Controversy Under Fr. Cuddihy:

the AOH, Gambling, Dancing & the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR)

this article was originally published in the parish bulletin the weekend of November 10, 2019

One would presume that an native-born Irish priest and the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an American society of Irish heritage, would be an ideal match, but that is not the case between Fr. Patrick Cuddihy and the AOH of Milford.  The first and therefore oldest lay association in the parish, it was formed on March 24, 1873 when 17 businessmen and politicians of Irish descent met in Reade’s Hall on Main Street to organize as Division 2 of AOH as requested by County delegate, John Lenehan.

From that nascent group of seventeen, that first year grew a membership of 45 people.  From among them, Lawrence Reade was its first president.  Other officers that first year were TS Cooney, Vice; Timothy R. Burke, recording secretary; James F. Stratton, financial secretary; and John Madden, treasurer.  That first year the group celebrated a communion breakfast for Saint Patrick’s Day in the parish church in 1874.  In subsequent years, they observed an annual ball and a parade on St Pat’s Day.  On May 3, 1875, Division 2 was changed to Division 7 and their meeting quarters would move to the Grant block a few years later. 

While the AOH was gaining popularity among its Irish brethren in Milford, Fr. Cuddihy had a keen eye on their behavior and questioned their motives and even their Catholicity.  So, on July 3, 1878, Fr. Cuddihy spoke after Mass.  The details were related in an article in the Milford Journal that week.  A lectern was pushed to the center aisle; ascending it to address his flock, he began by referencing the famine that had scourged their native Ireland reminding his flock that, “When they came here, they had neither heritage, lands, houses or churches.  The American people received them as friends, and gave them the same rights and privileges, and the same freedom for their religion, that they enjoyed themselves.  After all that has been done for them by the church and the republic, I charge these Hibernians with ingratitude by the course which they have pursued.  Is it right for a section of this church to set themselves up in every town and call themselves a Division?  What matter is it if they say that they are good men and good Catholics, if they belong to a society having secret signs and passwords?  Yet there can be no harmony in this church on account of fifty or sixty men Hibernians in Milford.  Every day these men are concocting some new mischief.  Only the other day they said that their pastor would not visit the sick.” 

Drawing from a pastoral letter that Bishop Fitzpatrick of Boston penned on January 23, 1859, he outlined that their rules, that denote them as a secret society, put them in opposition to the teachings of the Church.  He referred to the AOH as ‘an organization of a few men who sell rum and a few poor men who cannot pay their house rent, grocery bill, doctor, nor their priest.’  He called on the group to disband as he was leaving for a few months’ vacation.  To the other members of the parish he encouraged them to boycott their upcoming picnic.  “If their supplies are cut off they will die.”  When contacted by the local paper, the Milford AOH Division declined to publish any statement in relation to Fr. Cuddihy at that time. 

A week later, the Journal reports on July 10, 1878, that rival picnics were held.  Fr. Cuddihy in an attempt to prove the power of his pulpit organized a parish picnic with 600 to 800 school children in a procession that was estimated to be a total of 1,200 people for his parish picnic.  In contrast, the AOH picnic had between 200 and 300 members in line, representing their own division as well as four or five from the surrounding towns of Holliston and Woonsocket (who came in opposition to the preference of their pastors), in all 2,000 people were estimated to participate in the 4^th of July picnic in Milford.  Both sides claimed victory, but the paper noted that 15 to 20 divisions would have appeared save for the opposition of the local pastor who was supported by neighboring pastors in his position.

this article was originally published in the parish bulletin the weekends of November 17 & 24, 2019

The challenges of the 21^st century are not so different from the struggles of the culture of the 19^th century that moved Fr. Cuddihy with a deep passion to reprimand the members of his flock.  It is interesting to compare the vices of our modern times with those that Fr. Cuddihy faced head on in his writings and preaching on a regular basis.  Though separated by a century and a half, these reprimands were often reported in the local paper, thus giving subsequent generations a peek into the life and struggles of the emerging Catholic parish in Milford.

On April 14, 1880, the Milford Journal reported details of the sermon that Fr. Cuddihy preached the previous Sunday to which he had requested the presence of all of his parishioners.  The account reports that the church was packed, with large numbers of the younger members of the parish in attendance.  His presentation began with the finances of the parish, informing them that they had receipts of $6,750 with expenses totaling $7,250 which included the interest on the church as well as the purchase for the new school.  He gave details of the religious sisters who would come to lead the school and teach the young girls of the parish.  He then directed his attention to what he referred to as an unpleasant task but one that he would not shy away from in confronting the moral character of his parish.

