1. “From Boundlessness to Consolidation: The Transformation of American Culture, 1848–1860,” originally delivered as a Commonwealth Fund Lecture at the University of London in 1968, is reprinted with an introductory note by McConnell, Stuart in Higham, John, Hanging Together: Unity and Diversity in American Culture, ed. Guarneri, Carl J. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001), 147–65, 284–87Google Scholar; quotation, 165.

2. There is a large literature on Hecker; the best study of his whole career is O'Brien, David J., Isaac Hecker: An American Catholic (New York: Paulist, 1992)Google Scholar. Another authority calls Hecker “one of the foremost American Catholic representatives of the Romantic mood in American religion.” Carey, Patrick W., The Roman Catholics (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1993), 237.Google Scholar

3. McAvoy, Thomas T., ed., “Bishop Bruté's Report to Rome in 1836,” Catholic Historical Review (hereafter CHR) 29 (July 1943): 177–233Google Scholar, quotation, 216.

4. Easterly, Frederick J., The Life of the Rt. Rev. Joseph Rosati, C.M., First Bishop of St. Louis, 1789–1843 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1942), 62Google Scholar; Hughes is quoted in Garraghan, Gilbert J., “Fordham's Jesuit Beginnings,” Thought 16 (03 1941): 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For other expressions of the same sort, see Garraghan, Gilbert J., The Jesuits of the Middle United States, 3 vols. (New York: America, 1938), 3:113Google Scholar; Barry, Colman J., Worship and Work: Saint John's Abbey and University (Collegeville, Minn.: St. John's Abbey, 1956), 17–19Google Scholar; and McGovern, James J., The Life and Writings of the Right Reverend John McMullen, First Bishop of Davenport, Iowa (Chicago: Hoffmann, 1888), 142.Google Scholar

5. In 1856, a pioneering Benedictine monk in Minnesota reported: “Here everything is not in a hurry but at a storm pace. Whoever does not keep up with the storm appears unimportant, is ridiculed, and loses the golden opportunity which never returns.” Quoted in Barry, , Worship and Work, 37.Google Scholar

6. In appealing for funds from Europe in 1840, Bishop Hughes contrasted European Catholics' “rich inheritance” with the situation of American Catholics, for whom “the past has done nothing.” Quoted in Philip, Gleason, Keeping the Faith: American Catholicism Past and Present (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1987), 156Google Scholar. In the diocese of St. Louis, “the Civil War was roughly the watershed between rather unstable, semi-frontier conditions and the gradual emergence of a settled, familiar pattern of clerical life.” James, Hitchcock, “Secular Clergy in Nineteenth Century America: A Diocesan Profile,” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society (here-after RACHS) 88 (03-12 1977): 31–62Google Scholar, quotation 57. Leslie Woodcock, Tentler, “‘God's Representative in Our Midst’: Toward a History of the Catholic Diocesan Clergy in the United States,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 67 (06 1998): 326–49Google Scholar, shows that the same was true of Michigan. Mary Christine, Athans, “To Work for the Whole People”: John Ireland's Seminary in St. Paul (New York: Paulist, 2002)Google Scholar, chaps. 1–2, analyzes a frontier seminary's beginnings in the 1850s and 1860s.

7. The Catholic population grew from around 600,000 in 1840 to 3.1 million in 1860; the number of ecclesiastical jurisdictions (dioceses and archdioceses) increased from sixteen to forty-six in the same period, and the number of Catholic newspapers and magazines increased from seven to twenty-one. For details on Catholic growth and the mentality accompanying it, see Hueston, Robert F., The Catholic Press and Nativism, 1840–1860 (New York: Arno, 1976), 33–41, 48–51, 158–61.Google Scholar

8. Morris, Charles, American Catholic: The Saints and Sinners Who Built America's Most Powerful Church (New York: Random House, 1997)Google Scholar; McGreevy, John T., Catholicism and American Freedom: A History (New York: W. W. Norton, 2003)Google Scholar. Morris uses the construction of St. Patrick's as the centerpiece of his opening chapter.

9. Kauffman, Christopher J., Tradition and Transformation in Catholic Culture: The Priests of Saint Sulpice in the United States from 1791 to the Present (New York: Macmillan, 1988), esp. 69–70Google Scholar. Older, but still useful for the earliest period, is Ruane, Joseph W., The Beginnings of the Society of St. Sulpice in the United States, 1791–1829 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1935).Google Scholar

10. White, Joseph M., The Diocesan Seminary in the United States: A History from the 1780s to the Present (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 65–67Google Scholar. For a digest of White's treatment, see his article, “Perspectives on the Nineteenth-Century Diocesan Seminary in the United States,” U. S. Catholic Historian 19 (winter 2001): 21–35Google Scholar. White's restriction of his work to “diocesan” seminaries means that he does not cover the education religious communities (Jesuits, Franciscans, and so on) provided for their own members.

