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 regard to their four focus areas or utilize his claim that poverty and racism could not be properly addressed as long as America’s financial resources were dedicated to a war in Vietnam.
Furthermore, The National Race Crisis left no role for black agency. Three particular agents are mentioned for enacting needed change: (1) an interreligious Urban Task Force, for the creation of church programs throughout the United States; (2) the business community, particularly for the creation of jobs; and (3) the government, for intervention to complement the actions of the first two agents.22 In contrast, King wanted to coordinate a massive mobilization of poor people from all racial backgrounds in Washington, DC, to nonviolently agitate the government into spending billions of dollars to solve the problem of poverty in the United States.23
Even though the document prescribed the formation of the Urban Task Force, nothing substantial occurred in the organizing of this entity for over a year. A large part of the reason for this was because John McCarthy, the primary author of The National Race Crisis and a member of the Catholic Committee on Urban Ministry, “had no experience of community organization,” as he himself admitted.24 McCarthy, who was elevated to bishop of Austin, Texas, in 1979 (and is now retired), “helped forge the idea [of the Urban Task Force] that would grow into the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.”25 McCarthy also wrote a “supporting technical paper” that explored in more detail the need for the empowerment and self-determination of blacks: “Political, organizational and economic independence were important elements in earlier rapid integration of immigrant ethnic groups into the American society. The church must now support the black community in its efforts to achieve the organizational, political and economic power so necessary to break down existing patterns of dependence and frustration.”26
The bishops approved McCarthy’s supporting paper “in substance,” as a guide for the bishops themselves, but it would not be issued to the public.27 Despite the high ideals put forth in the supporting document for fostering the self-empowerment of African Americans, Massingale points out that the bishops budgeted only $28,000 for the Urban Task Force while they allocated several hundred thousand dollars for a study of clerical celibacy during the same period.28 The Urban Task Force quickly morphed into the Campaign for Human Development, for which the bishops would raise $8.5 million in 1970 alone, but that program focused more on eliminating poverty than addressing racism. This change of emphasis from race to poverty ignored the issue of racism and would quickly negate McCarthy’s call for black agency and empowerment under the more generic guise of empowering the poor.29
Brothers and Sisters to Us
In 1979, the U.S. bishops issued Brothers and Sisters to Us. As the document itself states, it was written for two reasons: (1) an appeal for a new document on racism was requested at the 1976 Call to Action conference on social justice, which the bishops convened to consult with the laity as a way to celebrate America’s bicentennial and to give a greater voice to the laity, as envisioned by the Second Vatican Council; and (2) racism was just as pernicious as it had been ten years previous, though the “external appearances” had changed and become more “subtle.”30 This document, in a vein similar to LaFarge’s writings and the bishops’ previous statements, grounded the sin of racism in a denial of (1) the universal Fatherhood of God and (2) the Incarnation, in which Jesus became the brother of all, with the intention of offering salvation to all humanity. Unlike previous statements, it affirmed that minorities have something “rich” to bring to our nation and that “each [racial group] is a source of internal strength for our nation.”31 The document admitted that the Church was experienced by many as a “racist institution,” and called for the Church to be an exemplar of racial justice in its employment practices, in the fostering of vocations, in calling for racial justice in the structures of greater society, and in supporting the poor, especially through providing “spiritual and financial support” for Catholic associations organized by minority groups.32
Also in contradistinction to the previous two statements on racism, which were composed solely by whites, Brothers and Sisters to Us had considerable input from a black Catholic. Cyprian Davis, an African American Benedictine monk and Church historian, was asked by then Auxiliary Bishop Joseph A. Francis (d. 1997) of Newark, the chair of the committee working on the document, to rewrite a draft of the statement. Davis believes that the most significant idea he added to the document was a systemic notion of racism.33 In addition, the document admits that the civil rights movement of the 1960s supported by Catholics and others received “much of its initiative and inspiration within the black Protestant Churches,” which acknowledges that black agency and black sources have led to concrete Catholic involvement in racial justice.34
As Massingale writes, Brothers and Sisters to Us was “more concrete and detailed” in its plans to address racism than previous documents and it did lead to more African Americans entering the priesthood as well as broader liturgical inculturation.35 This analysis corresponds with Davis’s memory: when he was solicited by the bishops to rewrite the document, he was asked to add “strong language” and “definite” plans to the document. Massingale also asserts, however, that the document appears to be written by white Catholics for white Catholics. Davis agrees with this assessment: at the time, he believed that he was supposed to maintain the writing style of the bishops, who were overwhelmingly white, making heavy use of hierarchical sources. He further points out that this is why “What We Have Seen and Heard,” a 1984 document on evangelization published by the African American Catholic bishops, is an important sequel. Davis observes that in the latter document, in which he also had a significant authorial role, the black bishops spoke as black bishops. Therefore, Davis felt at liberty to contribute to it as a black Catholic.36 Although Brothers and Sisters to Us acknowledges the importance of African American sources and black agency during the civil rights movement, and even suggests that Catholics cooperate with black Protestant churches in the pursuit of racial justice, the document is implicitly addressed to white Catholics and does not offer any direction or encouragement for Catholics belonging to any racial minority group.37
