The “old immigrants” from the more advanced northwestern European countries like Ireland and Germany immigrated to the United States in swarms in the early 19th century. By the time “new” immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe began to surpass the “old” in the late 19th century, people began to draw comparisons between the newer immigrants, and the older more “American” immigrants who had worked hard to buy into the dominant American culture and earn representation in the church structure. As more and more “new” immigrants came in, the Italians specifically were looked down upon by Irish Catholics for being pagan in their festivals, for bringing wages down, and for coming as “birds of passage” rather than coming for the American idealism like the Irish had a generation ago. This strife was also present within the larger American Catholic Church, who was increasingly alarmed at the lack of religiosity, and blatant anti clericalism of her largest block of new immigrants. In this paper we will explore the unique religiosity of the Italian American immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century and discuss the reasons these differences led to such seemingly personal conflict with Irish Catholics. Furthermore, we will explore the qualms many in the upper echelons of the American Catholic Church raised with these new immigrants, and the initiatives they pursued to stave off this crisis, this “Italian problem” as many liked to call it.
As many as 4 million Italians arrived in the United States between 1880 and 1920. At least three quarters of these immigrants came South Italy, and were the poorest folks of the Italian peninsula. The drivers behind this tidal wave of Catholic immigrants were primarily economic factors as Italy was experiencing a huge increase in population at the time which, coupled with the depression that industry was facing, proved to be unsustainable. Many South Italians were unable to find work or land to farm so this prompted them to emigrate. The occupations of these immigrants were surprisingly diverse, as many as one third of them came from agricultural backgrounds. Another third were unskilled workers and day laborers. The main demographic of these Italians was primarily men, who outnumbered women three to one. These mostly young men came to work and earn money for their fiscally ailing families. As we will see, a common recurring theme among these immigrants was their commitment to family above all else. For many of these “birds of passage” as many called them in scorn, this meant the move to America was either a temporary measure, only lasting long enough to earn the capital to go home, pay off debts, buy land and reunite with family. Or, alternatively, some immigrants elected to slowly bring family over to America, and permanently settle once the entire family had come through chain migration. A study at the time claimed that this process of family reunification took anywhere from 3.5 to 4 years on average. These two options best manifested themselves in statistics, which showed that between 1899 and 1924, 3.8 million Italians came to the united states, but 2.1 million returned to Italy. This commitment to family was best summed up in an anecdote in Robert Orsi’s The Madonna of 115th Street from a second generation Italian in Harlem: “My parents express no desire to travel to Italy for the sake of visiting the native place. My mother who has a few relatives in Italy lets out an occasional sigh but never my father. He says that since all close branches of his family are in America, he sees no need to expend money on this foolishness. ‘One Goes to Italy,’ he says, ‘only because of family reasons’.” This quote really encapsulates the priorities for these immigrants, family above all. Home was where the family was.
Perhaps the most important and visible aspects of the Italian conscious and tradition, to the ire of Catholic church, were the religious festivals Italians in urban cities would hold in commemoration of idols. In the case of Italian Harlem, this was done annually for the Madonna of Mount Carmel. The origin story of this statue is an important part of the history of Italian Harlem and illustrates quite nicely the situation of many Italian immigrants around the United States. The story begins with the creation of a Mutual Aid society by immigrants from the town of Polla, named after the Madonna who was protectress of the town. Mutual aid societies were a crucial part of the Italian Immigrant experience as many immigrants pooled resources from immigrants of the same town to socialize and create unemployment and burial benefits. These mutual aid societies were often religiously based and thus, many religious movements and changes in Italian circles originated from these mutual aid societies. In New York, a mutual aid society petitioned a bishop for a “church in which they may be instructed in the faith according to the traditional, glorious millenary decoro of which Italy is the noble example to the world.” The Bishop acknowledged their request and obtained an Italian speaking priest to establish the parish. This story was often the case, where the mutual aid societies predated the Italian Parishes. The members of this specific society in Italian Harlem chose to celebrate a festa in honor of the Madonna. The first one was celebrated in 1882 in the courtyard of a house, inside of a house the following year. These celebrations transformed whatever space they transpired into a celebratory atmosphere complete with a small printed picture of the Madonna from back home. By 1884 the event had become a spectacle for many and the aid society had sent for a statue from Polla putting the group in serious debt. Along with this came the church, who would house the statue. The community came together and many “came home after terrible and exhausting days of work and with their own hands dug the foundation of the new church and laid its bricks.” When men of the masons’ labor union protested all of this free labor being done by Italian men on the church, that only had the effect of prompting Italian women to take over the work. The original intention of the father was to name the church after Saint Vincent Pallotti, the founder of the order that he was a part of, but the Italians begged him to instead name it after their patroness. To which he eventually agreed. The irony is, the church was built just outside the Italian neighborhood which meant that the majority of funds for this church came from German and Irish Catholics. So when the first mass was conducted in December of 1884, Italians were relegated to the lower church to worship along with their Madonna. It stayed this way until 1919. Sleights like these were all too common and as we will see later, they were one the factors that contributed to the animosity Italians and the Irish had for each other.
