The Catholic Worker Movement in America:

A Witness of Peace

 

Copyright 1991 John Bozeman

 

 

INTRODUCTION

                The name Dorothy Day has become almost synonymous with radical pacifism and poverty work.  The Catholic Worker, the religious and social movement that Day and her associate Peter Maurin founded, officially began operations in 1933 with the publication of the first edition of the monthly Catholic Worker newspaper.  The Worker movement became known for its maintenance of uncompromising stances on a variety of issues, especially in the cases of poverty, social justice, and pacifism.  The Catholic Worker movement's unwavering advocacy of peace resulted in the group generating considerable notoriety both within the Catholic Church and outside of it.

                This paper examines the development of the Catholic Worker Movement's thought, especially in the area of pacifism, and compares it to the positions held by Commonweal and America until the outbreak of World War Two.  While a number of studies have been undertaken on this subject, many have been preoccupied with the founders' colorful lives, to the point that the Catholic Worker is portrayed as being simply an extension of their personalities.[1]  While the leadership of Maurin and Day were crucial, the concerns of both American Catholicism and the greater American culture played an extensive role in the movement's development.  This paper attempts to examine some of the more neglected aspects of the societal and socio-religious atmosphere in which the Catholic Worker emerged, and to see how the Catholic Worker movement's relationship to other influential segments of the American Catholic press, and to American society in general, changed with the passage of time.

THE BEGINNING OF THE CATHOLIC WORKER

                On May 1, 1933, Dorothy Day and a few friends began to distribute copies of the Catholic Worker within a crowd of 50,000 leftist demonstrators gathered around Union Station.  The crowd had gathered as but one of many May Day demonstrations around the world for the purpose of demonstrating the vitality of popular interest in Communism in the face of an apparent failure of capitalism and increasing prominence of German National Socialism.[2]  In spite of the small number of papers initially distributed and an early editorial disagreement between Day and Maurin over the aim of the paper, the initial response allowed a second issue to be published, and by December of the same year the tabloid's circulation had reached 40,000. 

                Thus marked the beginning of the Catholic Worker newspaper and the Catholic worker movement.  The paper was welcomed by both the Catholic and the secular press of America.  Commonweal stated that

                Justice  and peace, rather  than class war,  are the things  [the Catholic Worker] seeks to  foster. . . . Its purpose is admirable and the paper is an answer to a real need. . . .  A homogeneous social order, a common purpose for all the classes so that all may work together for the common good, considering wealth as a custodianship requiring a sense of responsibility, with special consideration for those who lack means, or opportunity, or health, or intelligence, are least able to help themselves, is the Catholic solution for the social dilemmas, a solution clearly rationalized and expressed by Leo XIII and our present pontiff.  The Catholic Worker has its contribution to make toward this order.[3]

 

In 1935, John Toomey of America heaped praise upon the Catholic Worker:

 

                The response to the paper has been simply tremendous. It seemed from the very beginning to voice the unspoken thoughts of millions.  Priests are ordering bundles of it for their churches.  Nuns are buying it for their schools.  Seminarians, college boys are gobbling it up.  Lumbermen from Oregon, farmers from Nebraska . . . workers everywhere clamor for extra copies for their fellow workers.  Labor unions are distributing it. . . .[4]

 

                The enthusiastic response that the Catholic Worker received from these and other contemporary publications[5] came as a result of the time period in which the paper originated.  During the early years of the Depression, one-quarter of the work force was unemployed.[6]  Both American Catholicism and the larger American culture were amenable to ideas of social reform.[7]   For example, the American hierarchy produced letters in 1933 and 1934 that stated that the Depression was caused by "selfish greed and the inversion of priorities which put money ahead of human rights and dignity."[8]  In 1935 the National Catholic Welfare Conference published a tract by Fr. Raymond McGowan and Fr. John A. Ryan entitled, Organized Social Justice.  The American hierarchy frequently became involved in labor issues, as in the case of Cardinal Mundeleins's support of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).  Interracial councils developed in many areas of the nation; one of these was Fr. John LaFarge's New York Catholic Interracial Council.[9]

                Another interest prevalent in American society in the 1930's was that of peace.  The League of Nations had been established after the first World War to prevent such atrocities from ever occurring again.  The American hierarchy echoed this concern with the establishment of the Catholic Association for International Peace (CAIP) in 1927.  Located in the National Catholic Welfare Council headquarters in Washington D.C., CAIP was intended to:

                seek to educate Catholics and non-Catholics on the Catholic point of view on international affairs, as drawn from what the Holy Fathers, the Bishops of the United States, and Catholic scholars had said on the principles of attaining world peace through justice and charity.[10]

 

                The Catholic Worker, with its coverage of strikes, hazardous working conditions, and race relations, appeared to be a part of this spirit of reform.  Much of the content of the Worker echoed concerns already expressed in the Jesuit-produced magazine America and the more lay-oriented Commonweal.  Thus early Catholic Worker articles such as "Negro Labor On Levees Exploited by U.S. War Dept.," "Do Something! Join the Catholic League for Social Justice, Now!" "Increased Radicalism Among Negroes Noted by Urban League," "Kitchen Sweatshops," and "The Shame of Alabama" fit well along side of Commonweal and America articles such as "The Racket's Red Glare," "The Appeal of Bolshevism," "The Church and Labor," "Our Lady of Social Justice," "What Next in Alabama," "Workers' Unions and the State," "The `Immoral' Company Union," "Let Us Define Economic Justice," "Social Justice in St. Thomas Aquinas," "The Grounds for a Minimum Wage," "The Automobile Slave Trade," "Social Justice--A Program," "Sweat-Shops and Social Justice," "Economics and Ethics," "The Negro Problem," and "The Case for Decentralization,"[11] 

PEACE ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL ACTIVISM

                The pro-peace stance of the Catholic Worker only became apparent in the fifth issue of the newspaper, which contained an article stating that delegates from the Catholic Worker would attend The United States Congress Against War.  Also mentioned was the Catholic Worker's unsuccessful attempt to attend a peace meeting held under the auspices of the Workman's Ex-Service League, a group affiliated with the Communist Party.[12]  Soon afterwards, another article appeared expressing concern over the amount of money being spent by the United States on war materials.  This piece also cited an article by Father James Gillis saying that contemporary wars are incurred as a result of protection of business interests and that under such circumstances Catholics are obligated to adopt an attitude of pacifism; other articles condemning munitions manufacturers and peace-time war preparations followed.[13] 

                Here again the Worker largely paralleled the views held by leading Catholic magazines such as America and Commonweal, which also maintained a pro-peace stance.  For example, an article in the October 28, 1933 issue of America stated,

