Much depended on Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s success in America, for more than a million Greeks who had been Turkish nationals were forced to leave everything behind and return to Greece as refugees. With five million people of its own to care for, the war-impoverished government in Athens could give them no more than a place to stay. Appeals went out to the entire world for food, clothing, housing and schools. Somehow Bishop Calavassy provided food and clothing for 7,000 of these poor people. Despite the handicap of his Catholicism, his image as a Greek was enhanced by his services; and enhanced still further the following year, when he received from King George II the Cross of Gold of the Knights of Our Blessed Savior in recognition of his services.
The other reason Bishop Calavassy prayed for Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s success was much more personal; the exarch saw slipping away with the departing Greeks the Greek Catholic Church he had worked so hard to develop in Turkey. After returning from America in 1919, he founded in Constantinople a community of sisters he called “Pammarkaristos,” and a minor seminary to train his own Greek Catholic clergy. Because it was clear there was no future for Greeks in Turkey, he transferred both of these to Athens in 1922. The transfer was actually a prelude, for the Oriental Congregation’s letter in August adding “all Greece” to his exarchal jurisdiction simply authorized officially what was already taken for granted: that Bishop Calavassy would be forced to move his episcopal see to Athens, where most of his Greek Catholics already lived. This he did in 1923.
Without mentioning these plans, however, in the summer of 1922 Bishop Calavassy sent a one-page mimeographed appeal to “my dear friends” in America, Catholics he had met there during World War I. Likely mailed from Graymoor by Father Paul, the appeal sought help for Bishop Calavassy’s seminaries through the Constantinople Daily Bread League. It deserves to be quoted verbatim because, despite the human needs on every side, it is strictly missiological.
My dear friends, Your kind answer to the appeal I addressed to you three years ago, while in the U.S. as an envoy of the Holy See in behalf of the Greek Missions in the East, gives me the assurance that this time too you will pay a kind attention to my humble request.
On my return from the U.S. our late Holy Father sent me to Constantinople to organize and administrate the work established in this City for the conversion of the Greeks; a year later he appointed me to succeed the first Greek Catholic Bishop, Msgr. Papadopoulos, whom he had formerly called to Rome as the Assessor of the newly established Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches.
Thanks to the alms I had collected in the U.S. I built a Seminary, two schools, a presbytery, a Bishop’s house and a convent, so that this first missionary organization for the conversion of the Greeks, could, in all truth, be considered as an American institution.
God blessed this beginning and the result obtained in spite if [sic] bitter persecutions surpassed our expectation and proved what profit the Church would have if only this work could be organized in [sic] a larger scale. We have over five hundred conversions, the schools after only two years of existence are frequented by four hundred schismatic children, outside of the catholics [sic], and we could easely [sic] have three times more; if we only could afford to have sufficient room and more teachers.
Among the different organizations of the work, first in importance is the Seminary, which will provide the future missionaries, indispensable for further development of it. At present there is room for thirty students of whom eighteen already entered the Seminary although I have not as yet secured but five bourses. The closing up of the Seminary will inevitably mean the end of the only existing work for the conversion of the Greeks. We must therefore secure scholarship [sic] for the rest of our Seminarians viz 183 dollars per year or 50 cents per day for each of them. The yearly amount requested is not enormous, and I thought that my friends in America would easely [sic] cover it to perpetuate the institutions they themselves started. To that purpose I established in the “Lamp” Graymoor [sic] Garrison, N.Y. a League called “The Daily Bread League” the members of which pledge themselves, for the sake of souls and the glory of God, to feed a Seminarian for one, two, three or more days each year by offering half a dollar for each day.
Confiding in your kindness and in your zeal for the salvation of souls, I am sure that you will not only subscribe to the League, but that you will also get others among your congregation or your friends or your pupils who will give their name to it.
Besides the daily prayers of the Seminarians, their daily Mass in the Seminary will be offered for the benefactors of the day, viz. for those members of the League who have secured to the Seminarians the “Daily Bread” [sic], of that day.
Imploring upon you all the blessings of God, I remain gratefully and sincerely yours in XTO,
It was probably the last letter Bishop Calavassy would have to write to his “dear friends” in the United States, for early in November his agent, Monsignor Barry-Doyle, arrived in New York. Father Paul was ready to open doors and give him the guidance he would need, for the bishops were in no mood to receive gladly another fund-raiser from overseas, however worthy his cause.
Earlier that year, largely as a result of their efforts, the international headquarters of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith had been transferred from Paris to Rome. The French had reacted bitterly, alleging that the move was inspired by political and commercial interests in America and that the American bishops wanted to monopolize the missions overseas. The French might have been accused of that very same thing, but their complaints persuaded Cardinal Willem Van Rossum, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide, to withdraw his earlier endorsement of the plan. These complaints almost certainly had some bearing on the 25 February 1922 decision of the Consistorial Congregation that forbade the American hierarchy to hold its annual meeting and ordered the National Catholic Welfare Council suppressed. The Americans forcefully appealed the decision, citing among other reasons their “commitments to the American Government for Russian Relief Work.” They were pleased, therefore, when permission was granted, 22 June 1922, to hold the meeting they had scheduled for September.
Then, in a gesture of compromise, instead of insisting that the home and foreign missions be united under their American Board of Catholic Missions (A.B.C.M.), the bishops recommended at their September meeting that a separate Propagation of the Faith office be established in every diocese to take care of the foreign missions, and that the A.B.C.M. confine its concern to the home missions exclusively. At this same meeting Archbishop Edward J. Hanna of San Francisco proposed that a special collection be taken up in all dioceses for the war victims in Central Europe and Russia and that the proceeds from the collection go directly to the Holy Father. Cardinal William O’Connell of Boston, chairman of the meeting, supported the motion, with the recommendation that the collection be taken up, if possible on the last Sunday in October.
Understandably, the American bishops had grown weary of missionaries coming to their dioceses from all over asking permission to preach for money. As a rule, those who obtained permission came well-supplied with endorsements, preferably from the pope himself; and in any case, their command of English was frequently so imperfect, little was lost from the parish and diocesan collections. Monsignor Barry-Doyle failed on both counts. He had no papers with him — not even a celebret — and was an orator par excellence.
His first step was to contact Father Paul at Graymoor. In a letter dated 8 November 1922, Father Paul wrote Bishop Calavassy that he had heard from Monsignor Barry-Doyle, that they planned to meet at the monsignor’s earliest convenience and that he would do all he could to help. Father Paul promised to arrange a meeting between Monsignor Barry-Doyle and the two Catholic laymen in the NER — Walter George Smith, a former president of the American Bar Association whose appointment as an NER director Paul had originally proposed, and Robert J. Cuddihy, publisher of the Literary Digest, who was one of the incorporators of the NER. Hopefully, Monsignor Barry-Doyle could convince these men of Bishop Calavassy’s needs.
On 25 November Monsignor Barry-Doyle and Father Paul met for the first time, and they quickly established a lasting rapport. Two days later Father Paul wrote to Bishop Calavassy that his new agent in America was “a very attractive personality,” but added that a letter of endorsement from the Holy Father would help smooth the way for a fundraising tour someone would have to arrange. Father Paul also reported that Messrs. Smith and Cuddihy, who were present to meet Monsignor Barry-Doyle, had agreed to speak to Charles V. Vickrey, secretary general of the NER, about some assistance for the exarch’s orphanage.
Meanwhile, Monsignor Barry-Doyle needed a base. Philadelphia was suggested because of its location and because Cardinal Dougherty was a member of the Oriental Congregation. As we now know, the pope asked Dougherty to help Cardinal Dougherty, however, bluntly refused to have the office in his archdiocese, declaring that his people were being pestered beyond reason by priests with worthy causes. Father Paul then offered space at Graymoor, which Monsignor Barry-Doyle accepted. However, his experience in Philadelphia had taught him a lesson he would not forget; unless Rome used its influence, there was no hope for a national appeal for Bishop Calavassy or “some kind of permanent organization.”
At Graymoor in December Father Paul and Monsignor Barry-Doyle organized the One Million Dollar Fund as an adjunct to the Constantinople Daily Bread League, and it was advertised regularly thereafter in The Lamp. People who contributed to the fund automatically became members of the League, thereby creating a new source of support for Bishop Calavassy’s projects. Monsignor Barry-Doyle then decided to ask each bishop individually for permission to appeal in his diocese.
