Latino Catholicism: Transformation in America’s Largest Church by Timothy Matovina (review)

Timothy Matovina’s Latino Catholicism: Transformation in America’s Largest Church follows in the footsteps of previous scholarly endeavors on Latinos and religion such as the three volumes edited by Jay P. Dolan and Allan Figueroa Deck (Notre Dame, 1994–97), Recognizing the Latino Resurgence in U.S. Religions by Ana María Díaz-Stevens and Antonio M. Stevens-Arroyo (Boulder, CO, 1998), and Latinos and the New Immigrant Church by David A. Badillo (Baltimore, 2006), whose main thrust was to evaluate the Hispanics’ role in the development of U. S. Catholicism while recognizing the Church’s role in the “Americanization” process.

Matovina is true to the body of literature from Latino sources in adopting this perspective, although not always successful in expressing the dynamics in the church-state relationships after the U.S. takeover of Puerto Rico and the Southwest. He writes, “Mexico remains one of the most staunchly Catholic nations in terms of the preferred denominational allegiance of its population, while Puerto Rico . . . is among the most Protestant” (p. 31). Although factual, the comparison is problematic. Mexico is an independent and sovereign nation, whereas Puerto Rico is an American colony. To understand post-1898 religion in Puerto Rico, one must understand the nature of the private and public school systems, control of banks and newspapers, exploitation of natural resources by U.S. business, expulsion of the Spanish clergy and religious orders, and confiscation of Catholic Church property. Puerto Rico and New Mexico would make for a better comparison, particularly in terms of Catholicism’s role in preserving language and cultural identity in the face of annexation leading to statehood (New Mexico) and the establishment of a colonial status (Puerto Rico). Puerto Rico’s status as a colony explains why the birth control pill could be tested there and how the sterilization of an estimated 40 percent of all women of child-bearing age could be accomplished. This crucial issue led to political and ecclesiastical upheaval for Puerto Rican Catholics in the 1960s, yet it is not mentioned in this book.

Not surprisingly, Matovina privileges the Mexican American experience. Consideration is given to the Penitentes as preservers of pre-invasion Catholic identity in New Mexico but not to Los Hermanos Cheos, the Puerto Rican lay Catholic preachers who took initiative without episcopal approval to combat Protestant proselytizing on the island in the early 1900s and later accompanied the migration to Chicago. Mexican American youth movements are highlighted, but the youth apostolic groups of the Northeast that played decisive roles in the Encuentros Nacionales and the Eucharistic Congress of 1976 in Philadelphia are not.

Some of these gaps can be attributed to the author’s decision to treat his topic thematically, rather than chronologically. Whereas the first chapter remaps the growing Latino presence within U.S. Catholicism, the following seven cover issues of integration, Hispanic ministry, parishes and apostolic movements, leadership, worship and devotion, public Catholicism, and passing on the faith. A six-page epilogue, bearing the name of the book’s subtitle, summarizes how the Hispanic/Latinos remain loyal to the faith, emphasize issues of ministry (particularly local-level pastoral programs), and transform U.S. Catholicism without giving up their cultural values in the process.

Matovina uses multiple sources: national surveys, census data, church-related documents, monographs, personal contacts, and narratives. Unfortunately, citation of these sources is irregular. For instance, the National Survey of Leadership in Latino Parishes and Congregations (NSLLPC) is alternately referred to as the “PARAL report,” “a 2002 report of the Program for the Analysis of Religion Among Latinos,” or as a work listed under the name of the editor. Social science data resulting from survey analysis, however, is a type of information to be distinguished from a historian’s private interpretation or a theologian’s hopeful expectation. Bothersome, too, is the use of unreferenced citations. On page 42, Matovina writes: “One priest lauded his compatriots...