!

(Published in
Clergy Report,
communication among the priests of the Archdiocese of New York,
8:9, November 1978)

The Archdiocese of New York and Hispanic Americans

[This paper was presented at a symposium on Religious Resources of the Traditions and Their Application to Contemporary Urban Problems, sponsored by the Institute for Religious and Social Studies, New York.]

Although the Americas were discovered and initially colonized under the aegis of the Catholic majesties of Spain, the thirteen British colonies that united to form this nation were, for the most part, of the faith of the church of England, of the churches of the reformation, or of the many Christian communities that grew up among these churches. This statement defines the limits of the degree of pluralism which is considered in the early definition of an American. Those who were beyond the pale of “British” and “Protestant” were segregated with rubrics such as “ethnic”. Perhaps in the early nineteenth century an Irish laborer, in Manhattan was an “ethnic”. Today, his descendants, now fairly comfortable within the limits defined by “American”, turn on other differences in cultural or national identity and stamp “ethnic” on these latest differences.
The Archdiocese of New York was established in 1808. Its bishops have been Concanen, Connolly, Dubois, Hughes, McCloskey, Corrigan, Farley, Hayes, Spellman, and Cooke. Be what may the parameters of ethnic for the larger American society, if the hierarchy may be taken as a valid indicator of the dominant identities among Catholic New Yorkers, ethnic for the Archdiocese of New York has meant almost anyone who was not of Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, or Irish descent. It is understandable that as German, Italian, French, Spanish, Polish, Hungarian, Croatian, Slovak, Lithuanian, and Chinese Catholic immigrants began to arrive in this area in increasing numbers that the Archdiocese of New York established ethnic or “national” parishes for them.

The Pastoral Challenge of the Hispanic American Migration

There have been Hispanic Americans in New York since the city was begun. In the period since the second world war, however, more than one million persons have migrated to the continental United States, and to the New York metropolitan region in particular, from Puerto Rico and the countries of Latin America. More than another million persons have been born here of those Hispanic American parents. Although this population is linguistically homogeneous, it is, in actuality from at least twenty different national origins. The majority of the Hispanics who are not Puerto Ricans are illegal aliens. Generally, these are the economically poorest ethnic or national group in both the New York metropolitan area and in the entire United States.
For the Catholic Church in New York this newest migration poses a serious pastoral challenge since the immigrants are overwhelmingly Catholic and, by right, members of the church. Sensitive and reflective ecclesiastical observers of this migration have called attention to the fact it is completely unlike previous ones. First, this was the first great inter-American migration the New York church had to face. Previous Catholic migrants came from Europe, from established churches and ancient cultures frequently bringing with them their own clergy to defend and strengthen their Catholic and national identity and to assist them in the struggle for recognition and place in the majority Protestant society. The newest arrivals however come from Latin America. They were formed by the Spanish colonial church, which usually had an inadequate supply of clergy, and which discouraged native vocations. As a result this was the first major Catholic migration that did not bring its own clergy. The Hispanic Americans were also perhaps the first immigrants arriving in New York to encounter a majority Catholic society; a society which was, for the most part, of another tradition, dominant language, and economic category. Finally, unlike previous ethnic groups in the city the Hispanic Americans did not settle in one or two clearly defined areas; but quickly spread throughout the city and the metropolitan region. There was no doubt. A new and creative pastoral response on the part of the Catholic Church in New York was clearly demanded.

Parishes for Hispanic Americans

The initial reaction of church authorities here to the increasing presence of Puerto Ricans and other Latin Americans was to utilize the tried and tested pastoral structure for immigrants, the national parish. After more data was acquired about the numbers of migrants and their dispersal throughout the area, a radically new approach to pastoral care was endorsed by Cardinal Francis Spellman: wherever Hispanic Americans lived, the local parish would adapt itself to them! Wherever necessary, parishes would begin to function in a bilingual, bicultural way. The implications of this pastoral decision were enormous: local clergy and religious would have to acquire new communication skills and adjunct, Spanish speaking clergy and religious would have to be recruited; all diocesan programs, offices, and agencies would have to begin to address themselves to a bilingual, bicultural reality; and these new immigrants would not be ecclesiastically isolated but involved immediately in the life of the local parish.
Today, more than twenty years later, more than one hundred of the local parishes of the Archdiocese of New York, over one quarter of the total number, are ministering to Hispanic Americans in their own language as well as in English.

The Coordinator of Spanish Catholic Action

To coordinate this new approach to pastoral ministry for Hispanic American Catholics and to develop new forms and structures for pastoral care and apostolic action, upon the recommendation of his vicar general, Monsignor John Maguire, Cardinal Spellman established the position of diocesan coordinator of “Spanish Catholic Action” in 1953. In later years the office expanded and developed new emphases and programs and became known successively as the office of the “Coordinator of Spanish Community Action” and of the “Director of the Spanish-speaking Apostolate”.

Formation of Church Personnel for the Pastoral Care of Hispanic Americans

One of the boldest initiatives taken by the Archdiocese of New York in confronting the challenge of the lack of clergy among Hispanic American Catholics was to train the diocesan priests, seminarians, and religious in the Spanish language and in Puerto Rican and Latin American culture. The first step was taken in 1953, 1954, and 1955 when each year two newly ordained priests of the archdiocese were sent for one year of residence and ministry in Puerto Rico; those same summers small groups of seminarians were sent there for similar purposes during the vacation recess. In 1956 there was an escalation: one half of the number of the newly ordained priests of the archdiocese were sent to Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. for an intensive, two-month, saturation training in spoken Spanish.
In 1956, counseled by Father Ivan lllich and Monsignor Maguire, Cardinal Spellman began annually to send one half of the class of newly ordained priests and a large group of seminarians and religious to  similar two-month program at the Catholic University in Ponce, Puerto Rico. However, in addition to their linguistic studies these students had other courses in Puerto Rican, Latin American, and American culture and in the particular problems of intercultural communication. Most of them remained on the island for a further month of residency and ministerial apprenticeship. In 1970 there was an expansion of the program to include pastoral experiences in the Dominican Republic, and in recent years formation and pastoral experiences have been provided in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, and Spain as well.
Both to prepare for this Puerto Rican experience and to sustain and continue the linguistic studies undertaken there, a weekly program of instruction in conversational Spanish during the academic year was initiated in New York in 1959. At Cardinal Hayes High School in the Bronx and occasionally at the archdiocesan seminary and other regional centers hundreds of priests, seminarians, religious, and lay persons have been trained by the archdiocese in the language skills necessary for service in the Hispanic American communities. A measure of the importance of these programs is the fact that their average annual operating cost to the archdiocese is $100,000.

The San Juan Fiesta

As a first step in recognition of the Hispanic American community in the New York church and in view of its overwhelmingly Puerto Rican majority, the first diocesan coordinator, Monsignor Joseph Connolly, recommended an archdiocesan observance of the feast of Saint John the Baptist in Spanish in the Cathedral of Saint Patrick. A pontifical Mass in Spanish was held there in 1953, 1954, and 1955. It was enlarged to a popular fiesta as well in 1956, celebrated 0n the Bronx campus of Fordham University. Due to the massive attendance and participation it was transferred to Downing Stadium on Randall’s Island the following year. For several years it occupied a unique place It was the only public manifestation of the faith and culture of Puerto Ricans and other Hispanic Americans in New York City. Later, other institutions developed such as the Desfile Puertoriqueño (the Puerto Rican Parade) and the Fiesta Folklórica Puertorriqueñno (the Puerto Rican Folk Festival), and the style, format, and popularity of the San Juan Fiesta underwent many transformations. It is still held each year, now in Central Park, with its liturgical, civic, and popular celebrations

The Cursillo de Cristiandad Movement

The second coordinator, Monsignor James Wilson, was very interested in bringing to New York a dynamic, new method of awakening lay responsibility in the church called the Cursillo de Cristiandad (the Brief Course in Christianity). It had been developed as a pastoral tool in Spain with great success there and later in Mexico. After an earlier, unsuccessful experiment the cursillos began to be given regularly in the archdiocese in the fall of 1960. It actually is a highly organized, three-day, study-retreat weekend with a strong emphasis on community experience. In content it addresses itself to the distortions and inadequacies of traditional popular Hispanic American Catholicism and to a theological understanding of the sacramental life, Christian maturity, and the responsibility of the lay person in the church After attending a cursillo, the average participant is enthused, highly motivated, and disposed to active involvement in the apostolate in his local parish.
The movement caught on immediately. By December, 1961, the archdiocese established Saint Joseph’s Center on West 142nd Street in Manhattan for the cursillo movement and other works of formation; the Spanish, Augustinian Recollect priests undertook its staffing. In the past fifteen years several thousand lay men and women have attended a cursillo, and hundreds of them have received further and specialized formation for the apostolate in the associated programs of the cursillo movement at Saint Joseph’s Center.

Utilization of the Mass Media

Because of the size of the New York Hispanic American community, over the years, Spanish language daily and weekly newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations have been developed to serve it. Monsignor Wilson began the utilization of the mass media, especially the press, for the diffusion of religious information. Under the third coordinator, Monsignor Robert Fox, occasional televised liturgies and radio programs were prepared for special religious feast days. Father Robert Stern, the fourth coordinator, initiated a weekly radio and television broadcast of the Sunday liturgy and a series of ecumenical programs as well. This expanded attention to the mass media led to the appointment of a Coordinator for Spanish Media in the archdiocesan Department of Communications.

Ministry in Rural Areas

As the Hispanic American population of the city increased, many migrants began to settle in smaller cities and towns to the North. Because of the presence of so many Hispanic American Catholics in the Haverstraw, Newburgh, and Beacon areas, the archdiocese invited a group of Spanish women religious to work among these scattered families, complementing the ministry of the local parishes. Later a residence and center were established in Cornwall as the base of their apostolate. In 1970 Father Neil Graham was assigned to coordinate the Spanish speaking apostolate of the archdiocese in a four county area. This furthered the development of pastoral programs for Hispanic Americans in the rural areas and gave better direction to the work of the women religious.
Another specialized program of ministry was begun in the summer of 1968 for the migrant farm workers in Orange County. Several hundred Black, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican farm laborers work in the area in the summer months, and a minority of them are there for the entire year. The summer program was expanded with the appointment of a full-time priest to this ministry in the fall of 1969. Masses were celebrated at different work locations, and sacramental, counseling, and social services were provided. Later the program continued on a reduced scale with one full-time woman religious.

The Christian Family Movement

Out of a concern for strengthening the family life of Hispanic Americans, a small task force convoked by Father Stern in 1970 recommended the development of a specialized apostolate for married couples. This program would provide the occasion and climate for regular sharing and dialogue with other couples about the ideals, challenges, and problems of Christian marriage and family life. This archdiocesan program, the Movimiento Familiar Cristiano, has slowly developed to include a few hundred married couples in several key areas of the archdiocese.
Also, at Saint Joseph’s Center, and later through the Movimiento Familiar Cristiano as well a specialized program, designed in Spain, to strengthen communications and unity among married couples, the Encuentro Conjugal (Marriage Encounter), was introduced into the diocese and to the United States. Several hundred Hispanic American couples have attended these weekend encounter sessions.

Youth Ministry

A similar concern for older teenagers and young adults led to the formation of another task force and later the development by Father Stern of a specialized program of formation and group development for youth leaders, the Movimiento Juvenil (Youth Movement). Another priest was appointed to the full-time post of coordinator of youth ministry, Father José McCarthy, O.F.M. Cap., and training in group process and dynamics, leadership skills, and reflection on the Gospel message was offered to parish and local youth groups throughout the city. A program of weekend workshops and retreats was developed and outside funding was obtained to expand the services to the youth groups.
Other programs of specialized youth apostolates and weekend workshops for young adults were offered for a while at Saint Joseph’s Center, and recently, under the fifth coordinator, Father Joaquín Beaumont, a weekend retreat movement for Hispanic American young people was established and has been very successful

Lay Formation Programs

During 1970 still another task force assembled by Father Stern began to explore the development of programs to awaken Hispanic American adults to the implications of Christian adulthood and preparing them to assume responsibility for the work of the Gospel. The main results of this effort was the publication of a series of home-centered dialogues and para-liturgies concerning the basics of Christian faith called “Luz y Vida” (Light and Life). Through the collaboration of lay leaders of the cursillo movement, this program began to be implemented throughout the archdiocese in the local parishes.

Seminarian Exchange Program

The earlier efforts of the archdiocese to serve Hispanic Americans were largely Puerto Rican oriented. The second next largest national group in the area is the Dominicans. In 1970 contacts were made by the archdiocesan coordinator with the Catholic hierarchy in the Dominican Republic to seek their assistance for the pastoral care of Dominican migrants to New York. That summer sixteen seminarians from the dioceses of the Dominican Republic came to New York and spent their summer vacation period working in local parishes and diocesan programs. This was repeated for the next few years.

Archdiocesan Coordinating Committee

When the central archdiocesan office for Hispanic American affairs was reorganized by Cardinal Terence Cooke in 1969, the newly appointed Director of the Spanish-speaking Apostolate immediately began to create structures to promote the broadest possible participation in planning and development on the part of existing church leaders, clerical, religious, and lay, in the Hispanic American Catholic community. Twelve task forces were organized to direct attention to corresponding areas of ministry or concern. A central coordinating committee initially composed of the task force chair persons and later of those church personnel having a special responsibility for movements, programs, or institutions at the service of the Spanish speaking apostolate was set up. This committee met at least monthly, usually for an entire day, and over a period of three years gradually matured into an effective organism of consultation, planning, and coordination. It also had the effect of introducing more Hispanic Americans, especially lay persons, into leadership on the diocesan level.

Leadership Formation Programs

A special project of the coordinating committee in 1972 was the organization of a pastoral institute concerned with the formation and training of lay men and women for leadership in the apostolate and ministry: This resulted in the opening in early 1973 of the Instituto Hispano de Formación Pastoral (the Hispanic Institute for Pastoral Formation), an academic program conducted one evening a week for lay leadership formation involving courses in theology, scripture, church history, sociology, and other related disciplines and in particular pastoral skills. To date a few hundred select parish leaders have had up to three years each of training in this program.
In the summer of 1975 the archdiocesan program for preparation for ordination to the diaconate was expanded to include a Spanish language program as well. A diocesan advisory committee and an associate program director for Hispanic Americans were appointed, and in 1976 the first permanent deacons from the Hispanic American community were ordained by Cardinal Cooke in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral. This new program is significant in that it provides for Hispanic Americans, especially mature married men of proven competence in parish and diocesan ministry, entrance into the clergy of the archdiocese.

Recruitment of Spanish Adjunct Clergy

At the beginning of 1977 a delegation of archdiocesan officials including the sixth diocesan coordinator, Father Ignacio Lazcano, C.R.L., went to Spain to establish official contacts with the Spanish hierarchy for the contractual loan of Spanish diocesan clergy to the Archdiocese of New York for ministry here for specified periods of years. This supplements previous contacts and agreements with major religious superiors of several Spanish-based religious orders having houses here concerning the loan of clergy for other than their own ministries in the archdiocese.

This sketch of the initiatives of the Archdiocese of New York in response to the challenge of the massive migration of Hispano-Americans to the New York area omits a thousand details and hundreds of names. It does not reveal the full scope of the deployments of all of the existing institutional resources of the archdiocese for Hispanic Americans: the multifaceted programs of the hundreds of local parishes, the schools, hospitals, social service and child-caring agencies and institutions, and the specialized and varied archdiocesan services. It draws attention only to the new and specifically Hispanic American oriented institutions and programs developed as a direct consequence of the new presence of Hispanic Americans in the archdiocese.
Presently, the majority of the baptized Roman Catholics in the Archdiocese of New York are Hispanic American. One satisfaction that they may have is that rarely in the history, of the Catholic Church has so much been mobilized and realized in so short a period of time for an “ethnic” group. One dissatisfaction that they may have is that, although they are fairly well served as a client laity by a clergy that is not their own, this situation tends to resist change. The Hispanic Americans seem to be inadequately represented in leadership and decision-making roles, and entrance into them is still not widely facilitated. The challenge of the Hispano-American migration to the Catholic Church of New York has been fairly well recognized. The contribution that the Hispanic Americans can make to that church is only beginning to be realized.

