Two parishes in one church

[Andreas_Hofer]

Catholic parishes played a huge role in inculturating new immigrants, teaching English classes, job training, and other ways. They also played a huge role in honoring and helping preserve cultural and ethnic customs.

Because of the contributions to assimilation I think the ethnic personal parish model had its merits. It provided a “safe” place for immigrant children (or children of immigrants) to learn English language and culture with others of the same ethnic background, thus making Americans out of them, while at the same time giving the parish community a safe place to revel in their distinctive culture and traditions.

What I fear is that many people today forget about the assimilation-oriented function of the ethnic parish and use the historical evidence of ethnically divided parish life to justify the creation of an enclave that never gets any closer to the rest of society. I also don’t know that the idea of the ethnic parish, although it served us well, is true to our catholicity. Our church (the Latin church, not the Catholic Church) has a common language, which should enable us to avoid language barriers in worship, and staying separated by language group keeps us from sharing the riches of our respective cultures (I come from a German background but, thanks to the ONE Mexican-American family at my childhood parish, I looked forward to the fiesta for Our Lady of Guadalupe every year. If just one family can share with the larger community, think of what roughly equivalent blocs of people can share with each other.)

 

[Beno]

Because of the contributions to assimilation I think the ethnic personal parish model had its merits. …
…I also don’t know that the idea of the ethnic parish, although it served us well, is true to our catholicity. Our church (the Latin church, not the Catholic Church) has a common language, which should enable us to avoid language barriers in worship,…

I think I understand your use of the words ethnic parish, but what is an ethnic personal parish?

Also, you say “the Latin church, not the Catholic Church”. Are you speaking of any Catholic Church that uses Latin in it’s Liturgy?

I’ve wondered whether the use of Latin ever really did or ever really will contribute to liturgical unity throughout the world (at least in the Roman rite). Shouldn’t this have eliminated the need for Masses said in the vernacular?

 

[SMHW]

Also, you say “the Latin church, not the Catholic Church”. Are you speaking of any Catholic Church that uses Latin in it’s Liturgy?

I’ve wondered whether the use of Latin ever really did or ever really will contribute to liturgical unity throughout the world (at least in the Roman rite). Shouldn’t this have eliminated the need for Masses said in the vernacular?

I think “the Latin church” was intended to equate to “Roman rite”.

 

[Chatter163]

What I fear is that many people today forget about the assimilation-oriented function of the ethnic parish and use the historical evidence of ethnically divided parish life to justify the creation of an enclave that never gets any closer to the rest of society.

Amen. The assimilation model, the norm of immigrant experience in this country until the late 1960’s, is frowned upon today, and consequently there is little analogy that can be made between the present multicultural model and past assimilation.

The mission of the ethnic parish of yesteryear and the “parallel parish community” (and/or multicultural models of today) are quite different, most notably in the fact that most of the latter do not see assimilation as part of their social function.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I think I understand your use of the words ethnic parish, but what is an ethnic personal parish?

Also, you say “the Latin church, not the Catholic Church”. Are you speaking of any Catholic Church that uses Latin in it’s Liturgy?

I’ve wondered whether the use of Latin ever really did or ever really will contribute to liturgical unity throughout the world (at least in the Roman rite). Shouldn’t this have eliminated the need for Masses said in the vernacular?

To answer the first question, I thought the term “ethnic parish” might be vague enough to convey merely a parish that happens to be overwhelmingly one ethnicity. The old ethnic parishes, though, were erected at a time when Catholics were normally obligated to be members of their geographic parish (the one within whose boundaries they lived). The exception to this would be if the bishop erected personal parishes of some sort, which would be parishes to which anyone of the specified category of persons might legitimately belong. This enabled all the Italians in the personal parish’s boundaries to opt for the Italian parish instead of the geographic parish to which they would otherwise belong. Since the obligation to belong to the geographic parish no longer applies, the distinction doesn’t mean much today, but for the purposes of studying past ethnic parishes it is important to remember that these were specially erected for a purpose.