11. Catholic Herald, March 21, 1850, quoted in O'Donnell, George E., St. Charles Seminary, Overbrook, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, Penn.: Jeffries and Manz, 1943–1953), 1:30–31Google Scholar. The Boston Pilot, January 6, 1849, also took favorable note of the increase. The absolute numbers were modest (from 141 seminarians in 1840 to 360 in 1850), but they represented a 150 percent increase in ten years.

12. The total number ordained at St. Mary's by 1860 was 198, of which 88 constitute 44.4 percent. See White, , Diocesan Seminary, 39Google Scholar. Kauffman, , Tradition and Transformation, 138–39Google Scholar, gives additional statistics of growth and reports that in the 1850s St. Mary's ordained priests for seventeen dioceses.

13. White, , Diocesan Seminary, 63, 65Google Scholar, and chap. 3. After 1827, new dioceses were usually formed on the recommendation of meetings of the hierarchy. These were called provincial councils so long as the whole country was one archdiocese, plenary councils thereafter. The former were held in 1829, 1833, 1837, 1840, 1843, 1846, and 1849; those of 1852, 1866, and 1884 were plenary councils. All were held in Baltimore. See Peter, Guilday, A History of the Councils of Baltimore (1791–1884) (New York: Macmillan, 1932).Google Scholar

14. White, Diocesan Seminary, chaps. 3–4. For the minor seminary, see also, Kauffman, , Tradition and Transformation, 122–24, 126–27Google Scholar; for All Hallows, see Purcell, Richard J., “Missionaries from All Hallows (Dublin) to the United States, 1842–1865,” RACHS 53 (12 1942): 204–49Google Scholar; for Louvain, , Sauter, John D., The American College of Louvain (1857–1898) (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1959)Google Scholar; and for the Roman college, McNamara, Robert F., The American College in Rome, 1855–1955 (Rochester, N.Y.: Christopher, 1956)Google Scholar. All Hallows prepared Irish candidates for the American church, and Louvain prepared seminarians from the continent (although a few Americans also received their training at Louvain); seminarians at the North American College, however, were sent there from the U.S. About three dozen Americans had earlier been sent to Rome for studies at the seminary operated by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Propaganda Fide), the curial body responsible for overseeing ecclesiastical affairs in mission territories, which status applied to the United States until 1908.

15. Ryan, Thomas R., Orestes A. Brownson: A Definitive Biography (Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1976), chaps. 30–31Google Scholar, covers this development; McAvoy, Thomas T., “Orestes A. Brownson and Archbishop John Hughes in 1860,” Review of Politics 24 (01 1962): 19–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, analyzes the doctrinal issues involved; McGreevy, , Catholicism and American Freedom, 43–49Google Scholar, stresses the influence on Brownson of European Catholic liberals; Hueston, , Catholic Church and Nativism, 239–56Google Scholar, covers Brownson's views on nativism and the controversy their publication set off.

16. The key statements by Brownson are the following: “Native Americanism,” Brownson's Quarterly Review (hereafter BQR) 11 (July 1854): 328–54Google Scholar, and “The Know-Nothings,” BQR 11 (October 1854): 447–87Google Scholar. In private correspondence Brownson expressed very negative views of the Irish; he also maintained that the Irish clergy in particular had actively resisted assimilation and done their best to foster the idea “that to americanize is to protestantize.” See Hueston, , Catholic Church and Nativism, 240 noteGoogle Scholar; and (for the quoted passage), Brownson, Henry F., Orestes A. Brownson's Latter Life (Detroit, Mich.: The Author, 1900), 7.Google Scholar

17. Quotation from “Public and Parochial Schools,” BQR 16 (July 1859): 331Google Scholar. See also “Schools and Education,” BQR 11 (July 1854): 354–76Google Scholar; , F. G., “Public Instruction,” BQR 14 (07 1857): 375–88Google Scholar; S[palding], M[artin] J., “Common Schools,” BQR 15 (01 1858): 70–120Google Scholar, and citations in later notes. (Unless otherwise indicated, articles in BQR are by Brownson himself.)