(Published in
Migration Today, V:3, June 1977)

Ecclesiology in the Canon Law Code

[A doctoral dissertation in Canon Law by Robert L. Stern published by the Pontifical Lateran University, Institute of Both Laws, as The Catholic Church as a Moral Person by Divine Ordinance. Rome: Pontificia Universitas Lateranensis, 1965]


PREFACE

The whole Church is stirred these days of the Second Vatican Council by the spirit of aggiornamento, but one less fortunate concomitant of the wide-spread desire for the renewal of institutions and doctrine is a certain disparagement of the role of canon law. Often the cry is raised that we are plagued by a “juridicism” in our thinking and in our theology. If this be the case, perhaps the solution would be not exaggeratedly to reject the role of canon law and the juridical order in the Church, but to seek a balanced appreciation of its place and function.
The codification of canon law given to the Church in 1917 was in a certain sense the beginning of an aggiornamento. It is only natural, however, that forty-eight years later, with a continued renewal in other disciplines as well, certain necessary limitations of this work have become apparent. Especially noticeable in this time when insights into ecclesiology are growing rapidly is the influence of a late nineteenth century apologetic theology of the Church, as well as a philosophically orientated analysis of society and social structures, upon certain basic canons in the Code of Canon Law. Perhaps more than any others, these canons – or their too rigid interpretation – provoke the regrettable exaggerated reaction to canon law.
A statement in canon 100, § 1, may well be considered as touching the heart of the matter when it applies dogmatically a juridic category to the whole Church. The interest of this investigation is to explore that statement, its sources, and its interpretation, in the hope that a sound juridic meaning may be established in no way conflicting with the best modern teaching on the nature of the Church and of use in the interpretation of other parts of the code.
This study touches upon points of public ecclesiastical law, dogmatic theology, philosophy, history, and semantics; yet the author is well aware that he is expert in none of these fields. Rather than elaborate the doctrines of perfect society, moral personality, and of the nature of the Church, they will be presumed and accepted as commonly presented. This study pretends only to apply them or juxtapose them in such a way so as to shed light on a certain consistent oversight in the interpretation of canon 100. What the oversight may be or the value of exposing it remains to be seen.

I.
THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION
AND STATE OF THE QUESTION

The second book of the Code of Canon Law is concerned with persons, and in an introductory section of twenty-one canons basic principles concerning physical and moral persons and their juridic acts are presented. One of the four canons on moral persons begins by stating that “the catholic Church and the Apostolic See have the nature of a moral person by divine ordinance; . . .” (canon 100, § 1). At first one tends almost to pass over this introductory phrase to attend more to the detailed prescriptions that follow about the establishment of moral persons in the Church and their legal competence. However upon further consideration certain points catch the attention “Divine ordinance” is a strong expression, for it predicates something of the Church and the Apostolic See by the will of God. Yet this predicate, moral personality, is a juridical concept that has had a long history and evolution and whose definition is still much controverted. In what sense then can it be applied to two divinely established realities? And, how can what is a supernatural mystery, that is, the Church, be accommodated to a legal category?

The Purpose of the Study

The presumption is, of course, that every statement of the code is logical and meaningful. Therefore the problem here is not that of rejecting the statement of canon 100 but that of exploring it and arriving at its true meaning. Actually there are two points of equal importance and scope involved in the phrase of the canon, but this study will be confined to only one of them: to investigate the meaning of the phrase, “the catholic Church . . . has the nature of a moral person by divine ordinance.” Not only must the force of the expression, “by divine ordinance,” be judged, but it must be determined how immediately the Lord established the Church as a moral person. Also a reasonable theory of moral personality must be agreed upon that can be applicable to the catholic Church. And most important of all, the meaning of the word, “Church,” in this canon must be clarified.
An accurate understanding of this canon is essential to the interpretation of several other significant canons of the code. For example, canon 1495, § 1, offers an immediate consequence of the divinely established moral personality of the Church, its native and independent right to acquire, retain, and administer temporal goods. Of even greater interest, though, is the insight this canon gives to the ecclesiology of the code itself. For, as will be seen, it is perhaps the key statement in the establishing of a juridic concept of the Church.

The Method of the Study

To arrive at the meaning of any law is not an arbitrary procedure; canon 18 gives clear principles for interpretation. Also there is a certain order that should be followed in seeking the meaning of any ecclesiastical law that is dictated by both the provisions of canon 18 and the prudent use of reason. The first point to be considered is the proper meaning of the words of the law considered in their text and context. Words should be taken first in their natural and usual meaning as they occur in common speech and then in their normal and usual juridic sense. Especially useful to determine the latter is a careful consideration of the full text of the law and the broad context in which it is found. In certain instances it may be useful to assess the force of a juridic term in the context of the entire code, especially when there is much ambiguity in its use. To resolve any doubt or obscurity that may still remain recourse may be had to parallel places in the code where other canons legislate the same or similar matter or refer to the same person or thing; to the purpose of the law as indicated by the law itself or by the prudent conjecture of authorities; to the circumstances of the law, that is, the occasion for the law, the time and place when the law was given, and perhaps to preliminary drafts of the law, although they do not have any authoritative value; and finally to that most elusive of all criteria, the mind of the legislator-in other words, to general principles of law know to him and presumed to have been used by him.(( Ludovicus Bender, Legum Ecciesiasticarum Interpretatio et Suppletio (Rome: Desclée & Ci, 1961), pp. 120-170.)) A consideration of antecedent circumstances such as the origin and historical evolution of the law and of subsequent ones such as the common opinion of interpreters, custom, and practice can also be of supplementary value.(( Lorenzo Miguélez Domínguez, Sabino Alonso Morán, and Marcelino Cabreros de Anta, Código de Derecho Canónico y Legislación Complementaria (seventh edition. Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, No. 7. Madrid: La Editorial Católica, S.A., 1962), p. 13. ))
In this study, after an introductory survey of the state of the question, that is to say, after a broad survey of the opinion of representative canonical commentators on the meaning of canon 100, § 1, and the terms it employs, an application of these principles of interpretation will be made concretely. A special interest will be taken in the meaning of the term, “church,” for a detailed study of its juridical use will reveal a tremendous ambiguity and variety of meaning. After a limited study of certain parallel places in the code and a brief reference to the similar law legislated for the Eastern Churches, a detailed examination of the sources of the canon will be made. Here what will be of greatest interest is the lack of direct relation between the sources and the wording of the canon: the sources will be shown exclusively to be dedicated to an apologetic presentation of the theory of the perfect society and its application to the Church without any explicit reference at all to the idea of moral personality. Finally some provocative conjectures may be made about the intention of the legislator after examining two preliminary drafts of the code itself.
The conclusion of this study will be the resolution of these difficulties, especially concerning the meaning of the term, “church,” in the code and in this canon, concerning the relationship between the notions of perfect society and moral personality, concerning the force of the expression, “by divine ordinance,” and concerning the divergent opinions of canonical commentators. Finally a consistent and meaningful interpretation of the phrase of canon 100 under discussion will be proposed.

Review of the Literature

An exhaustive survey of published canonical opinion on any point of law is usually possible, although not without difficulties. However, for the present needs, a wide, representative selection of canonical commentators is certainly adequate. For the purpose of this study almost all standard works on the entire code were consulted, as well as many studies in ecclesiastical public law and pertinent monographs on moral personality. Since the interest is in the interpretation of the law as it appears in the code and not in the point of law as it develops in ecclesiastical legislation, the survey of published works is confined exclusively to the period since the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law.

Commentary on canon 100, § 1

The treatment of canon 100 by canonical authors is very varied; ranging from extensive consideration to nothing at all.

Authors without comment. Perhaps the most interesting general observation that can be made after surveying canonical manuals and studies is how little attention the first part of canon 100, § 1, receives. A very large number of authors who explicitly treat the canon or who are concerned with moral persons in ecclesiastical law say nothing at all other than to repeat or paraphrase the statement of the canon itself. For example, in the period before the second world war, one could cite Stutz((Ulrich Stutz Der Geist des Codex iuris canonici (Stuttgart Verlag von Ferdinand Enke,1918), p 201.)), Badii((Caesar Badii, Institutiones Iuris Canonici in Usum Scholarum (second edition. Florence: “Libreria Editrice Fiorentina,” 1921) Vol. I, pp. 87-88.)), De Meester((A. De Meester, Juris Canonici et Juris Canonico-civilis Compendium (second edition. Bruges: Typis Societatis Sancti Augustini. 1921), Vol. I, pp. 220-221)), Leitner((Martin Leitner, Handbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts auf Grund des neuen Kodex. vom 28 Juni 1917 (second edition. Regensburg: Verlag Josef Kösel & Friedrich Pustet Komm.=gef., 1921), Vol. I, pp. 72-76.)), Haring((Johann B Haring Gründzuge des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Graz: Verlag von Ulrich Mosers Buchhandlung, 1924), Vol. I, pp. 5-8.)), Hilling((Nikolaus. Hilling. Das Personenrecht des Codex luris Canonici (Paderborn: Druck und Verlag von Ferdinand Schöningh, 1924), p. 2.)), Falco((Mario Falco, Introduzione allo Studio del “Codex luris Canonici” (Turin: Fratelli Bocca, Editori, 1925), pp. 133-140.)), Hohenlohe(( Konstantin Hohenlohe, “Die Lehre des Kirchenrechtes über die moralische Person,” Papstrecht und weltliches Recht (Vienna: Verlags-anstalt Tyrolia, 1925), pp. 24-36.)), Sägmüller((Johannes Baptist Sägmüller, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (fourth edition. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder & Co. G.M.B.H. Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1925), pp. 303-309.)) , Koeniger((Albert M. Koeniger, Katholisches Kirchenrecht (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder & Co. G.M.B.H. Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1926), pp. 93-94; 370-372.)), Munerati((Dantes M. Munerati, luris Ecclesiastici Publici et Privati Elementa (fourth edition. Rome: ex Schola Typographica Salesiana, 1926), p. 115.)), Gillet((Pierre Gillet, La Personnalité Juridique en Droit Ecclésiastique (Mechlin: W. Godenne, imprimeur-éditeur, 1927), p. 238.)), Jemolo((Arturo Carlo Jemolo, Elementi di Diritto Ecclesiastico (Florence: Vallecchi Editore, 1927), p. 62.)), Prümmer((Dominicus M. Prümmer, Manuale luris Canonici in Usum Scholarum (fifth edition. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder & Co., 1927), pp. 75-76.)), Bareille((Georges Bareille, Code du Droit Canonique (second edition. Montréjeau: Éditions Cardeilhac-Soubiron, 1929), pp. 25-26.)), Vermeersch((A. Vermeersch, “De Personae Moralis Origine seu Constitutione,” Jus Pontificium, X (1930), p. 290; “De Persona Morali,” Periodica de Re Morali, Canonica, Liturgica, XIV (1935), pp. 1°-17°; A. Vermeersch and I. Creusen, Epitome luris Canonici cum Commentariis (eighth edition. Revised by Aem. Burgh and I. Greco, Mechlin: H. Dessain, 1963), Vol. I, p. 223.)), Oesterle((Gerard Oesterle, Praelectiones luris Canonici (Rome: Collegio S. Anselmi, 1931), pp. 61-64.)), Perathoner((Anton Perathoner, Das kirchliche Gesetzbuch (Codex juris canonici) (fifth edition. Bressanone: Verlag von A. Weger’s Buchhandlung und fb. Hofbuchdruckerei, 1931), pp. 80-82.)), Raus((J. B. Raus, Institutiones Canonicae juxta Novum Codicem Juris pro Scholis vel ad Usum Privatum Synthetice Redactae (second edition. Lyons: Typis Emmanuelis Vitte, 1931), pp. 85-86.)), Cance and Arquer((Adriano Cance and Miguel de Arquer, El Código de Derecho Canónico. Comentario Completo y Práctico de Todos sus Canones para Uso de Eclesiásticos y Hombres de Leyes (Barcelona: Editorial Litúrgica Española, S.A., 1934), Vol. I, pp. 82-84.)), Ferreres((Juan B. Ferreres, Instituciones Canónicas (fifth edition. Barcelona: Eugenio Subira Juan B. Ferreres, Instituciones Canónicas (fifth edition. Barcelona: Eugenio Subiraña, S.A., 1934), Vol. I, pp. 99-101.)), Torrubiano((Jaime Torrubiano Ripoll, Novísimas Instituciones de Derecho Canónico (second edition. Madrid: “Librería Universidad,” 1934), Vol. I, pp. 136-139.)), Retzbach((Anton Retzbach, Das Recht der katholischen Kirche nach dem Codex luris Canonici (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder & Co. G.m.b.H. Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1935), pp. 26-28.)), del Giudice((Vincenzo del Giudice, Istituzioni di Diritto Canonico (third edition. Milan: Dott. A. Giuffrè – editore, 1936), pp. 46-47; Corso di Diritto Ecclesiastico (fourth edition. Milan: Dott. A. Giuffrè – editore, 1939), p. 34.)), Cavigioli((Giovanni Cavigioli, Manuale di Diritto Canonico (second edition. Turin: Società Editrice Internazionale, 1939), pp. 166-175.)), Mathis((Burkhard Mathis, Das katholische Kirchenrecht für den Laien (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1940), pp. 82-85.)), and Romani((Sylvii Romani, Propaedeutica Juris Canonici et Juris Publici Ecclesiastici Elementa (Rome: apud auctorem, 1940), pp. 58-59; Institutiones Juris Canonici (Rome: apud auctorem, 1941), pp. 144-146.)); all of whom, at least in the works indicated, betray the same oversight perhaps or do not see any difficulties at all in considering the Church a divinely instituted moral person. Even more recently manuals and commentaries newly published or published in revised edition do not treat the point at all; for example, those of Goyeneche((S. Goyeneche, Juris Canonici Summa Principia (Rome: tip. pol. “Cuore di Maria”), pp. 135-138.)), Naz((Raoul Naz, Traité de Droit Canonique (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1946), Vol. I, pp. 243-249; “Personnes Morales d’après là Réglementation du Code,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique (Paris: Librarie Letouzey et Ané, 1957), Vol. VI, cols. 1420-1438.)), Hamilton((Carlos Hamilton, Manual de Derecho Canónico (Santiago de Chile: Editorial Jurídica de Chile, 1949), pp. 190-193.)), Hanig((Alois Hanig, “Das juridische Wesen der, moralischen Personen,” Ephemerides luris Canonici, V (1949), pp. 44-88; 163-201.)), Jombart((Emile Jombart, Manuel de Droit Canonique (Paris: Beauchesne et ses fils, 1949), pp. 68-69.)), Petroncelli((Mario Petroncelli, Lineamenti di Diritto Canonico (third edition. Naples: “Humus” di B. Pellerano – S. del Gaudio, 1949), pp. 61-68.)), Cance((Adrien Cance, Le Code de Droit Canonique. Commentaire Succinct et Pratique (eighth edition. Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie., editeurs, 1950), Vol. I, pp. 116-119).)), Ebers((Godehard Jos. Ebers, Grundriss des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Vienna: Manzsche Verlags-und Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1950), pp. 245-247.)), Jannaccone((Constantino Jannaccone, “La Personalità Giuridica della Chiesa,” Studi in Onore di Vincenzo del Giudice (Milan: Dott. A. Giuffrè – editore, 1953), Vol. I, p. 485.)), le Roy((F. le Roy, “La Personnalité Juridique du Saint-Siège et de l’Église Catholique en Droit International,” L’Année Canonique (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1953), Vol. II, pp. 125-137.)), Marchesi((Franciscus M. Marchesi, Summula luris Canonici ad Usum Scholarum (Alba: Editiones Paulinae, 1954), Vol. I, pp. 100-104.)), Eichmann and Mörsdorf((Eduard Eichmann, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts auf Grund des Codex luris Canonici (Revised by Klaus Mörsdorf. Paderborn: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 1959), Vol. I, pp. 201-219.)), Cappello((Felix M. Cappello, Summa luris Canonici in Usum Scholarum Concinnata (sixth edition. Rome: Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1961), Vol. I, pp. 187-197; Summa luris Publici Ecclesiastici ad Normam Codicis luris Canonici et Recentiorum S. Sedis Documentorum Concinnata (sixth edition. Rome: apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1954), PP. 36-45.)), Voigt((Alfred Voigt, Kirchenrecht (Neuwied am Rhein: Hermann Luchterhand Verlag GmbH, 1961), pp. 114-117.)), Miguélez, Alonso, and Cabreros((Miguélez, Alonso, and Cabreros, op. cit., pp. 41-42.)), Schmitz((Heribert Schmitz, Die Gesetzessystematik des Codex luris Canonici Liber I – III (Munich: Max Hueber Verlag, 1963), pp. 52-53.)), Woywod((Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (Revised and enlarged 1962 edition. Revised by Callistus Smith. New York: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1963), pp. 58-60.)), and Ranaudo((Arcangelo Ranaudo, “Nozione, Classificazione, Elementi Costitutivi delle Persone Morali Ecclesiastiche nel Diritto Canonico e alcune Particolari loro Caratteristiche,” Monitor Ecclesiasticus, LXXXIX (1964), pp. 477-525.)).