On 9 December, introducing himself simply as the senior chaplain to the British Catholic troops in Constantinople, Monsignor Barry-Doyle requested an appointment with Archbishop Patrick J. Hayes of New York. He was pleased to learn three days later that Archbishop Hayes would receive him on Thursday, 14 December. That Monsignor Barry-Doyle presented himself as senior chaplain, and not as a fundraiser, is worthy of note; Archbishop Hayes was the ordinary, or bishop, for the United States’ armed forces, and he would probably have found the chance to talk with a British chaplain from Constantinople enjoyable. Also, Archbishop Hayes had been one of the four bishops on the executive committee of the National Catholic War Council. During the war he had helped to raise funds by encouraging the Knights of Columbus drive, which netted nearly $5 million, and by acting as a director of the United War Work drive, which grossed over $170 million.
An urbane man (Monsignor Kelley of the Church Extension Society called him the soul of the perfect gentleman), Archbishop Hayes listened courteously to his visitor, and, in his own words, he was “very considerate of him.” Monsignor Barry-Doyle explained the purpose of his mission, but he spoke the language of reunion rather than relief, and the words may have sounded somewhat disingenuous on the lips of the Children’s Crusader. He had come to America, he said, to work for “the reunion of the Greek Schismatics with the See of St. Peter.” He expounded Bishop Calavassy’s theme: Never in the history of the Church had there been such a splendid opportunity to win thousands of Greek schismatics to the see of St. Peter. The Greek Government was sympathetic towards the reunion movement, almost a miracle in itself when one considered their hatred of Rome in the past. The Anglican and Protestant missionaries were taking every possible advantage of the terrible conditions of Christians in the Near East, as well as of the dissensions among them, and they were undoubtedly winning thousands over to their religious persuasion. The prestige of the Catholic Church was certainly in danger in the Near East, unless an effort was made to show that the Roman Catholic Church was interested in the situation.
Was Monsignor Barry-Doyle being deliberately deceptive? For sure, reunion was one of Bishop Calavassy’s priorities, and relief and reunion were not mutually exclusive. But Bishop Calavassy had sent him to raise money for relief, and as always, Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s message was tailored to fit the market.
Probably somewhat disappointed, Archbishop Hayes asked for canonical papers. Monsignor Barry-Doyle had no such documents with him, either from the diocese of Ferns or from the exarchate in Athens. Archbishop Hayes then asked for letters of recommendation. Monsignor Barry-Doyle had none, except a letter from Archbishop Papadopoulos urging Bishop Calavassy to go to the States again and a letter from Bishop Calavassy endorsing Monsignor Barry-Doyle as his personal representative. Archbishop Hayes said that nothing could be done without the necessary papers and suggested, very kindly but nonetheless firmly, that a direct endorsement first be requested from Rome.
Discouraged, Monsignor Barry-Doyle left Archbishop Hayes’ residence thinking that perhaps he should not bother to go on. He decided eventually to regularize his canonical status by asking the bishop of Ferns to be excardinated from that diocese, and by submitting himself canonically to the jurisdiction of Bishop Calavassy and the Oriental Congregation. Meanwhile, he wrote to Bishop Calavassy to say, in no uncertain terms, that to succeed he would need a personal endorsement from the Holy Father. Archbishop Hayes also wrote a letter. He asked the chief of chaplains of His Majesty’s Forces in London, Bishop William Keating, for “confidential information on Monsignor Barry-Doyle,” and he volunteered his own impression of the man: “I have not encouraged him much in New York. Confidentially, I have very little faith in him.”
For his part, Monsignor Barry-Doyle now admitted he had more serious problems. Excardination from Ferns should not have been difficult under the circumstances; still, there were reasons to believe that the bishop would not have granted it willingly. It was essential that Bishop Calavassy obtain the letter of endorsement from the pope. To urge the exarch on in this regard, Monsignor Barry-Doyle assured him that with the proper kind of letter his fundraiser in America could very quickly raise the money needed for the orphanage in Athens. He could then collect an additional million dollars and set up in America a permanent organization for reunion. Bishop Calavassy, on the other hand, knew that in Rome results counted more than promises. He wrote to Monsignor Barry-Doyle that if the latter could secure $50,000 from rich Catholics in America, he (Calavassy) would go immediately to Athens to make arrangements for an orphanage to house 500 children. Meanwhile, he said he had written the Oriental Congregation for its endorsement.
Monsignor Barry-Doyle and Father Paul wasted no time; they looked everywhere for help. The Lamp’s December appeal must have netted more than $1,000, for in January Father Paul sent Bishop Calavassy two checks, each in the amount of $500, and the exarch received a third check for an undisclosed amount from Monsignor Barry-Doyle. Significantly, Father Paul sent his checks to Athens through the Oriental Congregation. The man who refused to touch money was not ignorant of its influence.
On 24 January 1923, Father Paul voiced to Bishop Calavassy the fond hope that Bishop Papadopoulos would be successful in obtaining Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s much-needed endorsement from the pope, and he also suggested that Archbishop Papadopoulos might be able to win over Cardinal Dougherty. Finally, Father Paul reported that he told Mr. Cuddihy that the Catholic orphanage in Athens would be a “test case” to see if the” NER was indeed non-sectarian, and that this would have a bearing on whether or not the Holy Father should continue to endorse the NER.
Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s first public lecture took place at the Plaza Hotel in New York on 18 January 1923, as arranged by Father Paul. The Catholic Converts League of New York, a lay organization that listed among its purposes “supporting home and foreign missions and other ’convert-making’ agencies,” sponsored the event, which realized more than $4,000. Even more importantly, it won for Monsignor Barry-Doyle the active support of the League’s president, Stuart Pullman West, and its secretary, Louis Hoffman Wetmore, the latter of whom hailed the lecture as one of the most brilliant ever heard in a city renowned for being visited by speakers of world-wide fame.  Soon afterward, the League’s office at 1049 Park Avenue became the designated agency for people who wished to give money or to secure Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s services as a lecturer. In reality, therefore, the lack of credentials and endorsements notwithstanding, Monsignor Barry-Doyle had made a back-door entrance into the Archdiocese of New York, for the honorary president of the Converts League was none other than His Grace, Archbishop Hayes.
The victory did not go unchallenged. On 24 January, six days after the Plaza lecture, Father John J. Wynne, S.J., one of the editors of The Catholic Encyclopedia, wrote to Archbishop Hayes’ secretary, Father Stephen J. Donahue, inquiring whether Monsignor Barry-Doyle had authorization from either Rome or New York to act as promoter of the union of Eastern churches with Rome and to collect money on such a large scale for that purpose.
Father Donahue replied:
When he (Barry-Doyle) called His Grace, His Grace asked him for his documents, which he did not have with him. The Archbishop expected Monsignor Doyle [sic] to return with the authorization, but as yet, he has not put in an appearance. Therefore, we must be slow of procedure in this matter.
Why did Father Wynne, an encyclopedia editor and a Jesuit, bother to concern himself with Monsignor Barry-Doyle? Father Wynne was also a director of the Marquette League for Indian Welfare, whose general secretary was Father William Quinn. In view of Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s successful debut before the League, and in anticipation of his growing popularity with influential Catholics, Father Quinn probably used Father Wynne as his surrogate to challenge Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s credentials.
Those credentials improved slightly a few weeks later when Archbishop Papadopoulos wrote that he had spoken to the Holy Father of Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s zealous work and that His Holiness had expressed an ardent desire to see the fundraiser’s efforts crowned with success. Furthermore, according to Archbishop Papadopoulos, Pope Pius XI had given personal instructions to the new apostolic delegate, Archbishop Pietro Fumasoni-Biondi, “in order that he will recommend your work to the American Episcopate.”
Father Paul wasted no time. Early in February he forwarded to the Oriental Congregation the proceeds from The Lamp’s January appeal and Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s lectures: $11,525.08. This time, the congregation’s secretary, Giovanni Cardinal Tacci, wrote to thank the monsignor for his magnificent work on behalf of the Constantinople mission, and he said that the pope “had deigned to recommend your work to the new Apostolic Delegate…who will communicate with you in order to solicit in the best way the help of the Hierarchy of the United States.”
Meanwhile, Monsignor Barry-Doyle continued to speak before private groups. On 27 February he spoke at the home of Clarence MacKay, owner of the Transatlantic Cable, and one of America’s wealthiest Catholics. The reception attracted the elite of New York’s society, including such notables as Mr. and Mrs. John G. Agar, Countess Iselin, Justice Richard Lyden, Mrs. Henry W. Taft, Mrs. Schuyler N. Waren and the English author Hilaire Belloc. MacKay and Monsignor Barry-Doyle struck up a close friendship, and soon thereafter, the millionaire was providing the missionary with letters of introduction to influential Catholics all along the eastern seaboard.