                The question of disarmament is one of life and death.  Unless our generation can construct some machinery capable of adjusting international relations through law rather than force, the entire fabric of our civilization may soon crash to ruin.[14]

 

Similarly, Fr. John Ryan wrote in Commonweal,

 

                A new war would not only be total in its intention; it would be universal in its extension. . . . For nations to determine upon another such struggle would be to become, as no less an observer than Pope Pius XII has said, "monstrously murderous and almost certainly suicidal."  Our civilization is a thin and fragile thing; it cannot stand the shock of a new war.[15]

 

                It should also be noted that in the early years of the movement the Catholic Workers were pro-peace while not being complete pacifists.  In November of 1934 the Catholic Worker published a statement, "Not Pacifism," that affirmed the paper's opposition to both class war and "imperialist war."  After explaining that the reason why the Church did not try to end war by excommunicating participants, this statement was made:

                In regard to war, the church recognizes that there can be a just war if four conditions are fulfilled. . . .  A State can rightly declare war only when  it is morally certain that its rights are being actually violated, or are in certain and imminent danger; when the cause of war is in proportion to the evils incidental to the war; when every peaceful method of settlement has proved inadequate; when there is a well grounded hope of bettering conditions by the conflict.  If these conditions were fulfilled--they rarely have been in history--wars would rarely happen.[16] 

 

                The Catholic Worker was seen as standing with the Church on more issues than social reform and opposition to war.  The  Worker's philosophy and political stance stood within the American Catholic understanding, as well.  Maurin was an exponent of European Personalist philosophy, which achieved a level of popularity among intellectuals of the time.  Maurin sought to popularize this philosophy through free verse "Easy Essays."[17]

Two of these essays appear to have served as manifestos for the Catholic Worker and have been frequently repeated in the newspaper:  

 

 

                                                                       "What the Catholic Worker Believes"

 

                       The Catholic Worker believes

                       in the gentle personalism

                       of traditional Catholicism.

                       The Catholic Worker believes

                       in the personal obligation

                       of looking after

                       the needs of our brother.

                       The Catholic Worker believes

                       in the daily practice

                       of the Works of Mercy.

                       The Catholic Worker believes

                       in Houses of Hospitality

                       for the immediate relief

                       of those who are in need.

                       The Catholic Worker believes

                       in the establishment

                       of Farming Communes

                       where each one works

                       according to his ability

                       and gets

                       according to his need.

                       The Catholic Worker believes

                       in creating a new society

                       within the shell of the old

                       with the philosophy of the new,

                       which is not a new philosophy

                       but a very old philosophy

                       a philosophy so old

                       that it looks like new.[18]

 

 

                                                                                  "Blowing the Dynamite"

 

                       If the Catholic Church

                       is not today

                       the dominant social dynamic force

                       it is because Catholic Scholars

                       have failed to blow the dynamite

                       of the Church.

                       Catholic scholars have taken the dynamite

                       of the Church,

                       have wrapped it up 

                       in nice phraseology

                       placed it in a hermetic container

                       and sat on the lid.

                       It is about time

                       to blow the lid off

                       so the Catholic Church

                       may again become

                       the dominant social dynamic force.[19]

 

                Peter Maurin was self-consciously radical in his conception of the Catholic Worker Movement and, more generally, in his view of the purpose of the Catholic Church.  Maurin was in many ways a romantic visionary.[20]  Yet it is important to realize that the rural, medievalist-utopian ideals of Peter Maurin had parallels within the Catholic press, similarities which modern commentators sometimes overlook.[21]  For example, in the May 26 and June 2, 1933 issues of Commonweal an essay was published by one of the leading exponents of personalism in Europe, Jacques Maritain.[22]  Maritain's essay begins with the rather radical statement,

                The very idea of a bond between Christianity and the bourgeois or capitalist world is paradoxical.  Many of our contemporaries may believe in all good faith that most effective platitude of atheist propaganda, that religion and the Church are bound up with the defense of the interests of a single class and the "eminent dignity" of capitalism, militarism, etc.; this simply shows that good faith is not necessarily intelligence, and that men's opinions move among shadows where appearances of things are turned upside down.

                                The world born of the two great movements of the Renaissance and the reformation has plainly anti-Catholic spiritual and cultural dominants:  it has persecuted Catholicism every time it could freely follow its instincts, its philosophy is utilitarian, materialist, or hypocritically idealist; its politics Machiavellian, its economics liberal and mechanist.  The fathers of the bourgeois world are not the Fathers of the Church whether they are sought with Max Weber on the side of Calvin or with M. Seilliere on the side of Rousseau, not forgetting the Cartesian Angel of clear ideas.  This World was born of the great movement of heart towards holy possession of earthly goods which is at the origin of economic capitalism, mercantilism and industrialism as it is of philosophical naturalism and rationalism.  The Church's condemnations of usury at the threshold of modern times remain as a burning interrogation of the legitimacy of the economics of these times.[23]

 

                A 1933 editorial in Commonweal suggests similar convictions, though in less philosophical language:

                For Christians there can be no debate--and now there should be Christian action. . . .  The future of the world depends upon the issue of the struggle between the teachings of Christ, and the practice of the religion of Mammon to which our modern world in greater part--among the poor as well as among the rich--has succumbed.  Fatalism in this battle is defeat.[24]

 

                A 1934 article in America expressed these sentiments even more strongly:

 

                To lose sight of the truth that real recovery is dependent upon a radical reform of our industrial and economic system, is to lose all that has thus far been won.  An open and unashamed return to the old system, even though its immediate effect might be to put more men at work, would be the sale of our birthright for a mess of pottage.[25]

 

                The Catholic Workers and their newspaper were also within the American Catholic mainstream on a variety of political issues.  The Catholic Worker stood with America and Commonweal in its protest against Mexican anti-clericism.[26]  In addition to protesting the Mexican actions in print, Workers in 1934 began daily  picketing of the Mexican Consulate.  These protests continued for a year, and were partially carried out by a Catholic Worker subgroup named the Campion Propaganda Committee.[27] By August 1, 1935, another Catholic Worker-derived group, The Friends of Catholic Germany, was holding a weekly protest in front of the German Consulate as reaction to German religious persecution.[28]

                Similarly, the Catholic worker stood with the Church against Communist growth.  During the early 1930's, many persons viewed Communism and Catholicism as forces competing for the allegiance of the people.  One article of the time stated,

                St. Paul's word's may be justly paraphrased into a challenge:  "Who shall separate us from the poor of Christ?  Unfortunately that challenge has been accepted. Communism is effecting this separation in far too great an extent throughout the world at the present time.

