In his 1937 book, Interracial Justice, LaFarge advocated for the integration of public and Catholic schooling in the United States, well before the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka court case, which ruled that separate but equal was unconstitutional. Interracial Justice pointed to a twofold approach for Catholic action in the attainment of interracial justice: (1) “the combating of race prejudice,” and (2) “the establishment of social justice.”6 LaFarge defined racial justice as an “equality of opportunity” for all groups or individuals, regardless of race.7 LaFarge’s understanding of racism did not address how to create an equality of opportunity when great economic disparity already exists between blacks and whites.8 Southern notes that the interracial movement had a history of applying pressure on the northern Church to integrate Catholic schools, hospitals, and seminaries, but that LaFarge was “more successful at improving the church’s image than in changing the church’s behavior.”9
LaFarge had greatly refined and simplified his theology of racial justice by 1956, when he published The Catholic Viewpoint on Race Relations. This work, which was published near the end of his life, proposed that growing economic security for blacks depended on the social attitudes of whites toward African Americans. For LaFarge, there was little that blacks could do to improve or contribute to the betterment of their own situation. LaFarge cited African Americans from time to time, but not as inspiration for his thought; instead, their writings served as proof-texts for his own preconceived notions. In a subtle jab at the policies of the FCC before he and Markoe took over the organization, he stated that “the more repeatedly the demands [for justice] were uttered, the less attention and interest did they create.”10 He considered the black empowerment presence in the FCC to be a form of separatism that made its members’ calls for integration hypocritical. He believed that after being properly educated, whites would destroy the idol of racism they were worshipping. An emphasis on white agency and clerical leadership was necessary because “although the Negro is the victim of discrimination, he does not necessarily know the answer or the cure.”11 Such a sentiment left scant room for appreciating either African American sources or black agency. Essentially, LaFarge’s thought did not extend beyond the theology found in the papal encyclicals on labor, such as Rerum novarum. The papal social encyclical tradition does not advocate that the oppressed should confront their oppressors, but rather promotes the use of moral suasion to convince those in power to act properly.12
U.S. Bishops’ Statements
Discrimination and the Christian Conscience
In 1958, the U.S. bishops issued their first major post-World War II document on racism—Discrimination and the Christian Conscience. In the wake of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), twenty-one documents decrying segregation had been published by various Protestant denominations before the issuance of the U.S. bishops’ document. This document, authored by Fr. John Cronin, S.S. (1908–1994), was published only after the death of a prominent opponent bishop, Cardinal Edward Mooney, who had anticipated that the document would divide the bishops. Even a cable from Pope Pius XII, on the day before his death, directing that the document be published immediately, was ignored by leading bishops on the grounds that it lacked the papal seal and was, therefore, unofficial. Nevertheless, when the document was finally brought before the bishops, they approved the statement with only four bishops dissenting.13 Discrimination and the Christian Conscience grounded its theology of racial justice primarily in two doctrines: (1) the universal Fatherhood of God and (2) Jesus Christ’s salvific death for all peoples. It also utilized the Catholic natural law teaching on the basic equality of all human persons and each person’s right to life and justice. Despite this strong doctrinal grounding, the bishops urged a “method of quiet conciliation,” which they saw as a middle path between “gradualism” and “rash impetuosity” in combating the unacceptable practice of mandated segregation.14
Although the document called for movement toward a society more clearly marked by equality, there was no clear set of goals or specific mechanisms to execute any plan. Essentially, the document offered vague generalities concerning the manner in which to address the problem of racism. In the end, the document lacked any mention of African American sources or black agency, and called for “responsible and sober-minded Americans of all religious faiths . . . [to] seize the mantle of leadership from the agitator and the racist.”15 The bishops did not clarify if an African American demanding his or her rights could be anything but an agitator.
The National Race Crisis
In 1968, the U.S. bishops released another statement on race: The National Race Crisis. The writing and publication of this document was swift compared to that of the previous statement. Massingale cites four reasons for its hastened publication: (1) the race riots of 1967; (2) the release of the Kerner Commission’s report, which blamed the recent race riots and racial segregation on the racism of whites; (3) the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.; and (4) the inaugural meeting of the National Black Catholic Clergy Caucus (NBCCC), in which African American clergy were extremely critical of the Catholic Church.16 The National Race Crisis was issued a mere three weeks after the assassination of King—a far cry from the four years between Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and the 1958 document. Also, unlike Discrimination and the Christian Conscience, it stressed the necessity for solutions that addressed the structural aspects of racism by employing the Kerner Report. The National Race Crisis moved beyond the moral suasion present in Discrimination and the Christian Conscience and clearly stated that recent events made immediate changes necessary: “There is no place for complacency and inertia. The hour is late and the need is critical.” In addition, it explicitly recognized the fault of Catholics for the present problem.17
Although The National Race Crisis referenced King’s “Poor Man’s Bill of Rights,” it can be difficult at first glance to ascertain the source of the bishops’ proposed solutions.18 The bishops’ document asked for “special attention” to be paid to the following areas: (1) education, (2) jobs, (3) housing, and (4) welfare. All four areas were named in the Kerner Report, but they were also important to King and the Poor People’s Campaign. Michael K. Honey writes that in the Poor People’s Campaign, King wanted “to abolish poverty directly through government redistribution that allowed poor people enough money to pay for their own housing, education, and other necessities.”19 The current economic benefits possessed by the wealthy were due to the slave labor and cheap wage labor of African Americans and the poor of all racial backgrounds. Additionally, King noted, “So often in America, we have socialism for the rich, and rugged, free enterprise capitalism for the poor.”20 Unlike the authors of the Kerner Report and The National Race Crisis, King commented on the need to significantly decrease funding to the military. King contended that the cost of the Vietnam War, if left unabated, would limit the resources necessary to abolish poverty in the United States.21 So although one could argue that the bishops made partial use of King as a source, they did not specifically cite King with