At that time there were a group of young men in the parish who were organizing a base ball club.  His criticism was that this was an excuse for being lazy or ‘loafers’ as he called them.  They did not have steady employment, were not responsible in attending catechism classes or Sunday Masses, and yet were approaching people in town to support their effort to encourage their lack of gainful employment.  He accused them of creating a ‘filthy nest’ and encouraged the parishioners not to support them. In addition, he commented that they were also corrupting the young women of the parish who ignored or rebelled against their parents and followed the directives of these loafers.  He further commented that they were organizing a dance and so he continued that their only care was their amusement and an irresponsible attitude toward others.  “They are worse than heretics’ they are sneaks and rogues.  All these chaps are ignorant fellows.  They ought to learn something besides dancing.  It is sickening to my heart to see these fellows and girls caring for nothing but to dance. There is not so much harm in a little dancing, but there is in these round dances, and these fellows have round dances.”  He ended by noting that, “They are trying to make a sporting town of this place, but I’ll not have it.  ….  It is the animus of the affair that I dislike.” 

The Milford Journal of Sept 7, 1887, recalls a sermon of Fr. Cuddihy that was reported in the local news.  In it, the pastor called out the frequency of gambling, citing a recent ball game in Framingham where over $3,000 has been gambled away in what he referred to as ‘a disgraceful affair.’  Between these baseball games on Fridays and local picnics on Saturday, his concern was ‘Times are good, and many people don’t seem to know what to do with their money.’
Fr. Cuddihy closed his sermon by boldly affirming what he considered the ‘prominent, transparent sins of Milford to be gambling, intemperance, and impurity, and that the town is badly governed, for which he declared, Catholics are largely responsible by reason of the class of men they put into office.’

The Milford Journal of July 29, 1891 details another diatribe of Fr. Cuddihy to his flock, addressing them in ‘his customary straightforward way on what he conceived to be the extravagance and wrong among members of the parish.  He spoke strongly against large funerals, instancing three lately as costing $1000 or more, and announced that hereafter funerals from his church would be limited at most to six hacks and ten other carriages.  If there were more, he intimated that a refusal of the church offices to the deceased might follow.’  The reader is left wondering whether the editor admired or scorned Fr. Cuddihy as they concluded the article with the recognition that ‘Fr. Cuddihy has lost none of his old-time mastery of passionate invective when he deems the occasion fit.’

His reputation spread beyond the limits of Milford as The Boston Post of January 29, 1896 printed the text of a letter from the parish sexton who detailed a presentation by Fr. Cuddihy the previous weekend lamenting the behavior of the young women of the parish.  “It’s a shame,” he said, “and I am forced now to forbid the young women belonging to the sodalities to attend any more dances.  Let this be an end to it.   It is bad for the youth, and nothing good can possibly come from dancing.  There were only twenty-five marriages last year, and the cause is mostly due to too much amusement.

“It seems that all the Catholics of Milford look for is fun.”  Drawing attention to the newly arriving immigrants, he cautioned that, ‘if you do not turn from your present course they will be taking your places in the shops and factories in town.  How can a young man or a young woman do an honest day’s work for their employer if they remain up five out of the seven nights in a week?’  Finally he challenged them on the various factions among their ranks that prevented any of the Catholics in town from being elected to public office.    He pointed out to them that ‘through your own fault the Catholics of Milford, although representing half the population of the town, were not represented on the Board of Selectmen.  Give over your dissensions and put good men into office.’ 

It is hard to imagine a contemporary media outlet following the sermons of a local pastor as they did in the 19^th century.  Therefore, we are fortunate that they did in the 1800s, for as a result, we have a real glimpse into the passion that Fr. Cuddihy had for his flock and their moral well-being.  While they may not all have agreed with him, there could be no doubt in their minds that what he perceived as their best interests was foremost in his thoughts and preaching.  His understanding of what was right and his passion to promote it were transparent and undeterred.  His pastoral experience with the Ancient Order of Hibernians would make him skeptical of the good intentions of the Knights of Columbus and he would cross paths with the veterans of the Grand Army of the Republic, those soldiers who defended the Union in the War between the States, now more commonly known as the Civil War.  His beliefs and subsequent actions would earn him notoriety in newspapers across the country, but he was unbowed in what he believed was the truth and rightness of his ideals.

this article was originally published in the parish bulletin the weekend of December 8, 2019

One of the controversies prominent in this 21^st century swirls around the respect given to the flag of the United States and the posture of athletes and others at sporting events when The Star Spangled Banner is rendered.  A different controversy around the flag here in Milford drew national attention and a resolution that it be brought to the attention of no one less than the President of the United States.  It happened in 1882 and began when the Milford Gazette published a notice on May 24^th from the leaders of Post 22 of the Grand Army of the Republic (the GAR was the name by which those who defended the unity of the Republic in the War of the States were know, in the 20^th century they would be identified as the Union soldiers of the Civil War) inviting comrades in arms to join in decorating the graves of the Union soldiers on Decoration Day, May 30^th.  This notice raised the hackles of Father Patrick Cuddihy, a political refuge from Ireland who had arrived in the United States 35 years earlier at the recommendation of the British Crown as his sympathies and support of Daniel O’Connell was well known to them; they had expressed to his superiors it would be better for him to leave the country, whereupon he traveled to Boston to make a new home. 