                                Catholics cannot stand by inactive while the Church suffers these losses. . . .  "Red" activity is worldwide.  The wretched state of all humanity gives the Communists an opportunity such as  even  the  most sanguine among them would never have thought possible five years ago. . . .

                                . . . Let each one ask himself:  "What am I doing for Christ in the person of my poverty-stricken brethren?"  When each recognizes his responsibility and acquits himself of it according to the principles of the Gospel, the "Red" menace will lose much of its present threat against Christianity.[29] 

                The Worker movement could thus be regarded as "an authentic, if unusual, churchly movement"[30] that was attempting to offer a viable, Christian alternative to Communism.[31]   For example, John Toomey's 1935 article in America stated:  

                                . . . Dorothy Day is doing just what she did as a Communist, but for the Church instead of against it.

                                And month by month, the Catholic Worker, little catholic Monitor, is pouring Encyclical fire into red and reactionary Merrimacs.[32] 

 

                This perception allowed the movement to receive recruits from within American Catholicism to staff the movement's communal Houses of Hospitality and, later, farming communes.[33]  Max Piehl suggests that the Houses of Hospitality were thought of more as soup kitchens that, with the Church's approval, cared for the indigent, rather than as being radical Christian communes.[34]  Toomey's article, for example, dwells on the group's charity work, while referring to the Catholic Workers themselves as "staff."[35]  Carrying this "protective coloration" hypothesis a step further, the farming communes presented themselves more as extensions of the Catholic rural life movement, than as the agrarian portion of Peter Maurin's "Green Revolution."[36]  Catholic Worker roundtable discussions (also known as "Clarification of Thought" seminars) were in many ways similar to Catholic study clubs.[37]

BREAK-UP OF THE CATHOLIC CONSENSUS

                One is thus able to see how the Catholic Worker movement could exist and even thrive within the American Catholic Church during the early years of the Great Depression.  The movement appeared to stand within what historian Max Piehl calls the "Catholic consensus" that existed among Catholics during this time period.[38] Deviations from the norm, as in the case of the Workers' fraternization with Communists and radicals, could be attributed to the group's outreach to the liberal intelligencia and to the working masses.       By 1935, however, this consensus was beginning to come apart.  The first substantial disagreement came as a result of the proposed Child Labor Amendment.  While supported by a number of politically progressive elements of American society, the amendment was opposed by most of the American hierarchy and much of the Catholic press.  An unsigned article in America stated that while the magazine was opposed to child labor,

                we believe that this evil can be eliminated more quickly and surely by the creation of an enlightened public opinion . . . [also] it seems to us that the powers conferred on Congress by the amendment are not sufficiently safeguarded.[39]

 

The editors of the magazine felt that the amendment was an unnecessary and dangerous abrogation of parental authority, and a form of government intrusion into the family:

                The present text [of the amendment] is the plain result of a determination to bring every American child, and some millions of young men and women, under the direct control of the Washington bureaucracy. . . .  [P]arental authority falls, and the plans of the father and mother are set aside for a program issued by a clerk in Washington, who, if the history of this movement throws any light upon its genesis, will draw his inspiration from Moscow.[40]

 

Only a few publications, such as the Catholic Worker and Commonweal, and a few liberal bishops supported the amendment.  After an incident in which a member of the Catholic Worker movement delivered a radio appeal in favor of the amendment, the group was criticized by the Brooklyn Tablet.[41] 

                The Catholic Worker, Commonweal, and America all expressed differing views on the subject of the Ethiopian War.  The Catholic Worker published an article with the incendiary title, "Italy Invades Ethiopia; Christian Nation Succumbs to Pagan Ethics of War," stating:

                One of the most distressing aspects of the totalitarian State, where the spiritual has not altogether been outlawed, is the suffocation of Christian principles under the all-embracing, overpowering blanket of nationalistic self-interest.  The prime example of this today is Italy, a pitiful specimen of a country 99 percent Catholic, where in spite of its glorious theologians, in spite of its being the seat of the Holy Father himself who has been preaching and praying for a Christian peace during the Holy Year just past, there is now being inaugurated a war clearly immoral when judged by Catholic ethics.[42]

 

                America and Commonweal expressed more neutral views.  In Commonweal, an article written by a missionary priest concludes, ". . . the entry of a foreign power into Ethiopia can do harm and might do good as far as the religious welfare of the people is concerned."[43]   In a like manner, a Commonweal editorial stated, "We do not feel prepared to endorse either of the disputants," while asking that President Roosevelt intervene on behalf of peace.[44]      

                America also remained neutral in regard to the Italio-Ethiopian conflict.[45]  The magazine published one rather patronizing article on the degenerate state of the Church in Ethiopia;[46] issues during this time devoted considerable space to pointing out that the Pope had called for peace and had questioned Italy's claim of fighting a war of defense.[47]  Both America and Commonweal appear to have been less concerned with the fate of Ethiopia, than with the implications that the war would have for the Kellogg-Briand treaty and the League of Nations, and questions of how the United States could maintain neutrality in case of a European conflict.[48]

                "Ideological divergence" within American Catholicism may have culminated with the coming of the Spanish Civil War, beginning in July of 1936.[49]  Soon after commencement of hostilities between the conservatives and the leftist Popular Front, an article appeared in America stating that even though the conservatives were known for their narrowness and greed as well as for their "ardent faith," "a victory of the Right alone can save Spain from the fate of Russia."  A Leftist triumph, on the other hand, would "unloose upon the Spanish Church the furies of evil."[50]  The following week, a short editorial appeared in the magazine stating:

                Should the acting Spanish Government win out, extreme Communism shall have gained another stronghold and the opposing elements shall be rendered helpless for years to come.  There will be another Russia in Europe . . . .  Should the insurgents emerge victorious, the progress of Sovietism shall be stayed for a while. . . .  Perhaps a strong dictatorship may be necessary; and, though American sympathy does not easily embrace a dictatorship, it should be possible to understand that fundamental liberty is of more importance than a form of government.[51] 

 

                This uncompromising attitude, in which the Loyalist forces were completely identified with the evil forces of Communism, persisted for the duration of the conflict and was representative of large segments of the Catholic press and hierarchy.[52]  General Francisco Franco was identified with the forces of good to the point of being described at times in almost messianic terms:

                [Franco] promises a regime inspired by Spanish needs and realities.  Under this regime, every lawful activity and every individuality will be granted freedom to develop and progress.  Municipal government, the historical source of popular power in Spain, will be restored to its traditional vigor.  Regional autonomy will be respected and will be encouraged with the limits of a perfected national unity.  Labor will be guaranteed in its rights and will be protected against capitalist oppression and exploitation by political agitators.  Co-operation between labor and capital will be encouraged.   Every citizen  will  be forced to work in his respective capacity. . . .[53]  