These rude moves by the “insiders” did nothing to dissuade the Italians though. The festes continued, and with the addition of addition of the Madonna grew to encompass the growing Italian community. A New York Times article from 1904 speaks glowingly of the event calling it “Little Italy’s Gala Day”. The article goes on to describe how 60 thousand Italians from all over New York came to celebrate, and how “they laid at its (the figure) feet offerings of various kinds—money, jewelry, and other valuables… others carried costly candles, five and six feet long and beautifully decorated in colors.” The laying of valuables at the feet of the Madonna were a way the Italians gave thanks to their Patron Saint and for many was their daily sacrifice. The candles similarly represented the most sought after items of the event with the mass of the candles representing the seriousness of the grace they were asking or the vows they were fulfilling. Orsi recounts a story of Guiseppe Caparo who had recently fallen from the fifth story of a building and survived. In giving thanks, he bought and offered a candle weighing as much as he did, 185 pounds. It was common to see family members and friends sharing the burden of carrying such large candles. Another more recent times article from 1934 describes how “men and women followed the procession barefooted, having removed their shoes in church.” This again describes a custom of the festival, but does not do it justice. The pavement was extremely hot, and this custom was meant to be a sign of penance, respect, or to fulfill a vow many made to the Madonna. These penitents walked at the back of the procession and consisted of mostly women, save for the men whose wives insisted they join. They carried heavy altars of candles and were dressed up in special robes of either a white or brown tone. The promises behind these actions were described to as the fulfillment of a vow. Women, even the elderly, would pray for something like a sick son or financial struggles and would make a way, such as x amount of Mount Carmel processions during which they would march without shoes on in return for the fulfillment of the wishes. Another unique tradition saw exclusively women begin crawling hands and knees, dragging their tongues along the pavement. If they got tired they would be helped by friends and family to continue.