Authors with little comment. One might consider as another group those authors who give some slight attention to the point but who say very little indeed. For example: Maroto observes that the catholic Church is a collegiate moral person((Philippus Maroto, Institutiones luris Canonici ad Normam Novi Codicis (Madrid: Editorial del Corazón de María, 1919), p. 541.)), and in this he is joined by Toso((Albertus Toso, Ad Codicem Juris Canonici Benedicti XV Pont. Max. Auctoritate Promulgatum Comrnentaria Minora Comparativa Methodo Digesta (Rome: Ephemeridis Jus Pontificium, 1922), Vol. I, (1), 1, pp. 40-41.)), Crnica((Antonio Crnica, Commentarium Theoretico-practicum Codicis luris Canonici (Šibenik: Typis Typographiae “Kačič,” 1940), Vol. I, p. 123.)), and Regatillo((Eduardus F. Regatillo, Institutiones luris Canonici (sixth edition. Santander: Editorial “Sal Terrae,” 1961), Vol. I, p. 163.)), Santamarfa notes only that the catholic Church is a moral person of divine right because of having been constituted by Christ((Federico Santamaría Peña, Comentarios al Código Canónico (Madrid: Imprenta del sucesor de Enrique Teodoro, 1920), Vol. I, p. 133.)), and in this he is followed by Arteche((Gonzalo Arteche B., El Código de Derecho Canónico Traducido y Comentado (Santiago de Chile: Imprenta “San Francisco,” 1944), Vol. I, pp. 99-101.)). Some comments on the canon refer to proposition nineteen of the Syllabus of Errors where the Church is stated to be a true and perfect society independently enjoying the rights given to it by its divine founder((Pius PP. IX, “Syllabus errorum (a. 1864),” Codicis luris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus. Card. Gasparri. Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1928), Vol. II, p. 1002.)); for example, those of Blat((Albertus Blat, Commentarium Textus Codicis Iuris Canonici (second edition. Rome: Libreria Editrice Religiosa, 1921), Vol. II, pp. 34-40.)), Cocchi((Guidus Cocchi, Commentarium in Codicem luris Canonici ad Usum Scholarum (Turin: Marietti, 1922), Vol. II, pp. 28-29.)), and Blanco((Francisco Blanco Nájera, El Código de Derecho Canónico Traducido y Comentado (Cadiz: Establecimientos Cerón y Libreria Cervantes, S.L., 1942), p. 83.)). The divine ordinance mentioned in the canon is specifically referred to the doctrine of the perfect society by several authors, though they somewhat ignore the point of moral personality or perhaps presume it to be identified with the notion of perfect society: Augustine sketches the divine foundation of the Church and say that such a moral person (!) is called a perfect society((Chas. Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law (fifth edition. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1928), Vol. II, pp. 3-9.)); according to Wernz and Vidal the divine ordinance consists in the fact that the Church was established by its founder as a true, perfect, supreme, and independent society((Franciscus Xavier Wernz and Petrus Vidal, lus Canonicum (third edition. Revised by Philippus Aguirre. Rome: Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1943), Vol. II, p. 37.)); and the same point is alluded to by Claeys Bouuaert(( Claeys Bouuaert and G. Simenon, Manuale Juris Canonici ad Usum Seminariorum (third edition. Ghent: prostat apud auctores in seminariis Gandanensi et Leodiensi, 1930), Vol. I, p. 147.)) and made by Brys((J. Brys, Juris Canonici Compendium (tenth edition. Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer et Sii, 1947), Vol. I, p. 199.)), Jone((Heriberto Jone, Commentarium in Codicem Iuris Canonici (Paderborn: Officina Libraria F. Schöningh, 1950), Vol. I, p. 110)), Romani((Sylvii Romani, Elementa Juris Ecclesiastici Fundamentalis in Seminariorum Usum (fourth edition. Rome: “Mater Cleri” Editrix, 1953), pp. 165-206.)) (in a later work than the two previously cited), and Abbo and Hannan((J0hn A. Abbo and Jerome D. Hannan, The Sacred Canons (revised edition. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), Vol. I, p. 145.)). Interestingly enough it is only, Fedele in his recent book who explicitly relates the notions of moral person and perfect society:

Since, according to the common teaching of ecclesiastical public legal dogma, the concept of a societas iuridice perfecta postulates that of juridic personality, the Church, no less than the State, being a juridically perfect society, cannot but be considered as a juridic person. This qualification is derived “ex ipsa ordinatione divina,” to use the expression of can. 100, § 1 of the Codex luris Canonici, while the State is a juridic person by natural law((Pio Fedele, Lo Spirito del Diritto Canonico (Padua: CEDAM – Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani, 1962), p. 125.)).

Further brief observations are made by Gillet, who notes only that Christ conceded determined rights to the universal Church((P. Gillet, “Notio et Divisiones Personae Moralis in Codice,” Collectanea Mechliniensia, XVII (1928), pp. 465-466.)); and by Regatillo, who states that Christ is the cause or author giving personality to the catholic Church, that is, the society of all the faithful under the Roman Pontiff((Regatillo, op. cit., p. 164. )). Romani calls the Church itself an ecclesiastical moral person((Romani, Elementa Juris Ecclesiastici Fundamentalis in Seminariorum Usum (op. cit.), p. 139.)); Hanig calls the universal Church a non-collegiate moral person((Alois Hanig, “Das ontologische Wesen moralischer Personen nach dem ‘Codex luris Canonici’,” Ephemerides luris Canonici, IV (1948), p. 217.)); Lammeyer considers the Church a moral person “sui generis”((Joseph Lammeyer, Die juristischen Personen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1929), pp. 183-185.)); and Ciprotti establishes the juridical personality of the universal Church on the doctrine of the Mystical Body((Pio Ciprotti, Lezioni di Diritto Canonico (Padua: CEDAM – Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani, 1943), p. 199.)).

Authors with extended comment. A certain few canonists do give a more detailed treatment to canon 100 in their expositions, and it will be of value to examine them somewhat extensively.
After a preliminary discussion of what he considers to be the two main categories to which all theories of moral personality can be reduced, that of fiction and that of reality, and after presenting his preference for the former((B. Ojetti, Commentarium in Codicem Iuris Canonici (Rome: apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1928), Vol. II, pp. 107-109.)), Ojetti observes:

Just as for the Romans the Roman people itself was always thought of and held to be a moral person independently of any act of public authority . . . but from the sole fact of its constitution as a political and perfect society; so a fortiori the Christian people, Christianity itself, or the Church of Christ is a moral person, independently of any act of the social authority of the Church or, even more so, of an outside authority, but from the sole fact of its constitution as a religious and perfect society((Ibid., p. 120.)).

The Church is constituted as a society in itseit complete and perfect by Christ, and so, Ojctti continues it must be free and independent from civil society((Ibid., p. 121.)). Finally in an “Excursus on Canon 100” he shows how public, international, and private rights, patrimonial, administrative, and the like, flow from the Church as a perfect society((Ibid., pp. 126-132.)).
Conte a Coronata too concludes from the Church’s being a juridically perfect society to its moral personality:

From the proof of the juridic perfection and the absolute majority or independence of the society of the Church it necessarily follows that the Church itself is a moral or juridic person independently of any recognition by a civil State((Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, lus Publicum Ecclesiasticum (second edition. Turin: Marietti, 1934), p. 62.)).

He adds too that the Church is a collegiate person((Ibid., p. 64.)). In a later work this same argument is expanded and related more directly to the divine will:

. . . from the very institution of the Church, that is, from this, that the Church is constituted by Christ as a visible, indefectible, necessary, and hierarchical society with a purpose and means as well as with an authority and proper form of rule, it follows that the Church itself is a juridic person or subject of rights and duties from the positive will of Christ independently from any human sanction and will((Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Compendium luris Canonici (sixth edition. Rome: Marietti, 1963), Vol. I, p. 20.)).

Bertrams has an entirely different approach to the question. He considers the exercise of rights and duties by the Church, its social activity, in relation to its supernatural end; from this end he derives the Church’s personality; since the supposit is not of the physical order but of the moral order, the Church has the nature of a moral person((W. Bertrams, “Dc Origine Personae Moralis in Ecciesia,” Periodica de Re Morali, Canonica, Liturgica, XXXVI (1947), pp. 169-184.)). In a later article this somewhat difficult theory is more clearly developed:

The Church, whether thought of as a social union or as a juridic institution, constitutes a unity of order and an intentional hypostasis for social relations; ultimately it is this intentional hypostasis that is the subject to which the rights and obligations of the Church are attributed. These social relations as well as these rights and obligations are of the supernatural order, since they are directed to a supernatural end. Hence the personality of the Church is a personality in the supernatural order; because of the supernatural aspect the personality of the Church has an institutional character: the Catholic Church has the nature of a moral person by divine ordinance (can. 100, § 1((Wilhelmus Bertrams, “De Personalitatis Moralis in lure Canonico Natura Metaphysica,” Periodica De Re Morali, Canonica, Liturgica, XLVIII (1959), p 224.)).

A very extensive treatment of the moral personality of the Church is offered by Michiels. After presenting a resume of the history of this doctrine(( Gommarus Michiels, Principia Generalia de Personis in Ecclesia (second edition. Tournai: Desclée & Ci., 1955), pp. 353-354.)), he offers the statement of canon 100, § 1, as a “fundamental constitutive principle of the Church itself; . . . the Church itself,” he says, “by divine institution is a juridically perfect society, endowed with a perfect juridic personality . . .”((Ibid., p. 371.)) Although he feels that this is an essentially dogmatic thesis to be supposed from theology and public ecclesiastical law, he notes:

In the first place, this is affirmed of the catholic Church, understanding of the universal Church, in so far as it is a universality, which “results from the group of the faithful subjects and of the group of rulers, or of the Church not only ruled (taught) but also ruling (teaching).”
. . . The Catholic Church is a moral person by divine ordinance or by virtue of its divine institution. Therefore and to that extent the Catholic Church is a subject of rights, because and to the extent that Jesus Christ established and determined it, by founding and instituting it as a juridically perfect religious society of the supernatural order, supreme and independent in its sphere((Ibid., p. 372.)).

Finally Michiels refers to the difference of opinion as to whether the Church is a collegiate or non-collegiate moral person, but he dismisses it as a mere terminological question((Ibid., p. 373.)).
A more critical appraisal of the common canonical teaching is given by d’Avack in his book((Pietro Agostino d’Avack, Corso di Diritto Canonico (Milan: Dott. A. Giuffrè – editore, 1956), Vol. I, pp. 129-162.)) and substantially repeated in his article for the Enciclopedia del Diritto. After pointing out that even for the early canonists the Church was seen as a moral person, he claims that:

From this time the juridic personality of the Church not only was not questioned but came to be an almost axiomatic principle for all canonical doctrine, which today the actual writers consider as coming as a natural and necessary attribute of its nature as societas iuridice perfecta((Pietro Agostino d’Avack, “Chiesa. I. – Chiesa cattolica, a) Diritto canonico,” Enciclopedia del Diritto (Milan: Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore, 1960), Vol. VI, p. 930.)).
. . . it is natural that the canonists do not even .raise the question of the existence of the juridical personality of the Church and that, having demonstrated its nature to be of the primary order, they retain that this follows automatically as a logical and necessary consequence “ex solo facto eius constitutionis in societatem religiosam et perfectam.”((Ibid., p. 931.))

Unfortunately, after making such a provocative observation, d’Avack does not raise the question to any extent either!
Bender, after discussing at length the nature of a moral person, states that Christ explicitly instituted a moral person by his divine authority when he founded his one and universal Church. The catholic Church, then, is a moral person consisting of all the faithful or consisting of men; therefore it is a collegiate moral person((Ludovicus Bender, Normae Generales de Personis (Rome: Desclée & Ci, 1957), pp. 142-143.)). In this approach, the complication of the notion of the juridically perfect society is not explicitly introduced. He tries to anticipate the problem raised by the application of such a juridic term when he writes:

Christ, instituting the Church as a juridically perfect society at a time when societies were not considered in law as moral persons or at a time when the concept of moral person was unknown, founded the Church, which at that time was not a moral person but was by divine institution of such a nature that at the moment in which societies began to be considered in law as collegiate moral persons it began to be a moral person and indeed by divine institution((Ibid., p. 146.)).

The result of a total consideration of his views does show a certain inconsistency. The problem remains how Christ can be said to have explicitly founded the Church as a moral person.
In a recent and ample commentary Cabreros does not attempt to maintain this latter position, but goes even further than Bender:

By divine institution the “catholic Church” is a collegiate moral person, that is to say, the community of all the Christian faithful in obedience to the Roman Pontiff; the hierarchy and the people, those who rule and those who obey, the teachers and the taught, equally form the one Church instituted by Jesus Christ as a subject of rights and duties. By saying this it is not that we are affirming that Jesus Christ had present the legal concept of moral person which today we recognize in the Church; this was an unknown juridic idea then, and it would not be licit to think that the divine Founder expressly attempted to plant it in his work, when the other societies of the period were not considered as moral persons either. But what happened was that Jesus Christ endowed his Church with such a nature that, when other societies began to be recognized as collegiate moral persons, it also would be seen that precisely that which placed them in this sphere the Church possessed taken as she had been created by the Lord((Marcelino Cabreros de Anta, Arturo Alonso Lobo, and Sabino Alonso Morán, Comentarios al Código de Derecho Canónico (Biblioteca de Autores Christianos, No. 223. Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1963), Vol. I, p. 349.)).

Analysis of commentaries. From this brief survey of representative canonical writers it is clear that the majority of earlier commentators especially saw little difficulty with the teaching that the Church is a divinely instituted moral person. For most the point must have seemed too obvious to need comment. The most common explanation offered for this teaching was to relate it to the accepted doctrine on the Church as a perfect society. Later however certain questions were raised as to in what sense all these juridical concepts could be attributed to the intentions of the Lord in constituting the Church.
An important problem to be resolved is this: is the concept of moral personality an immediate corollary of that of a juridically perfect society? And, further, in what sense can Christ be said to have instituted either? Also, there is much disagreement as to what kind of moral person the Church is: collegiate?, non-collegiate?, or, sui generis?
But, even before facing any of these questions two other points must first be clarified. Most of the comments on the canon have focused on the meaning of “by divine ordinance”; but what do the canonical writers have in mind when they speak of “moral persons” and of the “catholic Church”?

Theories of moral personality

To answer the question as to what “moral person” means involves almost as many answers as writers. Naturally it is beyond the scope of this study to attempt to make a complete presentation. The interest here is only to draw attention to the equivocalness of the term and the difficulties of its application to the supernatural reality which is the Church. For a complete study of the theory of the juridic person, prescinding from Canon Law, the reader is referred to the works of Ferrara((Francesco Ferrara, Teoria delle Persone Giuridiche (second edition. Turin: Unione Tip. – Editrice Torinese, 1923).)) and Clemens((Rene Clemens, Personnalité Morale et Personnalité Juridique (Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1935).)). A detailed treatment of the juridic person in ecclesiastical law is found in the book of Gillet((Gillet, La Personnalité Juridique en Droit Ecclesiastique (op. cit.).)). In broad outline, he distinguishes three generic groups of theories: those based on a fiction and on rights without a subject, those of the reality of the juridic person, and individualistic theories or those of collective ownership((Ibid., pp. 183-231.)). He is of the opinion that in the code juridical capacity, in the case of moral persons, is attributed to a subject that is abstract, ideal, or an institution; the personification follows from the juridic usages((Ibid., pp. 272-279.)).

Survey of commentators. In the works of several authors a similar variety of opinions concerning the nature of the juridic person is presented. For example, Hohenlohe(( Hohenlohe, loc. cit.)), Vermeèrsch((Vermeersch, “De Persona Morali,” loc. cit.; Vermeersch and Creusen, op. cit., p. 221. )), Hanig((Hanig, “Das juridische Wesen der moralischen Personen,” loc. cit.)), Conte a Coronata((Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Institutiones luris Canonici ad Usum Utriusque Cleri et Scholarum (fourth edition. Turin: Marietti, 1950), Vol. I, pp. 155-157; Compendium luris Canonici (op. cit.), pp. 200-201.)), and Marchesi(( Marchesi, loc. cit.)) all give many categories of theories although their divisions are not identical. Some commentators such as Santamaría((Santamaría, op. cit., p. 131. )), Haring((Haring, op. cit., p. 5.)), Ojetti((Ojetti, op. cit., pp. 407-109.)), and Chelodi((Ioannes Chelodi, Ius Canonicum de Personis (fourth edition. Revised by Pius Ciprotti. Vicenza: Editrice S.A.T., 1957), p. 166.)) find little difficulty in accepting the idea that the moral person is founded in a fiction of law. Other writers either deliberately avoid taking sides on what they consider a disputed point, e.g., Wernz and Vidal((Wernz and Vidal, op. cit., pp. 32-33.)), or give a imprecise definition that effectively avoids making a theoretical stand, e.g., Bouscaren, Ellis, and Korth(( T. Lincoln Bouscaren, Adam C. Ellis, and Francis N. Korth, Canon Law. A Text and Commentary (fourth edition. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1963), p. 89.)).
A mixed theory of juridical personality is espoused by Maroto(( Maroto, op. cit., p. 538.)), Miguélez, Alonso, and Cabreros1 and effectively by Sipos((Stephanus Sipos, Enchiridion luris Canonici (seventh edition. Revised by Ladislaus Gálos. Rome: Herder, 1960), pp. 77-80.)). The latter both reminds his reader that the subject of rights in canon law is above all the physical person and adds that the law by fiction creates a subject of rights, by attributing personality to colleges of persons or determinate things((Ibid., pp. 77-78.)).
Miguélez, Alonso, and Cabreros illustrate the problem very well:

In the case of every juridical capacity it is necessary to recognize a subject distinct from the object and purpose of this very capacity, and to find in that subject some reality to which rights and obligations reasonably can be attributed. But, on the other hand it is certain that there is always some fundamental type of fiction somehow present when rights and obligations are rooted in a subject distinct from natural or physical persons. For this reason we think that the theory of juridical personality must be mixed, in such wise that it does not exclude the reality that sustains the right nor the subjectivization of that same reality which formally, as a subject, does not exist and has to be created by the law((Miguélez, Alonso, and Cabreros, op. cit., p. 41.)).