So, the next day, on May 25^th, there was a letter from Fr. Cuddihy to the Post leaders in Milford, demanding, “Now I should like to know by what right Post 22, G.A.R., undertake to perform such acts in the Catholic cemetery without the pastor’s leave, or asking permission?  Besides, I have no hesitation in telling you that I entirely disapprove and differ from your mode of honoring our Catholic dead by putting a penny’s worth of ‘cotton bunting’ on their graves.  I honor and admire the ‘Stars and Stripes’ in their proper places; but you misuse the flag; you misappropriate the ensign.”

Unbowed by the public expression of opposition by the pastor, the members of the Post arrived at the cemetery on Cedar Street and decorated the graves of the Union soldiers with flowers and small flags in recognition of their service.  One can imagine the outrage among them the next day when they discovered that their honored decorations had been ripped from their staffs, shredded and left as litter among the graves.  No one took responsibility for this offense, but both sides took offense.  Fr. Cuddihy took offense that they had trespassed on private property without proper authorization while the Post veterans were indignant that the sacred honor and memory of their comrades had been defiled.  It became a lengthy and protracted battle between Fr. Cuddihy and the Post that resurfaced every Memorial Day for nearly a decade. 

This conflict occurred within the limits of Milford, but knowledge of and opinion about both parties and their justification or lack thereof, stretched across the state and nation.  On June 10, 1882, the Milford Journal reprinted a letter from Fr. Cuddihy in response to the objection of the editor to the decision of Fr. Cuddihy as being unacceptable to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  He wrote, “Now, I should like to know who authorized John Boyle O’Reilly to speak for the bishops, priest or people of America, and I challenge him to produce the authority of even one bishop for such an unfounded and sweeping assertion.  Has not the editor of the Pilot frequently and ostentatiously stated the Pilot is not a Catholic newspaper  -  not the organ of any Catholic bishop?  Then I fail to recognize his weight or authority in the matter of any dispute between me and the G.A.R.”  The same story details the resolutions drafted by the Post that week, denouncing the act of desecration of the soldiers’ graves, calling it a cowardly act that if permitted to pass unnoticed ‘would finally result in the overthrow of order and good government.’ Finally, they resolved that if need be, this matter should be brought to the appropriate authorities and ‘if necessary, to the attention of the President of the United States.’

this article was originally published in the parish bulletin the weekend of December 15, 2019

The story was picked up many papers across the country, each of whose editors opined on the actions of each party in the dispute.  The Milford Journal carried pieces of the articles from different papers, among them was this notice from the Hartford Courant, “it don’t envy him the quarter of an hour he is going to spend with Archbishop Williams or the vicar general when the news of his performance reaches the ecclesiastical headquarters.  Evidently the Courant doesn’t know the old gentleman.”  The same identifies that it understands Fr. Cuddihy’s position and his justification as owner of the property.  They also identified his sense of principle, concluding their article. “he also declares that for the attacks of the newspaper press of the country he cares nothing, feeling that he has planted himself squarely upon the doctrines and beliefs of his church.  All the leading newspapers of the country has strongly condemned Fr. Cuddihy’s position, but he says he is not subject to the newspaper press, and don’t care for the bitter things they say of him.”

Each year as Memorial Day would approach the controversy would gain new life, attention and energy.  One year the veterans finding the gates locked, unhinged them, entered and then replaced the gates as they left.  Another year they climbed over the fence to decoration the graves of their fallen brethren.  That year, Fr. Cuddihy demanded the names of the Catholics who belonged to the Post to charge them with trespassing and excommunication, denying them the burial rites of the Church, but the Post refused to give him the names.  Finally, in 1885, the Post Commander and Fr. Cuddihy met to resolve the issue.  Fr. Cuddihy asked for his request in writing, that they could decorate the graves with flowers, but not with the ensign of the United States.  Commander McKay related that as he wrote the letter, but before it was completed, “he was informed by Father Cuddihy that prior to giving his consent to the request then being written, he would send a copy to every newspaper far and near, for publication with the additional information that the Grand Army had knuckled under to him.  Upon being thus informed, Mr. McKay declined to make any request in writing and after some further conversation the interview ended.” 