As for the confusion over churches, there is a lot of imprecision in the way we typically speak of churches in the Catholic church, but mostly because Latin Catholics aren’t really aware of the existence of other churches sui iuris (having their own laws). The Catholic Church is comprised of some 21 or 22 different churches (I can never remember the exact number) whose laws and liturgical norms and rites vary from church to church. So it would have been inaccurate to claim that the Catholic Church has a common liturgical language, because the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church uses Ukrainian and Old Church Slavonic, the Maronite (Catholic) Church uses Arabic and Aramaic, etc. Another problem with our system of churches is that the Eastern Churches, as a general rule of thumb, can be grouped into rites so that one rite will be used by many churches (e.g., Greeks, Czechs, and Melkites all use the Byzantine rite), but in the West the opposite obtains so that one church uses many rites. This means that the church to which 98% of Catholics belong, which I am pretty sure is best termed the Latin church, though Roman church might be acceptable, cannot be referred to in terms of the Roman rite, since it also contains some who worship according to the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, and other rites, as well as uses within rites such as the Anglican and Zaire uses of the Roman rite.

That’s a long way of getting around to the last question, but yes, Latin should serve to foster liturgical uniformity worldwide once the Roman rite had gained pre-eminence. More to the point, though, Latin is the cultural patrimony of every Latin Catholic, so in parish situations of linguistic diversity it should serve as a common denominator. Obviously, the homily will need to be in a particular vernacular, but Latin is neutral territory for the rest of the Mass. The solution devised by some of switching back and forth between two (or even more) languages during Mass is envisioned as enabling everyone to understand some of the Mass, but has the unfortunate effect not only of an aesthetically disjointed liturgy but also that potentially no person would understand most of the Mass, something that could be accomplished if we were all as familiar with the Latin of our liturgy as the second Vatican Council mandated.

 

[puzzleannie]

Amen. The assimilation model, the norm of immigrant experience in this country until the late 1960’s, is frowned upon today, and consequently there is little analogy that can be made between the present multicultural model and past assimilation.

The mission of the ethnic parish of yesteryear and the “parallel parish community” (and/or multicultural models of today) are quite different, most notably in the fact that most of the latter do not see assimilation as part of their social function.

that’s just the point, the “assimilation model” was never the only or even preferred model, depending on the diocese, the clergy available to serve immigrant populations, the bishops etc. Ethnic parishes flourished alongside territorial parishes in many large northern cities throughout the period of highest immigration rates. Sometimes the ethnic parish was the territorial parish, due to neighborhood demographics, but those were very fluid in the period of highest immigration (see secular studies such as Streetcar Suburbs).

Depending on the bishop and clergy, ethnic priests and nuns were recruited from the old country to serve those congregations, or there was continual friction, first between German and Irish priests, bishops and congregations, and later among various ethnic groups.

Some bishops promoted very strongly, usually through parochial schools, assimilation, English classes, even job training for immigrants to foster assimilation. Others were very strong on preserving culture, language and ethnic religious customs and popular piety. There is not generalization you can make that will be true of all dioceses in America about all immigrant groups in all times and places.

Latin as the common language of liturgy was a unifying factor, but bear in mind that from the Vatican down, liturgical reform was an agenda item from at least the 30s, possibly earlier, reforms which included proclamation of the Word and a sermons in the vernacular, with special attention to those congregations whose language was other than that of the prevailing culture. The challenges posed in places like the Americas due to massive immigration is one of the reasons why those changes were called for generations before they became a reality.

 

[Chatter163]

that’s just the point, the “assimilation model” was never the only or even preferred model, depending on the diocese, the clergy available to serve immigrant populations, the bishops etc. Ethnic parishes flourished alongside territorial parishes in many large northern cities throughout the period of highest immigration rates. Sometimes the ethnic parish was the territorial parish, due to neighborhood demographics, but those were very fluid in the period of highest immigration (see secular studies such as Streetcar Suburbs).