Bender carefully distinguishes collegiate and non collegiate moral persons, and says that the non-collegiate persons are constituted by a fiction of law. He argues that, since only man has an intellectual nature which is the basis of the capacity for possessing rights, if some other being than a man is considered practically as a subject of rights this is a fiction((Bender, Normae Generales de Personis (op. cit.), p. 133; 137.)). Defining fiction, he states:

A fiction of law is a way of acting in which the legislator in order to bring about juridic effects admits some fact which is really not present and which the legislator himself well knows is not present((Ibid., p. 134.)).
A fictitious being is not declared a true subject of rights. An existing being (a church) is imagined to be a subject of rights. The true subject of rights is the community to which the church pertains. But it is useful to act as though the Church were the subject of rights. . . . The fiction is useful((Ibid., p. 137.)).

On the other hand he feels that the name of moral person is by every right given to collegiate persons. For:

. . . they are distinguished from individual men as a subject of rights in this: that they are not a physical unity but a unity of being which is constituted by the coming together of many men to attain the one and the same good as an end. There is therefore unity from the goal or the person arises from the unity of purpose, effecting all the acts. But the order of acts to an end is the moral order or the order of human activity. Therefore with reason are persons of this kind called moral persons.((Ibid., p. 140.))

Regatillo makes an interesting distinction to avoid the very problem that is the interest of this study. After defining a moral person rather generally as “a juridic entity, that is, capable of rights and duties, distinct from physical persons or individual men and groups of them,”((Regatillo, op. cit., p. 162.)) he places divinely instituted moral persons in a special category:

. . . in a person of the natural law (civil society), or of the divine positive law (the Church, the Holy See) the personality is something real given by God; in others, something pretended by the law, especially in a non-collegiate person; but as far as effects go it is something real.”((Ibid., p. 163.))

Finally, one may consider the new commentary by Cabreros. He observes that the subject of rights is only man; however homogeneous groups composed of a multiplicity of human individuals may also be considered a subject since the root and foundation for the juridic capacity continues to be the human element taken collectively. Other realities that do not have a rational nature and that are integrated by “things” are considered subjects of rights only by a phenomenon of positive law; these moral persons are a creation of law in virtue of a juridic fiction.((Cabreros, Alonso, and Alonso, op. cit., p. 341. )) As does Bender, he gives the illustration of the Church considered as a subject of rights and duties, although the subject properly is the community or people for whose service it was constructed; it is considered “as if it were what it really is not.”((Ibid., p. 342.))
After speaking of the need in the natural order for institutions transcending the capacities of individuals singularly considered, Cabreros refers to the necessity of a supernatural moral person.

In the supernatural order, man is also obliged to live in the society which Christ founded on earth, the Church, if he wishes to see his religious social exigencies satisfied. But the Church, as the perfect society that it is, also experiences some religious needs that exceed individual interests and also the capacity of each Christian taken alone but which must not be left unattended under penalty of making its existence on earth fruitless.((Ibid., pp. 342-343.))

Analysis of commentaries. It is hardly possible to resolve such a controverted matter as the nature of juridic personality. However it is interesting to note how some authors confront the problem of the Church as a moral person. As was mentioned in the previous section, Lammeyer considers the Church as a moral person “sui generis.” Regatillo is forced to appeal to a separate category of moral persons of the divine positive law. Even Cabreros who speaks so convincingly of the human person as the foundation of moral personality seems somewhat to shift ground when speaking of the Church.
The problem is this: if one holds to a theory of legal fiction, how can the Church be said to be divinely instituted as a moral person? Is there some fictitious element in the Church as founded by Christ? This difficulty is even greater if one says that the Church is a non-collegiate moral person, for most authors agree that this concept clearly necessitates a fiction of law. And finally, if the Church may be considered as a mystical person, the Body of Christ, does one attempt to distort reality by accomodating it to a legal category that inevitably involves some measure of fiction? Again, to adequately respond to these difficulties a further question must be first raised: what does one mean by the expression, “catholic Church,” of which this moral personality is predicated?

Concepts of the Church

The limits of a discussion of the nature of the Church must be carefully indicated, for otherwise it would be interminable! Here the concern will be to see what is the starting point for canonical writers in referring to the Church, and what are the principle juridic concepts of it.

Survey of commentators. Saint Robert Bellarmine, in his De Controversiis Christ. fidei, Book III, “De Ecciesia militante,” chapter 2, defined the Church as “the body of men united by the profession of the same Christian faith and by the communion of the same sacraments under the role of legitimate pastors and especially of the one vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff.” It is interesting to note how many authors begin their treatment by citing or repeating this as the basic theological definition of the Church. It is mentioned by Hilling((Hilling, op. cit., p. 2.)), Munerati((Munerati, op. cit., p. 37.)), Jemolo2, Falco((Mario Falco, Corso di Diritto Ecclesiastico (second edition. Padua: Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani, 1953), Vol. I, p. 65.)), Conte a Coronata((Conte a Coronata, Ius Publicum Ecclesiasticum (op. cit.), pp. 48-69. )), Pistocchi((Marius Pistocchi, Lexicon Juridico-canonicum (Turin: Roberto Berruti & C., 1934), p. 60.)), Zanobini((Guido Zanobini, Corso di Diritto Ecclesiastico (second edition. Pisa: Vallerini Editore, 1936), pp. 85-86.)), del Giudice((Vincenzo del Giudice, Nozioni di Diritto Canonico (tenth edition. Milan: Dott. A. Giuffrè – editore, 1953), p. 37; Corso di Diritto Ecclesiastico (op. cit.), p. 25.)), de Lamadrid((R. S. de Lamadrid, El Derecho Público de la Iglesia Católica (Granada: Facultad Teológica S. I., 1940), pp. 31-35.)), the article, “Chiesa,” in the Enciclopedia Cattolica3, Jannaccone((Jannaccone, op. cit., p. 463.)), Beste((Udalricus Beste, Introductio in Codicem (fourth edition. Naples: M. d’Auria Editore Pontificio, 1956), p. 42.)), Ottaviani((Alaphridus Ottaviani, Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici (fourth edition. Revised by Iosephus Damizia. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1958), Vol. I, p. 141.)), Fedele((Fedele, op. cit., pp. 77-78.)), and Ferrante((Josephus Ferrante, Summa Juris Constitutionalis Ecclesiae (Rome: Officium Libri Catholici, 1964), pp. 101-134.)), and many of them develop their entire treatment of the Church from it.
The most frequently presented juridical doctrine on the Church is that of the juridically perfect society, founded by Christ, supreme and independent of all civil authority. In the usual exposition of this view, a philosophical analysis of society is made and the concepts of society, perfect society, and juridically perfect society are elaborated. Then it is shown that Christ, in founding the Church, instituted a society which is is seen to be juridic and perfect, supreme and independent. With minor variations it is the position expounded by De Meester((De Meester, loc. cit.)), Munerati((Munerati, op. cit., pp. 37-41.)), Conte a Coronata((Conte a Coronata, lus Publicum Ecclesiasticum (op. cit.), pp. 48-69.)), Romani((Romani, Institutiones Juris Canonici (op. cit.), pp. 22-25.)), Bender((Ludovicus Bender, Ius Publicum Ecclesiasticum (Bussom: Paulus Brand, 1948), pp. 34-55.)), Hamilton((Hamilton, op. cit., pp. 101-102.)), Jannaccone((Jannaccone, op. cit., p. 475.)), Beste((Beste, op. cit., p. 43.)), Chelodi((Chelodi, op. cit., pp. 23-28.)), Ottaviani((Ottaviani, op. cit., pp. 141-168.)), Sotillo((Laurentius R. Sotillo, Compendium Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici (third edition. Revised by Eduardus F. Regatillo. Santander: Editorial Sal Terrae, 1958), pp. 71-83.)), Marchesi((Franciscus Marchesi, Summula Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici (second edition. Naples: M. d’Auria, 1960), pp. 45-64.)), Fedele((Fedele, op. cit., pp. 106-112.)), Ferrante((Ferrante, loc. cit.)), and Lattanzi.((H. Lattanzi, “Ecclesia (societas),” Dictionarium Morale et Canonicum (Rome: Officium Libri Catholici, 1965). pp. 216-221. ))
Del Giudice presents a legal definition of the Church in an entirely different vocabulary. For him the Church seen in its fulness presents the juridic figure of “a non-territorial institutional corporation, provided with originary sovereignty and subjective capacity, both public and private.”((del Giudice, Istituzioni di Diritto Canonico (op. cit.), pp. 30-32; Corso di Diritto Ecclesiastico (op. cit.), pp. 27-28; Nozioni di Diritto Canonico (op. cit.), p. 42.))
A final note is emphasized by Ciprotti((Pio Ciprotti, Le Leggi della Chiesa (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1961).)) and Fedele((Fedele, op. cit., pp. 95-98.)), that the Church is a necessary society.

Analysis of commentaries. The principal question that presents itself here is this: are the majority of writers in the field of public ecclesiastical law giving juridical analyses of the Church or analyses of the juridical structure of the Church. Even the definition of Saint Robert Bellarmine, so long considered theological, now in the light of the recent teaching of the magisterium seems ever more a juridical one to start with. In the interpretation of canon 100, § 1, is one dealing with the concept of the Church in a theological or a juridical sense, or is such a separation even possible? This question can be answered only by a careful study of the way the Code of Canon Law speaks of the Church.

II.
CANON 100, § 1, CONSIDERED IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE CODE

There is a certain arbitrariness to any human law. A law states only what it says. Perhaps the final phrasing of it does not even precisely realize what the legislator wished to say. But, at any rate, the law is the written, promulgated word – not previous intentions or posterior commentary. So the first and primary source of the meaning of a law is the proper understanding of its text and context. Even in this there is a certain elusiveness, for the understanding and meaning of words change. So long as the law is maintained by authority it must be presumed to be understood according to its contemporary meaning, even if this is considerably different from the meaning it had at the time of its promulgation. There is no doubt but that the approach to the law of the code today must be different from that of almost a half-century ago; and it is clear that the understanding of many of its terms has developed and changed. Since it is the law of the Church today, then it must be interpreted with the mentality of today as well.

The Meaning of the Words of the Phrase
in the Text and Proximate Context

At first reading, the introductory statement of canon 100 seems obvious enough. It speaks first of the “catholic Church.” Although the word, “Church,” appears only a few times in the whole code qualified by the adjective “catholic,” the meaning appears clear. “Catholic” etymologically signifies “universal,” and the expression, “catholic Church,” is a common one to designate the whole Church, the Roman Catholic Church, or that church under the Roman Pontiff. In this usage it is distinguished from other churches such as the Orthodox, the Anglican, or the various groups of Protestants. However in common speech it can bear also a somewhat less specified meaning as the universal Church of Christ, as is affirmed, for example, in the Apostles’ Creed. In the immediate context, that is, in the rest of the canon and in the preceding canon, the word, “Church,” occurs two more times, but without the adjective. In both cases it has a somewhat more juridic reference.
The proper juridic meaning of the expression, “catholic Church,” is a more difficult matter. Actually it is hardly a juridic term at all. The word, “church,” alone unquestionably has a legal sense, in fact a variety of such meanings. It is used frequently and in many ways throughout the code.
“Moral person” is of course here used in a strictly juridic way; its common usage as a person of virtuous life is meaningless in this context. However these four canons treating moral persons apparently deliberately avoid defining the term; and as was seen it is one with a long and varied history and still mooted among canonists. As a predicate applied to the catholic Church, it causes a further problem of interpretation of the meaning of “catholic Church” in the canon; for neither of the common usages of the name can easily be accomodated to the notion of moral person in any of its senses.
Finally, the expression, “by divine ordinance,” seems to be an easily enough understandable reference to the divine will as commanding or constituting something. But, considering the problem of understanding how the Church is a moral person, one’s difficulties are only compounded by this note of authority.
The other three canons on moral persons are of little value to interpret the phrase under discussion. As a matter of fact the phrase itself seems almost out of context. Without it, the section would be a concise exposition of the types of moral persons in the Church, their constitution, competence, acts, and duration.

The Use of the Words in Other Places in the Code

Since the Code of Canon Law is a coherent body of legislation, promulgated all at one time, it is justifiable to seek the meaning of certain expressions by studying their total use throughout the entire code. In fact, this would seem to be the only scientific way of establishing their exact meaning. Here three critical terms of the canon will be especially investigated: “church,” “moral person,” and “divine ordinance.”

“Church”

The word, “church,” occurs 751 times in the code as it was first promulgated.((For a complete listing of each place where the word occurs, divided by case and grammatical usage, cf.: Arcturus Lauer, Index Verborum Codicis luris Canonici (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1941).)) If one regards the abrogation of a part of canon 1099, § 2 2((Pius PP. XII, “Motu Proprio. Abrogatur alterum comma paragraphi secundae can. 1099,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XL (1948), pp. 305-306.)), then it is used 750 times all together. This is considering it in every form it appears: in the canons themselves and in the titles, and printed in lower-case, capitalized, and abbreviated by the first letter standing alone, printed in upper-case.
An analysis of usage of the word is a somewhat more complex matter. Although at first reading two or three meanings stand out clearly, a detailed examination reveals several more categories. Frequently the reader is certain of the meaning of a canon where the word appears; however if one prescinds from this total knowledge and considers only the word itself there often is no little ambiguity in its usage.
In making an analysis of usage one’s basic presuppositions must be clear enough. Not that they should be arbitrary; they should be an understanding of the concept, “church,” according to its development, common usage, and biblical and theological background. The earliest meaning of the word in Greek was to designate the assembly of Christians. St. Paul saw the Church as the mystical Body of Christ. The word came to designate the multitude of individual communities of the faithful taken all together as well. In an other way, “church” came to be used as a designation for the place of assembly of the community.((Auguste Dumas, “Personnes Morales,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique (Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ané, 1957), Vol. VI, cols. 1363-1367.)) Later, in juridical terminology, it was used to designate the physical place of worship considered as an institution, and even territorial divisions of the whole Church also considered with a certain juridic capacity. In this study then, the first meaning to be sought for the word will be that related to an assembly or community of persons; second, that referring to the physical building; and third, those meanings of a more juridical nature, based on the first two categories or even more specialized. And always there is the fullest meaning of all to be considered, the Church in its fullest theological sense as a supernatural mystery.((A similar attempt at a classification of meanings is found in Rudolf Köstler, Wörterbuch zum Codex luris Canonici (Munich: Verlag Josef Kösel & Friedrich Pustet, 1927), pp. 133-135. In this dictionary of usage, Köstler establishes four basic categories of meaning with certain subdivisions. In all, he gives seven fundamental usages for the word, “church.” Many illustrations of different phrases are given, but the treatment is hardly exhaustive. In the judgment of the author, Köstler’s divisions are not adequate or complete; they are not followed in this study of usage.))

“Church” as a word in the vocabulary of the code. In two places in the code a definition of the meaning of “church” is given. Naturally, in both instances, in canon 1161 and canon 1498, the expression, the name, church,” is used. And, clearly enough, the usage here is simply that of a word of the vocabulary of the code divorced from all particular meaning.

“Church” as the local (diocesan) community of the faithful. In those instances where the word, “church,” refers to some part of the entire Christian community, the presupposition is that unless otherwise indicated the community first to be thought of is that local community gathered about the bishop which is the basis of our juridic notion of diocese. In this sense, the word is used 43 times, in the canons and title that follow:

128
218, § 2
223, § 1, 1°
L.II, T.VII, C.III
230
236, § 4
245
257, § 1
257, § 2 (2x)
260, § 1
261

262
267, § 1, 2°
319, § 1
329, § 1
333
600, 3°
758
782, § 3
811, § 2
873, § 1
981, § 2

991, § 3
1155, § 1
1166, § 3
1189
1205, § 2
1219, § 1
1230, § 6
1283, § 1
1298, § 1
1301, § 1
1304, 1°  

1401
1406, § 1, 2°
1435, § 1, 1°
1602
1770, § 2, 1°
2227, § 2
2341
2343, § 2
2344

In these references the most frequent usage is in the expression, “the Holy Roman Church.” This traditional designation, most often in a context speaking about cardinals, clearly refers to the diocesan community gathered about the bishop of Rome. In one instance in the canons cited reference is made to abbatial or prelatial churches in the cases of an abbey or prelature “nullius”; analogously to the case of the diocese, what is indicated is the community of the faithful constituting the abbey or prelature “nullius.” Finally in one reference the service of the diocesan priest is alluded to, and surely the service must be thought of as being rendered to the people, not to an abstraction.