It was these kinds of alien traditions surrounding the festivals, combined with the clan like commitments to family that prompted Irish American Catholics to look down upon and admonish the Italian immigrants. The blatant animosity exhibited by the Irish was present in all aspects of the lives of the Italians. Orsi describes this phenomenon when recounting a bitter attack on the traditions surrounding the Madonna, alleging they “fed on pilgrimages, shrines holy cards, and ‘devotions’, but lacked any understanding of ‘the great truths of religion.” An Italian priest from East Harlem had a similar understanding of the Irish mentality stating “he always knew the Irish clergy were ‘against’ the Mount Carmel devotions, viewing them as pagan superstitions: ‘they thought we were Africans, that there was something weird. They didn’t accept it at all’.” The intolerance did not stop at the festivals, Italians often encountered insensitivity or unabashed rudeness from American Priests. Father Palmineri complained of the Irish Pastor of St. Paul’s in Philadelphia who “for twenty years occupied himself in flagellating the Italians in his Sunday sermons and warning them not to set foot in his church.” Similarly, an elderly Italian woman recalled the way nuns treated Italian children, “the nuns stood guard as it were, to the entrance of the church, driving off the Italian children with the cinctures to which their rosaries were attached with the admonition that the dirty little greasers should go to their own church.” The response to this oppression in Philadelphia was to build 15 new Italian parishes. This usually happened with great difficulty, and sometimes through mutual aid societies as mentioned before. But the most common route for the building of Italian Parishes was through prelates and priests such as in Chicago where Archbishop Patrick Feehan and James E Quigley were the main voices for the building of Italian Parishes. and This same story played out in many cities across the country. Although in some enclaves in New York, Newark, Boston, and San Francisco, they just joined the Irish congregations or take the basement worship route until better times came. Its important to acknowledge that conflicts between the Irish and Italian Catholics were not all based on religion. As mentioned earlier, many of the Irish had coalesced into the dominant American culture, and were very defensive of the position they had made for themselves over a generation. These poor and low skilled immigrants often replaced Irish workers in big city construction jobs and other low skill work which added to the tensions. To add insult to injury, many of these Italians were “birds of passage” in that they would take the jobs, stay long enough to earn a large amount, and go back home. In the eyes of the Irish, these immigrants had it far too easy and didn’t have to face the same treacherous journeys, and permanent misery in low paying jobs. It seems that this is part of a larger recurring theme that keeps playing itself out in American history where those who actually share so much in common, Irish and Italian immigrants in this case, end up antagonizing one another for the minute details of difference between the two.
In addition to the complaints of job stealing, lowering wages, and pagan religion that Irish Catholics levied against the Italians, there were also some concerns within the American Catholic hierarchy regarding this new “Italian Problem”. Beginning in 1884 at the Third Plenary Council, major questions were raised about what to do about the “Italian problem” as it was called in ecclesiastical reviews and catholic circles in general. Thomas Becker, Bishop of Wilmington, submitted a report on the problem to the council. Among the largest concerns were the fact that “Italians who have migrated to America rarely thereafter put foot in a church or receive the sacraments” and “viewing their stay in America as an exile, they come here with the intention of returning to their native country. As a result they generally do not contribute anything for the building of churches or the support of priests.” His prescriptions involved instructing the “ignorant” masses who migrated by bringing in Italian priests to educate them and tend for their souls. Beckers perception was shared by many of the Catholic clergy who saw the Italians as far too lax in their faith but equally important to these American Catholics was making sure to end most criticisms of the Italians in a positive note. The fact is that from the beginnings of the Catholic church in America, Catholics had always been forced to balance dual identities, on one hand trying to fit into the dominant culture and downplay their ethnic diversity and on the other projecting their Catholicism outwardly to criticize the overpowering nature of the dominant protestant culture. Because of this history, Catholic spokesmen often brought attention to issues with the religiosity of the Italians but “rarely concluded that the new immigrant was inferior of that he should be barred from entrance into the country. Catholics were well aware, especially after the nativist attacks of the 1890’s, that talk about superiority of one group over another could very easily cause a resurgence of anti-Catholic bigotry.” Furthermore, Catholics desperately still wanted to be insiders and be accepted as part of mainstream America, this required “shedding any taint of foreign loyalties, customs, and languages” like the Irish had done so well. But the Italians weren’t! And that was a problem. So instead of outright denigrating the Italians, the clergymen, like Becker, would often criticize aspects of the Italian Immigrants but ultimately when it came to action they aired on the side of helping them survive on the day to day and trying to bring them closer to standard Catholicism.
