an Archbishop remarked that he did not have Mexican seminarians because, "they just don't meet my standards" (62). Sandoval says that, "behind such views was the belief that Hispanics were of such weak faith that they could not be priests" (62). He then adds that "another reason, seldom articulated, was that the bishops also subscribed to the idea that Hispanics were an inferior people" (emphasis added 62). This account, aside from giving the Archbishop far too much credit, demonstrates how Sandoval's account is weakened by a desire to have it both ways. He does not wish to condemn the bishops outright for the attitudes that are expressed in everything they say and do--almost as if, like a small child, crediting individuals with such morally unacceptable attitudes would undermine his faith in the institution itself. Thus, even if the Archbishop was making a stab at offering a reasoned (i.e., unprejudiced) response to the question of Hispanic seminarians, Sandoval is too polite to call this self-deception.
On the other hand, Sandoval also notes that the Archbishop made his remarks, "in the presence of two Hispanic deacons" (62). He may merely mean that they were the source of the report. But it also sounds as though he was taken aback by such insensitivity. This r
...