“Church” as the parochial community of the faithful. The use of “church” as a designation for a sub-community in the diocese is not the traditional one, but in two instances this interpretation is unavoidable. In canon 478, § 1, the parish whose church is the cathedral must be meant, and in canon 969, § 1, the reference to the churches of the diocese necessarily implies more than the physical buildings of the moral persons.

“Church” as a rite. Although the word, “rite,” like the word, “church,” has a great variety of meanings, its primary reference is to a group of local churches with common and particular ties of history, language, customs, and liturgy. So, unless otherwise indicated, its meaning in the code is presumed to be that of the larger community of the faithful composed of all the local churches of the rite. In this sense, it is used four times in the code, in canons 1; 253, §1 and § 2; and 788. In each instance the Latin Church is referred to.

“Church” as the totality of the non-Latin rites. In six places in the code the expression, “Eastern Church,” is used:

1
257, § 1

542, 2°
622, § 4

8O4, § 1

1399, 1°

Although the thought is naturally of the Eastern rites, the use of the word in the singular implies a united community in contradistinction to the community of the Western Church. Although in fact the non-Latin rites are various, the word, “church,” here must be given the sense of the totality of the diverse Eastern rites taken together. It may be noted that most of these references are to the name of the relevant Roman congregation.

“Church” as the total or universal community of the faithful. Again, according to the basic presupposition of this analysis, when references to the universal Church are encountered, the attempt is to see them first as references to the universal community of the faithful or the totality of all local churches of all rites. If a more juridical concept is implied, of course the usage does not fall into this category. Accordingly, 28 instances of “church” in this sense are given (27 if the abrogation previously mentioned is regarded):

7
107
218, § 1
230
731, § 2
762, § 1
772

793
948
1066
1070, § 1
1099, § 1, 1°
(1099, § 2)
1144

1244, § 1
1247, § 1
1256
1279, § 2
1325, § 2
1327, § 1
1391

1393, § 2
1395, § 1
1399, 8°
1498
L.V, T.XI
2319, § 1, 2°
2335

In all these cases the universal community is indicated either because the universal Church is explicitly referred to or because the sense of the canon demands that it be understood.

“Church” as an undetermined community of the faithful. There is a group of canons in the code that refer to the “service of the church,” the “utility of the church,” the “good of the church,” and other similar expressions. In these cases it seems easy enough to understand that the reference is a primary one to the community of the faithful and not to some juridic person; however the object is not specified. In each of the 19 instances, more than one possibility exists: for example, the parish, the diocese, or the universal Church. It seems suitable then to categorize them as referring to a community, but without specifying its nature. The canons are the following:

25
72, § 4
240, § 2
683
978, § 2

1209, § 2
1260
1290, § 2
1320
1356, § 1

1357, § 3
1417, § 2
1423, § 1
1487, § 1
1530, § 1, 2°

1530, § 2
1618
2262, § 1
2268, § 1

“Church” as the edifice used for public worship. Even in very early times, the word, “church,” gradually  came to be used not only for the assembly of  the faithful but also for the physical place of worship, the  sacred edifice. In this second basic category of meaning the word is used     very often in the code; in fact it is used more than in any other sense, occurring 377 times:           

216, § 1
239, § 1, 6°
239, § 1, 9°
239, § 1, 12°
239, § 1, 15° (2x)
239, § 1, 20°
240, § 2
240, § 3
250, § 2
269, § 3
274, 6° (2x)
277
284, 1°
323, § 2
334, § 3
337, § 1
338, § 3
349, § 2, 3°
357, § 2
358, § 1, 2°
358, § 1, 5°
370, § 1
391, § 1
393, § 1
394, § 3 (2x)
395, § 1 (2x)
395, § 3
397, 2°
398, § 1
400, § 1 (2x)
400, § 3
401, § 1 (2x)
401, § 2
403
407, § 1 (3x)
408, § 1
409, § 1
412, § 1 (4x)
413, § 3
415, § 1
415, § 2, 3°
415, § 3, 2°
419, § 1 (2x)
422, § 1
429, § 3
431, § 1
432, § 1
447, § 1, 4°
462, 7° (3x)
465, § 1 (2x)
466, § 4
467, § 2
481
483 (2x)
484, § 1
484, § 2
485
491, § 2 (2x)
497, § 2
512, § 2, 2°
522
608, § 1
609, § 1
609, § 2
609, § 3 (2x)
615
617, § 1
630, § 4 (2x)
642, § 1, 1°
683
686, § 3

690, § 2
698, § 1 (2x)
712, § 1
712, § 2
712, § 3
715, § 1
716, § 1 (2x)
716, § 2
717, § 1
717, § 2 (3x)
735
759, § 3
772
773
774, § 2
775 (2x)
791
804, § 1
804, § 3
822, § 1
822, § 4
836
842 (2x)
848, § 1
873, § 2
908
909, § 1
915 (2x)
916
917, § 2
921, § 3
923
924, § 1
929 (2x)
998, § 1 (3x)
998, § 2 (2x)
1009, § 1 (3x)
1009, § 2
1024
1025 (2x)
1109, § 1 (2x)
1109, § 2
1109, § 3
1155, § 1
L.III, T.IX
1162, § 1
1162, § 2
1162, § 3
1162, § 4
1163
1164, § 1
1164, § 2 (3x)
1165, § 1
1165, § 2
1165, § 3 (2x)
1165, § 4
1165, § 5 (2x)
1166, § 1
1166, § 2
1166, § 3 (2x)
1167
1168, § 1 (2x)
1168, § 3
1169, § 1
1169, § 2
1170
1171
1172, § 1 (2x)
1172, § 1, 3°
1172, § 2
1173, § 1

1174, § 1
1174, § 2
1175
1176, § 1
1176, § 2
1176, § 3
1177 (3x)
1178
1180
1181
1182, § 1 (4x)
1183, § 1
1184, 1°
1184, 2°
1184, 3° (2x)
1184, 5°
1186, 1°
1186, 2° (2x)
1186, 3°
1187 (2x)
1191, § 1
1196, § 1
1197, § 2 (2x)
1199, § 3
1200, § 4
1201, § 1 (2x)
1201, § 2
1201, § 4
1204
1205, § 2 (2x)
1207
L.III, T.XII, C.II
1215
1216, § 1 (3x)
1216, § 2 (2x)
1218, § 1 (2x)
1218, § 2
1218, § 3
1219, § 1 (2x)
1219, § 2 (3x)
1220 (2)
1221, § 1 (3x)
1221, § 2 (3x)
1223, § 1
1224
1225 (4x)
1226, § 1
1227
1230, § 1
1230, § 2 (2x)
1230, § 3 (4x)
1230, § 4 (2x)
1230, § 5
1230, § 7
1231, § 1
1231, § 2
1232, § 1
1233, §1
1236, § 1 (2x)
1237, § 3 (2x)
1249
1259, § 1
1261, § 2
1262, § 1
1262, § 2 (2x)
1263, § 1
1263, § 2
1264, § 1
1264, § 2
1265, § 1, 1° (4x)
1265, § 1, 2°

1265, § 2
1266
1267
1268, § 1
1268, § 2
1268, § 3
1269, § 4
1274, § 1 (3x)
1275
1279, § 1
1279, § 3
1280
1281, § 1 (2x)
1283, § 1
1287, § 3
1291, § 1
1291, § 2
1293
1296, § 1
1297
1299, § 2
1303, § 1 (2x)
1334
1341, § 2 (4x)
1341, § 3
1342, § 2
1343, § 1
1343, § 2
1345 (2x)
1346, § 1
1346, § 2
1355, 1°
1356, § 1
1367, 3°
1411, 2°
1414, § 4
1423, § 2
1426
1427, § 2
1435, § 1
1448
1450, § 2, 1°
1455, § 3 (2x)
1469, § 1, 2° (2x)
1469, § 1, 3°
1469, § 2
1469, § 3
1475, § 2
1477, § 2
1481
1549, § 1
1550
2271, 1°
2271, 2° (3x)
2272, § 1
2272, § 3
2272, § 3, 1° (2x)
2272, § 3, 2°
2273 (4x)
2277 (2x)
2291, 2°
2298, 1°
2329 (2x)
2338, § 3
2339
2346
2382
2398

Most of these instances are very clear; in some cases at first reading some questions may present themselves, but grammatically the usage is always the same. The following observations should be noted:
In speaking of the “fabric of the church,” although the expression has reference to a non-collegiate moral person, the word, “church,” itself refers to the physical building.
Often the “chapter of the church,” the “canons of the church,” or the “dignitaries of the church” are mentioned. Here the building is meant; the persons mentioned are not the property of the “church” but are identified in reference to it.
In some cases the dignity of a church is spoken of. Clearly, the attribute of dignity is that of a person; but here one has a simple case of metaphorical usage in the personification of the church and not an instance where the church is thought of strictly as a juridic person.
Likewise, references to the “title of the church” do not necessitate a strict concept of moral person.
A troublesome and frequent expression is that referring to the erection of associations, societies, or the Way of the Cross, “in the church.” It may be suggested that one is confronted here with an inexact Latin usage. The sense is that these organizations or things are identified with a physical place; to conceptualize the church as a subject of juridic capacity hardly helps for clarity and is not necessary. The same may be said in regard to references concerning the existence of these bodies “in the church.”

“Church” as the edifice considered as a non-collegiate moral person. In addition to the usages of the word, “church,” for the community of the faithful and for the sacred place of their assembly, there is a third category, of juridic usage, as well. Frequently the “church” in its varied meanings is considered as a subject of rights and obligations like a person; in other words it is attributed juridic capacity and is thought of as juridic or moral person.
Of the different types of juridic persons designated in the code by “church” the most common by far is that non-collegiate moral person based on the particular physical edifice. In other words the church building is thought of in a broader way as a juridical subject. This of course is not the same concept as that of a parish. In that usage the word occurs in the code 138 times, as follows:

99
139, § 3
358, § 1, 5°
383, § 1
411, § 1
415, § 3, 3°
418, § 1
420, § 1, 10°
422, § 2
446, § 1
447, § 3
471, § 1
478, § 2
L.II, T.VIII, C.XI
479, § 1 (2x)
480, § 1
480, § 2
480, § 3 (2x)
482
485
486
774, § 1 (2x)
804, § 2 (2x)
843, § 1
846, § 2
916
919, § 1
924, § 1

1158
1162, § 3
1169, § 4
1179, (2x)
1182, § 2 (2x)
1182, § 3
1183, § 1
1184
1185
1186, 1°
1186, 2°
1187
1217 (2x)
1225
1230, § 3
1230, § 4
1230, § 7 (2x)
1231, § 1
1232, § 2
1233, § 1
1237, § 3
1265, § 2
1268, § 4
1288 (2x)
1289, § 2
1291, § 2 (2x)
1294, § 2 (2x)
1298, § 1

1298, § 2
1299, § 1 (2x)
1299, § 2 (3x)
1299, § 3 (2x)
1300
1302
1303, § 1
1303, § 2
1304, 2°
1304, 3° (3x)
1304, 5° (2x)
1341, § 2
1355, 1°
1412, 5° (2x)
1423, § 1
1423, § 2 (3x)
1426 (2x)
1427, § 3 (2x)
1427, § 4
1428, § 1
1455, 1°
1455, 2°
1458, § 1
1458, § 2
1462
1465, § I (2x)
1469, § 1, 1°
1469, § 1, 3°

1470, § 1, 2°
1470, § 1, 5° (2x)
1470, § 1, 6° (2x)
1471
1504
1506
1516, § 3
1521, § 1
1523, 4° (2x)
1523, 6° (2x)
1525, § 1
1526
1528
1534, § 2
1535
1536, § 1 (2x)
1536, § 2
1536, § 4
1546, § 2
1576, § 1, 1°
1653, § 1
1734
2147, § 2, 5°
2347, 2°
2381, 1°

It may be observed that a common instance is when the church is considered as having certain rights or obligated to certain duties.
Whenever the expression, “rector of a church,” is used, the word, “church,” is understood as referring to a moral person. The concept of rector implies that of an administrator and custodian; in turn this implies not just a building but the building and other assets considered as a legal subject.
There are some instances where the church is spoken of as being “vacant”; here the very similarity of language shows that the church is being thought of as a benefice or non-collegiate person.
Finally, some canons refer to priests attached to a church. Clearly, they are attached to a juridic entity not a physical one!
It should be noted that canon 1498 refers to the usage of the word, “church,” in the following canons (through canon 1551) as referring to an moral person in the Church unless the context or nature of the case indicates otherwise; this is naturally considered in establishing this and the following categories.

“Church” as the diocese considered as a moral person. In just two places in the code is the word, “church,” used to refer to the diocese as a moral person. In regard to canon 1495, § 2, there exists a particular reply of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code indicating that “church” there should be understood primarily of dioceses((Cited in: T. Lincoln Bouscaren and James I. O’Connor, The Canon Law Digest (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1958), Vol. IV, p. 391.)). In canon 2345 the meaning is very clear.

“Church” as the episcopal office. Not only can the diocese be considered as a moral person, but the episcopal office as well. Bearing this latter sense, the word, “church,” is used in the following five canons:

284
338, § 2

432, § 2

434, § 3

441, 2°

In these few instances the reference is to that to which the bishop is promoted when he takes over his diocese, that to which further duties are attached, or that which is “vacant” by the absence of a bishop. Clearly this cannot be a community of persons or even the diocese in its juridical conception, but the very office of bishop.

“Church” as undetermined ecclesiastical authority. In 55 places the code refers to the “church” in such a way that only certain members of the Church can be meant, those who share in some hierarchical role and have authority in the Christian community. Almost always this authority is unidentified. Expressions speaking of the Church approving, condemning, and the like surely refer to acts of authorities in the Church; in short, wherever a strictly personal human act is indicated there must be some human subject. The instances of such usage are the following:

87
108, § 3
129
209
260, § 1
349, § 1, 1°
421, § 1, 1°
421, § 1, 2°
470, § 1
684 (2x)
685
727, § 2
733, § 1
780

819
824, § 1
885
937
1002
1060
1061, § 1
1063, § 1 (2x)
1065, § 1
1100
1139, § 2
1148, § 1
1148, § 2
1149

1256
1308, § 2
1322, § 1
1322, § 2
1323, § 1
1352
1380
1381, § 1
1384, § 1
1399, 12°
1448
1453, § 1
1496
1508

1552, § 1
1553, § 1
1553, § 2
2023
2198
2214, § 1
2256, 1°
2263
2291, 11°
2375
2378

“Church” as ecclesiastical authority in the Latin rite. In canon 2 there is found a unique usage of the word, “church,” to indicate indeterminately ecclesiastical authority, but in the Latin Church.

“Church” as the universal community of the faithful considered as a moral person. There are two places in the code where, perforce the universal Church must be considered as a moral person. In both canon 1495, § 1, and canon 1497, § 1, it is referred to as having the right to acquire, retain, and administer temporal goods; therefore it must be thought of as a juridic subject. In the former instance the content demands that the entire Church be thought of; in the latter, the universal Church is explicitly mentioned.