The main criticisms of the Italians coming from the church hierarchy fell into two categories. The first one was centered on the lack of religious commitment many saw among the Italian Catholics. From the start in the late 19th century, as there was a surge of Italian immigrants arriving and settling, a New York priest tried to understand these “dark eyed, olive tinted men and women” who were certainly not Catholics, writing “The fact is the Catholic church in America to the mass of Italians almost like a new religion,” their own “peculiar kind of spiritual condition” that “fed on the luxuries of religion” through festivals, weddings, holy images, and devotions, but were completely ignorant of “the great truths which alone can make such aids to religion possible.” Even some Italian clergy acknowledged this problem. Father Salvatore Cianci regretted that his countrymen had a “religious indifference a kind of anemia of the soul, a spiritual consumption” and rarely went to church. Cianci also bemoaned the tendency of Italians to regard their faith as “nothing more than a halo which glorifies our cradle to disappear after first communion and be conjured back again at our last moments to hover over our coffin.” This being an obvious allusion to the common description of Italian Catholics as ones who attended church on three occasions: at his baptism, wedding, and funeral. Even when going to church, the Italians were looked down upon for their differences. Furthermore, the children were found to be greatly “ignorant of the most fundamental aspects of Catholic doctrine.” The problem was exacerbated by the fanaticism Italians displayed at the festivals. Their excessive expenditures in giving for these festivals especially angered clergymen who found it ridiculous that the Italians were so willing to part with capital at these events yet would rarely spare a penny at mass. The reasoning for this was simple enough, in Italy the church salaries were provided by the government, so the Italians viewed collection during mass as a ridiculous symbol of how money crazed Americans were. As Linkh puts it, “it seemed irreligious to him to have to pay “seat money” as if he were being charged admission to a burlesque show.” But the failure of these Italians to pay their dues at mass was taken as a continued apathy on the part of Italian Immigrants towards the church. Some, such as the Irish, even viewed this as an act of hostility. Which leads us to the second major aspect of the “Italian Problem.” This dealt with the anticlericalism many Italians exhibited quite openly. But before exploring this topic we have to understand where this sentiment came from, and why it was so common among Italian immigrants.
Orsi dedicates an entire chapter to explaining the ins and outs of what he calls the “domus”. Understanding this concept is key to interpreting the anti clericalism and reluctance to Americanize that these immigrants demonstrated. The domus, in short, was the “source of meaning and morals in Italian Harlem. Men and women in the community defined and determined who they were according to the standards of the Domus”. This framework was what many Italian immigrants used to determine what was good and bad, what it meant to be human. This moral compass of sorts was predicated on the importance and centrality of family, and furthermore, as one priest put it: “It is not far from the truth to say that for many Italians, whatever religion they possess is narrowed within the walls of the home; for the home of the Italian is essentially religious” when trying to explain the unique religiosity of the Italians. This quote is not meant literally, rather, religion for these people was not centered around church attendance, sacraments, and tithing like it was for the average American Catholic, instead it was centered around this concept Orsi named the Domus. This domus manifested itself in almost every aspect of their lives and dictated how they would behave. I could write an entire paper on this aspect of Italian society, but for the purposes of this paper I will leave it at a few examples given by Orsi that really illustrate the influence this framework had on actions and sentiment. Beginning with family values, the Domus affected everything, from eating as a family to deindividualizing the concept of money. As one woman put it “we ate as one family. We had no use for money as individuals.” And instilling these values in their children, through education and social conformity, was of the utmost important. But the Domus did not have its influenced confined to familial interactions. The experience of courting a woman, and all of the archaic norms around the process illustrate another domus centric area of Italian society that would seem quite Byzantine to the outsider. While extremely brief, this process had some crucial moments that would define the future of the engagement. The dating process itself was very clear in terms of gender roles, and quite a symbolic process. The usual expectations for women to be “pure” and men to be good, educated, and respectful of his family were present. But the ritualistic nature of this process went deeper than that: small things and actions on the part of the male in the relationship were done in a probing manner to evaluate the worthiness of the girl. Something as simple as the boy kissing the girl and expecting a “good” girl to slap him for that. If she did, she kind of passed that test in his eyes. Talk about mixed signals. Because of the strict social conformity, there was enormous social pressure mounted, to the point that young men dreaded dates with Italian girls because “if you kiss them or even touch them, they think you want to marry them” and at that point the entire community would hear about it overnight and things would escalate. Those who dated outsiders in secret, eloped, or violated the domus in any other way would face the wrath of the community and in most cases would be pushed out. In the case of men who did find a woman they wanted to marry, the main official step was inviting her into his home, to meet his domus. Once this happened, it could be understood as the announcement of an engagement (assuming the family approves of course). Marriage was the joining of two domuses and the concept of divorce was alien to them, which is why the family was so particular in making sure the match was perfect in their eyes through gossip and social conformity. Once married, the couple was expected to move out but live as close as possible to the woman’s domus, and any violation of this norm was perceived by the community as a failure of education and brought great shame and gossip to the family. If there is anything that defines the domus, it is the commitment to family and respect of elders. Anything in violation of these values was perceived as a threat and looked down upon by the Italians.