March came with still no word from the Washington office of the apostolic delegate. In a letter to Bishop Calavassy, Father Paul stressed again that without Rome’s authorization Monsignor Barry-Doyle could expect only limited private support. Not one American bishop had as yet encouraged him, and the Men’s Catholic Club of New York City had refused his request to lecture because the proper letters had not been received from the Holy See.
Father Paul decided not to wait any longer; on 19 March he went to Washington to see the apostolic delegate in person. To his astonishment the delegate said he knew of no letter of endorsement for a Monsignor Richard Barry-Doyle, nor had he received instructions from the Oriental Congregation. Dismayed, both Father Paul and Monsignor Barry-Doyle expressed their annoyance to Bishop Calavassy and Archbishop Papadopoulos. Bishop Calavassy was very perturbed. In strong words to Archbishop Papadopoulos, reporting Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s cable to the effect that the delegate had no instructions from the Holy Father and no letter of recommendation for the American bishops, Bishop Calavassy said it was his duty to do all in his power to profit from the still-opportune time to organize the reunion work in Greece and to save Catholic orphans from the Protestants. He urged the assessor to obtain the approbation necessary for Monsignor Barry-Doyle, and expressed the hope “that hell will not succeed again this time to hinder the work of God and to force us to withdraw, impotent, from the magnificent field opened to us by Providence.”
Still the endorsement failed to come. Possibly Monsignor Barry-Doyle attributed it to the fact that his canonical papers were not in order, for on 19 April 1923 he raised the issue with Bishop Calavassy for the first time. Years ago, he explained, he had left his native diocese because he preferred to labor outside Ireland. The bishop there now was a young man who knew little or nothing about the monsignor, and who, far from wanting him back, preferred that he stay away. He had been made a domestic prelate without his bishop’s previous consent, and since he was now the only domestic prelate in the diocese of Ferns, his return was certain to create jealousy among older priests, canons and pastors who would resent his taking precedence over them. From others he had learned that the bishop would not give him a celebret, and without that, he warned, any bishop could block his appeal.
He had no desire to go back to Ireland; “in fact it would kill me if I had to return.” He wanted to give the rest of his life to place the exarch in a satisfactory financial position, and for this he had to have a celebret and be taken under the exarch’s jurisdiction. Failing these two things, he needed from Rome the privilege of a portable altar that would allow him to say Mass in his apartment. “I beg you,” he concluded, “make no delay, for without either one or the other I cannot continue the work, for at any moment I might be placed in a very unpleasant position.”
When another month passed without good news, Father Paul applied pressure of another kind. He informed Bishop Calavassy that the loan he had requested to construct several buildings in Athens would not be forthcoming, since without Rome’s endorsement and the American hierarchy’s support, Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s mission was an unsound risk. Mr. Cuddihy held out little hope for NER assistance, he said, and the idea of founding a permanent organization to assist Bishop Calavassy’s work was out of the question without support from someone high in the hierarchy, preferably in Boston, New York, or Philadelphia.
Three weeks later, writing on Graymoor stationery, Monsignor Barry-Doyle sent his own letter to Cardinal Tacci of the Oriental Congregation, impressing on him the absolute need for “at least the written blessing” of the apostolic delegate and noting the immense industrial revival going on in America:
Money is abundant, and the Catholic laity are ready and willing to give to any deserving charity, but one must have the endorsement and encouragement of the Bishops to get at the laity.
He reported that Cardinal Dougherty had not yet encouraged him, and he asked Cardinal Tacci to write Cardinal Dougherty a personal letter requesting him, as a member of the Oriental Congregation, to endorse Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s campaign with at least his blessing. “I beg Your Eminence,” the letter ended, “please do not delay. Time is money now!”
Cardinal Tacci must have taken the words to heart, for in May 1923 Father Paul was able to schedule an appointment for Monsignor Barry-Doyle with the Philadelphia cardinal, at which time Cardinal Dougherty promised the monsignor an unofficial letter of support. Even more than that, according to Paul, Cardinal Dougherty recommended that an organization be established to raise funds and that a Philadelphia layman, Joesph F. Moore, be hired to run it. Cardinal Dougherty had known Mr. Moore as the manager of Monsignor Kelley’s Extension Magazine, and Mr. Moore had been the cardinal’s financial advisor when he was a bishop in the Philippines.
Then came word from Bishop Calavassy that he would be willing to incardinate Monsignor Barry-Doyle into his exarchate if the latter’s bishop in Ireland agreed, but the exarch advised him not to pursue his request for the portable altar privilege since it was unwise to ask Rome for many things at one time. He also advised Monsignor Barry-Doyle not to broadcast his intention of establishing a permanent association, lest he alarm the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, “which is very powerful just now in Rome.”
Father Paul’s enthusiasm knew no bounds. In a letter dated 15 May he informed Bishop Calavassy that he was compiling a mailing list of 100,000 Catholic women, the first step in recruiting a million women to contribute one dollar each towards Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s Near East Fund. Father Paul then urged Bishop Calavassy “to run a little risk and use the trust-funds that you have on deposit at the bank as collateral.” He added:
You can count on the UNBL standing behind you to the limit of our ability, and I do not think there is any serious risk to the trust funds….They will, in fact, be protected by the very buildings you intend to erect in Athens.
The letter was mailed, perhaps providentially, for when Father Paul visited NER headquarters in New York the following day, 16 May 1923, Mr. Vickrey informed him that the NER would adhere to its policy of administering funds through its own representatives. Great pressure, said the general secretary, had been brought upon them by the Armenian Catholics, the Nestorians, the Greek Orthodox and representatives of other sects in the East, all demanding that their ecclesiastics be appointed administrators of NER funds. Mr. Vickrey insisted such a practice would be financially risky, particularly since there was no guarantee that the religious leaders would not use the money for purposes other than those specified by the NER.
Father Paul tried to convince Mr. Vickrey to make an exception for Bishop Calavassy, arguing that the day might come when the Holy See would have to withdraw its endorsement on the grounds that, while the NER was ostensibly non-sectarian, those responsible for administering NER funds were insisting that children be placed in orphanages under Protestant auspices, thereby excluding Catholic orphanages from NER appropriations. Mr. Vickrey promised reluctantly that he would visit Bishop Calavassy’s orphanage in late May to decide for himself whether it warranted an exception to NER policy, but to Father Paul this was not enough. He left the meeting convinced that the time had come to give serious consideration to a Catholic NER. The fact that the Propaganda Fide was powerful enough to prevent an annual collection for the Near East missions meant there was reason for the Oriental Congregation to argue its need for a permanent Near East association in the United States. In all likelihood, Pope Pius XI would support the idea, for money was needed to achieve his wishes for Russia and the East.
On 29 June, more than a month after their meeting, Cardinal Dougherty addressed the long-awaited letter of endorsement to Monsignor Barry-Doyle. Mention is made only of reunion; nothing is said about relief.
Rt. Rev. and dear Monsignor:
Having been stationed at Constantinople as Chaplain of the Catholic soldiers in the English army, and having become acquainted with the conditions of Religion in the Near East, you have been appropriately chosen to make known in the United States the needs of the Catholic Church in Greece, Turkey and adjoining countries.
Although our Catholic Americans have heard that there is a movement in Russia, Greece, Turkey and the Balkans towards re-union with the See of Peter, it is well that you are here to give us the facts; and also, to lend your support towards the accomplishment of the return of Greek schismatics to the one true Church.
You have my best wishes for success in the mission which you have undertaken with such zeal and at so great a sacrifice. I trust that American Catholics, who are so generous in all good works, will not fail to help the Church in these benighted lands.
On the day the letter was written, Monsignor Barry-Doyle was in Indianapolis at the annual convention of the Catholic Press Association, which he was attending as Father Paul’s representative of The Lamp. Apparently through no fault of his own, he encountered opposition from two prominent prelates — Monsignor John F. Noll, editor of Our Sunday Visitor, and Monsignor Kelly of Extension. They showed him little kindness, Monsignor Barry-Doyle said, they were not sincere and they did all they could to keep him from speaking. Nonetheless, he did speak at the press association’s banquet, where, by one account he made an eloquent appeal for the starving orphans of the Near East, and where, according to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, he secured full support of all the Catholic editors, all of whom “saw through Kelley and Noll.”
Why the attack? Father Paul Wattson explained it in this way to Bishop Calavassy: “I fear his [Kelley’s] disappointment at not being the chosen one to represent the Near East had made him antagonistic to The Lamp and the Union That Nothing Be Lost, which is not the organ of the Greek Missions.” There may be some truth in this explanation, but Monsignor Kelley was also opposed to The Lamp on the grounds that its methods of soliciting subscriptions through agents ran contrary to the objectives of the A.B.C.M., of which Monsignor Kelley himself was slated to be the director. For his part, Bishop Calavassy, advised Monsignor Barry-Doyle not to worry about Monsignors Noll and Kelley; more than likely, the exarch observed shrewdly, they were merely reacting against Father Paul’s work.