“Church” as an undetermined moral person. In not a few sections of the code when “church” is mentioned the language is such as to indicate some moral person and not just a community of persons in their plurality. But, the moral person is in no way specified; one might consider the references to a particular physical church, a parish, a diocese, or many of the diverse juridical persons to be encountered in ecclesiastical law. For example, some canons speak in general terms of “vacant” churches, of the possession of property by a church, of administration “in the name of the church,” and of the church’s right of action to defend temporal goods and even allude to material or monetary advantage of the church. There are 22 examples of this usage, as listed below:

235
444, § 2
1206, § 1
1206, § 2
1299, § 1
1301, § 2

1375
1455, 2°
L.III, P. SEXTA
1499, § 1
1513, § 2
1521, § 2

1527, § 2
1531, § 3
1533
1534, § 1
1538, § 1
1540

1542, § 1
2291, 7° (2x)
2334, 1°

“Church” as the juridic society of all the faithful. This and the following category of this analysis are perhaps the most elusive of all. Here the Church is thought of not simply as the community of the faithful nor as that community considered as a moral person. Rather it is taken as referring to the juridical society that exists among the faithful, which is somewhat of a specification of the notion of the community of the faithful. The notion of “community of the faithful” refers to the union of persons with supernatural faith who form an ecclesial community; the notion of “the juridical society of the faithful” refers to the visible and social structure of that community.
In six instances, the canons of the code apparently refer to such a juridic society as embracing the whole Church; for in each case both the universal Church and a juridic frame of reference are called for. The canons are these:

81
87

218, § 1
228, § 1

873, § 1

1431

“Church” as an undetermined juridic society of the faithful. Far more frequently, however, this usage of the word, “church,” as a juridical society of the faithful is not specified or determined. In such cases it may refer to the universal society of the faithful as in the above-mentioned category or to some smaller division of this society, for example, the diocese. There are 32 such indeterminate references, as follows:

99
100, § 1
196
256, § 1
686, § 1
687
700
1064, § 2

1160
1277, § 1
1308, § 1
1377
1489, § 1
1497, § 1
1498
1544, § 1

2003, § 2
2198
2216
2237, § 1, 3°
2265, § 1, 2°
2266
2291
2291, 9°

2303, § 1
2314, § 1, 2°
2322, 1°
2336, § 1
2340, § 2
2343, § 2, 3°
2347, 2°
2354, § 1

“Church” in its fullness as a supernatural mystery. There are six places in the code where usage demands a theological understanding of the word, “church.” In each case any of the notions of community, of juridic society, or of juridic personality are not adequate to give meaning to the canon. In these instances the supernatural end of the Church, the supernatural goods in its possession, or the need to embrace it for salvation are referred to. For the purpose of this analysis it suffices to indicate the supernatural element as integral to the concept in these references; a thorough definition is a matter for ecclesiology. The canons using “church” in this way are:

726
731, § 2

901
911

912

1322, § 2

Summary. After an analysis of the use of the word, “church,” throughout the Code of Canon Law apart from the use in the section of canon 100 that is the object of this study, it is seen that there are 18 categories of meaning. At this point, one cannot yet conclude to its proper sense in canon 100, § 1, but it is clear that it is a very ambiguous term. If nothing else, this conclusion should prompt a re-examination of the problem of the canon. Perhaps the difficulty is not so much with the application of the juridic concept of moral personality to the Church as with determining what is meant by “Church” when it is said to be a divinely established moral person.

“Moral Person”

Throughout the code the most frequently used term for a juridic person is that of “moral person.” However a detailed analysis of its use is of little value to this study.((Cf. Lauer, op. cit.)) The code in no place offers a definition of the expression. Since it is a strictly juridical category, one can be guided only by juridical writers and authorities in determining its meaning. As was pointed out in the previous chapter, there are many theories concerning moral persons; common to all writers would be at least the idea that a moral person is a juridic entity, subject to rights and duties.

“Divine ordinance”

There are several “dogmatic” canons in the code; that is to say, canons that assert some fact as the will of God in so many words. For example, canon 107, concerning the distinction between clergy and laity; canon 108, concerning the hierarchy of orders and jurisdiction; canon 196, concerning the power of jurisdiction; canon 329, concerning the bishop as the head of his diocese; canon 731, concerning the institution of the sacraments by Christ; and canon 948, concerning orders.
A variety of expressions is used in these and other canons: “by divine institution,” “by divine right,” “by the institution of Christ,” “by divine law,” and so forth. The form that interests us is hardly found in all((Cf. Lauer, op. cit.)), although its sense is basically the same as that of the others. It is not really a technical juridic expression, and its meaning is that commonly understood. It refers to the will of God ordering or ordaining that a thing be done. Considering the way such expressions are used in the code, one cannot say that it necessarily refers to an explicit divine ordinance. This gives a certain leeway in the interpretation of the canon being studied.

Parallel Places in the Code

Properly speaking a parallel place refers to another canon that makes the same law for the same matter. In this sense there are no parallels for canon 100, § 1. However there are some canons that are clearly related to it, and this is betrayed by their content and terminology.
Canon 1322, § 2, asserts that the Church, independently of any civil power, has the right and duty of teaching all people evangelical doctrine. Canon 2214, § 1, asserts that the Church has the native and proper right of coercive power independent of any human authority. Canon 1352 states that the Church has the proper and exclusive right to educate its ministers. Canon 1496 claims the right of taxing the faithful for the Church independently of civil authority. Canon 1206, § 1, states the right of the Church to possess its own cemeteries. Canon 1375 states the right of the Church to establish its own schools. And, perhaps the most pertinent of all, canon 1495, § 1, asserts the native right of the catholic Church and the Apostolic See to acquire, retain, and administer temporal goods freely and independently of civil authority.
All these canons asserting basic rights of the Church are very much related to canon 100 in this: canon 100 asserts the divinely established juridic capacity of the universal Church and in turn the power of the universal Church to endow institutions in it with juridic capacity as well. In other words, all the rights of the Church, taken as universal, particular, or in any other sense, have a divine foundation and hence are independent of any civil or other human authority. It is really canon 1495 that is the immediate application of canon 100. The latter asserts the general juridic personality of the catholic Church the former its right to property. As Jemolo observes:

. . . the Church affirms that it has a juridic personality ex ipsa divina ordinatione but this juridic personality is claimed above all else for the purpose of assuring that in no case goods or interests pertinent to ecclesiastical ends remain without title. But in fact it would be difficult to find goods that belong to the [whole] Church as a moral person.((Arturo Carlo Jemolo, Lezioni di Diritto Ecclesiastico (third edition. Milan: Dott. A. Giuffrè – editore, 1958), p. 212.))

At any rate, whether the universal Church own goods or not, canon 1495 does assert its right to do so. As was seen in the previous section of this chapter, “catholic Church” as here used is one of the two instances where the term bears the meaning of the universal community of the faithful considered as a moral person. Does this help to interpret canon 100, § 1, or does it give only a tautology if it is applied? The conclusion would seem to be that the meaning in canon 1495, § 1, is derived from what is asserted in canon 100, § 1. The meaning of the words to which moral personality are predicated in this latter canon are still not certain.

Supplement: The Oriental Code

Since the sections of the code for the Eastern Churches all have been published after the code for the Latin Church, they cannot in any way be used as a standard of interpretation for the latter. Nevertheless, there is a certain value in observing their concordance or lack of it with the Latin code. At least in this way one has some slight indication of the mind of the same legislator. In the section on Persons, canon 28, § 1, begins: “The catholic Church and the Apostolic See have the nature of a moral person by divine ordinance; . . .”((Pius PP. XII, “Litterae Apostolicae Motu Proprio Datae. Dc ritibus orientalibus. De personis pro ecclesiis orientalibus,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLIX (1957), p. 444:
“Can. 28, § 1. Catholica Ecciesia et Apostolica Sedes moralis personae rationem habent ex ipsa ordinatione divina; . . .”;
“Can. 28 – Pius IX, ep. encycl., Quanta cura, 8 dec. 1864; Leo XIII, ep. encycl., Immortale Dei, 1 nov. 1885; ep. ap., Praeclara, 20 jun. 1894; ep. encycl., Satis cognitum, 29 jun. 1896; D. 47, 22, 4; 50, 16, 85.”)) One is faced with an identical statement. Perhaps the only noteworthy difference is that less source references are given then in the Latin code.

III.
THE IMMEDIATE SOURCES
OF CANON 100, § 1

Complete published versions of the Code of Canon Law always include an annotation of the sources of the canons as well as a clear indication that these are the work of Cardinal Gasparri. This emphasis is to remind the reader that the law itself is distinguished from these scholarly observations on the part of its principal framer. Nevertheless, though they are in a secondary position, these footnotes are of great value in discovering the background for the law.
The sources of a law is a very broad concept indeed. The roots of a particular piece of legislation may go back beyond the period of the earliest ecclesiastical canonists to the apostolic Church, the Roman civil law, or even the old testament legal observances themselves. However when the codification of church laws was made under Pope Saint Pius X, the assertions of the code were proximately drawn in most cases from some previously existing legislation or authoritative documents. It is these sources that are referred to in the above mentioned annotations.
The code states in canon 6 that the old law is to be relied on for the interpretation of the new in those cases where the new law is in accordance with the old. By this norm then the documents cited in the annotations as sources from which the law is drawn or to which it has reference should be of some value to interpret its meaning. In this part of the study the sources of canon 100 will be examined in detail in the hope that they will shed some light on the problems of its interpretation.
Although the preparatory drafts of a law are not laws themselves, they still are of some value to understand the pattern of growth of the wording of the law. Sometimes they offer some highly interesting hints and clues as to the thinking behind the law. They can be, as it were, a type of circumstantial evidence or of subsidiary probative value in demonstrating the intentions of the legislator. So, after the study of the sources of the canon, a brief survey will be made of the schemata for canon 100 and their annotations.

The Sources Annotated in the Code

There are 17 documents listed in reference to canon 100, § 1, in the footnotes of the code. One striking fact is this, that the earliest document of them all is an allocution of Pope Pius IX published in 1854. Compared to other canons, then, the one that is under study is given a relatively short pedigree! The documents are those of three popes, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Saint Pius X, as well as a decree of the Holy Office given under the latter pope.
All of these documents were issued within a short period of 54 years and a time of great upset for the Church in Rome. Before considering the documents themselves, perhaps a glance at the history of the period may prove to be of value.

The historical context of these documents

Italy from the middle of the nineteenth century was a scene of great turmoil. This was the time of the aftermath of Mazzini’s Republic at Rome, when Garibaldi usurped the Quirinal, and when continental liberalism seemed to challenge the Church itself. Under Pius IX the papacy had to confront the upsurgence of Italian nationalism, the very invasion of the Papal States by Cavour, and ultimately the collapse of the temporal authority of the Popes and the beginning of the period of the “prisoner of the Vatican.”
Not only was the situation in the Italian penninsula critical, but in Northern Europe too the liberal governments slowly but surely encroached upon the traditional rights of the Church. When one reads the words of Pius IX it is clear that they are of a strong, polemical nature. These theories of the social nature and authority of the Church that are proclaimed by Pius IX and elaborately developed by Leo XIII are not just doctrinal expositions; they are defenses, especially against civil authorities ever more prompt to subordinate the Church to their political ends.
In these days when the Church is substantially removed from the political sphere in most parts of the world it is difficult to share the mentality of the last century. Just as the pope himself reacted to the invasions and later confiscation of the Papal States as an attack upon the Church, so were civil authorities also to confuse the Church as a supernatural society and as a temporal and territorial power. In turn, led by a desire for asserting their political and social rights, they began to encroach upon the sphere of the spiritual.
How understandable then is the argumentative and defensive tone of so many of these papal statements. One can sympathize with the anguish and fears of the pope, but one must be fully aware of the polemical nature of these discourses and writings as well. There is no less respect for the magisterium of the Church in being aware of political preoccupations on the part of the pope and a certain confusion of the spheres of the supernatural and civil societies. Against this background the source documents of canon 100, § 1, must be examined and weighed.

The sources individually considered

The documentary sources for canon 100 § 1 consist of three allocutions four letters and the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, one allocution and six letters of Leo XIII; one letter of Saint Pius X and one decree from the Holy Office. The interest shown here will be only in regard to those sections that have some bearing on the canon under study.

Documents of Pius IX. The earliest reference in the annotations to canon 100, § 1, is to an allocution of Pius IX given in consistory the day after the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The pope was very much upset by political events and a kind of rationalist liberalism and admonished the bishops present concerning prevalent modern errors. Touching on the problem of the encroachment of civil authority in the spiritual sphere, he stated:

There are many men of civil authority who call themselves men of religion and favorable to it; they extoll religion and preach its value and utility to human society; but nevertheless they want to regulate its discipline, control its ministers, manage its sacred affairs; in a word, they attempt to force the Church within the limits of the civil state and to dominate it; but the Church is sui iuris and by the divine will not to be confined within the limits of any empire but to be propagated to the ends of the earth, embracing all peoples and nations and showing them the way to eternal happiness.((Pius PP. IX, “allocut. Singulari quadam, 9 dec. 1854,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1928), Vol. II, pp. 892-893.))

The next document is one published not quite six years later. In it the pope indignantly denounced the machinations of the “Subalpine Government” and their fomenting and aiding of rebellion within the Papal States. Branding them as attacking the Apostolic See and the universal Church, he severely condemned and anathematized all in any way implicated in these plots and rebellions. In the apostolic letter he strongly vindicates the temporal authority of the popes over the states of central Italy; the document begins as follows:

Since the Catholic Church, founded and established by Christ the Lord for the achieving of the eternal salvation of men, received the form of a perfect society by the strength of his divine institution, it therefore must enjoy that liberty that in the undertaking of its sacred ministry it be not subject to any civil power.((Pius PP. IX, “litt. ap. Cum Catholica Ecclesia, 26 mart. 1860,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1928), Vol. II, p. 933.))

The second allocution cited, dating from the end of that same year, shows the pope bewailing the so many evils afflicting the whole Church: the violation of concordats, the invasions of central Italy, the dispossession of bishops in Umbria and the Kingdom of Naples, the intrusion of Protestantism, a general contempt for ecclesiastical authority, and even the introduction of civil divorce. Finally he appeals for the church persecuted in Korea, China, and Syria. Toward the beginning of the address, speaking of violations of concordats, the pope refers to a law against the liberty of the Church:

We understand that this derives from the false doctrines of the Protestants who hold that the Church should exist as some kind of college in the civil Empire and should enjoy only those rights that are conceded and given to it by civil authority. Who cannot see how far this is from the truth? For the Church was instituted as a true and perfect society by its divine author; it has no territorial boundaries, it is subject to no civil imperium, and it freely exercises its power and its rights all over the world for the salvation of men.((Pius PP. IX, “allocut. Multis gravibusque, 17 dec. 1860,” Codicis luris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Rome Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1928), Vol. II, p. 937.))

In 1862 the pope again chose to criticize the so many modern errors, especially those attacking the rights of the Church and divine revelation proper, even the very existence of Christ. In the fourth document cited, an allocution, Pius bewails the destruction and harm done to the Church, bishops, clergy, and religious in Italy, and he exhorts the bishops to alert their people and to assist with their prayers Speaking of the violation of the rights of the Church, the pope says:

None of you, Venerable Brothers, is ignorant of the fact that that necessary coherence which exists by the will of God between both the order of nature and that which is above nature is completely destroyed by men of this kind; the proper, true, and real nature and authority of divine revelation and the constitution and power of the Church is completely changed, subverted, and extinguished by them. And they have the temerity to go so far with their opinions as not even to hesitate to deny all truth and all law, power, and right of divine origin. They are not even ashamed to assert that philosophy, science, and civil laws as well can and ought to be separate from divine revelation and the authority of the Church, and that the Church is not an entirely free, true, and perfect society nor does it enjoy its proper and constant rights conferred upon it by its divine Founder, but that it is for the civil power to define what the rights of the Church are and the limits within which they may be exercised.((Pius PP. IX, “allocut. Maxima quidem, 9 iun. 1862,” Codicis luris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1928), Vol. II, p. 962.))

The fifth source document, two years later than the previous, is an encyclical reviewing and condemning modern errors, again drawing attention to what was voiced in previous allocutions and an anterior encyclical. The pope exhorts prayers for the entire Church and announces the granting of a plenary indulgence “ad instar Iubilaei” for the whole year 1865. In the context of reproving these errors is found the following passage:

These false and perverse opinions are even more detestable because they would impede and do away with that salvific power which the Catholic Church by the institution and mandate of its divine Author must freely exercise till the end of time towards individual men as well as nations, peoples, and their rulers, and they would do away with that mutual society and harmony between the Sacerdotium and the Imperium which has been always so beneficial and useful to the sacred and civil good.((Pius PP. IX, “ep. encycl. Quanta cura, 8 dec. 1964,” Codicis Juris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1928), Vol. II, p. 994.))

The sixth source mentioned is a section of the Syllabus of Errors, published the same year and containing “the principle errors of our age which are noted in the consistorial allocutions and in the encyclicals and other apostolic letters of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX.”((Pius PP. IX, “Syllabus errorum (a. 1864),” (op. cit.), p. 1000.)) In the section concerned with errors about the Church and its rights is found the following:

19. The Church is not an entirely free, true, and perfect society, nor does it enjoy its proper and constant rights conferred upon it by its divine founder, but it is for the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church and the limits within which these rights may be exercised.
Allocution Singulari quadam, 9 December 1854
Allocution Multis gravibusque, 17 December 1860
Allocution Maxima quidem, 9 June 1862.((Ibid., p. 1002.))

When the new Italian government had taken possession of Central Italy the troubles of the Church were still far from over. Pope Pius was forced to protest the confiscation of papal buildings in Rome itself as well as the violation of his rights and interference with his own liberty of spiritual ministry. In an encyclical treating these matters the pope also condemned the persecutions of the Church in Switzerland and Byelorussia. Appealing to the Emperor, Pius condemned as well the Old Catholics and especially certain illegitimate episcopal consecrations. The portion of this seventh document pertinent to the canon under study would seem to be the following:

Faith teaches and human reason shows that two orders exist and similarly that two powers are to be distinguished on earth, the one natural which regards the tranquillity of human society and worldly affairs, the other, whose origin is beyond nature, which presides over the city of God, that is the Church of Christ, divinely instituted for the peace and eternal salvation of souls.((Pius PP. IX, “ep. encycl. Etsi multa, 21 nov. 1873,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933), Vol. III, pp. 81-82.))