 

                Commonweal, on the other hand, suggested that the situation in Spain was more complex, with the Leftist side being a "kaleidoscope" of different Communistic, Socialistic, and Anarchistic parties.[54]  During most of the war, Commonweal endorsed Franco's faction, though somewhat reluctantly:

                If it now must be a choice of evils, the choosing between . . . the tyranny and terror wielded by Communism,and the tyranny and terror of a conservative counter-revolution, the choice of a conservative reaction will be made, we think, by most people.[55]

 

Such an endorsement was given with heavy caveats, however:

 

                General Franco is leading no White army. . . .  Spanish Fascism will be the antithesis of the radical social demands made by the revolutionists.  Superficially it will also oppose anti-clericism, because Fascism is traditionalistic and there is only Catholic tradition in Spain.  But it will not liberate creative Catholic social energies, which have struggled to emerge during hundreds of years. . . .  A right social order cannot be promulgated from the top.  The change must start among farmers, in factories.[56]

 

                This cautious endorsement was only the average of the opinions expressed within the magazine during the early part of the Spanish conflict; other articles appeared with views varying anywhere between promoting neutrality and being pro-Franco.[57]  This diversity of opinions printed was due at least partially as a result of differences in opinion held by the editors.[58]  Letters to Commonweal during this time also showed writers to be strongly pro-Franco.[59]

                In contrast to America's unquestioning support for Franco, and Commonweal's varying attitudes, the Catholic Worker maintained that both sides were in error.  The December, 1936 issue carried the banner headline, "Spanish Catholic Flays Both Sides!:  Claims Double-Refusal of Communism and Fascism Is Duty of Christians; Rebels Did Not Exhaust Peaceful Means; Both Sides Have Fought Like Savages" and was followed by a lengthy article by Emmanuel Mounier from Esprit.[60]  A few months later the Catholic Worker announced the formation of "Pax," an association for Catholic conscientious objectors promising "to make no concessions to public demands, and will stick by our guns unless told by ecclesiastical authorities that we are wrong."  While affirming that war could be theoreticallly waged according to "natural ethics," Pax (and the Catholic Worker) felt that modern conditions prevented a just war, whether international or civil, from being possible.  The group also affirmed the right of a person to follow his conscience in  refusing to fight in an unjustified war.[61]  In as least one case the Catholic Worker printed an article suggesting that a person dying in an unjust war would die in mortal sin and thus be damned.[62]  

                The occurrence of the Spanish Civil war caused the Catholic Worker to clarify its position on the use of force under any circumstances.  Citing the example of St. Stephen praying for his oppressors while he was being stoned to death, and stating that more good comes from dying for faith rather than killing for it, the editors wrote:

                As long as men trust to the use of force--only a superior, a more savage and brutal force will overcome the enemy.  We use his own weapons, and we must make sure our own force is more savage, more bestial than his own . . . .

                     We are neglecting the one means--prayer and the sacraments, by which whole armies can be overcome. . . .

                     St. Peter drew the sword and our Lord rebuked him.  They asked our Lord to prove His Divinity and come down from the cross.  But He suffered the "failure" of the cross. . . .

                     The Holy Father in his call for Catholic Action, for the lay apostolate, is calling for Saints.  We must prepare now for martyrdom--otherwise we will not be ready.  Who of us if he were attacked now would not react quickly and humanly against such an attack? . . .  We must prepare.  We must prepare now.  There must be a disarmament of the heart. . . .[63]  

                Though Commonweal did generally endorse the Franco faction and strongly denounced the favoritism shown by the American Press toward the Leftists,[64] the magazine's frequent lack of enthusiasm for the Nationalists incurred the wrath of the America editors.  Such was the case when George Shuster published an article expressing regret for "the evil that has been done on both sides"; Shuster also stated that the Pope wanted Catholic neutrality in Spain, that the Basque provinces in fact wanted to escape from a totalitarian system in which the insurgents themselves were persecuting the Church, and that Spain had in fact largely lost its Catholic faith.  Shuster also hinted at the prospect of a church purified through suffering.  In spite of an introductory note by Michael Williams stating his convictions that anti-religious Communism and Anarchism played a "far greater part in provoking the revolt" than Shuster indicated,[65] the editor of America stated that "[t]o our dismay added to our sorrow, the editors of the Commonweal appear to have fallen into the snares of the propagandists."  Talbot stated that the failings of the Church did not justify the anti-Catholic atrocities that the Leftists had inflicted.  He also stated that Shuster was under-informed on the Basque situation, and that the Pope had not in fact urged neutrality in the Spanish issue.[66]  An article also appeared in America complaining about excessive sympathy being shown toward the Leftist cause by the Catholic press in general.[67]                  However, by the middle of 1938, Commonweal had moved to position of neutrality, or "positive impartiality," on the issue.[68]  This change in policy placed the Commonweal in the same neutral camp as the Catholic Worker, and caused America to criticize both magazines, as well as Jacques Maritain and other French personalists, as having "willed not to consider the Spanish conflict comprehensively."  American Catholics holding such views were seen by the editors of America as having "split themselves off from the solid Catholic thought in the United States," embracing the opinions of the non-Catholic majority.[69]

                Commonweal and America also differed in their notions of relief.  Commonweal started a Spanish Relief Fund to "assist the hapless victims of the war between the two factions in Spain," in conjunction with the Brooklyn Tablet; efforts were directed toward all war victims.[70]  America began endorsing the American Committee for Spanish Relief but withdrew its appeal, favoring instead relief efforts carried out exclusively under the direction of the Church in Spain.  The International Red Cross was also regarded as suspect by America's editors on the grounds of high overhead, its aid to military as well as civilian victims, and its impartial distribution of aid among the warring factions.[71]   America started its own fund, but limited its efforts only to the areas controlled by the Nationalists, castigating groups that gave to Loyalist-controlled regions.[72]  This blanket condemnation stung the editors of Commonweal, who wrote:

                I can only say in regard to this view, that I fail to see where it is either Christian or American.  Probably most of the Catholics, including bishops, priests, and nuns, innocent women and children, and millions of men in the part of Spain under the savage rule of the Red government in Valencia need aid desperately.  To exclude that aid from them on the plea that it is incidently helping the Valencia government might be justified for military or political reasons, if those military or political reasons were those dictated by a tyrannical army or government determined to crush opponents at any cost; but Christian charity and Christian justice, and American generosity and humanitarianism would hardly concur in so extreme a position as that.[73] 