18. “Catholic Schools and Education,” BQR 19 (January 1862): 71–72Google Scholar. See also, McDonnell, James M., Orestes A. Brownson and Nineteenth-Century Catholic Education (New York: Garland, 1988), 199 ff., 246 ff.Google Scholar

19. “Conversations of Our Club,” BQR 15 (October 1858): 457–66.Google Scholar

20. B[arry], W[illiam] J., “Ecclesiastical Seminaries,” BQR 16 (10 1859): 456–72.Google Scholar

21. B[arry], W[illiam] J., “Dr. Arnold and Catholic Education,” BQR 17 (07 1860): 302–29Google Scholar; B[arry], W[illiam] J., “Catholic Education in the United States,” BQR 18 (01 1861): 32–64Google Scholar; William J. Barry to Orestes A. Brownson, 11 April 1861, University of Notre Dame Archives (hereafter UNDA), Brownson papers.

22. Quoted from the Buffalo Sentinel in the New York Metropolitan Record, November 3, 1860. Other negative reactions to the October 1860 number of BQR, including that of Archbishop John Hughes of New York, were reprinted in the Metropolitan Record, November 3, 10, 17, and December 22, 1860. In a private letter to a priest-friend in Rome, Hughes reported: “Dr. Brownson has written the last number of his Review in a spirit so un-catholic that I would not dare to say what he is aiming at.” John Hughes to Bernard Smith, 31 October 1860, UNDA-MBAS 1.

23. C[ummings], J[eremiah] W., “Vocations to the Priesthood,” BQR 17 (10 1860): 497–515, esp. 505–7Google Scholar. Purcell, , “Missionaries from All Hallows,” 222Google Scholar, says eighty-two priests from All Hallows were serving in the U.S. in 1861. Archbishop Hughes was distressed by Cummings's article, which he characterized as written “in a style and spirit of language that have shocked most of its readers.” John Hughes to Bernard Smith, 31 October 1860, UNDA-MBAS 1.

24. J[C[ummings, eremiah] W.], “Seminaries and Seminarians,” BQR 18 (01 1861): 97–117Google Scholar. Cummings also defended his earlier article in a letter to the Cardinal Secretary of Propaganda Fide, 15 January 1861, UNDA, Propaganda Fide microfilm. This letter is calendared in Finbar, Kenneally, ed., United States Documents in the Propaganda Fide Archives, 1st series, 7 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Academy of American Franciscan History, 1966–1977), 2:274Google Scholar, item 1762 (hereafter, Kenneally, Propaganda Fide Documents).

25. Quotation from Carroll's first pastoral letter in Guilday, Peter, The National Pastorals of the American Hierarchy (1792–1919) (Washington, D.C.: National Catholic Welfare Council, 1923), 5Google Scholar. See also Gleason, Philip, “The Main Sheet Anchor: John Carroll and Catholic Higher Education,” Review of Politics 38 (10 1976): 576–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. White, , Diocesan Seminary, 38, 51–52, 55–56, 57, 63.Google Scholar

27. In the pastoral letter issued at the Fourth Provincial Council in 1840, the bishops stated: “America must gradually become independent of foreign churches for the perpetuation of her priesthood. At present the tide of immigration is too copious to prevent [sic, read: permit] our dispensing with the aid of an immigrant clergy, … but gradually we must find our own resources within ourselves, and we should make timely preparation.” Quoted in O'Neill, Daniel P., “The Development of an American Priesthood: Archbishop John Ireland and the Saint Paul Diocesan Clergy, 1884–1918,” Journal of American Ethnic History 4 (spring 1985): 34Google Scholar. For St. Louis, see Hitchcock, , “Secular Clergy,” 38–39, 57.Google Scholar

28. England, quoted from “Theological Seminaries—No. III,” Catholic Herald (Philadephia), September 19,1833. This is one of a series of five articles on seminary education England wrote under the name “Providus”; for the identification of England as author, see White, , Diocesan Seminary, 439, note 15.Google Scholar

29. For reliance on, and recruitment of, seminarians from Europe, see Morris, William S., The Seminary Movement in the United States: Projects, Foundations and Early Development, 1833–1866 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1932), 12, 34, 36, 38, 40, 44, 46, 50, 61, 63, 64, 71, 80Google Scholar. Returning in 1856 from a recruiting trip to Ireland, Bishop Bernard O'Reilly of Hartford, Conn., lost his life when the ship went down in a storm. See Conley, Patrick T., Rhode Island in Rhetoric and Reflection (East Providence, R.I.: Rhode Island Publication Society, 2002), 350.Google Scholar

30. Thomas O'rien, Hartley, ed., The John Carroll Papers, 3 vols. (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976), 1:292, 431Google Scholar (hereafter Carroll Papers).

