Search Results

The color line was effectively breached the day Jackie Robinson stepped to the plate at Jersey City's Roosevelt Stadium in the first inning of the Little Giants versus Montreal Royals game in April of 1946. It was a fortuitous game as the Royals won 14–1. Robinson's fiery temperament was effectively on hold and he was advised by Rickey to fight back only with his bat, glove, and flying feet and this he did splendidly, topping almost every hitting average, runs scored, and bases stolen. He was joined as a pioneer by John Wright however; Wright could not stand the pressure and thus succumbed to it. As expected, the move was widely met with disapproval by the major league clubs and some even threatened to ban playing with the Royals.

The Bar was a socially exclusive institution in most countries, even though it was in theory an open one. This chapter focuses on two curious episodes towards the end of the eighteenth century, when the Faculty unsuccessfully attempted to exclude two men — John Wright and Robert Forsyth — from membership. The debates among the Faculty arising from these episodes show the deployment of the language of manners, sentiment, and politeness, as well as argument about the traditional Roman models of what it was to be an advocate. To some extent, we can view these debates as helping redefine not only the advocates’ perception of themselves, whereby they moved away from identification with the Roman jurists, but also the role of Roman law in the training of the Bar. At the same time, the social composition of the Faculty was changing.

The centrality of scripture and the Church’s mission to identify with the world’s “joys . . . and griefs” furthered the teaching of Lumen Gentium and the “bridge” documents. The laity’s participation in the prophetic teaching of Christ joined the people of God with the social changes occurring in American society. Participants argued for the dignity of the person and a commitment to the alleviation of world poverty. A deductive methodology of doctrine clashed repeatedly with an inductive methodology focused on the “signs of the times.” Even as the Cold War inheritance shaped a cautious American approach to the condemnation of nuclear war, the leadership of Archbishop Dearden worked toward a new vision of marriage and the family. These distinct approaches and the convergence between conciliar language and social practice created tense relationships between the bishops and the laity’s reception of their teaching. Similar difficulties would run through the post-conciliar world.

Before and during the second session of the Council, American bishops took a collegial turn toward the revisioning of Catholic identity. In parallel with grass-roots commitments to the civil rights movement, the language of “human dignity, equality, mutual respect, the breaking down of social barriers” crossed over into religious speech patterns. Experiences of internationality as the bishops traveled back and forth to Rome and experiences of collegiality as they gathered in a voluntary meeting in Chicago furthered the acceptance of new pathways in Church and liturgy. Despite strong opposition from within their ranks and from the Roman curia, the leadership of Meyer, Dearden, Wright, Ritter, Shehan, and Hallinan, and the influence of the prominent theologians McManus, Diekmann, Ahern, and Coyle, led to an alliance with the Council’s majority favoring reform. An entrance into a new “politics of history” governed by participative processes, inculturation, lay ascendancy, and democratic discord developed.