                In spite of disagreements over issues such as the Child Labor Law and the Spanish Civil War, however, the staff of America, Commonweal, and the Catholic Worker at this time agreed on a number of important issues.  Each publication had opposed the United States becoming directly involved in the Spanish conflict, regardless of which side they did or did not support.[74]  All three publications continued to be concerned with stemming the growth of Communism in the United States as a result of its history of human rights abuses and, even more importantly, its militant, doctrinaire atheism.  The staff of each publication desired the conversion of the Communists to Christianity; they also tended to be in agreement as to what was causing the growth of communism:  Communist propaganda promising peace and prosperity, made believable by the threat of war and a depression caused by "unrestrained capitalism."  The masses were unhappy with being unemployed and hungry in a nation of rich industrial and agricultural resources.[75] 

                This reform spirit extended beyond a simple desire to preempt a leftist revolution, however; the publications also desired fundamental social reforms in order to improve the lot of the worker.  All three publications thus supported the rights of workers to unionize.  More fundamentally the failure of laissez-faire capitalism was acknowledged, and a call was made for a more humane replacement.  Thus, America's Laurence Kent Patterson could offer a prescription that included:  1. resistance to succumbing to a war spirit; 2. avoidance of using nationalistic violence as an antidote to Communism; 3. following the "wise and venerable" constitution, and lawfully amending it if absolutely necessary; 4. recognition that unemployment and poverty resulted not from laziness, but from laissez-faire capitalism; 5. redistribution of national wealth and income, 6. use of modified, or "limited" capitalism, and 7. Roman Catholic interest in public welfare, both in America and in the world.[76]  Others looked to personalist, cooperative, and other movements for both economic and spiritual regeneration.[77] 

                The Catholic Worker fit well within this reform spirit, even if some of the proposals contained within its pages were occasionally on the extreme side:

                In this present situation when people are starving to death while there is an over-abundance of food, when religion is being warred upon throughout the world, our Catholic young people still come from schools and colleges and talk about looking for security, a weekly wage. . . .  Why they think a weekly wage is going to give them security is a mystery.  Do they have security at any job nowadays?  If they try to save, the bank fails; if they invest their money, the bottom of the market drops out.[78]  

                Finally, with the conclusion of the Spanish Civil War, the publications were again united in their desire for peace.  Indeed, the acrimonious disagreements that took place between the publications during the Spanish conflict and, to a lesser extent, over the Ethiopian War and the Child Labor Amendment seem exceptional when compared to the each of the magazines' determination to avoid involvement in any sort of war effort.  Despite an awareness of the persecution of the Church in Germany under Hitler's regime,[79] America, Commonweal, and the Catholic Worker were all opposed to war in general and vehemently opposed to American involvement in a European conflict.  America, Commonweal, and the Catholic Worker all criticized the United States's buildup of defense material.  A representative article from America stated:

                . . . the American Government has adopted the policy of preserving the peace by preparing for war. . . .  Is the huge armament to which we are adding, merely for self-defense, or are we getting ready to send our young men to perish on foreign battlefields, after the United States has been inveigled into the position of "ally" or "associate" of Europeans at war? . . .  If we have a moral duty to the world, . . . it is to begin the age of disarmament by disarming. . . .  [I]t is a deterrent worth trying . . . .[80]

                The Catholic Worker, Commonweal, and America continued to stand opposed to the United States' role in arms sales, with America advocating the nationalization of munitions manufacturing,in an effort to minimize the profit motive in the arming of other nations.[81]  Writing in 1936, the magazine suggested that the attitude of most Americans of the time was, "If this country were actually invaded, I'd fight, but should we get mixed up in a war in Europe, I'd rather go to jail than fight."  The article continues:

                Whether or not [citizens] would resist conscription should we find ourselves involved in a war on the Continent is another question, but it is highly probable that many would.  The efforts of the peace societies, actively at work since the close of the World War, have had their effect, especially among the young.  It is not at all likely that flag waving and drum beating would draw our young men into the ranks, as they did in 1917. . . .  If the politicians in Congress, in the munitions and war-material factories, and in other quarters, can learn something of the present temper of our people, war will become decidedly more remote.  When all nations reach the same understanding, war will be as obsolete as dueling.[82]

 

                In such an anti-war, anti-conscription intellectual environment, it is not surprising that the Catholic Worker was able to publish a number of pro-pacifism articles without attracting undue attention.  As mentioned earlier, the Catholic Worker had reached the conclusion that modern conditions had rendered just wars impossible.  The paper thus came to maintain that the only position available to Catholics was one of conscientious objection.[83]  The editors went on to state:

                The Catholic Worker is sincerely a pacifist paper.

                     We oppose class war and class hatred, even while we stand opposed to injustice and greed.  Our fight is not "with flesh and blood but principalities and powers." 

                     We oppose also imperialist war.

                     We oppose, moreover, preparedness for war, a preparedness which is going on now on an unprecedented scale and which will undoubtably lead to war. . . . 

                     If we are calling on nations to disarm, we must be brave enough and courageous enough to set the example.

                     Nations can live at home.  That is the title of a recent book, and many surveys are being made at present to find out how many nations can do without trade and "live at home" . . . .

                     If we abandoned our neutral rights at sea, we would still have a surplus of food and material goods with which to help feed nations which have been made gaunt by war.  We are not suggesting this as a business note but as a reminder of Christian Charity.

                     Do we believe that we help any country by participating in an evil in which they are engaged?  We rather help them by maintaining our own peace.  It takes a man of heroic stature to be a pacifist and we urge our readers to consider and study pacifism and disarmament in this light. . . .  A pacifist in the next war must be ready for martyrdom. 

Included in both this and other articles of the Catholic Worker during this time were citations from the pro-peace papal encyclicals of Pope Pius XI, as well as similar citations from other Italian sources.[84]

                The largely apolitical Peter Maurin even paused from this communitarian theorizing to a number of anti-war "easy essays":   

 

 

                                                                                    RIGHT AND WRONG

 

                                                              Some people say,

                                                              "My country is always right."

                                                              Some people say,

                                                              "My country is always wrong."

                                                              Some people say,

                                                              "My country is sometimes right,

                                                              and sometimes wrong,

                                                              but my country right or wrong.

                                                              To stick to one's country

                                                              when one's country is wrong

                                                              does not make the country right.

                                                              To stick to the right

                                                              even when the world is wrong

                                                              is the only way

                                                              we know of

                                                              to make everything right.

                                               

 

                                                                           BARBARIANS AND CIVILIZED

 

                                                              We call barbarians

                                                              people living

                                                              on the other side of the border.

                                                              We call civilized

                                                              people living

                                                              on this side of the border.

                                                              We civilized

                                                              living on this side of the border,

                                                              are not ashamed

                                                              to arm ourselves to the teeth

                                                              so as to protect ourselves

                                                              against the barbarians

                                                              living on the other side.

