In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

C H A P T E R I I I Interracial Activism: Belief in Practice, 1948–1949 HILE CATHOLIC INTEGRATIONISTS in New Orleans faced strong opposition on the local level inside and outside their church, they were heartened by the growing commitment of some political leaders to civil rights on the national level. President Harry S. Truman was not the Missouri senator Harry S. Truman selected as Franklin Roosevelt’s running mate in 1944. At that time many southerners thought Senator Truman would represent their social and racial beliefs; they were mistaken. Establishing a presidential commission to investigate civil rights violations (1946), speaking to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (1948), desegregating the military (1948), and calling for civil rights legislation (1948), all represented an atypical southerner.1 The results of the 1948 presidential election, however, demonstrated that the people of Louisiana favored racial segregation as the States’ Rights candidate, Governor Strom Thurmond, carried Louisiana with 49.1 percent of the vote (204,290), President Harry Truman came in second with 32.7 percent (136,344), and the Republican candidate, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, was a weak third with 17.5 percent, or 72,657 votes. This election represented the world that members of the Southeastern Regional Interracial Commission (SERINCO ) and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) inhabited, and it was the world they were trying to change.2 CHR INEFFECTIVENESS While Catholics in New Orleans had no legal power to challenge Jim Crow society through civil or ecclesiastical legislation, they could promote better race relations among their coreligionists. Try as they might, members of the CHR faced indifference and opposition to their cause. Their attempts to promote interracial activities were limited in scope and effectiveness. Nevertheless, this small determined group of adult Catholics manifested an alternative approach to the prac50 W Anderson final pages 8/10/05 9:15 AM Page 50 tice of southern race relations. Their example could have served as a model for reforming southern Catholic racial attitudes and behavior. The one significant and visible manifestation of racial harmony CHR members attempted was attending Sunday Mass together on an integrated basis. Rather than desegregate the altar, these Catholic laymen and laywomen would desegregate the pews and thereby begin the dismantling process of Jim Crow society within the Catholic community from below; integrating sacred space would call into question the legitimacy of maintaining segregated secular space.3 Though they wanted to attend “white” parishes as an integrated body, commission members could not always obtain permissions from the pastors of these churches to do so. Even when they did, the parishioners of the host church saw their presence as an act of defiance. Given these difficulties, members wanted to obtain the approval and support of Archbishop Rummel for their efforts because his office and influence might encourage reluctant pastors to open their doors to the group. An alternative to appealing to Rummel was inviting pastors to the monthly CHR meetings in order to explain the organization, clarify its goals and objectives, and then solicit their support.4 Again, the inability of the CHR to infiltrate and challenge racial mores at the parish level demonstrates the degree to which racial prejudice had influenced Catholic society. White supremacy was a given in New Orleans Catholic society just as it was throughout the state and region. Catholic principles of unity, charity , and justice simply did not apply to the black community. For most white Catholics, racial segregation was a social practice or custom, not a moral issue. The commission’s inability to promote racial justice by attending Mass as integrated groups points to the larger issue of prejudice in the pews. Social acceptance of segregation by many New Orleans Catholics translated into religious discrimination in the church. This presented a dilemma: how to challenge the practice of Jim Crowism in church after having given tacit approval to it for decades. Making people aware of the moral dimension of segregation would prove to be the greatest challenge for CHR members. It would also be a challenge for the church at large because this contradiction between church teaching and historical practice would lead to open defiance by some and subtle defiance by many others at a time when Catholic leaders eventually called for the elimination of racial segregation within the church. SERINCO, CHR, AND MINSTREL SHOWS Consciousness-raising among Catholic college students was also difficult. When the student chapter of the Catholic fraternal organization Epsilon Kappa Sigma (Knights...

Share