A few months later, Pius wrote an encyclical, the last of his documents cited in reference to canon 100, to the cardinals, archbishops, and bishops of the Austrian Empire, complaining of serious violations of the concordat and of the rights of the Church in the empire. In defense of the Church he wrote:

The Creator and Redeemer of the human race founded the Church as his visible kingdom on earth endowed not only with the supernatural charism of an infallible magisterium for teaching sacred doctrine and of a sacred priesthood for fostering divine worship and the sanctification of souls by sacrifice and sacraments but also with a proper and plenary power of rule to make laws, to judge, and to use salutary coercion in all that pertains to the proper end of the kingdom of God on earth.

Since this supernatural power of ecclesiastical rule, from the very institution of Jesus Christ, is completely different and independent from political imperium, this kingdom of God on earth is the kingdom of a perfect society, which is held and governed by its laws, its rights, its authorities, who are watchful as men ready to give an account for souls not to the rulers of civil society but to the prince of pastors, Jesus Christ, by whom is established that pastors and doctors are subject to no earthly power in carrying out their ministry of salvation.((Pius PP. IX, “ep. encycl. Vix dum a Nobis, 7 mart. 1874,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933), Vol. III, p. 88.))

After a long and difficult pontificate Pius left to his successor a very changed and limited kingdom. It was the task of this successor to establish a new modus vivendi of the Church with the modern world.

Documents of Leo XIII. Pope Leo XIII, obliged to live within the new state of Italy, made a profound study of the relation between the Church and modern states. In 1885 he gave to the world his famous encyclical on the Christian constitution of states and on the duties of individual citizens, Immortale Dei. In this document the following would seem to relate to the matter of canon 100:

The only-begotten Son of God founded a society on earth which is called the Church and to which he entrusted the lofty and divine mission to be continued throughout all time that He had received from the Father….((Leo PP. XIII, “ep. encycl. Immortale Dei, 1 nov. 1885,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933), Vol. III, p. 237.)) This society, although composed of men just as the civil community, nevertheless because of the purpose established for it and because of the means by which it realizes this purpose is supernatural and spiritual; therefore it is distinguished from and differs from civil society; and, what is of especial interest, it is by nature and right a perfect society, since it possesses in and through itself all that is necessary for its integrity and action.((Ibid., p. 238.))

Likewise it must be understood that the Church is a society, no less than the state itself, perfect by nature and right.((Ibid., p. 245.))

The next source referred to is a letter of Pope Leo dating from 1887 to the archbishops and bishops of Bavaria concerning the condition of the Church in that kingdom. In it, after reviewing the history of the faith in Bavaria, the pope writes about the formation of students in seminaries. He exhorts the bishops to follow the doctrines of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas and to avoid certain modern errors. In the letter, he refers to the Church as follows:

The Church then, which is a society perfect by its nature, has the native right to form and instruct its ministers, harmful to none, helpful to many, in the peaceful kingdom which Jesus Christ founded for the salvation of the human race.((Leo PP. XIII, “ep. Officio sanctissimo, 22 dec. 1887,” Codicis Iuris  Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933) Vol. III, pp. 271-272.))

The next document to be considered is a consistorial allocution given a few months after the letter to the Bavarian bishops. At the time, the pope protested against the new Italian penal code as directly touching upon the rights of the Catholic clergy and indirectly upon those of the Apostolic See. In defense of the Church, the pope writes:

The Church, by the will of God, is a perfect society, and just as it has its own laws so it has its own magistrates, properly distinguished according to their degree of power, of whom the chief of all is the Roman Pontiff, set over the universal Church by divine right and subject to the power and judgement of God alone.((Leo PP. XIII, “allocut. Mirandum sane, 1 iun. 1888,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri.  Vatican City: Typis  Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933), Vol. III, p. 294.))

The following source is an encyclical published within the same month on the nature of true liberty and its abuses. Refuting modern liberalism the pope in it considers the questions of liberty of worship, speech, teaching, and conscience. He mentions many errors of the liberals concerning the nature of the Church. Among other matters, Leo teaches:

. . . the Only begotten Son of God was made man to give testimony to the truth; a perfect society was established by him namely the Church of which he himself is the head and with which he promised he would be until the end of time.((Leo PP. XIII, “litt. encycl. Libertas, 20 iun. 1888,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card  Gasparri. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933), Vol. III, p. 306.))

And in the same document he refers to those criticizing the nature and proper rights of the Church as a perfect society, to those trying to weaken the nature of “this divine society,” and to those defending the nature and rights pertaining to a “legitimate, lofty, and in every part perfect society.”((Ibid., p. 310.))
In the thirteenth document, an encyclical on the obligations of Christians in the Church and in civil and domestic society, Pope Leo speaks about the authority of the Church. Two sections offer points pertinent to this study:

. . . [Jesus] wished not only to form disciples but to join them in a society and to unite them in one body which is the Church (Coloss., I, 24) and whose head he is. The life of Jesus Christ permeates the entire structure of the body, it nourishes and sustains each member, and it keeps them joined one to another and ordered towards the same end, although the actions of each one are diverse. For these reasons not only is the Church a perfect society and far superior to any other society, but it is placed by its author to strive for the salvation of the human race ut castrorum acies ordinata (Cantic., VI, 9).((Leo PP. XIII, “litt. encycl. Sapientiae, 10 ian. 1890,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933), Vol. III, p. 331.))

It is right that the Church live and defend itself by institutions and laws consonant with its nature. Since it is not only a perfect society but also superior to any human society, the Church by right and duty strongly refuses to become involved in parties or constantly changing civil affairs.((Ibid., p. 334.))

In another encyclical letter of the year 1894, the next of his documents cited, Pope Leo appeals to all rulers and peoples for unity; he speaks of the need for the unity of all men and especially of Christians. He mentions the special closeness of the Eastern Churches. Emphasizing the need for union in Christian society, the pope warns of the dangers of Freemasonry. There is a strong exhortation to Christian leaders in Europe to build the true and united Christian society. The following section seems ad rem:

[The Church], by the will and command of God the founder, is a society perfect in its kind; . . . And since the society is, as we said, perfect, it therefore has strength and life, not drawn from without, but by divine wisdom stemming from its nature; by the same reason it has the native power of legislating, and in this it is right that it be subject to no one: similarly in other things which are of its right it should be free.((Leo PP. XIII, “ep. ap. Praeclara, 20 iun. 1894,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933), Vol. III, p. 446.))

In the last of the documents of Leo XIII cited, the pope in a lengthy encyclical presents a very detailed, scholarly study of the inner nature of the Church, its unity, and the role of the Roman Pontiff. The following selection might be considered:

God caused the Church to be far superior to all societies: for what it seeks as an end is more noble than what other societies seek, as divine grace, than nature, and as immortal goods are higher than those of this fallen word. The Church then is a society of divine origin: its end, its proximate means for attaining its end are supernatural: that which is formed of men is a human community. So in sacred scripture in many places we see it named with the word, perfect society.((Leo PP. XIII, “ep. encycl. Satis cognitum, 29 iun. 1896,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933), Vol. III, p. 483.))

Documents of Saint Pius X. In the encyclical of Saint Pius X cited in the sources of canon 100, § 1((Pius PP. X, “ep. encycl. Vehementer Nos, 11 febr. 1906,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933). Vol. III, pp. 661-669.)), the pope addresses a protest to the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, clergy, and people of France against the injustices to the rights of the Church there and the violation of previously established pacts. This was a strong reaction to French legislation establishing a complete separation of Church and State. Although there are frequent references to the Apostolic See and its agreements with the French government, there is nothing that could be regarded as substantiating the reference of Canon 100, § 1, to the Church.
The final source cited for the first paragraph of the canon is one of the propositions condemned in the decree Lamentabili of the Holy Office. It reads as follows:

It was alien to the mind of Christ to constitute the Church as a society on earth that would last throughout the ages; in fact in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven was to come with the end of the world.((S. C. S. Off., “decr. Lamentabili, 4 iul. 1907,” Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes (edited by Petrus Card. Gasparri. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1951), Vol. IV, p. 552.))

Critical analysis of the source documents

Although all these documents are indicated as sources for the first paragraph of canon 100 it seems clear that they relate directly to the first sentence concerning the Catholic Church and the Apostolic See and have little to do with the rest of the section on the establishment of moral persons in the Church. There is no division among them, so it is left to the student of the sources to attempt to discern the relevance of each source to one or the other concept. Frequently they are both linked together in the sources, and also often there is no one passage that can be cited as probative although the general tone and argument of the document is very pertinent to the assertion of the canon. In every case but one at least some one passage was found that apparently had some relevance to the statement of canon 100 about the catholic Church.
A great deal of attention was paid to the historical context and general content and purpose of each document: this is very necessary to their correct interpretation. Without exaggeration it is fair to say that the allocutions and writings of Pius IX here cited are uniformly of a polemical and argumentative nature. The pope is anxiously attempting both to defend the crumbling temporal sovereignty of the Church in central Italy and to avert its subordination to a militantly secular civil authority in other places. In the pontificate of Leo XIII part of the crisis has past; he is able to approach these problems, the latter especially, with a certain reserve and calm. The documents cited from his pontificate are more didactic then polemical; the pope tries to teach the true nature of the responsible state and its relations to ecclesiastical society.
But, what do the documents say that is ad rem? The first and most curious conclusion is this: although they are sources for the assertion that the Church is a moral person by divine ordinance, not even once is the Church referred to as a moral person; the term is not used at all. What is clearly and repeatedly developed is the fact that the Church is a divinely established institution and therefore cannot be arbitrarily disposed of according to laws of force of arms. The Church, again and again it is said, is a society, founded by Christ, perfect by nature, and independent of civil authority.
In no document is a systematic exposition made of this notion of perfection applied to the Church as a society. It is clearly a reference to a doctrine that is familiar and well developed, especially towards the latter part of the pontificate of Pius IX, and it is, of course, the well known treatment found in any manual of public ecclesiastical law. Prescinding from any judgement of the merit of this doctrine, it is clear that it is used as an argument by the popes. It is not so much that they are presenting a new teaching as grasping a well-polished weapon for the fight against the so-called “Liberalism” of the past century.
It must be stressed that this doctrine is constantly offered in a polemical or defensive context. It is not that the pope chooses this as a point of departure to explain the inner nature of the Church. At a time when the Church as a supernatural reality is confused with the Church as a sovereign temporal power, and when both are being attacked indiscriminately and made subordinate to civil authority, this teaching on the perfect and supreme social nature of ecclesiastical society is offered in rebuttal to safeguard the independence of ecclesiastical authority and its spiritual, if not temporal, rights.
Finally, the question may be raised here once again as it was after an examination of the works of many canonists writing on the nature of the Church: what is the relation between these two concepts, “moral person” and “perfect society”? Because the popes speak of the Church as a perfect society, does it follow that it is ipso facto a moral person? And, does the fact that Lord founded the Church mean that he established a perfect society or that he established a moral person? Even an examination of the sources of the canon leaves one with new and some already familiar difficulties.

Preparatory Drafts of the Canon

An immense amount of work was involved in the preparation of the Code of Canon Law. There are several accounts published of the method followed, the investigations, and the labors of the preparatory commissions. In the preface to the code, found in all published editions, Cardinal Gasparri himself gives a brief outline of the history of the codification. However, apart from the book of Roberti on the drafts of the latter part of the code, the full collection of preparatory schemata and criticisms remains unpublished. (An opportunity to consult two sets of unpublished schemata, those of 1912-14 and of 1916, was made available to the writer through the courtesy of the librarian of the Pontifical Lateran University).
Naturally the draft of a law has no authoritative legal value. However, from the point of view of studying the wording of the law, it can be of invaluable use. It is an indication of the steps in the process of assembling the final statute, and it may well show where certain “pieces” came from. In the case of this study, the schemata are of special interest and value.

The schema of 1912-1914

A draft of the first and second books of the code was printed and circulated in 1912. In the section of the second book on persons there is no canon corresponding to the present canon 99 on the kinds of moral persons in the Church. The treatment of moral persons begins immediately with what is clearly the predecessor of the present canon 100. This draft canon reads as follows:

Can. 13. § 1. The Apostolic See has the nature of a juridic person by divine ordinance; other inferior moral persons in the Church receive it from a competent ecclesiastical superior, not by simple approbation, but by formal decree.
§ 2. A collegiate moral person can not be established, unless it has at least three physical persons.((Schema Codicis Iuris Canonici. Sub secreto pontificio. Sanctissimi Domini Nostri Pii PP. X Codex Iuris Canonici cum Notis Petri Card. Gasparri (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1912), Vol. I. Liber Primus. Liber Secundus, p. 29:
“Can. 13. § 1. Sedes Apostolica iuridicam personae rationem habet ex ipsa ordinatione divina; ceterae inferiores personae morales in Ecclesia cam sortiuntur a competenti superiore ecciesiastico, non per simplicem approbationem, sed per formale decretum.
§ 2. Persona moralis collegialis constitui non potest, nisi ex tribus saltem personis physicis.”))

The first phrase of the draft canon obviously corresponds to that of canon 100 of the code with only two differences: the first, a minor one, is the use of the expression, “juridic person,” for the almost equivalent term, “moral person”; the second, a very significant and interesting difference, is the omission of the reference to the “catholic Church.” Also, it may be observed, although many of the draft canons have sources annotated, this one does not.
Before considering the next schema of this canon, there is another point of interest. In this same draft of the code, a canon is proposed to open the first book which apparently never was accepted; yet it is not without relevance to the point at study. The canon is the following one:

Can. 1.  Christ the Lord, the Only-begotten Son of God, true God and true man, the Redeemer of the human race, instituting the catholic Church for the supernatural sanctification of men in this life and for their eternal happiness in the future life, conferred upon it, independently from any human authority, all the power necessary for the attaining of its end.((Ibid., p. 1:
“Can. 1. Christus Dominus, Unigenitus Dei Filius, verus Deus et verus homo, Redemptor generis humai, catholicam instituens Ecciesiam ad supernaturalem hominum sanctificationem in hac vita et eorumdem aeternam beatitudinem in vita futura, ei contulit, independenter a quacumque humana auctoritate, omnem potestatem ad suum finem consequendum necessarium.”))

This canon is extensively annotated, and the sources are of interest as well. The following ten documents are given:

C. 1, de maiorit. et obed., I, 8, in Extravag. com.;
Nicol. I, ep. ad Michaelem imp., a. 865;
Pius IX, allocut. “Singulari quadam,” 9 dec. 1854;
allocut.Multis gravibusque,” 17 dec. 1860;
allocut.Meminit unusquisque,” 30 sept. 1861;
allocut.Maxima quidem,” 9 iun. 1862;
litt. encycl. “Quanta cura,” 8 dec. 1864;
Leo XIII, encycl. “Immortale Dei,” 1 nov. 1885;
Pius X, litt. encycl. “Pascendi,” 8 sept. 1907;
S. C. S. Off., 3 iul. 1907, prop. 52, damn .((Ibid., p. 1))

Interestingly enough several of the sources here are also those given for canon 100, § 1, of the actual code; and, as can be appreciated from the previous examination of the latter, this draft canon is close in concept and wording to the documents of Pius IX and Leo XIII.

The schema of 1916

In a draft of the entire code printed and circulated in 1916, perhaps the last of these before the final publication, the section of the second book on moral persons begins with a canon 99 as does the actual code; however the draft canon 99 is somewhat different from the present one. It appears in this form:

Can. 99. In the ecclesiastical forum too, besides physical persons, moral persons also exist, constituted by public authority, and which are distinguished into collegiate and non-collegiate moral persons; for example, churches, seminaries, benefices, etc.((Schema Codicis Iuris Canonici. Sub secreto pontificio. Codex Iuris Canonici cum Notis Petri Card. Gasparri (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1916), p. 32:
“Can. 99. In foro quoque ecclesiastico, praeter personas physicas, existunt etiam personae morales, publica auctoritate constitutae, quae distinguuntur in personas morales collegiales et non collegiales, ex. gr., ecclesiae, seminaria, beneficia, etc.”))