31. See Tentler, , “Catholic Diocesan Clergy,” 334Google Scholar; and White, , Diocesan Seminary, 124–25Google Scholar. Hitchcock, , “Secular Clergy,” 57Google Scholar, says that over half of the clerical recruits who came to St. Louis before the Civil War “eventually moved on to other vineyards.”

32. Butler, Anne M., “Pioneer Sisters in a Catholic Melting Pot: Juggling Identity in the Pacific Northwest,” American Catholic Studies 114 (spring 2003): 26, nGoogle Scholar. Butler's summary of the priest's reasons for leaving, though not inaccurate, gives a more frivolous impression than does the actual letter he wrote to his bishop announcing his departure. For the letter, see Butler, Anne M., Engh, Michael E., and Spalding, Thomas W., eds., The Frontiers and Catholic Identities (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1999), 87–89.Google Scholar

33. For a listing of such hardships, see McNally, Michael J., “Catholic Parish Life in the Ante-Bellum South: Columbus, Georgia, 1830–1860,” American Catholic Studies 113 (spring-summer 2002): 8–9Google Scholar. Of isolation, one priest wrote that it was what the priest working alone feared most. When weary and discouraged, the priest had no one to whom he could turn for advice and consolation. “Faults of temperament, hardly noticed at first … may slowly develop into abnormalities. … Thus the end of a missionary who began with zeal, enthusiasm and pure love of God and neighbor may be really deplorable.” Butler, , Engh, , and Spalding, , Frontiers, 91.Google Scholar

34. For the first suggestion, made in 1819, see Peter, Guilday, The Life and Times of John England: First Bishop of Charleston, 1786–1842, 2 vols. (New York: America, 1927), 1:288–89Google Scholar. For two later mentions, see Maxmilien Rantzau, S.J., to Ambrose Maréchal, 1 October 1821, AAB 20-A-8 (microfilm copy, UNDA); Maréchal to Rantzau, 4 October 1821 (draft), UNDA, Baltimore collection; and Samuel A. Cooper to Propaganda Fide, 18 December 1824, AAB 27 A-Q-1+ (microfilm copy, UNDA).

35. For brief treatment of seminary education at the First and Second Provincial Councils of Baltimore, see McDonald, Lloyd P., The Seminary Movement in the United States: Projects, Foundations, and Early Developments, 1784–1833 (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1927), 60–63Google Scholar. Guilday, John England, views French-Irish tensions from England's perspective; by contrast, McAvoy, Thomas T., “The Formation of the Catholic Minority in the United States, 1820–1860,” Review of Politics 10 (01 1948): 13–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, sees the French clergy as genuinely in the American tradition; Kauffman, , Tradition and Transformation, 101–11Google Scholar, arrives independently at the same conclusion as McAvoy. Also relevant to this issue is Panczyk, Matthew Leo, “James Whitfield, Fourth Archbishop of Baltimore, the Episcopal Years, 1828–1834,” RACHS 76 (03 1965): 21–23, 26–33, 37–38, 42–43.Google Scholar

36. The quotation is from Ellis, John Tracy, “The Formation of the American Priest: An Historical Perspective,” in The Catholic Priest in the United States: Historical Investigations, ed. Ellis, (Collegeville, Minn.: St. John's University Press, 1971), 5–6Google Scholar. John England's fourth and fifth “Providus” articles make the same argument, Catholic Herald (Philadelphia), October 3, 10, 1833.

37. McDonald, , Seminary Movement, 61Google Scholar; Sexton, John E. and Riley, Arthur J., History of St. John's Seminary, Brighton (Boston, Mass.: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, 1945), 43.Google Scholar

38. Szarnicki, Henry A., “The Episcopate of Michael O'Connor, first Bishop of Pittsburgh, 1843–1860” (Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1971), 139–40Google Scholar, records O'Connor's fear that centralized seminaries would encourage roving. Bishop John Dubois of New York said he had lost three young clerics by sending them away to study; see John Dubois to John B. Purcell, 31 January 1832, UNDA, Mt. St. Mary's papers. Garraghan, , Jesuits, 1:632, 641Google Scholar, reports that the Missouri Province Jesuits resisted sending their seminarians away out of fear they would not come back.

