39. Corrigan to Scalabrini⁹²

         New York, August 31, 1891

Most Reverend Excellency:

I received your most welcomed letter of the 10th of August. I thank you for what you said about me regarding the establishment of the St. Raphael’s Society. Your Excellency knows me by now to the marrow, and for my part I am convinced I act for the immigrants as I act for the Americans.

            Regarding the hospital, I think it is wise for the moment to postpone any decision. From the latest information I have received it appears that at present it continues normally and that charity does not allow that anything be lacking to the poor patients. In the past, the situation was described to me in dark terms and I was led to write to Your Excellency fearing a catastrophe.

            I learned with surprise that Mr. Cahensly and Mr.Volpe-Landi have been mortified by my letter; but I believe that the American Bishops, more than they, should feel mortified by their behavior. Forgive me, Bishop, but one does not dare address so lightly a memorandum⁹³ to the Holy Father in which, if individual persons are not offended, at least the entire American Episcopate is morally offended. What is worse is that the memorandum was sent to the Pope by people who have never seen America, who have learned about the misfortunes and oppression of the immigrants only through the reports of some novelist or newspaper correspondent who take more at heart the ideal of impressing people than that of truth.

            Before teaching the American Episcopate how to take care of the spiritual interests of the immigrants, America should be known and then, confidentially suggest one’s opinion to the Bishop in whose favor stands the presumption that he feels the duty to work for the salvation of souls more than the laity. I believe, Bishop, that you would not see it well if a lay committee should suggest to the Pope a method of governing the diocese of Piacenza different from the one you have followed now. It was, therefore, quite reasonable that I should express my idea and in a way my resentment in this regard.

            Your Excellency states in your letter that those gentlemen did not intend to create a double jurisdiction, but only that the various European Nationalities should have a representative in the American Episcopate, and this be not a foreigner but an American. Then Your Excellency adds: Is this not the method now in use? Allow me, Bishop: If this method already exists in the United States, why did Mr. Cahensly send a petition to the Holy See? It seems a mental shortcoming to ask what has already been granted, and in fact implemented. Since I know for certain that Mr. Cahensly is well aware and knows what he is doing, I must conclude that his intention was quite different. This is confirmed by Cardinal Simeoni’s reply⁹⁴ when he frankly said that Mr. Cahensly’s project was impossible to implement. Therefore, the issue was very different.

            What is of greater significance is that the remarks of Mr. Cahensly (who was in America for a month, more or less) are not all gold: he received information from suspected sources and did not have sufficient time to accurately evaluate the American Episcopate’s work with immigrants. The St. Raphael’s Society Committee for German immigrants, made up of distinguished persons of German origin, headed by Bishop Wigger of Newark, himself of German extraction, has solemnly protested against this project and Mr. Cahensly’s memorandum. Certainly they would not have reacted publicly against a fellow-countryman if everything were in line with the real situation.

            Dearest Bishop, the question of immigration to America cannot find a solution without taking into account American culture and life. One must live at least a few years in America in order to understand what eludes a traveler’s superficial judgment. A people cannot be studied in a month. The American people, educated to freedom and national independence, progress in Catholicism as it advances in freedom. But when it enters the Church, it does not leave outside the door the idea of national independence. The American Episcopate has to do its best that this independence does not invade the area of religion: it would bring about most serious damages. A people brought up with such an education would not resign itself to being subjected to a foreign Bishop. If Mr. Cahensly’s idea were implemented, no doubt an element of division and fragmentation would be introduced among American Catholics, then of competition, dissentions, discords to the detriment of Catholicism and to the advantage of Protestantism.

            Moreover, Cahensly’s idea seems unacceptable to me because it requires the appointment of Bishops chosen because they are foreigners and as representatives of the foreign nationalities. On the contrary, the American Episcopate wants capable Bishops, be they American or foreign. Besides it wants the Bishop to represent the people entrusted to him and not a foreign nation. This is certainly the true concept of Bishop: his right is over the whole flock and must care for all without distinction. Even if by an absurd hypothesis we were to admit the existence of such Bishops, no good would result or at least good results would not compensate for the harm that could come. In such an hypothesis clashes would be inevitable between one Bishop and another and between Bishop and people.

            Believe me, Bishop, I speak because of no other sentiment than that which my conscience demands. My view is the evaluation of a long and mature experience. If I used great liberty in expressing my ideas to Your Excellency, attribute it to my sincerity. I cannot not hide my convictions on this matter to none and much less to a friend such as Your Excellency. If I have been the only one to send a word of disapproval to the Honorable Cahensly, this should not surprise Your Excellency since no other bishop feels the burden of immigration more that I, since all immigrants come to New York.

            In the expectation that my frank and sincere words will strengthen our old friendship, I send you my respects and remain

Your Excellency’s affectionate friend,

Michael Augustine, Archbishop

Confidential

Concerning the possibility of double jurisdiction there have been intrigues on the part of the Canadians, the Italians, the Greeks and the Poles.

1.     The Canadians asked for their own Bishop for the Canadians scattered throughout New England, the present (ecclesiastical) Province of Boston. This happened years ago.

2.     The Italians, more recently, when a certain Monsignor⁹⁵ sent a pamphlet printed in New York to all Italian bishops and to the Sacred College.

3.     The Greeks sent their petition to the Holy Father last year.

4.     The Poles this year asked for Bishop Koyniewscki of Wilna and requested that two other Polish priests, now in the United States, be made Apostolic Vicars. I know these facts because the Holy See sent me the documentation to ask for my opinion.

            When Your Excellency will come to America you will see these things clearly and will be of the same opinion as

Your very affectionate servant,

Michael