There are no sources annotated for this draft canon. On the other hand, the draft of canon 100 is very close to its final form:

Can. 100. § 1. The catholic Church and the Apostolic See have the nature of a moral person by divine ordinance; other inferior moral persons in the Church receive it either from the prescription of the law or from the special concession of a competent ecclesiastical superior given by a formal decree issued for a religious or charitable purpose.
§ 2. A collegiate moral person can not be established, unless it has at least three physical persons.((Ibid., p. 32:
“Can. 100. § 1.  Catholica Ecclesia ac Apostolica Sedes moralis personae rationem habent ex ipsa ordinatione divina; ceterae inferiores personae morales in Ecciesia eam sortiuntur sive ex ipso iuris praescripto sive ex speciali competentis Superioris ecclesiastici concessione data per formale decretum ad finem religiosum vel charitativum editum.
§ 2. Persona moralis collegialis constitui non potest nisi ex tribus saltem personis physicis.”))

Except for minor variations of spelling and for one additional word, this is the final form of the first two paragraphs of canon 100. The final published canon has a third section that does not appear in this draft.
This schema of canon 100 also appears without the annotation of sources, although there are other draft canons with such annotations.

Observations

As has been mentioned no conclusive interpretation of a law can be established from a consideration of its preliminary drafts. However, certain aspects of these schemata stimulate conjectures about the formation of canon 100.
In the present code the four canons on moral persons would form a coherent whole offering little difficulty of interpretation were it not for the reference to the whole Church at the beginning of canon 100, § 1. In this hypothesis the canons would be concerned solely and exclusively with moral persons in the Church, and one of them, the Apostolic See, would be singled out by its unique constitution: by divine ordinance. In other words, canon 100, § 1, would begin with a statement about the Apostolic See alone.
Interestingly enough, this is precisely the way one finds canon 100 § 1 in the earlier draft. It is concerned with first the Apostolic See and then other inferior moral persons in the Church. The reference to the whole Church is a later addition to an already phrased statement about persons within the Church.
Is there any way of discovering the origin of this later addition? Here one is in the field of conjecture, but of well founded conjecture. In the same draft of the code, mentioned above, appears the already cited initial canon on the divine institution of the Church and its power, independent of any human authority. From the study of the documents of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Saint Pius X, the interest and need to express the divinely founded autonomy of the Church, especially considered as a visible society, is clear. Yet, this canon is eliminated. However, in the very draft where it does not appear there is found the reference to the Church as a divinely established moral person. Could it not be that this reference was meant to substitute at least in part for the statement offered in the previous draft?
As circumstantial evidence to substantiate this conjecture, it should be noted that the first draft of canon 100 referring only to the Apostolic See and inferior moral persons had no annotations. The final canon, including the reference to the whole Church, is extensively annotated, and six of the most important sources cited are among the ten annotations to the eliminated draft canon on the Church.
Here too, perhaps, some light is shed on a vexing problem of interpretation of the sources of canon 100, § 1. As was seen, they speak of the perfect and independent society of the Church while the canon speaks of its moral personality. If these sources were “transferred” to canon 100, § 1, when the canon they were appended to was somehow included in it, the problem is solved: since the canon was a canon on moral persons, the doctrinal statement on the Church was cast in this vocabulary instead of that of a society independent of human authority. The two form of expression are not identical, but they are very closely allied.
Was this the case? Of course, one cannot know. But it is a conjecture that makes the difficulty of canon 100, § 1, somewhat more understandable.

IV.
DIFFICULTIES AND CONCLUSIONS

In the attempt to establish the meaning of the introductory phrase of the first paragraph of canon 100, this study has raised many problems. In the examination of the opinions of the canonical commentators on the canon difficulties were found in regard to the relationship between the concepts of moral personality and perfect society, in regard to either of these concepts being applied to the Church by the institution of Christ, and in regard to determining what kind of moral person the Church is. In the consideration of the canonical theories of moral personality, the problem of postulating some fictitious element in the Church and that of accomodating a supernatural mystery to a juridic category were touched upon. The study of the canonical concepts of the Church made the need apparent to evaluate the definition of Bellarmine and the notion of the perfect society. Finally the study of the canon in the context of the code left a problem of meaning to be clarified; and the study of the sources, a problem of their relation to the canon. Here the attempt will be made to deal with these problems and to offer a meaningful interpretation of the canon.

Canon 100, § 1 in the Light of
its Sources and the Code

Since the sense of a law should be sought from its meaning in the text and its context, from its purpose, and from the circumstances of its formulation, the heart of this study is the consideration of the code and the sources made in the previous two chapters. From this investigation a tentative interpretation of the canon can be made, but one which will still have to be weighed against other difficulties.

The value of the sources

As far as can be determined, the source documents relate to canon 100, § 1, only in this: they frequently refer to the teaching that the Church is a perfect society, instituted by Christ.
The notion of the Church as a perfect society is not elaborated in the sources. In a polemical context, it is used as an argument to defend the rights of the Church and of the Apostolic See. From the way it is mentined, it is clear that it is understood to be a notion in the common possession of canonical and theological writers.

The sources and the canon

Confronting the canon after an examination of its sources, one must choose between two positions: either the concept of moral personality is formally identical with that of perfect society or else the legislator has introduced an element into the canon not found in the source documents.

The sources and the drafts of the canon. The examination of the schemata for the code showed that the present canon 100 was first conceived as a statement about the Apostolic See and other inferior moral persons in the Church. Later, “catholic Church” was added to the canon. It was conjectured that this addition was to substitute for an eliminated canon basically treating the Church as a perfect society. This conjecture is somewhat supported by the fact that the sources given for this eliminated canon are substantially identical with those now cited for canon 100, § 1.
Two questions present themselves about the mind of the legislator: First, was this use of the concept of moral person instead of perfect society to describe the Church simply a matter of expediency? That is, perhaps the legislator was not so concerned about the difference between the two concepts, and simply inserted the reference to the Church in an already existing canon treating the Apostolic See as a moral person of divine ordinance. In this case, it might be questioned also whether the legislator considered the two concepts as identical or closely related.
The second and alternative question would be this: Did the legislator deliberately wish to state only that the Church is a moral person by divine ordinance and not that it is a perfect society? In this case, the sources cited can have no direct relation to the part of the canon about the Church and must refer to the Apostolic See.
Neither question is answerable for both are based on conjecture; although the evidence tends to affirm more the first than the second.

Moral personality and perfect society.  The concept of a moral person is that of a juridic entity, distinct from physical persons, considered as a subject of rights and duties. It is a legal concept, and properly speaking a moral or juridic person can be formally constituted only by the public authority in a society and subsists by concession of the law.
The concept of a perfect society is that of a society of human persons whose end is complete and perfect in its order and which possess all the means necessary for its attainment.It is a philosophical concept primarily referring to the juridic order.
Clearly a moral person can be constituted and exist only in reference to some juridic society. A perfect society can constitute moral persons. A perfect society cannot be said to be a moral person without contradiction: if a society is a juridic person it must be constituted and subsist in some superior society, and then it cannot be perfect; for this implies autonomy  and independence.
Since the concepts of moral person and of perfect society, then, are formally diverse and since only the notion of perfect society is to be found in the source documents for canon 100, § 1, it must be concluded that intentionally or not the legislator has introduced a new element into the canon.

The sense of the canon

If the sources are of little value to the interpretation of the canon, one is left only with the consideration of its terms in the text and context of the code to assist in arriving at its meaning. As has been seen, of the three key concepts of the canon, that of “Church” is by far the most complex and ambiguous.

The Church. In the dogmatic constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council the first and principal presentation is that of “the Mystery of the Church.”((Sacrosanctum Oecumenicum Concilium Vaticanum Secundum, Constitutio Dogmatica de Ecclesia (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1964), p. 3.)) Characterizing the Church as “the kingdom of Christ now present in mystery”((Ibid., p. 4.)) the Council explained its inner nature:

Christ, the unique Mediator, constituted his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and love, as a visible structure and unceasingly sustains it, and through it he pours forth grace and truth to all. The society provided with hierarchical organs and the mystical Body of Christ, the visible association and the spiritual community, the Church endowed with earthly goods and the Church endowed with heavenly ones, must not be considered as two things, but form one complex reality in which the human and divine elements grow together. So by no weak analogy is it compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. Just as the nature he assumed serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation inseparably united to him, similarly the social structure of the Church serves the Spirit of Christ, who ever gives it life, for building up the body.((Ibid., p. 9.))

Clearly the Church in this sense, in its fullness as a supernatural mystery, cannot be referred to in canon 100, § 1. There, a predicate of a strictly juridical nature is applied to it; the Church is regarded juridically. The juridic order considers only one aspect of the “complex reality” of the Church.

To study the Church from the juridic point of view is to analize according to the principles of law what it is in so far as it is a visible and autonomous society, provided with its proper organization.((E. Fogliasso and R. Naz, “Eglise,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique (Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ané, 1953), Vol. V, col. 158.))

The meaning of “catholic Church.” The reference in the canon then is to the Church in this juridic aspect, as a visible and autonomous society. From the study of usage of the word “church” in the code, there can be only two possible meanings that fit this aspect: the Church as the juridic society of all the faithful or the Church as the universal community of the faithful considered as a moral person. The latter can be quickly discounted, for if the term be taken in this sense, the statement of the canon would be tautological and without real meaning.
An understanding of the expression “catholic Church” as the juridic society of all the faithful accords well with the teaching found in the sources of the canon concerning the Church as a perfect society. Although it was difficult to relate this doctrine to the notion of moral personality, it does have relevance to such a juridic concept of the Church.

The catholic Church as a “moral person.” From the point of view of the term “Church” it was seen that one necessarily must understand canon 100, § 1, as referring to the Church considered as a juridic society. But the fact that this is the only possible usage of which moral personality can be predicated does not mean that there is no difficulty in the final statement. What does it mean to say that the juridic society of the Church has the nature of a moral person?
If we accept the notion that a moral person involves some fiction of law, that it can be formally constituted only by the public authority in a society, and that it subsists by concession of law, we are faced with a dilemma. If the juridic society of the Church is a moral person, either it is subordinate to some other society, which totally contradicts the accepted teaching on the juridical perfection of the Church; or else the notion of moral personality is unacceptable here. The only way to save any meaning at all for the expression in the canon is to postulate that “moral person” has some analogous or unique meaning in it.
What saves this suggestion from being altogether gratuitous is the final note of the canon: that the Catholic Church has the nature of a moral person by divine ordinance.

The catholic Church as a moral person “by divine ordinance.” In the code expressions referring to divine origins are subject to a rather broad interpretation; that is to say, often enough that which is referred to Christ is something only implicitly and indirectly contained in his will.
A well known example is the common teaching on the Church as a perfect society. Clearly Christ established a supernatural and visible society on earth. At the time, the concept of a perfect society was unheard of. Later when circumstances provoked a philosophical elaboration of theories of social and juridical structures, it was seen that some of these categories could be applied to the Church in certain of its aspects. Accordingly, it could be said that Christ founded a perfect society; that is, he founded the Church, and the Church can be regarded as such in its visible and social nature.
Do we have a similar case in the statement of canon 100, § 1? Were the ordinary juridical category of moral person applicable to the juridic and social structure of the Church, the statement would offer little difficulty; but unfortunately this is not the case.
Before considering in what other way “by divine ordinance” can apply to the statement of the canon, it is necessary to give some minimal meaning to the notion of moral personality. Even on the presumption that it is used in some unique way here, it must at least imply a juridic entity considered as a subject of rights and duties. The canon then would state that the juridic society of the Church is considered a subject of rights and duties by divine ordinance.
The reference to divine ordinance, then, effectively would be an appeal to the divine will to explain this unique situation, that the entire visible and juridic society of the Church has certain rights and duties. There are only two canons that draw upon this doctrine, and both of them relate to the right of the universal Church to temporal goods.

Some Further Considerations

Before a final meaning and judgment of canon 100, § 1, is phrased, certain other points touched on in the study should be somewhat more explicitly treated.

The nature of the moral personality of the Church

As was seen, in the strict juridical meaning of the phrase, the notion of moral personality is not applicable to the Church. However since one does have the predicate applied in canon 100, it must be said that it is used in a special sense. In this one could agree with Lammeyer who calls the Church a moral person “sui generis”((Lammeyer, loc. cit.)) or with Regatillo who says that in the case of the Church the moral personality is something real given by God.((Regatillo, op. cit., p. 163.))
Since the moral personality of the Church is in a special category, perhaps it is not too meaningful to decide whether it is a collegiate or non-collegiate person. But certainly one would be disposed to choose the latter only by necessity, since it involves the greater element of fiction and since the primary reference of “Church” is to a community of the faithful.

The juridic conceptualizations of the Church

It is remarkable how many canonical writers take the definition of the Church of Saint Robert Bellarmine as a theological starting point for their considerations of the Church. A product of an age of apologetic theology, the definition is really a juridical one with its almost exclusive attention to the visible society of the Church.((A. Liégé, “The Mystery of the Church,” The Historical and Mystical Christ (Vol. V of the Theological Library. Edited by A. Henry. Chicago: Fides Publishers Association, 1958), p. 372.)) Its having been considered as an adequate total definition of the Church for so many centuries made it easy for certain distortions and exaggerations to creep into later properly juridic conceptualizations; for many later writers failed to regard the incompleteness of his notion.
Similar observations may be made about the notion of the Church as a perfect society. This is a valid philosophical category to apply to the Church, whether it be drawn from civil society or not; only it must be remembered always that it is a juridical concept and therefore regards only one aspect of the Church; or to put it another way, the Church may be considered as a perfect society, but it should be stressed that it is a perfect society sui generis; therefore it cannot be adequately described by juridico-philosophical categories only.((Claudianus Kemmeren, “Recent Trends in the Science of Canon Law towards a Theology of Canon Law,” The Jurist, XXV (1965), p. 24.))

Conclusion

“The catholic Church . . . has the nature of a moral person by divine ordinance.” At the beginning of this study, it was suggested that this phrase could easily be read as almost an introductory one; that it is easily passed over. At least by now, whether the exposition be clear or not, the difficulties related to it should be manifest. As was mentioned, the presumption is that all the statements of the code are logical and meaningful. What then is the meaning of this phrase?

The meaning of the phrase of the canon

After a consideration of texts, of the word usage of the code, of drafts of the canon, of the sources of the canon, of the opinions of canonical commentators, and of basic concepts of moral personality, juridical society, and the Church in canon law and theology, the meaning to be suggested is this: the juridic and visible society of the Church can be considered as a subject of rights by the implicit will of its divine founder.

The reason for the statement

It is a curious meaning, when all is said and done. It was necessary to establish a special sense for “catholic Church” and a unique meaning for “moral personality.” If one may enter into the field of conjecture just one last time, it may be asked why the canon was written.
There are only two canons in the code that beyond any doubt refer to the universal Church as a moral person, can 1495, § 1, and 1497, § 1. Both of them are concerned to vindicate the right of the universal Church and the Apostolic See to acquire, retain, and administer temporal goods. Could it be, as Jemolo suggests((Jemolo, Lezioni di Diritto Ecclesiastico, loc. cit.)), that the moral personality of the Church is asserted to support these property rights of the Church and to ensure the proper title for ecclesiastical goods?
Be that as it may, canon 100 does state that the Church has a moral personality. De facto, it would seem that only the two above-mentioned canons draw on this doctrine; and, interestingly enough, de facto the right they defend is not exercised; there is not any property that can be considered as possessed by the entire or universal Church as such; all is held by the Apostolic See or other inferior moral persons in the Church.

A final evaluation

Perhaps no more fitting conclusion could be offered to this study of the Church as a moral person than the teaching of Pope Pius XII on the Church as a mystical person, the Body of Christ:

. . . the Church, which must be considered a perfect society sui generis, does not consist of merely social and juridical elements and principles. It is superior by far to all other human communities; it surpasses them as grace exceeds nature, as immortal realities are more excellent than all those that perish. Such communities, especially Civil Society, are not to be belittled or depreciated; but the entire Church is not in the order they are, just as the whole man is not in the physical organism of our own mortal body. Although the juridical principles on which the Church is founded and rests derive from the divine constitution given to it by Christ and contribute to the attainment of its supernatural end, that which raises Christian society to a level completely above the entire natural order is the Spirit of our Redeemer which as the source of all graces, gifts, and charisms ever deeply penetrates the Church and works in it. Just as the structure of our mortal body is a wonderful work of the Creator but falls far short of the high dignity of our soul: so the social structure of the Christian community, although bespeaking the wisdom of its divine Architect, is still something of an entirely lower order when compared to the spiritual endowments by which it is adorned and lives and to their divine source.((Pius PP. XII, “Litterae Encyclicae Mystici Corporis Christi de Mystico Iesu Christi Corpore deque Nostra in Eo cum Christo Coniunctione,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XXXV (1943), pp. 222-223.))

Cf. BIBLIOGRAPHY

ENDNOTES

  1. Miguélez, Alonso, and Cabreros , op. cit., p. 41. []
  2. Jemolo, Elementi di Diritto Ecclesiastico (op. cit.), p. 61. []
  3. “Chiesa,” Enciclopedia Cattolica (Vatican City: Ente per l’Enciclopedia Cattolica e per il libro cattolico, 1949), Vol. III, col. 1443. []