All the same, there was reason to worry. Monsignor Kelley had many friends in Rome and among the American bishops, and one of these was Cardinal Dougherty, whose continued endorsement Monsignor Barry-Doyle considered very critical indeed. “I got my own friends, who are personal friends of Cardinal Dougherty, to influence the Cardinal with my work,” he assured the exarch. “We have gotten His Eminences [sic] interest, and he will do more for us later….He is very short in his manner to strangers, and very formal in his remarks, but is most kind, a very intimate friend.” Worries notwithstanding, within a week of Dougherty’s letter of endorsement there came into being in Philadelphia at 247 South Fifteenth Street (the home address of Joseph Moore) a private association known as Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s Near East Fund. Since it was not legally incorporated, however, all donations continued to be channeled to the U.N.B.L.’s Constantinople Daily Bread League.
The campaign now went into full swing. August 1923 found Monsignor Barry-Doyle in Montreal lecturing to the Knights of Columbus, to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and to the Catholic Sailors’ Club, which made him an honorary member “to the lusty cheers from the sailors whose hearts he had won.” While in Montreal he met Mrs. Josephine Keyman, a prominent church worker of Ocean City, New Jersey, who invited him to visit the famed resort for several weeks in late August and early September. Here he met at the railroad station the mayor, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, and various committees, including the American Legion and the Knights of Columbus. Following a dinner in his honor, the war hero and “unconventional” priest was taken to the music pavilion, where he acted as judge in a beauty contest. He made his appeal for funds, and then declared that the bravest act he had ever performed was at that moment, facing so many beautiful women. Later, in nearby Wildwood, he was given a mounted escort and color guard procession from St. Ann’s Rectory to the auditorium where, after his appeal for the starving children, he was questioned about his views on spiritualism. Replied Monsignor Barry-Doyle: “Sir Arthur (Conan Doyle) is taking care of that for the family while I am preaching the doctrine of ’love one another’ in an effort to banish racial prejudice.”
In September and October he lectured many times to thousands of people in the Philadelphia area, frequently under the sponsorship of the Knights of Columbus. On 27 October 1923, Walter George Smith, the Catholic who had served with the NER, became chairman of the Monsignor Barry-Doyle Near East Fund (until then Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s Near East Fund), the purpose of which was to erect in Athens an orphanage for destitute Catholic refugee children. The following day Mr. Smith recruited a number of prominent business and professional men, including four judges and one retired judge, to accept membership on the fund.
There was also some progress in New York. Armed now with papers of incardination into Bishop Calavassy’s exarchate, Cardinal Dougherty’s endorsement and a letter from Bishop Calavassy in which the exarch reported that “the Holy Father takes a personal interest in your work, and in Rome they look upon it as providential that you are able to work for reunion,” Monsignor Barry-Doyle asked Archbishop Hayes to endorse his lecture tour and to grant him permission to preach in the Archdiocese of New York. The archbishop granted the permission to preach and lecture but refused to endorse the lecture tour, explaining that he himself was about to appeal for the Pope’s Relief Fund for Eastern and Central Europe.
Father Paul suspected that Archbishop Hayes was not “specially enthusiastic about the matter,” and, in fact, not all was well. Unexpectedly, Cardinal Dougherty denied Monsignor Barry-Doyle permission to lecture at the Academy of Music in Philadelphia because, he said, echoing the archbishop of New York, it would interfere with the collection for Eastern and Central Europe, scheduled for the last Sunday in October. Father Paul attributed the refusal to the strong influence of Monsignor Kelley who, he explained to Bishop Calavassy, has been “scheming for years to secure a monopoly of the Missionary Field for Extension and to crowd out competitors such as The Lamp.” The problem, however, may have been closer to home. In his own letter to Bishop Calavassy, Monsignor Barry-Doyle praised Father Paul as a saintly man, yet acknowledged that he was “greatly misunderstood,” and Joseph Moore, in his letter to Bishop Calavassy, added that because of these misunderstandings and the rivalries and opposition they engendered, Monsignor Barry-Doyle had to suffer “endless humiliations from bishops and clergy.”
In all fairness, however, Monsignor Barry-Doyle also had himself to blame. The September tomfoolery in New Jersey aside, his cavalier defense of the spiritualism espoused by his more famous “cousin” was obnoxious to a clergy harassed by free thought and anti-Catholicism. Moreover, when he pleaded with an Irish brogue for the “poor Greeks” in a British colonel’s uniform so soon after Irish independence, could a rectory comic resist the temptation to lampoon? The subsequent comment of Father Edmund A. Walsh, S.J., who at the time was in charge of the papal relief mission in Russia, seems diplomatically restrained: “Unhappily, Monsignor Barry-Doyle, by his life-style and also by the fact of being a British subject, has provoked against himself very strong antagonism on the part of the American hierarchy.” Even Father Paul, his faithful friend, admitted that the magazine’s circulation was adversely affected whenever Monsignor Barry-Doyle linked The Lamp with his campaign for funds.
For Father Paul, however, the best defense was a good offense. Early in November, soon after the collection for Eastern and Central Europe, he went to Philadelphia to ask Cardinal Dougherty in person to become a protector of the U.N.B.L. The cardinal declined. Father Paul then asked that Monsignor Barry-Doyle be allowed to use the cardinal’s name in his campaign to raise $25,000 for a new orphanage in Athens, to be called the Cardinal Dougherty Orphanage. The cardinal acquiesced. Joseph Moore, the campaign manager, scheduled and skillfully publicized a lecture by Monsignor Barry-Doyle in the Metropolitan Opera House in Philadelphia, at which Cardinal Dougherty presided. The proceeds, almost $16,000, went directly to the Athens orphanage, and the newspapers hailed the lecture as the social event of the season. By the end of November, the campaign a year old, Monsignor Barry-Doyle had netted nearly $60,000 from his lectures, and contributions to the U.N.B.L.
In December, Louis Wetmore, secretary of the Catholic Converts League, went to Rome, where he obtained from Pope Pius XI an apostolic blessing for all those who assisted Monsignor Barry-Doyle, and where he spoke also with secretary of state Cardinal Gasparri and Cardinal Tacci, both of whom he found interested in Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s work. Also in December, the monsignor won the support of Cardinal O’Connell of Boston, who gave him a strong letter of endorsement and appointed one of his priests to promote the work in his archdiocese. The endorsement came not without risk, however; as Monsignor Barry-Doyle was later to report to Bishop Calavassy, relationships among the American cardinals were not always amiable: “He [Dougherty] is not a friend of the Cardinal of Boston, and the Cardinals of New York and Chicago are not friends with either O’Connell or Dougherty.”
In January Monsignor Barry-Doyle brought his campaign to Scranton, Pennsylvania, where, in his military uniform, he delivered his “Romantic and Thrilling Call of the East” lecture at the Capitol Theater. The next day the press reported:
More than 2,500 persons last night were thrilled to the core when a man of God and descendant of a fighting family … stripped his grief-seared soul to the very last niche as he pleaded on behalf of starving helpless children.
The lecture also gained him the full support of Scranton’s Bishop Michael J. Hoban, whom Monsignor Barry-Doyle would later describe as his closest friend, confidant, and “Father in God.” Again, it says something about Monsignor Barry-Doyle, the man, that he quickly passed on verbatim to Bishop Calavassy the gossip overheard at rectory tables — that the Scranton prelate, the second eldest in the American hierarchy, wielded great influence when he wanted to; that he was an intimate friend of Archbishop Papadopoulos; that he (Bishop Hoban) was “hated” by Cardinal Dougherty, and in turn “despises” the cardinal. Bishop Hoban, too, was a good friend of Cardinal Hayes, Monsignor Barry-Doyle said.
From Scranton, Monsignor Barry-Doyle sent Cardinal Tacci a long letter on cathedral rectory stationery in which he reviewed the first year’s progress and observed that wealthy lay Catholics had not shown more interest in his work because, as “someone had suggested,” he lacked greater support from Rome. A papal letter acknowledging the year’s work and urging its support would be “of immense value to my campaign and a grand inspiration for me,” he wrote, and he concluded by observing that Cardinal O’Connell, who had helped him, was then in Rome and that a word of gratitude to him from the Oriental Congregation would be most appreciated. “
While this letter was en route to Rome, another letter, this one from Archbishop Papadopoulos, was making its way to Louis Wetmore in New York. It was his “pleasing charge,” wrote the assessor, to enclose a portrait of His Holiness, with an apostolic blessing for the members of the Catholic Converts League, in “high acknowledgment of the merits whom [sic] you and your fellows have gotten in assisting Msgr. Monsignor Barry-Doyle with the Catholic missionary relief.” Mr. Wetmore wasted little time in publicizing this triumph of personal diplomacy in the Catholic press.