39. John Dubois to John B. Purcell, 28 December 1831, UNDA, Mt. St. Mary's papers, touches on all these points.

40. Providus [England], “Theological Seminaries,” Catholic Herald (Philadelphia), October 10, 1833. In 1846, Bishop Mathias Loras of Dubuque called the founding of weakly supported and inadequately staffed seminaries a “fatal flaw” that he had so far avoided. Loras to Propaganda, 8 January 1846, UNDA, Propaganda Fide microfilm (Kenneally, , Propaganda Fide Documents, 2:13, item 83)Google Scholar. For Loras's efforts in this area, including a short-lived freestanding seminary in the early 1850s, see Morris, , Seminary Movement, 43–48.Google Scholar

41. Although England campaigned for a central seminary, one of his first acts as bishop was to establish a diocesan seminary that endured throughout his episcopate. Indeed, Guilday ventures the opinion that, although England never said so explicitly, his aim in creating the famous system of diocesan representation (which contemporaries viewed as too “republican,” and modern commentators admire for the same reason) was to provide a vehicle to keep the needs of the seminary before the faithful and remind them of their duty to support it. See Guilday, , John England, 1:488.Google Scholar

42. Quotation from Kortendick, James J., “The History of St. Mary's College, Baltimore, Maryland, 1799–1852” (M.A. thesis, Catholic University of America, 1942), 47Google Scholar. In 1829, seven of the nine Sulpicians in Baltimore were engaged in the operation of the college, while only one was teaching seminarians as such; see White, , Diocesan Seminary, 37Google Scholar. St. Mary's College prospered till 1852, when the Sulpicians sold it to the Jesuits, where upon it became Loyola College of Baltimore; see Kauffman, , Tradition and Transformation, 136–37.Google Scholar

43. For brief treatments of the St. Marys/Mount St. Mary's relationship, see White, Diocesan Seminary, chap. 2, and Kauffman, , Tradition and Transformation, 77–84.Google Scholar

44. Kauffman, , Tradition and Transformation, 122–23Google Scholar. See also Tierney, John J., “St. Charles College: Foundation and Early Years,” Maryland Historical Magazine 43 (12 1948): 294–311Google Scholar; and for a sentimental retrospect of its early days, Smith, M. P., “Old Times at St. Charles,” Catholic World 67 (06 1898): 373–87.Google Scholar

45. Morris, Seminary Movement, gives many examples of domestic seminaries and states (63) that they were mainly used for European recruits.

46. For Milwaukee, see Johnson, Peter Leo, Halcyon Days: Story of St. Francis Seminary, Milwaukee, 1856–1956 (Milwaukee, Wisc.: Bruce, 1956), 46Google Scholar; for Little Rock, see Byrne, Andrew to Antoine Blanc, 20 December 1847, as reprinted in American Catholic Historical Researches 15 (04 1898): 138.Google Scholar

47. Statement by F. J. Goetz, quoted from Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati), April 10,1884, in Miller, Francis J., “A History of the Athenaeum of Ohio, 1829–1960” (Ed. D. diss., University of Cincinnati, 1964), 96Google Scholar. Of the seminarians mentioned, Caspar Borgess later became Bishop of Detroit, and John Quinlan became rector of the seminary in Cincinnati and, after that, Bishop of Mobile. For another example of seminarians edified by their bishop's conduct, see Athans, , “To Work for the Whole People,” 14.Google Scholar

48. Morris, , Seminary Movement, 85–86.Google Scholar

49. See Harris, P. R., “The English College, Douai, 1750–1794,” Recusant History 10 (04 1969): 79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Harris, , ed. Douai College Documents, 1639–1794, Catholic Record Society Publications, record series, vol. 63 (n.p.: Catholic Publication Society, 1972).Google Scholar

50. Bishop Louis William DuBourg quoted in Baudier, Roger, The Catholic Church in Louisiana (New Orleans, La.: Chancery Office, 1939), 294.Google Scholar

51. Georgetown, St. Mary's Seminary, and St. Mary's College were all founded earlier, but the demise of the last-named in 1852 makes Mount St. Mary's the third oldest today. White, Diocesan Seminary, chap. 1, covers its nineteenth-century history. For the continuation of secondary education until 1936, see Michael, Glazier and Shelley, Thomas J., eds., The Encyclopedia of American Catholic History (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1997), 983–84Google Scholar. Though outdated and annalistic in approach, Meline, Mary M. and McSweeny, Edward F. X., The Story of the Mountain: Mount St. Mary's College and Seminary, 2. vols. (Emmitsburg, Md.: Weekly Chronicle, 1911)Google Scholar, is crammed with information.

52. See Dubois's pastoral letter printed in Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati), March 14, 1834.

53. Dubois's appeal was published as “The Diocese of New York in 1830,” Historical Records and Studies 5 (April 1909): 216–30Google Scholar, quotation, 229. In explaining why, as Bishop of New York, he was withdrawing his seminarians from Mount St. Mary's, Dubois told one of his successors as president of that institution: “my only resource to raise my clergy must arise from the revenue of a college.” John Dubois to John B. Purcell, 28 December 1831, UNDA, Mount St. Mary's papers.