Eventually the newspaper stopped reporting, either the Post gave up its fight or the annual occurrence generated little interest as the years wore on.  Perhaps it is best understood and explained by the editor of The Boston Herald, “On the score of good taste and propriety, little, however, can be said in defence (sic) of this reverend gentleman’s action.  Decorations of the kind to which he objects are permitted and welcomed in all Catholic graveyards where soldiers are buried, from Maine to California.  With such a weight of custom against him, for Father Cuddihy to speak in this ex cathedra manner of what is and what is not a proper Christian decoration would be laughable, if it were not a painful exhibition of personal intolerance on the part of a man who has many estimable qualities.”  In the end, the larger measure of Fr. Cuddihy and his work in Milford deserves to be recognized and judged by more than this instance, when he revealed his human limits and prejudice of his homeland and perhaps even his pacifist Catholic principles.

Members of the Grand Army of the Republic, Post 22 of Milford, pose for a photograph outside their hall on Memorial Day 1885. (Courtesy of the Robin Philbin Collection)

In the later part of the 20^th century following the Second Vatican Council, Catholics began to drift from Sunday Mass.  Now in the 21^st century with the media coverage of the clergy abuse scandals and the corruption of Vatican finances, they have drifted in greater numbers.  Native vocations have slipped dramatically and churches in our area began to close with alarming frequency causing deep wounds to the faithful that were affected by these radical and abrupt changes.  However, at the end of the 19^th century, Catholic life was very different.  For a priest to order a parishioner out of Mass was not uncommon; however, in one instance when it made local news for several days.

The facts as presented no one disputes.  During the 9 am morning Mass on Christmas Day in 1886, in the lower church, at a Mass intended for the children of the parish, Fr. Cuddihy ordered Mrs. Mary Berrill to leave shortly after the collection was taken.  His initial claim was that it was a children’s Mass and the seat was needed for the young ones.  However, Mrs. Berrill claimed that it was because she had only placed a dime in the collection plate and not the dollar that the pastor presumed the Church was due as a proper offering.  The Milford Gazette on December 27, 1886, published the following, “There were other grown persons in the audience.  Mrs. Berrill put ten cents on the contribution plate when it was passed.  Others sitting nearby put in a dollar.  “Father Cuddihy asked me if I put ten cents on the plate, and I told him that I did.  He took me by the shoulder and told me to leave the church.”

Subsequently, The Milford Journal published an open letter from Mrs. Berrill that same week.  Her candor and determination reveal the sentiment of that experience and her attitude unusual at the time for a Catholic toward her pastor.  The letter states, “I presume by this time you are aware how many dollars you received today.  Mine was not missed.  Shame for shame on a minister of God to order a lady out of church, simply because she did not make him a present of one dollar!  Were it not for making a scene, I should have defied you to do so.  It is a free church, and you have not the right to put anyone out, unless for misbehavior.  No gentleman would do it.  I do not get my dollars as easy you; if I did, I should go among the poor of your congregation and give them a Christmas dinner, or something as useful, instead of taking from them that which you not need and for which they are suffering.  It is not Christianity, and a man as old as you should be making your peace with God, rather than fighting the people for money – you who are supposed to have money enough to buy half of Milford.”  She goes on to berate Fr. Cuddihy for failing to provide for the poor in his congregation with the declaration that she will not return as long as he is pastor.

Fr. Cuddihy, never one to shy from a confrontation, took pen to paper to openly respond to the attack of Mrs. Berrill by addressing her husband, Capt. John C. Berrill of the Milford militia.  His letter is dated December 29, 1886, and was published in The Milford Journal.  He wrote, I “think her husband must be a very mean man to send his wife to church on Christmas day with only ten cents to pay her priest his dues.  You’re a militia officer I believe, and how would you like to get only ten cents for your distinguished services to your country, for one year?  You are a boot-maker, earning a good pay, and would reject with scorn and indignation, as offer of wages that would degrade your labor as a mechanic.  Now Mary, your wife, if not wholly demoralized and perverted in marrying a Protestant, ought, when she does come to church  -  once a year, on Christmas day  -  try to behave herself like any other Catholic, contribute to the support of her church and not plead poverty, nor pay her pastor with abuse like an infidel.” 

In the intervening years, much has changed in our attitude and respect of other Christians and their congregations, the outreach of the Church to those in need, and our attitude toward our own parish and her priests.  Many long for ‘the good old days,’ but not everything about them was as good as we remember.  This short exchange reminds us that tensions and differences between priest and people have always been part of the life of the Church.