Indeed, Mr. Wetmore now seemed to want a more active role in the Monsignor Barry-Doyle organization, and, in a letter to Archbishop Papadopoulos dated 20 February 1924, he expressed thanks for the portrait and blessing but continued to stress the absolute need for a personal letter for Monsignor Barry-Doyle from the Holy Father. Then, in an interesting disclosure, he said that it was through the Catholic Converts League that permission was granted by Archbishop Hayes, the League’s president, to bring the Monsignor Barry-Doyle campaign to New York, and that the campaign would be conducted under the auspices of the League. “This is why,” he explained, “the Catholic Converts League, which I direct, will manage for Monsignor Barry-Doyle a campaign which, I hope, will have the most happy results. “ Mr. Wetmore then suggested that the Holy Father make Monsignor Barry-Doyle a bishop, and that the Holy Father speak of “us and our campaign” publicly. Mr. Wetmore would accompany Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Rome, he said, if this were necessary to secure the Holy Father’s approbation.
As much as in America, however, Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s future was being influenced by events in Russia, where the famine had climaxed and the unknown lay ahead. On 8 February 1924, Father Walsh, president of the papal relief mission in Russia, requested the apostolic delegate in Washington to purchase large quantities of food and to pay the shipping costs from the delegate’s special fund. In a press interview that same month, Father Walsh mentioned the idea of a permanent papal relief agency, something akin to the American Red Cross. According to Father Walsh, the response of Catholic editors to the idea was “magnificent” — particularly that of the “powerful paper of His Eminence Cardinal Dougherty, which stressed the great influence such an organization would have for the unity of Christendom, for the reunion of Churches.” He sent the editorials to Monsignor Pizzardo in the Secretariat of State, recommending at the same time the eleven missionary agencies in the United States be amalgamated into a single organization under the jurisdiction of the apostolic delegate.
In mid-March Monsignor Barry-Doyle opened his campaign in New York under what Joseph Moore termed “a great disadvantage,” for Archbishop Hayes had been named a cardinal and the archdiocese was in the process of raising half a million dollars for the Holy Father in recognition of the honor. Mr. Moore also noted that a drive was under way for the starving children of Germany, “backed by the wealthy Germans of New York, and they are spending thousands of dollars for advertising purposes.”
In Carnegie Hall in April, under the auspices of the Catholic Converts League, Monsignor Barry-Doyle kept a capacity crowd of more than 3,000 people spellbound for an hour and a quarter. The Police Glee Club of the city concluded the successful evening amid the frantic applause of the audience. The following day, the city’s Greek-language newspaper, Eleutheron Vima, published an article in which it praised the Children Crusader for his efforts to break down barriers which so long had impeded reunion efforts between Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
It was at this time, also, that Cardinal Gasparri informed Monsignor Barry-Doyle that His Holiness wished to commend his work on behalf of the refugees from Russia and Eastern Europe. The N.C.W.C. News Service carried the long-awaited endorsement, and Joseph Moore, as expected, used it to great advantage in all of Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s future publicity.
The Children’s Crusader moved quickly. He informed Bishop Calavassy that he intended to found another organization, the Little Flower Crusade, which would combine the Monsignor Barry-Doyle Fund and Father Paul’s Constantinople Daily Bread League. Bishop Calavassy asked Father Paul for his opinion; Father Paul approved, and the exarch replied, “As long as Monsignor Barry-Doyle has your support and sympathy he cannot but have also mine.”
There was some uneasiness in Bishop Calavassy’s attitude, nevertheless. In Rome the exarch had heard criticisms of Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s life-style and that of his manager, Joseph Moore, and Cardinal Hayes had questioned him about the monsignor canonical status. Cardinal Hayes also went so far as to advise Bishop Calavassy that his representative in America should not make too much noise about his person, “appearing in too much a dramatical [sic] way,” and should not always stay at the biggest hotels.
This advice offended Monsignor Barry-Doyle, who retorted with his own list of particulars. From the beginning, he wrote to Bishop Calavassy, Cardinal Hayes had opposed their work, stating openly “he did not believe in the schismatics, or in Oriental Bishops.” Moreover, Cardinal Hayes was intensely anti-British, not taking kindly to the Monsignor’s British decorations and further had told lay people that Bishop Calavassy did not have the authority to take the fundraiser under his jurisdiction. This prejudice had infected the New York clergy, who knew their cardinal opposed the Greek cause. Bishop John J. Dunn, Hayes’ vicar general, had even said at a clergy conference that His Eminence was not “interested in any appeals made for Charities outside the diocese.” All in all, concluded Monsignor Barry-Doyle, he was glad to be out of New York: “It made me sad and almost ill.”
In July 1924 Monsignor Barry-Doyle was again in Philadelphia, where, with the help of Michael Francis Doyle, a Catholic and a leading international lawyer, he took steps to incorporate his new merger under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Rather than the Little Flower Crusade, however, the new organization would be called The Catholic Near East Welfare Association — a title apparently coined, at Graymoor, where Father Paul, Joseph Moore, and Monsignor Barry-Doyle “defined the way of the Association…A Catholic Near East Welfare Association.” (In a letter to Monsignor Peter Touhy, Michael Francis Doyle takes credit for coining the title.) The aim of the Little Flower Crusade, to assist war refugees and orphans, was too limited, Monsignor Barry-Doyle pointed out, while the new title, with “Near East” mentioned specifically, better encompassed the “present and future aims with regard to the reconstruction of the Catholic Church in Greece.” Bishop Calavassy was not convinced. In a letter dated 13 August 1924, Mr. Moore had to assure the exarch that the plan to dissolve the Constantinople Daily Bread League enjoyed Father Paul’s full approval. Clearly, Bishop Calavassy considered the decision to combine and broaden the objectives of two funds which had done so much for him to be crucial.
What led to the decision? It is possible only to speculate. For certain, Philadelphia lawyers were involved, and some of them, probably, were friends of Cardinal Dougherty. Thomas Kilby Smith, for instance, one of the five men who signed the original CNEWA charter, was the brother and law partner of Walter George Smith, who before his death earlier in the year had resigned from NER and accepted the chairmanship of the Monsignor Barry-Doyle Near East Fund. NER was being undermined by some Protestant leaders who saw it as an obstacle to their fundraising for purposes openly sectarian, and in any case its receipts from Catholic sources had dwindled drastically wherever Monsignor Barry-Doyle spoke. The NER proposal that he join in an all-out effort with the NER was rejected by the Children’s Crusader with Bishop Calavassy’s full approval, but the suggestion was confirmation that there was room in America for a Catholic Near East agency. Of the others who signed the charter, John J. Coyle had held various public offices; Alexander Meigs Haig was a young lawyer in the office of Michael Francis Doyle and the father of the more famous general, Alexander M. Haig; and F. Eugene D. Thayer was a lawyer as well. The fifth to sign was Joseph F. Moore.
There was nothing about reunion in the new CNEWA charter. It read:
Without profit to the Corporation or its members to solicit and procure the voluntary contributions of funds for the relief of suffering people, particularly children, regardless of religious belief in Greece, Turkey, Armenia and other countries known as the Near East: to use and apply such funds for the care of neglected and orphaned children and to otherwise alleviate distress among people of these countries by transferring funds so procured to individuals, societies, hospitals, orphan asylums or other institutions in said countries, organized for said purposes or in such other manner as the Corporation may deem advisable for the relief of such distress; and in connection with the foregoing objects to establish and maintain such organizations and institutions and to utilize and employ such agencies as the Corporation may deem proper.
The choice of a cardinal protector for the new association was an important consideration. Perhaps Cardinal Dougherty declined, for the invitation went to Cardinal O’Connell of Boston, who had so warmly befriended Monsignor Barry-Doyle and supported his campaign. Cardinal O’Connell replied that he would be pleased to accept the position, but that the appointment would have to be made by Rome. Accordingly, Bishop Calavassy was asked to intervene.