                                                              And when the barbarians

                                                              born on the other side of the border,

                                                              invade us,

                                                              we do not hesitate

                                                              to kill them

                                                              before we have tried

                                                              to civilize them.

                                                              So we civilized

                                                              exterminate barbarians

                                                              without civilizing them.

                                                              And we persist

                                                              in calling ourselves civilized.[85]  

 

                It is therefore not surprising to find that in 1936, 1937, and 1938 the Catholic Worker was most recognized in America and Commonweal.  Yet, in spite of their peace activism and pacifist stands, the movement was far better known for its social work and for its outreach to working classes that might otherwise be lost to Communism.  Thus, the August 1, 1936, issue of America carried an article, probably written by John LaFarge, about Peter Maurin and his utopian, agrarian philosophy of voluntary poverty.  While affirming Maurin's sincerity in word and action, the author questioned the practicality of Maurin's suggestions, while praying for the success of the Catholic Worker commune.[86] 

                Similarly, the June 12, 1937, issue of America carried can article written by a Catholic Worker telling of competition and confrontations between sellers of the Catholic Worker, and representatives of the Young Communist League and persons selling the Communist Daily Worker.[87]  The following week John LaFarge began a series of three articles critiquing the Worker movement.  While extolling the group's ability to carry out charitable action in the form of the Houses of Hospitality, and social experimentation in the rural farming communes, LaFarge was less enthusiastic about the teaching of the Catholic Worker movement in areas such as industrial ethics and labor relations.  This was especially true in the case of the group's teachings on peace, which needed to be better defended on "a more strictly intellectual plane."  He thus urged the movement to separate their teaching and charitable activities so that "one will not be hindered by the other."[88] 

                LaFarge also chided the Catholic workers for propagating opinions opposed to the local representatives of the Catholic hierarchy on issues not related to faith or morals, as in the case of the Child Labor Amendment, on the grounds such stands did not promote the unity of the Church; however, he praised the newly-started Catholic Worker retreat program.[89]  After this point, little mention is made of the Catholic Worker in America, and no more of Dorothy Day's articles were printed by the magazine.

                Recognition in the Commonweal came more slowly than in America, though it continued for a longer period of time.[90]  The 29 April, 1938, issue featured a four-page write-up of Peter Maurin that featured his colorful biography, described his way-faring lifestyle, provided examples of his easy essays, and described the founding, mission, and growth of the Catholic Worker.[91]  The following week Commonweal published an article by Day herself describing the movement's inner city relief work and the Catholic Worker's roots in the Catholic tradition.[92]  In August the magazine stated the Catholic Worker movement, with its lack of specific "national objective" and its adaptability in performing different forms of social work, was "heartening phenomenon in our national life."[93]

                The emphasis of the Catholic Worker religious and charitable agendas to the near exclusion of the group's pacifist philosophy was due at least in part to the Catholic Worker's self-assessment; a forty-six line statement of "Aims and Purposes" in 1939 spoke mainly of voluntary poverty, works of mercy, Round Table discussions, Houses of Hospitality, and farming communes.  A subsection entitled "Brotherhood" spoke mainly of universal brotherhood and of the potential for all men to be a part of the Mystical Body of Christ.  The goal of combatting "the use of force as a means of settling disputes between men and nations" received only a single line.[94] 

WAR CONCERNS

                The Catholic Worker itself began to draw less attention, however, as the clouds of war began to look more ominous in Europe as a result of Hitler's expansionist policies.[95]  Dialogue within the Catholic Worker, America, and Commonweal began to address not only the prevention of war, but also contingency situations in case of conscription or the outbreak of hostilities.  Donald Attwater thus wrote in Commonweal,

                Many Christians, Catholic and other (e.g., the Pax groups in England and the U.S.A.), are now convinced that , as human beings and as Christians, they must avoid all active cooperation with war:  not because fighting is wrong in itself (it isn't), not because they are frightened (some of us are, terribly) or because they "dislike" being mutilated or foully killed (as everybody does), not only because modern war is what it almost certainly is, wrong in itself:  but because they refuse to bring down hideous evils, moral, spiritual and physical (they are closely connected), on their own people and on those of another nation for any reason whatsoever; because in the world of today every peaceable person who refuses to join in war is in himself invaluable for that reason; and because that which Christians want on this earth, the Kingdom of God, cannot be brought nearer by hate, fear, and physical violence.[96]

                The Commonweal editors also wrote that the United States did not have the right to judge Nazi-Fascist racism in view of the racism found in the United States.[97]  However, after the taking of Czechoslovakia, the editors of Commonweal wrote that the only hope for stopping Hitler "would be to allow [him] to expand to the point of collapse, for everyone stands to lose by another European war."[98]  The magazine also published a few articles on just-war theory and cited studies indicating that the American people were opposed to involvement in a foreign war.[99]  America, on the other hand, consistently decried human rights abuses and restrictions placed on worship in Germany.  The editors of this magazine also were staunchly isolationist.

                The Catholic Worker, taking a position fairly close to that of the other periodicals, tended to see rights and wrongs having been committed on both sides; the Czech regime had indeed persecuted the Sudeten minority, even if Hitler was not justified in his actions.  The Catholic Worker saw Germany at this time as having "grovel[ed] for years under the yolk of the Allies' vengeance [and] the perfidious Versailles Treaty."[100]

                This position of mutual blame for war continued with the outbreak of the war in Europe.  The September, 1939, issue of the Catholic Worker had an article on the front page stating, "We Are to Blame for New War in Europe," and stated:

                The blame rests on the peoples of the entire world, for their materialism, their greed, their idolatrous nationalism, for their refusal to believe in a just peace, for their ruthless subjection of a noble country. . . .  Hitler is incidental; the war must have come sooner or later under the circumstances.[101]   

This issue also signified the Catholic Worker's entry into a new phase of anti-war action, in its opposition to conscription.[102]  Urging readers to follow the lead of St. Francis of Assisi in his forsaking of arms, the issue cited Benedict XV's call for the abolition of conscription in 1917.  The issue also contained a notice stating, "THE CATHOLIC WORKER PLEDGES ITSELF AS LONG AS WE ARE PERMITTED TO EXIST" to fight obligatory military service.[103]

                At this point, the Catholic Worker began running a series of anti-conscription articles by the Reverend G. Barry O'Toole, a philosophy professor at the Catholic University of America.  O'Toole's articles elaborated the earlier stance of the Catholic Worker about war and increased the level of sophistication of the arguments presented.  The author argued that a draft would be unnecessary in the event of a defensive war, as then volunteers would be plentiful; conscription is only needed in the case of offensive wars, the justice of which is doubtful, especially in the modern age.  Furthermore,

                even soldiers engaged in a just war must prefer to die rather than be guilty of injuring enemy nationals by acts that are morally wrong, e.g., by the slaughter of prisoners or by the intentional killing of defenseless noncombatants.[104] 

