Picnics and the Catholic Church.
The New York Times, July 22, 1869
It is well known that the Roman Catholic Church in this country has forbidden picnics. The ordinance against them was issued last year, and this was the first season for putting it into practice. The origin of the prohibition was the great number of abuses which were found to prevail at these festive gatherings. With one exception, no Church picnic has taken place this year— at least in connection with the Roman Catholic denomination. The clergy of that faith have exerted themselves vigorously in enforcement of their Church ordinance. They have denounced fairs and picnics from the altar, interdicted them by special mandate, and used all their influence in their several parishes for their suppression. And very effectually so far, with one exception, as has been said. The people have, in general, yielded with docility to the voices of their clergy in the matter, and at some sacrifice of enjoyment have quietly foregone the annual festivity which was customary. The exception alluded to was the picnic held yesterday by the Total Abstinence Benefit organization in connection with the Roman Catholic Church of St. Bridget, Avenue B and Eighth Street.
Father MOONEY is the pastor of said church, and when he heard of the contemplated picnic immediately denounced it and assailed its promoters. It was even announced in some of the papers that it would not take place, in consequence of being forbidden by the priest. But it did take place yesterday in Jones’ Wood, and, considering the ecclesiastical opposition it encountered, was a very successful thing its way. The Brotherhood marched to the ground in the forenoon, and all day streams of people continued to flow in through the gates, even though the price of admission was fifty cents a head. The picnic was a quiet and orderly affair, held by temperance men and conducted on temperance principles. There was good music and much dancing, and by 8 o’clock in the evening all had departed for their homes. It would scarcely have been worth distinguishing from similar affairs of its class but for the collision between clergy and laity that took place in connection with it.