Thus, on 30 September 1924, The Catholic Near East Welfare Association became legally incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with Monsignor Richard Barry-Doyle as its President, Alexander Meigs Haig, Vice President, and Joseph Moore, Secretary and Treasurer. The Board of Directors, which consisted of 10 bishops, 13 priests, and 25 laymen was headed by Bishop Hoban as its chairman and the organization was placed under the auspices of Cardinals Dougherty and O’Connell. There was one omission, in all likelihood intended, but soon corrected; within days, CNEWA had a second Vice President: Father Paul Wattson of Graymoor.
(Click numbers to return to text.)
 “Last year (1921), Bishop Calavassy founded a Congregation of Sisters of the Greek Rite, the first founded among the Greeks, and to whom he gave the name ‘Sisters of the Pammacaristos.’” — Constantinople, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 17, pp. 227-228; Ed: Edward A. Pace; The Encyclopedia Press, New York 1922.
 “The seminary founded in 1919 is directed by the secular clergy of Bishop Calavassy; the building has a capacity of thirty seminarians.” — op. cit.
 Oriente Cattolico, p. 203. This new presence in Athens of a Catholic Byzantine-rite community occasioned fresh controversies with the Orthodox.
 Bishop Calavassy to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, February 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D2/11. With jurisdiction over Greece, Bishop Calavassy’s diocese now extended from the Adriatic to the Black Sea, with 6,000,000 Orthodox. Of these, 1,274,000 were refugees, of whom 400,000 were orphans in the most pitiful condition. “Just imagine,” wrote Bishop Calavassy, “that suddenly twenty-five million refugees arrived to the U.S., or two million of them into the State of New York, and you will have a slight idea of our situation.” Also, in fairness to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, it is important to note that Bishop Calavassy’s appeal to Americans was strictly on humanitarian grounds. The urgent need was to get through the winter. He wrote: “These unfortunate human beings are now exposed to starvation during this winter unless a prompt help is afforded to them. The Greek Government is doing its utmost but it is impossible for it to take care of all of them, destituted as they are of everything.”
 ACNEWA. The mistakes in grammar, spelling, etc., are Bishop Calavassy’s.
 Monsignor Kelley, The Bishop, pp. 222-224.
 Monsignor Kelley to Bishop Papadopoulos, 20 October 1921 (AOC). Monsignor Kelley informed Bishop Papadopoulos that, despite a letter from Cardinal Van Rossum opposing the plan, the American bishops had voted to support it. Monsignor Kelley closed by asking Papadopoulos to use his influence with the pope.
 During the second annual meeting of the bishops, Archbishop Moeller of Cincinnati charged that the cause of the problem was in Rome, where the Oriental Congregation and Propaganda Fide were contending for control of mission funds. Cardinal O’Connell of Boston, the chairman of the meeting, confirmed that in a private conversation with Cardinal Van Rossum he found the latter very determined to keep the work of the “home” and “foreign” missions entirely apart. Cardinal Moeller countered by declaring that it was clearly the opinion of his committee that it was better to have one general drive and movement in America, and one general management. (This, in fact, was Monsignor Kelley’s idea, and plans had already been made for this one agency to take over the machinery of the Catholic Church Extension Society, with Monsignor Kelley as its first national director.) Cardinal Moeller then read a letter from Cardinal Marini, secretary of the Oriental Congregation, in which Cardinal Marini said that the pope had approved the policy of Cardinal Moeller’s American Committee. (The Oriental Congregation favored the one agency, one collection, plan, because it would guarantee an annual income.) Thus thwarted, Cardinal Van Rossum, goaded by the French, more than likely pressured the Consistorial Congregation to bar the United States bishops from meeting the following year, when the matter was to be resolved. The American bishops, however, took their case directly to Pope Pius XI. In a cable to the pope they argued that it was necessary for them as a group to carry on the important religious and charitable works begun under the approbation of the late Pope Benedict XV, and secondly, that they were officially obligated to their own government to continue their immigration and Russian relief work (this latter was of special concern to Pius). The cable proved effective, and on 22 June 1922 the Consistorial Congregation reversed its decision, with the face-saving stipulation that the annual meeting would have the status only of a voluntary assembly, its decisions not binding in law. For documentation, see: The National Catholic Welfare Council Papers, (Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.), Minutes of Second Annual Bishops Meeting, 22 September 1920; idem., Minutes of the American Bishops N.C.W.C., 6 April 1922; Sacred Consistorial Congregation, Instructiones S. Congregationis Consistorialis Circa Conventum Episcoporum Foederatorim Americae Septentrionalis Mense Septembri Anno 1922 Habendum, Num. Prot. 106/22. Also, Monsignor Kelley, The Bishop, pp. 217-224.
 USCC Archival Holdings, “Minutes of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Hierarchy”, 27 September 1922, pp. 5-8.
 Rev. Edmund A. Walsh, S.J. to Monsignor Joseph Pizzardo, Walsh Papers, Archives of Georgetown University, Folder III, 12 March 1924. Walsh offered this as one reason the bishops were not too reluctant to let German- speaking missionaries into their dioceses. Few people would understand them.
 A celebret is a document, usually issued by his bishop, asking permission for a priest to offer Mass.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 27 November 1922, A.G.C.E.) Dla/13.
 Bishop Calavassy to Monsignor Kelley, 25 September 1923.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 30 November 1922 (A.G.C.E.) D2/8. Monsignor Barry-Doyle softened Cardinal Dougherty’s refusal, noting that he had many friends in Philadelphia who were also friends of His Eminence, although he did not deem it wise at the time of the interview to press him. “Later on he will help,” he assured the exarch. [But from Bishop Calavassy to Monsignor Kelley 25 September 1923, we know now that the pope intervened with Cardinal Dougherty.]
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 22 February 1923, (A.G.C.E.) D1a/22.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Archbishop Hayes, 9 December 1922; Cardinal Donahue to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, 12 December 1922 (Hayes Papers, Archives of the Archdiocese of New York), Box 0-27, 1923, A-C.
 For a concise history of Archbishop Hayes’ charitable works, see The Cardinal of Charities (New York: Parish Visitors of Mary Immaculate, 1927).
 The above account of the 14 December meeting has been reconstructed from two letters, one which Cardinal Hayes sent to Bishop Keating in London, 10 June 1924, the other which Monsignor Barry-Doyle sent to Archbishop Hayes 6 October 1923, in which Monsignor Barry-Doyle reviewed, for the Cardinal’s benefit, the substance of their December meeting. See Hayes Papers, 1924, Q-10, A-C, and Q-11, D-J. For Monsignor Kelley’s description of Hayes, see Kelley, The Bishop, p. 73.
 A. Vakondios, “Pere Paul,” p. 16: “Si Barry-Doyle employait ce language, c’etait pour obtenir plus facilement l’enthousiasme et l’appui des catholiques d’Amerique et une aide financiere plus genereuse de leur part. Evidemment nos sommes aujourd’hui beaucoup plus sensibles a ce language. Barry-Doyle d’ailleurs l’employa tres rarement et avec discretion, dans le seul but de servir la ‘caise qreque’ qui, au point de vue politique, n’etait quere populaire en Amerique pour susciter des sympathies.”
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 14 February 1923 (A.B.C.E.) D/2 950.
 Archbishop Hayes to Bishop Keating, 10 June 1924, Hayes Papers, Z-10, A-C.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Archbishop Hayes, 6 October 1923, Hayes Papers, 2-11, D-J. Monsignor Barry-Doyle wrote to Archbishop Hayes that after his initial doubts he “decided to dedicate the rest of my life to the Reunion cause.”
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 19 April 1923 (A.G.C.E. 0 D2/1011.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 14 February 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D2/950. Monsignor Barry-Doyle quoted Rev. Richard H. Tierney, S.J., who told him he thought Cardinal O’Connell of Boston would give $30,000 for the orphanage. Added Monsignor Barry-Doyle: “I dare not approach the Cardinal without the Rome letter. Without this letter there is no use in my trying to raise any considerable sum. I am only wasting my time and doing your cause no good.”
 Several years later Bishop Calavassy disclosed to Monsignor Barry-Doyle that he purposely had not asked for the Rome letter before he left Constantinople because “we could easily have received a negative answer which would have put us in the impossibility of ever starting the work.” See Bishop Calavassy to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, 8 January 1927 (A.G.C.E.) D2/131.
 Bishop Calavassy to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, February 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D2/11.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 11 January 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/19.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 24 January 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/20. Bishop Calavassy’s accusation, repeated by Father Paul and Monsignor Barry-Doyle, that Greek Catholics had been denied NER funding, was rejected by an NER director, Mr. Curran, who admitted to a Protestant bias in the organization’s lower ranks but insisted that NER had contributed considerable assistance to Bishop Calavassy. Curran also reported that Mr. Cuddihy, a Catholic member of the NER board, had written to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, threatening to publish the facts unless the fundraiser desisted from his false criticisms. See “Memorandum” from T.G. Carroll, Chancellor to Cardinal Hayes, 6 July 1926, Hayes Papers. See also Carroll to Hayes, 13 July 1925, ibid.