                Other reasons that O'Toole called for opposition to conscription were made on the grounds that the draft was both unconstitutional and "secular."  The latter charge was made on the basis that military conscription is a case in which the State claims an exclusive  allegiance in the realm of faith and morals, an infringement on the realm of allegiance reserved exclusively for the Church.   O'Toole thus felt justified in calling conscription "slavery of the most degraded type; a slavery which dehumanizes men into dumb driven cattle, destitute of personal dignity and denied the right to have soul or conscience of their own."[105]

                Yet even as the Catholic Worker was publishing articles on the just war tradition, Dorothy Day in the same series of issues published articles calling for more drastic measures, based on the writings of recent pontiffs and calling for direct social action and spiritual devotion:

                Too many Catholics in talking about war, spend their time in opposing pacifism in general by seeking all the arguments justifying war and going back through the middle ages to find historical precedents. . . .  [Father Franziskus Stratmann] says that while the recent Popes' encyclicals on social action are ever gaining more and more publicity, too little is known of their writings on peace.  The Popes have laid down principles.  It is up to us to apply them as the issues come up. . . .  We urge, with Archbishop McNicholas, the formation of "a mighty league of conscientious objectors."  We must prepare for the struggle that is to come. 

                  And while we prepare ourselves by study and the indoctrinating of others, let us not forget to continue like the importunate man in the Gospel, storming heaven by our prayers that here in the United States we will not go to war . . . .[106] 

                Finally, on the front page of the June 1940 Catholic Worker, an editorial appeared that plainly stated the position of the editors:

                Theologians have laid down conditions for a just war . . . and many modern writers, clerical and lay, hold that these conditions are impossible of fulfillment [sic] these present times of bombardment of civilians, open cities, the use of poison gas, etc. . . .  Instead of gearing ourselves in this country for a gigantic production of death-dealing bombers and men trained to kill, we should be producing food, medical supplies, ambulances, doctors and nurses for the works of mercy, to heal and rebuild a shattered world. . . .

                     "And if we are invaded" is another question asked.  We say again that we are opposed to all but the uses of non-violent means to resist such an invader. . . .

                     We are urging what is a seeming impossibility . . . .  It is again the Folly of the Cross.  But how else is the Word of God to be kept alive in the world. . . .  It is hard to write so in times like these when millions are doing what they consider their duty, what is "good" for them to do.  But if the Catholic press does not uphold the better way, the counsels of perfection will be lost to the world.[107] 

 

Similarly, an editorial in the July-August issue stated:

 

                There is much confusion of thought about counsels and precepts.  The precept of perfection is incumbent upon all.  We all have to aim at it. . . .  The councils . . . are usually thought of as religious vows, but as a matter of fact, every lay person has to practice poverty, chastity and obedience.  He has to practice inner poverty, poverty of spirit, he has to practice chastity (not continence if he is married).  And most certainly he should practice obedience to the Holy Father and our bishops, and to the state insofar as such obedience does not go contrary to conscience.[108]  

                While Dorothy Day appears to have felt that conscientious objection was a form of accommodation to the State, and that "it is possible for a man to lead a perfect life even in jail,"[109] the Catholic Worker group, in conjunction with the Pax group, formed the Association of Catholic Conscientious Objectors in 1941, to provide for alternative service in case war actually did come.[110]  The Catholic Worker also began publishing a series of articles by Fr. John Hugo downplaying just war theory, instead seeing war as occurring as a result of a "failure of Christian effort," thus allowing the forces of paganism to flourish.[111] Hugo called instead for a greater devotion to God, detachment from worldly concerns, and greater attention to the interior life.[112]  This move toward a stricter, more perfect, form of pacifism did not occur without cost to the movement.  Many of the Catholic Worker houses did not embrace this move, either closing or dropping the Catholic Worker name.[113]

                Ultimately, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor marked the final parting of the ways between the Catholic Workers and mainstream American Catholicism.  Prior to this event, the isolationist-leaning America, had been generally opposed to the United States becoming involved in war, particularly in Europe where fighting the Axis powers would involve an alliance with the Communist, anti-religious, Soviet Union.[114]  America also decried the Lend-Lease Act as an "equivalent-declaration of war" with Germany,[115] and advised avoidance of entering into a conflict with Japan.[116] 

                After the Pearl Harbor attack, however,  America immediately moved to stand in back of the U.S. war effort.  The December 13 issue of the magazine stated,

                Japan declared war on the United States and Great Britain, as of dawn, December 7. . . .  The United States has been left no choice but to prosecute war against Japan with the full power of naval, air, and army forces. . . .   Our government calls upon the people to unite in the prosecution of this war, and to reaffirm, in practical terms, their loyalty to their nation.  Every American  will  respond,  and will  perform his  duty in this crisis and  the war years that follow. . . .  It is the day of tragedy.  But the American people must and will meet that tragedy and emerge from it triumphant, both in the war in the Orient and in the closely-following war against the Nazis.[117] 

                This issue also contained an editorial on Catholic conscientious objectors, stating that while the Church does not affirm war as essentially evil and that the government is probably the best authority as to whether or not war is necessary in a particular situation, the conscientious objector must be true to his conscience but must also "be ready to suffer for conscience's sake."[118]  The opinion of the America editors rapidly turned against the CO's, however; the following week's issue stated,

                It is our  reasoned opinion  that very few conscientious objectors will be found among Catholics. . . .  Without presuming to speak for the theologians and moralists, we venture to assert that there is something awry with the conscience of the American Catholic who refuses to support the Government in the present war.

