Part 4. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (2)

The Roman Catholic population, given the weakness of church organization and its small numbers at the end of the last century, being completely surrounded by Protestant population, could not help but succumb to its influence. The result of this influence was that already from the end of the last century a tendency toward parish self-government and a limitation of the bishop’s power began to be noticed in it. The parish began to take active part in church administration and the idea arose in it to elect its own priest apart from the bishop and moreover following the Protestant model, having in view not those qualities determined by the canonical law of the Church, but his preaching talent.[1] At the first opportunity the idea did not delay in manifesting itself in action. After the opening of church services in New York, in 1784 a Franciscan named Whelan was appointed as pastor to the church. He had not served a year when another Franciscan, Nugent, arrived in New York and began to intrigue against the first, trying to take his place. Since he possessed a better preaching talent than Whelan, the parishioners took his side and asked the Jesuit Farmer to remove Whelan. The Jesuit at once grasped the danger of this tendency for the stability of church organization and tried to pacify them. But the parish would not hear of it, and the trustees threatened to turn to the legislative assembly with a petition requesting them the legal authority to dismiss a priest in case of dissatisfaction with him.[2] All attempts at pacification were in vain. The trustees were conscious of their power, and although they did not turn to the legislative assembly as they threatened, they decided to drive out Whelan by domestic means and discontinued the Sunday collection on his behalf. Since this was the sole source of his support, the Franciscan had no choice but to withdraw and yield to his rival, who took his place.[3] This was the first outbreak of trusteism, and although it was subsequently extinguished thanks to the energy of the first bishop, the Jesuit John Carroll, it was an ominous foreboding of troubles for the Church that would follow. And indeed the subsequent history presents an almost unbroken struggle of the church hierarchy with the trusteism tendency, which manifested itself at every convenient opportunity now in one place, now in another, and sometimes not without success.[4] If trusteism did not everywhere succeed in limiting the bishop’s rights regarding the appointment and dismissal of pastors, in the management of church property it made enormous conquests, so that gradually church property passed into the complete control of the trustees. This order of things became customary, and although it was in complete contradiction with Roman Catholic church law, according to which the bishop is the complete and unlimited master of church property, for a long time no bishop dared to enter into open struggle with trusteism. Indeed, this struggle required extraordinary will power and unbreakable energy, since trusteism already had solid ground beneath it and relied on established custom. Nevertheless, as contrary to church law, trusteism could not count on perpetual dominance; the hierarchy could not reconcile itself to it and awaited only a favorable opportunity to enter into decisive battle with its opponent. This opportunity presented itself when, as an assistant to the energetic Bishop Dubois, an even more energetic coadjutor was appointed to the episcopal see of New York, the later famous Archbishop of New York Hughes. Trusteism at this time had reached wide proportions in New York and the trustees were in open rebellion against episcopal authority. The young energetic coadjutor resolved to crush this movement and—largely succeeded in this. Bishop Dubois energetically defended his rights as a hierarchical spiritual administrator.[5] His coadjutor did not confine himself to defending these rights, but vowed to crush trusteism in its very existence, on its economic foundation. The struggle was not easy. Trusteism had reached its highest intensity, refused to recognize episcopal authority and controlled church property unchecked. But the keen-minded coadjutor detected the weak side of trusteism in its very strength, and directed his blows at it. Trusteism, intoxicated by its gains, had degenerated into the despotic willfulness of trustees, who ceased even to be guided by the voice of the parishioners and managed church property like simple possession, making it an object of financial speculation. This naturally brought about the cooling of a considerable part of the parishioners, and Hughes exploited this. He appealed to this part of the parishioners with a protest against the illegal actions of the trustees and found their sympathy. Taking advantage of this first success, he proceeded to more effective measures in the struggle against trusteism and appealed to the people with a proclamation—“to send their contributions not to the disobedient trustees, but to their lawfully appointed pastors, whose support according to church law was obligatory for them.”