 National Hibernian, July, 1923. See also letter of Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 24 January 1923. (Father Paul Research Center; hereafter F.P.R.C.).
 Father Wynne to Cardinal Donahue, 24 January 1923, Hayes Papers, Q-2, D-F.
 Cardinal Donahue to Father Wynne, 25 January 1923, Hayes Papers, Q-2, D-F.
 Appearing on the Marquette League for Indian Welfare’s stationery was a list of its directors, which included one Henry Heide. (See, e.g., letter of Father Quinn to Archbishop Hayes, 3 November 1920, Hayes Papers.) Heide was known for his wealth and generosity, having donated over one million dollars to postwar Germany and Austria (Mentioned in a letter of Bishop von Galen to Cardinal Andrew Fruhwirth, 11 October 1926. Archives of the Catholic Union, II, Fribourg, Switzerland, hereafter ACU. In 1926 Henry Heide was celebrating his 80th birthday.)
Heide had taken a personal interest in Father Quinn. In one letter to Archbishop Hayes (3 May 1922, Hayes Papers), Heide requests that Father Quinn be made a domestic prelate. Referring to his fundraising and administrative skills, Heide calls Father Quinn “eminently fit for this line of work, and it is evident from the manner in which he is being received by clergymen in general that he knows how to make himself well liked by them”. The multimillionaire concludes, “I hope that, in view of Father Quinn’s wonderful work, Your Grace will have the kindness to take the above plea under consideration.”
Heide’s daughters were patrons of the lectures sponsored by the Converts League. Ironically, one of the lectures patronized by the Misses Heide was given by Rev. Edmund Walsh, S.J., a man also destined to have difficulties with Father Quinn. (See: Catholic News (New York) 12 April 1924.)
 In his letter 27 February 1923, in which he suggests people that might be useful to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, Bishop Calavassy lists under New York the name of Father Wynne at The Catholic Encyclopedia address, 119 E. 57th Street. See Bishop Calavassy to Monsignor Barry-Doyle (A.B.C.E.) D2/12.
 Bishop Papadopoulos to Monsignor Barry-Doyle (ACNEWA). The letter is erroneously dated 20 January 1923, since in it Bishop Papadopoulos makes reference to an audience that he had with his Holiness on 24 January. Most likely it was written shortly thereafter.
 The actual amount sent to Bishop Calavassy was minus Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s expenses, which the fundraiser had deposited in his own bank. Bishop Calavassy questioned the disparity, and Father Paul had to explain it to him. See Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 12 March 1923 (AGCE) D1a/25.
 Cardinal Tacci to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, 19 February 1923, (ACNEWA).
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 4 March 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D2/13. Monsignor Barry-Doyle spoke to nearly 300 “of the very best people in the city” at Clarence Mackay’s mansion. Wrote the fundraiser, “it was wonderful! Wonderful!”, and he noted that the fact he was British and had such a good military record helped “open the doors to many generous Protestants.” For press coverage, see article in the Waterbury (Conn.) Sunday Republican, 12 October 1924.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 12 March 1923, (A.G.C.E.) D1a/25.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 26 March 1923, (A.G.C.E.) D1a/27. In this letter Father Paul mentions that he has also written that same day to Bishop Papadopoulos.
 Bishop Calavassy to Bishop Papadopoulos, 18 April 1923, (AOC) Prot. No. 10252: “Con piena fiducia che l’enferno non riuscira neppure questa volta ad ostacolare l’opera di dio, ed a constringerci a ritirarci impotenti dal magnifico campo appertoci dalla providenze…”
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 19 April 1923, (A.B.C.E.) D2/14. In this letter Monsignor Barry-Doyle mentioned for the first time the possiblity of his going to Australia once he was finished in America.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 21 April 1923, (A.G.C.E.) D1a/29.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Cardinal Tacci, 8 May (AOC). That same day Father Paul also wrote to Cardinal Tacci, explaining that they had engaged the services of Joseph Moore and that, because the literature now would issue from Moore’s Philadelphia office, it was imperative that they secure the approval and sanction of Cardinal Dougherty.
 Cranny, Words of Paul, VII, p. 160A (F.P.R.C.). See also Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 15 May 1923 (A.B.C.E.) D1a/34, and Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 30 May 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D2/20, which indicate that, at one time, Moore had also worked for the Jesuit Fathers.
 Bishop Calavassy to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, 9 May 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D2/16 and 17. Monsignor Barry-Doyle wrote for excardination on 30 May 1923 and received his celebret from Bishop Calavassy, 10 June 1923. See Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, (A.G.C.E.) D2/19 and 22.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 15 May 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/35. Father Paul obviously was pleased with the contacts Monsignor Barry-Doyle had made through West, Wetmore, and especially Mackay.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 16 May 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/35. In a separate letter on the same day Father Paul wrote to Mr. Vickrey and told him it would be a “political blunder” for him to ignore the friends of Bishop Calavassy.
 LaFontaine, “The Role of Father Paul,” p. 18.
 This was intended from the inception of Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s mission. According to Father Paul, the idea was even discussed as early as 1918 during Bishop Calavassy’s first visit to America. See Craggy, The Words of Paul, VII, p. 160A.
 As early as January 1922 Pope Pius XI was negotiating with Bolshevik officials in Rome to send a papal relief mission into Russia to help feed the millions of starving children. To reduce expenses, it was decided to affiliate the papal mission with the American Relief Administration, with the privilege of purchasing American food and disbursing it from papal warehouses. The American bishops in September 1922 voted to take up a special collection for Russia, the proceeds to go directly to Pope Pius XI. Obviously a permanent aid society to continue this work would be of interest to the pope. See Louis Gallagher, S.J., Edmund A. Walsh, S.J. (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1962), pp. 14-15.
 Cardinal Dougherty to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, 29 June 1923 (ACNEWA).
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 8 July 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D2/21.
 Indianapolis Star, 29 June 1923. Monsignor Barry-Doyle was also reported as speaking at a Knights of Columbus gathering, where he received a pledge of five thousand dollars.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 8 July 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D2/21.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 18 October 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/48.
 Bishop Calavassy to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, 13 September 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D2/28.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 8 July 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D2/21. In a subsequent letter, 26 June 1923, Monsignor Barry-Doyle calls Cardinal Dougherty “the most powerful man in the U.S. He is a very strange man in manner–but they say he is good natured.” (A.G.C.E.) D2/24.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 8 July 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D2/21.
 From an English-language newspaper in Montreal, n.d. (ACNEWA). Monsignor Barry-Doyle had asked the Knights of Columbus to pledge fifty thousand dollars, but the request was turned down. He did receive, however, several K. of C. lecture invitations throughout the United States. By 15 August he had collected $11,251.87. See Father Paul Wattson to Bishop Calavassy, 15 August 1923 (F.P.R.C.).
 Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, 17 August 1923. Also Wildwood (N.J.) Leader, 3 September 1923.
 Mr. Moore’s excellent public relations work is evident in the newspaper coverage both before and after each lecture. See clippings on file at CNEWA.
 Philadelphia American, 27 October 1923.
 Philadelphia Record, 28 October 1923.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Archbishop Hayes, 6 December 1923. Hayes Papers, Z-11, D-J.
 Archbishop Hayes to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, 16 October 1923 (ACNEWA). Monsignor Barry-Doyle thanked Archbishop Hayes by return mail, adding the postscript, “I am writing today to friends in Rome and asking them to bring Your Grace’s charity … to the august notice of His Holiness.” See letter also on file in Hayes Papers, 1922-23, Q-2, D-F.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 25 January 1924 (F.P.R.C.).
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 28 January 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/60. Father Paul tells of a recent “tift” which he had with Monsignor Michael J. Lavelle, Rector of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, “who was honest enough to express his prejudice against Msgr. Barry-Doyle’s campaign, and to say he had not proper papers.” Father Paul added: “This prejudice against him is still entrenched in the high places, and I have had to fight it right along.”
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 18 October 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/48.
 Mr. Moore to Bishop Calavassy, 27 March 1925 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/136.
 Edmund Walsh, S.J., “Rapport du P. Walsh sur l’organisation du secours pours l’Orient aux Stats-Unis,” 20 February 1926 (ACNEWA): “Malheureusement, Mgr. Barry-Doyle, par sa maniere d’agir et aussi par le fait d’etre sujet britanique, a provoque contre lui un antagonisme assez fort de la part de la hierarchie americaine. Par auite, il n’est pas persona grata du beaucoup dioceses.”