Depending on the bishop and clergy, ethnic priests and nuns were recruited from the old country to serve those congregations, or there was continual friction, first between German and Irish priests, bishops and congregations, and later among various ethnic groups.

Some bishops promoted very strongly, usually through parochial schools, assimilation, English classes, even job training for immigrants to foster assimilation. Others were very strong on preserving culture, language and ethnic religious customs and popular piety. There is not generalization you can make that will be true of all dioceses in America about all immigrant groups in all times and places.

When I spoke of the assimilation model prevailing, I was speaking not only of parishes and dioceses, but of the American immigrant experience in general. This is why I opened my last statement with the words, “The assimilation model, the norm of immigrant experience in this country until the late 1960’s…” without referring specifcally to parishes until later in my remarks.

While it may be true that the assimilation model was not the only model in effect a century or so ago, it was by and far the predominant one, both inside and outside the Church (Gordon, 1964; Bell, 1992; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Millet, 2006, et al.) See also Neil Campbell, Jude Davies and George McKay, eds. (2004) Issues in Americanisation and Culture (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press) for an interesting non-American perspective.

I submit that while no model is perfect, the assimiliation model was, in terms of cultural coherence and harmony, superior to the multicultural one that prevails today. And I contend that it is difficult to compare today’s parish life, whether it be completely multicultural or the “parallel parish” that was described earlier in this thread, to the ethnic parishes of yesteryear. Even where there was a strong tendency by pastors and bishops to preserve the cultural heritage of specific groups, and even where there were various ethnic rivalries (where my father grew up, it was always Irish vs. Italian priests), a fair degree of assimilationism was nearly always part of the mix. The emphasis on learning the language and American culture was still strongly emphasized–if not by the pastor or bishop himself, then by other influential clergy, religious and other Catholic institutions–and the result was still assmiliation. The ethnic parishes generally remained so in name only long after after the immigration patterns had subsided.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Let me interject one idea to contemplate. It was all well and good to have ethnic parishes in the past. Lord knows I am a descendant from both parishes, Irish and German, which sat right across the street from each other and were served by the same order of priests. New Orleans - St. Alphonsus (Irish), St. Mary (German).

But in the ninteenth century parish the Mass was the same in either parish. Latin. By training, I have a Master’s in Anthropology. And, I sit here in south Louisiana. And, I think I have a pretty good idea about what is going to happen to our recent immigrant Catholics coming up from central America.

They will be absorbed into the cultural gumbo which is south Louisiana. New Orleans has always had an intimate connection to Cuba. One went to New Orleans through Havana and vice-versa. Louisiana was a Spanish colony and the architecture of the French Quarter is not French but Spanish.

Bear with me. When Fidel Castro took over Cuba a lot of folks went to Miami. And a great many went to New Orleans. I know a lot of folks of Cuban ancestry with whom I went to school with. Is there a distinct Cuban community here? No. Why? Because they became a part of our cultural gumbo. We had long historic connections to Cuba and we cooked pretty much the same food…Let me give you a hint…we cook red beans and white rice the same way they cook black beans and yellow rice. We are simpatico, as you would say in Spanish.

The Vietnamese came next. There’s a big Vietnamese parish down in NO and there’s one here in Baton Rouge. They’ve been here since the late 70s. They just add more spice to the gumbo.

Now, we’re having a whole influx of Central American workers to help with Katrina and Rita. They are flocking to a predominately Cajun town named Gonzales which is half way between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. Stealth history. Spain owned Louisiana…we have a long history of Canary Islanders here.

The Central American worker comes here and finds that he or she can buy most ingrediants they need to buy to make their suppers. Most of us down here in south Louisiana are Catholics so religion is not a problem. Oh, there are protestant Anglo’s (and Brother is laughing his Celtic self off), but we got us a gumbo here and have for several centuries.

Time will tell, my friends, time will tell. They will enter the gumbo and all of us will be enriched. C’est, c’est bon!

 

[Beno]

Time will tell, my friends, time will tell. They will enter the gumbo and all of us will be enriched. C’est, c’est bon!

You might be on to something with this cooking analogy.