Its important to understand that the aversion or disregard Italians seemed to exhibit at times toward outsiders was not anything driven by something so simple or irrational as racism. It was deeper. This is illustrated by Orsi in an example where, during a time of tension between the Italian and Puerto Rican communities, when a Hispanic man was killed by a truck, Leonard Covello (A Principal of Franklin High School and leader of Italian community in Harlem) wrote an open letter to the boys of Franklin “describing the great sorrow of the boy’s mother and grandmother” and ended this letter with a plea for harmony between the communities. This gesture proves my point, by emphasizing the aspects of compassion and loss of these Puerto Ricans, Covello was trying to bridge the gap for Italians and show them that these “outsiders” also had similar family values that aligned with the domus in an attempt to breed sympathy and unity within the Italian community. Because for members of the domus centered society, they evaluated everything on the merits of how it would affect the domus: on whether it was a threat, or aligned with the domus. This was reflected in the somewhat better relations between Italians and Jews in Harlem because “Jews were also a domus centered people”. I will leave the domus at that, from the description above I hope it is clear how strong the permeation of the domus and its clandestine values were in the Italian community. These values dominated their conscious, and its unspoken rulebook and demands give us some insight into why they were so closed off to the organizational church structure and embraced their traditions so strongly.
The accusations of anticlericalism leveled against Italians were not baseless. In fact, Italians did view the church, especially priests, with great skepticism and acted accordingly. But its not that simple. To begin with, the distaste for clergy men has its roots in conditions back in Italy. As Linkh puts it, “ever since the Italian unification movement of the 1860’s, it was difficult for an Italian to be at once a loyal patriot and a devout Catholic. The pope had opposed unification, and Catholics throughout the world had sent monetary support to the Vatican.” To be fair, some of the blame can also be placed on the incidents of abuse and bigotry displayed by members of the church structure like the examples discussed earlier, and in especially severe circumstances such as the incident in Chicago. Where Reverend Edmund Dunne viciously opposed naming a school after Garibaldi (An Italian General who aided the unification movement per Wikipedia). He went as far as to call him an “ignorant bushwhacker notorious for looting monasteries and churches” and proclaimed he would rather have a school named after Judas, Iscariot or Beelzebub. It can be said without a doubt this open antipathy faces of the church had for Italians added fuel to the fire of Italian anticlericalism. But perhaps the most basic objection towards the church structure, especially priests, was the threat it posed to the Italian Domus. The fact that priests specifically, were not part of a Domus, was a problem. Orsi tells of a common anticlerical tale of a cuckolding priest who walks with a limp. The priest was often seen frequenting women’s apartments in the middle of the day since, priests didn’t work. The limp was acquired when he fell out of a window trying to escape a woman’s apartment when her husband returned early from work. True or not, the story portrays the priest as a violator of the Domus. Because the priest did not have a typical working job, did not have a family, he was outside the popular values and thus a threat to the domus. Interestingly, Italian nuns were welcomed by these same Italians telling this tale. The reasoning for this is again, deep in the nuance of the Domus. The similarities between religious orders and the domus, where the individual sacrifices their desires and agency for the greater body of family in both, meant that vowed religious sisters could be trusted because they were basically in a Domus themselves. In addition, the fact that these sisters were vowed and virgins meant that they did not pose a sexual threat to the Domus.