                  If, however, that conscience cannot be set aright, its unfortunate possessor cannot look for sympathy from his better-informed fellow-Catholics.  He must follow his conscience, it is true, but he must also accept without repining the extremely unpleasant consequences to which it leads.[119] 

                Commonweal underwent a similar change of opinion.  Though some pro-war or at least anti-isolationist articles appeared in Commonweal prior to December of 1941,[120] the publication hoped that the Allies could defeat Hitler without direct American intervention.[121]  The 12 December issue, in press before the Japanese attack, called Americans to survey their ignorance about the Orient.  As to war, the editors stated,

                Emotionally the pull is toward noble deeds at great distances; intellectually the pull is toward safeguarding our own future.  The first is a dangerous pull; the second can turn into  mere imperialism and selfishness. In this case, at least, our national decision will rest far more with the cold-blooded than the warm; that is probably a blessing.[122] 

 

                However, the following issue stated:

 

                The surprise attack on Hawaii brought the United States into the war the way that gives the country the maximum possible political strength.  No one in the country, no matter what committee or school of thought he has belonged to during recent debates, wants a condition which permits Pearl Harbor to be bombed.  We are locked in a unity to beat off a naval and military threat which our enemies themselves have made a physical fact that no argument, theorizing, or political viewpoint can remove from reality. . . .[123] 

                The Commonweal printed little about conscientious objection after this time, except to state:

               

                In the two months that have succeeded that sudden dawn attack, opponents of US entry into the war on religious grounds have, on the other hand, shown themselves quite divided in their counsels.  Even conscientious objectors have split up over the several choices that lay before them, including going to prison for refusing to register, being sent to some sort of work camp or accepting disability ratings which so many draft boards have granted to objectors in order to avoid a fuss.  The very humaneness of the current provisions for CO's and the way the rules have been administered have made it more difficult for them to bear effective witness to their belief as to the immorality of modern war than it was in the rougher days of 1917.[124] 

                These responses were typical of both American Catholic laity and hierarchy.[125]  In contrast, the Catholic Worker responded to the attack of Pearl Harbor with banner headlines:  "OUR COUNTRY PASSES FROM UNDECLARED TO DECLARED WAR;  WE CONTINUE OUR PACIFIST STANCE."[126]  Little changed in the periodical after the declaration of war; Fr. Hugo's somewhat other-worldly articles continued to condemn the "practical paganism" caused by worldly attachments, and arguing for a deepened practice of Christianity through self-denial and mortification that bordered on perfectionism.[127]  

                A slightly less penitential series of articles also began appearing, written by Fr. W. E. Orchard.[128]   While admitting that a person has a right to defend self, family, friends, country, and property, Orchard stated that "no one will be saved on the ground of his rights, nor will the world ever be redeemed on the basis of justice; for that, charity and self-sacrifice are necessary. . . .  True liberty is mostly an inner thing."  Orchard also suggested that the war

                . . . is not so much between the Cross of Christ and the crooked cross of some incarnate devil, as a confused war between Mars and Mammon.  The Pacifist will well say that he can have no part in that.[129] 

                The Catholic Worker continued to print articles condemning war;[130] it also began to publish letters by conscientious objectors and prisoners of conscience.[131]  One of these contributors, Ammon Hennacy, self-proclaimed "Tolstoian" and Christian Anarchist,[132] would later come to exemplify the Catholic Worker movement's stance of activist pacifism in a nuclear age.[133]

                Even though the Catholic Worker continued to stand with the Church and  the American Catholic press on a number of issues,[134] the war pushed the Catholic Worker movement out of mainstream American Catholicism.  The movement's ultra-pacifism in the face of the Pearl Harbor attack alienated many Catholics, both within the American hierarchy and within the movement itself.  The movement also shrank considerably as a result of conscription; the more moderate males were forced to leave the movement for military service in either combatant or noncombatant positions, while the rest faced either a jail or alternative service in a rural work camp or a mental hospital.  The war provided employment and even prosperity to many of the Americans that once were clients of the Houses of Hospitality.[135]  By the end of the war nine Houses of Hospitality, out of a pre-war number of thirty, continued to exist, and only seven farms were left.[136]  Circulation had dropped from a high of 160,000 copies a month in 1938 to a low of 50,500 during World War II, though most of the circulation lost was in the form of bundle orders.[137]

                Yet the Catholic Worker movement survived this time, using this time of trial to strengthen the members' perfectionist resolve.  One such article by Fr. John Hugo stated,

                Catholic Action is the out-pouring of what is deepest and richest in Christianity.  It is the divine life of grace which, in a soul that is pruned by sacrifice and watered by prayer, rises, like the sap in a tree, to bring forth much fruit and a fruit that will remain.

                     In a word, Catholic Action is the expression of the essential nature of Christianity.  But the essence of Christianity is love.  Therefore, the fundamental principle of the apostolate can be only this:  that all apostles pledge themselves to seek, as their primary object, the perfection of divine love; or since love is the same as perfection, they must take as their deliberate goal the pursuit of Christian perfection.[138]  

                The paper also began running another, even more penitentially-inclined series by Fr. Hugo on the "Weapons of the Spirit," propounding the need for self-denial and mortification.[139]  Similarly, the November, 1942, issue ran the banner headline, "Feed the Axis":

                Immediately we hear you cry:  Un-American! pro-German! pro-Japanese!  We agree with you--it is  all that  and more.   It  is  definitely  CHRISTIAN--pure,  unadulterated CHRISTIANITY! . . .   Bombs and bullets can never do it.  They can kill men, but only increase enmity.  But BREAD and BROTHERLINESS will overcome enmity and make enemies into friends. . . .  With even more enthusiasm and concern than War Bond buyers, finance this CHRISTIAN OFFENSIVE for the enemy.[140]   

                The following month the paper carried a piece stating "FORGET PEARL HARBOR," followed by a peace plan based on mutual cooperation between Japan and the U.S., including the removal of unjust trade barriers between the two nations, the repeal of the Oriental Exclusion Act, and the U.S. providing assistance in the resettlement of Japan's surplus population.[141]             

                Articles also continued to appear calling for voluntary poverty and the end of modern industrialism.[142]  Finally, as the rest of the nation expressed relief at the end of the war with Japan,[143] the Catholic Worker mourned instead:

                . . . our Lord Himself has already pronounced judgement on the atomic bomb.  When James and John . . . wished to call down fire from heaven on their enemies, Jesus said,  "You know not of what spirit you are.  The Son of man came not to destroy souls but to save."  He said also, "What you do unto the least of these my brethren, you do unto me."[144]  

CONCLUSION

                With the entry of the United States into World War Two, the Catholic Worker found itself embarking on a pacifist, perfectionist trajectory that would continue at least until the death of Dorothy Day in 1980.[145]  Though estranged from mainstream American Catholicism, and American culture in general,[146] the Catholic Worker movement was responsible for a number of accomplishments.  Primary among these was an affirmation of the legitimacy of pacifism among American Catholic laity, combined with an almost utopian desire for social justice.[147]  The movement began to expand again after the war, at least partially in response to many individuals' growing interest in disarmament, especially with the development and deployment of nuclear weapons.[148]  The Catholic Worker movement would later come to serve as a point of departure for other radical Catholic peace protestors such as Thomas Merton and Daniel and Phillip Berrigan.  In future years the Catholic Worker movement's pacifism would grow even more pronounced until Ms. Day, as the founder and leader of the movement, would be accused of sedition during the Cold War era,[149] yet achieving unofficial sainthood by the time of her death.[150]