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 28 January 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/60. It was in this same letter that Father Paul reported his “half-hour tift” with Monsignor Lavelle.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 9 November 1923 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/50.
 The event was given wide acclaim in the Evening Bulletin, Inquiry, Evening Ledger, Public Ledger, and North American. Sarah Lowrie wrote a particularly glowing report in the Evening Public Ledger, 21 November 1923.
 When Father Paul published this figure in The Lamp, Bishop Calavassy wrote at once to find out why he had received so much less than what had been collected. Father Paul had to explain the high costs involved in fundraising. Bishop Calavassy complained that he would suffer if the Oriental Congregation thought he was receiving more than he actually was receiving. Father Paul promised to cover up the discrepancy in the future. See LaFontaine, “The Role of Paul,” p.23.
 Louis Hoffman Wetmore, whom Monsignor Barry-Doyle later would remember for his viciousness, typified in many respects the converts Catholics lionized at the time. He was much in demand by Catholic audiences for the story of his conversion, and in a press release he probably wrote himself on the occasion of his receiving a decoration, he was described as a direct descendant of Cotton and Increase Mather, and the first convert to Catholicism since the Reformation in a family long prominent in New York, Newport, and Southampton society, who had studied at Groton preparatory school (Class of 1908) in Massachusetts and at various centers of learning in Europe. Atheist-turned-socialist, and then a labor movement radical, he first visited Rome in 1910, became a Catholic in 1912, and was confirmed by Cardinal Gasparri, in the Cardinal’s private chapel, in 1914. He served briefly as a literary critic at the New York Times, contributed to the Dublin Review and the Catholic Quarterly, and authored books on American literature and English history. See The Home (Harlem, Yorkville, Bronx) News, 1923. Clipping undated (ACNEWA).
 In Rome Wetmore had an audience with Pope Pius XI, a long talk with Cardinal Gasparri, and an interview with Cardinal Tacci of the Oriental Congregation. Cardinal Tacci voiced his thanks to the League members for helping Monsignor Barry-Doyle, and he sent a special blessing to all American Catholics who supported the fundraiser’s cause. The reunion with Rome of Near Eastern schismatics was conditioned, said Cardinal Tacci, by the amount of support American Catholics would give Monsignor Barry-Doyle. Wetmore also had several interviews with Bishop Papadopoulos, after which Wetmore reported that the Oriental Congregation’s assessor said the Holy Father had again and again expressed interest in the labors of Bishop Calavassy and Monsignor Barry-Doyle, and appreciation of the works they had undertaken. Before leaving Rome, Wetmore made arrangements to send the Holy Father each month a full report of Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s work in America and of the contributions of American Catholics to Bishop Calavassy. News of Wetmore’s success appeared in the U.S. Catholic press as early as 1 December 1923. See the New York Catholic News, 1 December 1923, p. 11.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle quoted O’Connell as saying “Msgr. [sic] you are here on a great mission. You have been properly selected, and you will make your work a great success.” See Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 2 January 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D2/37.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 11 September 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D2/64. In another letter of 30 December 1924 (D2/71) Monsignor Barry-Doyle wrote “There is a very dreadful spirit here amongst the Cardinals to each other.”
 Scranton Catholic Light, 27 January 1924.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 17 July 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D2/59.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 24 February 1926 (A.G.C.E.) D2/111.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Cardinal Tacci, 23 January 1924 (AOC).
 Bishop Papadopoulos to Wetmore, 19 January 1924 (AOC). For further evidence of Wetmore’s public relations work, see the New York Catholic News, 23 February 1924 and 12 April 1924.
 Wetmore to Bishop Papadopoulos, 20 February 1924 (AOC). “C’est pourquoi la Ligue des Convertis Catholiques, que je dirige, memera pour Monseigneur Barry-Doyle une campagne qui, je l’espere, aura les plus heureux resultats.”
 Walsh to Fumasoni-Biondi, 8 February 1924. Walsh Papers, Folder III.
 New York Catholic News, 16 February 1924.
 Father Walsh to Monsignor Pizzardo, 12 March 1924. Walsh Papers, Folder III.
 Mr. Moore to Bishop Calavassy, 17 March 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D2/47.
 New York Catholic News, 26 April 1924.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle wrote to Bishop Calavassy, 14 April 1925 (A.G.C.E.) D2/80: “On the highest authority I know the Greek Orthodox Bishop of Boston is entirely in favor of reunion. More than this I have recently called on the offices of the Greek National Herald here in New York. I met the owner, Mr. Tatanis, and the editor, the Rev. Dr. Callimakos, a priest. At first they needed an explanation from my own lips of what I was endeavoring to do. I told them openly, honestly and enthusiastically and both these gentlemen — the priest and the layman — kissed my hands and with tears in their eyes they declared that they would help me all in their power…and told me that their entire paper was ever at my disposal.”
 Cardinal Gasparri to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, 31 March 1924 (AOC). The text reads: “Di paterna soddisfazione e particolare conforto e ruiscito a Sua Santita apprendere lo zelo spiegato da V.S. Rev. ma per venire in aiuto agli organi e profughi in Grecia, nonche alle varie opere apostoliche della Missione greco-cattolica di Constantinopoli e di Grecia per la causa dell’Unione delle Chiese”. (Note that the humanitarian work is listed before the religious.) “Compiacendosi del nobile zelo a delle benefica attivita di V.S. a solliero specialmente di tanti infelici, il S. Padre augura alla di lei caritatevole opera ogno piu fecondo successo, ed in auspicio di copiose divine grazie, imparte alla S.V. ed a tutti i benefattori l’Apostolica Benedizione.” Father Paul attributed this endorsement to Bishop Calavassy’s intervention. See Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 7 May 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/72. See also N.C.W.C. News Service, 10 May 1924, and The Lamp XXII (July 1924).
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 10 June 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D2/56.
 Bishop Calavassy to Father Paul, 25 June 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/77.
 Father Paul to Bishop Calavassy, 7 May 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/72. Father Paul had to explain that it was necessary to stay at certain hotels in order to meet wealthy donors, but that most of the time Monsignor Barry-Doyle stayed in modest lodgings, ate in cafeterias, and wore shabby monsignorial attire, hesitating “to buy a new outfit because of his orphans he is trying to feed.”
 Bishop Calavassy to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, 2 April 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D2/50.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 4 May 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D2/51.
 Cranny, Words of Paul, VII, p. 160A.
 Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Bishop Calavassy, 17 July 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D2/59. While Monsignor Barry-Doyle enlarged the scope of the new organization, in his letters to Calavassy he continued to give prominence to the Catholic Church in Greece.
 Mr. Moore to Bishop Calavassy, 13 August 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D2/62. On 17 September 1924 Father Paul himself wrote to Bishop Calavassy to dissolve any lingering doubts. (A.G.C.E.) D1a/89.
 Monsignor Thomas G. Carroll, chancellor of the archdiocese of New York, to Cardinal Hayes, 13 July 1925, Hayes Papers. Carroll reported a confidential conversation with Mr. John R. Voris, assistant general secretary of the NER, in which Voris said that Catholic contributions had fallen from $88,000 a year to $11,000 after Monsignor Barry-Doyle’s arrival.
 Mr. Carroll (memorandum) to Cardinal Hayes, 6 July 1925, Hayes Papers. Here Mr. Carroll reports on a confidential interview with a Mr. Curran of the NER.
 Bishop Calavassy to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, 10 June 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D2/56.
 The original charter hangs in the office of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association, 1011 First Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022.
 O’Connell’s secretary to Monsignor Barry-Doyle, 4 August 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D2/58a. Barry-Doyle had written Cardinal O’Connell on 25 July 1924.
 Court document no. 3708, ACNEWA.
 Bishop Calavassy had taken no action on the appointment of Cardinal O’Connell; hence CNEWA initially had no cardinal protector. On 27 September 1924 Monsignor Barry-Doyle made the proposal himself to Cardinal Tacci: “Secondo il mio modesto parere, la nomina del Cardinale O’Connell a Protettore dell’associazione in parola apporterebbe non solo una grande influenza … ma gioverebbe assai al mio lavoro in tanti altri modi. Oso pregare pertanto l’eminenza vostra di voler adoperare tutti i suoi buoni uffici presso la santa sede perche ci sia concesso questo necessario favore”: See Monsignor Barry-Doyle to Tacci, 27 September 1924 (ASOC) Prot. No. 14278.
 Bishop Calavassy to Father Paul, 16 October 1924 (A.G.C.E.) D1a/97.