54. For the Vincentians (a religious community officially known as the Congregation of the Mission), see Easterly, , Rosati, 140–46Google Scholar, and Trisco, Robert F., The Holy See and the Nascent Church of the Middle Western United States, 1826–1850 (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1962), 290–96Google Scholar; for Kentucky, see John B. David to Simon G. Bruté, 2–15 June 1827, UNDA, Nazareth transcripts, microfilm. See also, Kauffman, , Tradition and Transformation, 124.Google Scholar

55. Quoted from Miller, S. J., “Peter Richard Kenrick, Bishop and Archbishop of St. Louis 1806–1896,” RACHS 84 (03-09 1973): 31–32Google Scholar. John Dubois took a different view. He noted that Catholics would have to mix with Protestants in society and could accustom themselves to it most advantageously at a Catholic college; that mixing with Catholics helped remove Protestant prejudices; and that Catholics might later profit from having formed friendships in school with Protestants. See John Dubois to Benedict J. Fenwick, 17 April 1834, Archives of the Archdiocese of Boston.

56. Daley, John M., Georgetown University: Origin and Early Years (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1957), 198–99Google Scholar; Garraghan, , Jesuits, 1:633.Google Scholar

57. Garraghan, , Jesuits, 1:639–40Google Scholar, for quotation, Ibid., 1:571 ff. for Coosemans' career in the Jesuits. The writings of J. P. Martin, S.J., who taught at the seminary of Vals in the Jesuit province of Lyon, were proscribed because they were tainted with “ontologism.” Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J., was the author of a widely used manual of moral theology.

58. Joshua Young to John B. Purcell, 3 January 1835, UNDA, Cincinnati papers. Young, who later changed the spelling of his first name to “Josue,” was ordained three years after writing this letter and was named second bishop of Erie, Pa., in 1853. For a similar account of studies at the seminary in St. Louis in the 1840s, see White, , Diocesan Seminary, 131.Google Scholar

59. Peter McLaughlin to John B. Purcell, 18 January 1839, UNDA, Cincinnati papers. Joshua Young was at that time prefect of studies at the college-seminary in Cincinnati. Alphonsus Ligouri, an influential moral theologian, was canonized a saint the year McLaughlin wrote this letter; Peter Dens was an eighteenth-century Belgian theologian. “Blair's Lectures” presumably refers to Hugh Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, originally published in Edinburgh in 1783, the “Spectator” to Addison and Steele's famous publication.

60. Garraghan, , Jesuits, 1:632–33.Google Scholar

61. Carroll Papers, 3:330, 243–44.

62. Quoted in Halsey, Columba E., “The Life of Samuel Eccleston, Fifth Archbishop of Baltimore, 1801–1851,” RACHS 76 (06 1965): 83–84Google Scholar. The letter from which this passage is taken is also quoted at some length in Kauffman, , Tradition and Transformation, 104.Google Scholar

63. Francis P. Kenrick to John B. Purcell, 24 August 1830, UNDA, Mt. St. Mary's papers (emphasis in original). I should perhaps note here that there were two Kenricks. Francis Patrick Kenrick was successively bishop of Philadelphia and archbishop of Baltimore; his younger brother, Peter Richard Kenrick, was the bishop, later archbishop, of St. Louis.

64. For “talents,” see Francis P. Kenrick to John B. Purcell, 20 October 1831, UNDA, Mt. St. Mary's papers.

65. Quoted in John Tracy, Ellis, Essays in Seminary Education (Notre Dame, Ind.: Fides, 1967), 156.Google Scholar

66. William J. Barry to John B. Purcell, 2 February 1861, UNDA, Cincinnati papers; Barry to Orestes A. Brownson, 11 April 1861, UNDA, Brownson papers; Richard L. Murphy, “The Harvest Is Great: the Irish Clergy's View of Nineteenth Century America” (Senior Essay, May 10, 1973; in UNDA), 65–68.

67. For Rappe, see Leonard, Henry B., “Ethnic Conflict and Episcopal Power: The Diocese of Cleveland, 1847–1870,” CHR 62 (07 1978): 406Google Scholar; for McGlynn and Satolli-LeoXIII, see Curran, Robert Emmett, Michael Augustine Corrigan and the Shaping of Conservative Catholicism in America, 1878–1902 (New York: Arno, 1978), 276–86, 466, and 464 nGoogle Scholar. (the last two pages cited are not in the correct order in the book). Gollar, C. Walker, “The Double Doctrine of the Caldwell Sisters,” CHR 81 (07 1995): 372–97Google Scholar is the most detailed examination of the Spalding case. Gollar is clearly skeptical of the allegations made about Spalding; Morris, however (American Catholic, 88, 443), thinks them probably true.