[6] His appeals made an impression on the Catholic population, and thus began a public movement to discuss the question. A massive rally was called, at which Hughes was given the chair. Relying on the pastoral address of Bishop Dubois to his flock, he set forth the abnormal state of affairs before the assembly with such clarity and force that the rally determined henceforth to harmonize the entire system of church administration with the canons of the Church.[6] Trusteism thus suffered a moral defeat, but in fact it continued to exist until, through the abuse of its administration, it deprived itself entirely of its foundation. Looking on church property as an object of speculation, the trustees engaged in all sorts of speculative enterprises. Soon, however, some of them brought matters to a dead end, so that the trusteeships of five churches out of the total of eight churches in New York at that time declared bankruptcy. On the church of St. Peter alone the debt amounted to more than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars.[7] The situation of these churches was hopeless, as they were subject to sale at auction to satisfy creditors. Bishop Hughes used this situation to deal a final blow to trusteism. He exerted all efforts to collect a sum of money, and by contract purchased all these churches for his own property, thus becoming the head of these churches not only by the right of bishophood which the trustees denied, but also by the right of owner which they could no longer deny.[6]

Defeated in New York, trusteism nevertheless continued to exist in other cities. Rejoicing in his success in the struggle with the trustees, Bishop Hughes at a diocesan synod convened in 1842 developed “rules concerning the management of church property without trustees”[8] and demanded their practical application. But these rules met with protest from some trustees. Particularly obstinate were the trustees of the church of St. Louis in Buffalo (in the state of New York). They not only refused to submit to Hughes’ demands, but twice sent a delegate to Rome to petition for their rights. During the height of the struggle, even the church was closed. The Pope entrusted his nuncio Bedini to examine this matter. In 1853 the trustees had an audience with the nuncio and presented to him a memorandum containing their complaints against Bishop Hughes. The nuncio sent them a written response with the decision that the parish must submit to the bishop’s demand, that the trustees must implement this decision as soon as possible, that the management of church property belongs to administrators appointed by the bishop, who supervise all the church’s property and at prescribed intervals present a report on their administration to the bishop and the faithful attending the church.[9] This resolution bitterly disappointed the trustees, and on the very day of receiving it they sent the nuncio this reply: “…We see nothing in the response of your excellency (Excellency) except a repetition of the demands made by the esteemed Bishop Timon,[10] that is, complete submission, so that our act of incorporation (Act of incorporation) be abrogated and that a special committee appointed by the one who caused our difficulties replace the trusteeship. Before the beginning of these difficulties, we never interfered in spiritual affairs, leaving them entirely to the pastor and bishop; but as regards the material side, we have always had control over it, subject however to the annual examination of the bishop and pastor—with respect to the sums expended and received, and the pastor always found everything in order. As for the abrogation of the act of incorporation, there is not a shadow of sense in this, since we think that the material side has nothing in common with the spiritual…”[11] The nuncio’s final response of October 26, 1853, declared the trustees’ response “truly grievous,” reproached the trustees for completely disrespecting Catholic principles, and lamented their sad position in the case of further obstinacy.[11] Bishop Timon issued a pastoral letter to the parish of St. Louis Church, threatening excommunication to those who persisted. The threat did not have the desired effect, and then the bishop, on June 22, 1854, officially declared the seven “so-called trustees of St. Louis Church,” whom he named individually, “excommunicated by major excommunication,” adding furthermore that “all who henceforth assume the position of trustee of St. Louis Church, in order to continue the present sacrilegious opposition to church discipline, ipso facto incur the same major excommunication.”[12] Excommunication proved a powerful means and trusteism did not withstand it. The trustees of St. Louis Church surrendered and submitted to the bishop. Other church trustees followed, and thus gradually one of the most dangerous movements for the success of Roman Catholicism in the United States, which had arisen under the influence of Protestantism, was crushed.