Ford Local 600 members march in the 1942 Detroit Labor Day parade.

Courtesy of the Library of Congress

1948 Labor Day Statement

O'Hara to McNicholas

Spellman to McNicholas

McIntyre to McNicholas

McNicholas to Spellman

There were always critics, both clerical and lay, of the Social Action Department's (SAD's) activities, but they received little notice and gained less support. In 1947, though, SAD's vehement criticism of the Taft-Hartley Bill led to substantial criticism from inside and outside the Church. The Administrative Board of the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC), subsequently, established oversight procedures for SAD's episcopal chair, in this case Toledo's Karl Alter. (Alter [1885-1977], who had never completely agreed with SAD, had been doing what he could to rein in its independence and laborism). The following year, 1948, saw a significant attack on SAD and the Industrial Council Plan when the Department's Labor Day Statement came under siege. High Church intrigue might have been involved since Archbishop James McIntyre (1886-1979) of Los Angeles and Bishop John F. O'Hara C.S.C. (1888-1960) of Buffalo owed their positions to the patronage of Francis Cardinal Spellman (1888-1967) of New York. The bishops, led by Archbishop John T. McNicholas (1877-1950), affirmed their commitment to industry councils in November 1948, but dissatisfaction with it would only grow.

Questions

As you read these documents, reflect on the following questions:

1. Did McIntyre and O'Hara have similar criticisms of the Labor Day statement?

2. What was McNicholas' most important reply to their comments?