68. Microfilm copies of the letters from America to All Hallows College are available at UNDA.

69. John Hughes to John B. Purcell, 21 February 1832, UNDA, Mt. St. Mary's papers. In Joseph Addison's Spectator, No. 106, July 2, 1711, Sir Roger de Coverley described the kind of chaplain he sought (and found) as “a Clergyman rather of plain Sense than much Learning, of a good Aspect, a clear Voice, a sociable Temper, and, if possible, a Man that understood a little of Back-Gammon.” I have not tried to identify the “New England critic.”

70. White, Diocesan Seminary, chap. 6, “Formation and Learning,” provides excellent coverage of the spiritual and academic dimensions of seminary life into the 1880s. Ten years later, a critic was still bemoaning the disproportionate attention given to moral theology; see Smith, John Talbot, Our Seminaries (New York: W. H. Young, 1896), 266.Google Scholar

71. See Nolan, Hugh J., The Most Reverend Francis Patrick Kenrick, Third Bishop of Philadelphia, 1830–1851 (Philadelphia, Penn.: American Catholic Historical Society, 1948), 237–44Google Scholar, and for the aspect of Kenrick's moral theology that has gotten the most attention, Brokhage, Joseph D., Francis Patrick Kenrick's Opinion on Slavery (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1955)Google Scholar. F. P. Kenrick was named archbishop of Baltimore in 1851.

72. Bruté's 1836 report to Rome (cited above, note 3) illustrates his nervous energy and wide ranging curiosity. The most recent biography is Lemarié, Charles, Monseigneur Bruté de Rémur: Premier Evêque de Vincennes aux Etats-Unis, 1834–1839 (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1974).Google Scholar

73. Class notes of John McCaffrey, April 1, 1829, Archives of Mount St. Mary's College, Emmitsburg, Md. In a florid eulogy of the deceased Bruté, McCaffrey, by then president of Mount St. Mary's, said of his old teacher: “As a professor of theology, he excelled chiefly in two things—a vast erudition, which left nothing unexplored, and singular power of generalising, which enabled him to grasp his whole subject and handle it with ease by bringing all its details under a few grand principles. … After adducing the evidence, which his extensive reading readily furnished, and elucidating it by his luminous explanations, and applying the logical tests with cautious judgment and impartial rigour, his excursive mind brought in a rich and almost gorgeous profusion of analogies and illustrations from every part of the wide domains of human knowledge.” McCaffrey, John, Discourse on the Right Reverend Simon G. Bruté, Bishop of Vincennes, Pronounced in Mt. St. Mary's Church, August 19th, 1839, on the Occasion of a Solemn Service for the Repose of his Soul (Emmitsburg, Md.: n.p., 1839), 19.Google Scholar

74. The following sketch is based on Kelly, Martin J. and Kirwin, James M., History of Mt. St. Mary's Seminary of the West, Cincinnati, Ohio (Cincinnati, Ohio: Keating, 1894)Google Scholar; Miller, “Athenaeum of Ohio” (cited above, note 47); and Hussey, M. Edmund, A History of the Seminaries of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 1829–1979 (Norwood, Ohio: Mt. St. Mary's Seminary of the West, 1979)Google Scholar. White, , Diocesan Seminary, 55–56, 69–71Google Scholar, provides details not included here.

75. Fenwick was bishop from 1821 to 1832, Purcell from 1833 to 1880. For a case in which the untimely death of a bishop severely disrupted the development of clerical studies, see Philip, Gleason, “Chicago and Milwaukee: Contrasting Experiences in Seminary Planting,” in Studies in Catholic History in Honor of John Tracy Ellis, eds. Nelson, Minnich, Robert, Eno, and Trisco, Robert F. (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1985), 149–74.Google Scholar

76. “Bishop Purcell's Journal, 1833–1836,” CHR 5 (July-October 1919): 239–56Google Scholar. Deye, Anthony H., “Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati: Pre-Civil War Years” (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1959)Google Scholar, is an excellent study.

77. See John Timon to John B. Purcell, 25 February 1844, UNDA, Cincinnati papers; Purcell to Timon, 9 March 1844, UNDA, Vincentian papers; Timon to Purcell, 18 March 1844, UNDA, Cincinnati papers; and the following letters, all in UNDA, Vincentian papers: James Francis Burlando to Timon, 4 March 1844; Burlando to Timon, 10 March 1844; Burlando to Timon, 13 April 1845; Burlando to Timon, 9 April 1845; Burlando to Timon, 17 April 1845.

