Called to Action: The Historian as Participant (2007)

Called to Action: The Historian as Participant Alice Gallin, O.S.U. A s one reads and reflects on the books and articles by Professor David O’Brien, one comes to understand that for him a serious study of history is important mainly because it serves to bring about a new approach to contemporary challenges and future visions. In various writings he alleges that only knowledge of his own times, in all their complexity, can lead the historian to a deeper and more accurate understanding of the past. Such understanding, in his case, inspires a passion to create a new and better future, a passion that is evident in all he has written. I was first exposed to this passion when I went to work with O’Brien in 1976 in the office of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) in Washington, D.C. In that office presided over by Frank Butler and staffed by a very small group of professionals, a plan for the Catholic Church’s participation in the celebration of the bicentennial of the United States of America was being designed. Unlike many other celebrations planned for 1976, the bishops and their advisory committee had determined that this one would have a distinctive purpose: to encourage the “grass roots” in the Church to analyze their experiences as Americans and Catholics and submit them for study and critical reflection by experts preparing materials for a national assembly seeking “action on behalf of justice.” Under the general theme, “Liberty and Justice for All,” eight committees were set up to address different levels of “community” from the perspective of justice/injustice. Beginning with “personhood ” the list went through various topics such as family, neighborhood, Church, nation, work, race, and humankind. The project would not simply be an exercise for academics; rather the bishops, under the leadership of Cardinal John Dearden, envisioned wide participation by the Catholic community. They set up “hearings” around the country, listening to anyone who wished to describe an unjust situation in Church or society that should be on the agenda of such an assembly. At the same time, parishes and dioceses were invited to organize group discussions and send in responses addressing in twenty-five words or less each of the following questions: 1 1) What injustice do you perceive in current American or church society? 2) What solution can you suggest to correct it? While the bishops were traveling the country for the hearings, the home team at NCCB was receiving the raw data that came to them in response to these questions from the parishes and dioceses. Its task was to incorporate the responses into papers being prepared for the experts on the various committees. The data were compiled at St. Joseph’s Seminary in New York where computer capability was just in its infancy. The staff in Washington was largely ignorant of how technology worked, but nevertheless learned how to use its output. O’Brien and I worked together to make sense of the data and to shape them into position papers that would serve as stimulus for proposals to approximately 1,000 elected delegates in the assembly entitled “Call to Action,” scheduled to meet October 21, 1976, in Detroit.1 The “Call to Action” was my introduction to O’Brien’s way of doing history. Drawing on his extensive knowledge of American Catholic history, he gradually taught me the importance of our task. As a student of Msgr. John Tracy Ellis, I had focused on the histories of individual bishops and the interaction among them over certain key issues such as the Catholic school question, trusteeism, trade unions, and relations with the state. O’Brien’s approach had the perspective of the social historian ; he saw the history of the Church in America as the history of immigrant groups, their economic concerns, their family life, their need for education, and religious freedom as they tried to find their place in American society. He judged the ecclesial leaders of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by how well they had served the needs of their people. This involved being sensitive to the currents of change faced by their parishioners in different periods of...