Because of the combination of these factors, the animosity Priests displayed towards Italians, the history going back to the Italian unification movement, and the threat Priests intrinsically posed against the domus, many Priest were often met with an apathetic or even hostile Italian flock. Father Nicolas recalled his experiences, saying “we were often times received with the coldest indifference; not seldom avoided an at times even greeted with insulting remarks.” The hostilities were much more rare, but hindsight is 20/20 and one could be excused for thinking it was rampant at the time considering how the media, especially in Catholic circles, heavily covered the few incidents of violence. For example, in 1908 Father Leo Heinrich of Denver was murdered by an Italian anticlerical by the name of Giuseppe Alio. When Alio was hanged for his crimes, he went down spewing maledictions on the priesthood. The Catholic press took this story and ran with it, using it to speak out about the rampant threat of Italian anticlerical sentiment. One could read about it all the way in Chicago where one Irish priest wrote about his concerns for the safety of the lives of Priests in Chicago, who in turn began to demand police protection during mass in Italian parishes. This is only one example of how quickly panic and xenophobia could be stirred up when it came to the Italians.
Despite these occurrences, the Catholic church figures still deeply cared for the Italian souls in their own way and wanted to find ways to solve this “Italian Problem”. American Bishops began to develop strategies to combat the lack of religiosity among Italians. New York’s Archbishop Michael Corrigan set out to find Italian priests who would be able to hopefully pull in the Italians in his diocese, 97.6% of which, did not attend mass. So when Giovanni Scalabrini founded a college in Italy, specifically to train missionaries to be sent to America, Corrigan wrote to him enthusiastically, requesting a handful of missionaries to be sent as soon as possible. By 1888 there were several of these missionaries working in Corrigan’s New York. This story played out in many cities from New York, to Chicago, to New England and even helped provide services for other ethnic groups such as some Polish folks in Boston. The Scalabrinians were a great boon to the Catholic cause and came at just the right moment. In addition to the Scalabrinians, similar groups such as the Italian Franciscans and Jesuits helped out, founding parishes, starting schools, and simply taking care of immigrants. Due to the desperate need for the latter services, taking care of basic human needs of the often-poor Italians, the Bishops turned to women. A real hero for this cause was Francesca Cabrini, who was directed by Leo XIII to turn away from her mission to China and instead commit to helping Italians immigrants in America. Within a month of arriving with six other sisters, Francesca was already operating an orphan asylum, and soon after took over a hospital as well. Throughout her lifetime, Francesca had taken part in the organization of 67 individual institutions including schools, nurseries hospitals and orphanages. Furthermore, her missionary sisters had numbered in the 2000s before her death in 1917. Individuals like Francesca who made huge strides to improve the lives of thousands of Italians, and the over two dozen orders committed to caring for the Italians represent the commitment the Catholic church had to addressing the “Italian problem” through love and support while also attempting to bring them closer into the faith.
In conclusion,
Revised Question
What aspects of the religiosity of Italian American immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century made them unique compared to the “old” catholic immigrants? How did this unique religiosity affect their interactions with fellow Catholics, and influence their resistance to the same pressures that successfully “Americanized” the Irish Catholics?
Primary Sources
Grange, Goffle. The Catholics as Citizens. New York Times, May 19, 1901
Thousands do Homage to our Lady of Carmel: Gorgeous Festival in Honor of Italian Patron Saint. New York Times. July 17, 1904
10,000 in Streets at Harlem Fiesta: Throngs pay Homage to our Lady of Mount Carmel as 4-day Celebration Begins. New York Times July 14, 1934.
Secondary Sources
Orsi, Robert A. The Madonna of 115th Street. London: Yale University Press 2002
Dolan, Jay. The American Catholic Experience. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1985.
Liptak, Dolores. Immigrants and their Church. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. 1989
Abramson, Harold J. Ethnic Diversity in Catholic America. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1973
Jeffrey Burns, Ellen Skerrett and joseph White. Keeping Faith: European and Asian Catholic Immigrants. New York: Orbis Books 2000.
Richard M. Linkh. American Catholicism and European Immigrants (1900-1924). Center for Migration Studies. 1975