78. This was the interlude recalled many years later by F. J. Goetz, as cited above, note 47.

79. For the number of students and books, see Purcell to Propaganda Fide, 11 February 1862, UNDA, Propaganda Fide microfilm (Kenneally, , Propaganda Fide Documents, 2:302, item 1972)Google Scholar. Hussey, , Seminaries of Cincinnati, 22–24Google Scholar, speaks of the seminary's “golden age” in the early 1870s. Unfortunately, a general financial crisis in the archdiocese caused the seminary to be closed between 1879 and 1887.

80. See the reactions cited above, notes 22 and 23.

81. Henry B. Juncker to John B. Purcell, 16 January 1861, UNDA, Cincinnati papers.

82. Henry J. Browne, ed., “The Archdiocese of New York a Century Ago: A Memoir of Archbishop Hughes, 1838–1858,” Historical Records and Studies 39–40 (1950): 163–64Google Scholar. White, who also quotes this document (Diocesan Seminary, 144), observes that Hughes “expressed a rather harsh realism in describing his clergy.”

83. Peter R. Kenrick to John B. Purcell, 28 May 1855, UNDA, Cincinnati papers. The story of seminary education in St. Louis is difficult to unravel because of the off-again, on-again relationship between the diocese and the Vincentian community in the conduct of that activity. See White, , Diocesan Seminary, 104–9, 73–75Google Scholar; and John, Rothensteiner, History of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, 2 vols. (St. Louis, Mo.: The Author, 1928): 1:836–44; 2:577 ff.Google Scholar

84. See Hueston, Catholic Press and Nativism, esp. chaps. 5–8; and McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom, chaps. 1–3.

85. It is noteworthy that the earliest usage of the word “Americanization” cited by lexical scholars comes from BQR for April 1858; see Craigie, William A. and Hulbert, James R., eds., A Dictionary of American English on Historical Principles, 4 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938–1944), 1:44.Google Scholar

86. Barry was born of Irish parents in Cincinnati in 1834; he died in 1863, apparently of tuberculosis. He received his clerical education at Mount St. Mary's in Emmitsburg, Md., and at Cincinnati's Mount St. Mary's of the West. After ordination in 1857, Barry spent a short time attending lectures at the Urban College of the Propaganda in Rome before returning to Cincinnati as a professor in the seminary in Cincinnati, of which he became rector in 1859. Kelly, and Kirwin, , Mt. St. Mary's of the West, 241–57.Google Scholar

87. The date of Cummings's birth is erroneously given as 1814 in the original Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) and the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967). The correct date, 1823, is given in Corrigan, Michael A., “Register of the Clergy Laboring in the Archdiocese of New York from Early Missionary Times to 1885,” Historical Records and Studies 4 (10 1906): 99–100Google Scholar. Conclusive evidence for 1823 is a letter sent to Rome soliciting assistance in getting Cummings admitted to the Urban College of the Propaganda Fide. The writer states: “The boy is eleven years old and very talented.” John J. McGerry to Paul Cullen, 10 March 1834, UNDA, microfilm letters to the Irish College in Rome.

88. Cummings to Propaganda Fide, 29 May 1849, UNDA, Propaganda Fide microfilm (Kenneally, , Propaganda Fide Documents, 2:407, item 307)Google Scholar, describes Cummings's activities on returning to New York. Interestingly, in view of later developments, Cummings states in this letter, “The Bishop [Hughes] is good and kind, and the Clergy of New York, almost all Irish, is comprised of Priests, if not all full (sic) of Theological Science, at least industrious and edifying workers in God's vineyard.”

89. For Cummings's relations with Brownson and the “Club” of liberals in which he was active, see Gower, Joseph F. and Leliaert, Richard M., eds., The Brownson-Hecker Correspondence (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979), 26, 185–90Google Scholar; and Brownson, Henry F., Orestes A. Brownson's Latter Life, 80–82.Google Scholar

90. Callahan, Nelson J., ed., The Diary of Richard L. Burtsell, Priest of New York: The Early Years, 1865–1868 (New York: Arno, 1978), 42Google Scholar. On another occasion, Burtsell reports visiting Cummings, “whom I never remember having met, without being insulted by him. He has no delicacy towards anyone.” Diary, 27.

91. Herbert, Butterfield, The Discontinuities between the Generations in History: Their Effect on the Transmission of Political Experience, The Rede Lecture, 1971 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1971]), quotation, 8.Google Scholar

92. For an indication of the shifting challenges at midcentury, see Gleason, , Keeping the Faith, 159 ff.Google Scholar

93. For the “rare case” quotation, see White, , Diocesan Seminary, 147.Google Scholar