Part 4. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (3)

But broken in its external manifestation, trusteism could not be completely destroyed in the sense of the tendency, since its roots are embedded in the spirit of American public life itself, in the character of its public institutions. Therefore, having suffered defeat in open battle, trusteism began to seek secret refuge in this spirit, and to a considerable degree succeeded in this, so that it even threatened at times to deprive the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the fruits of its hard-won victory. This was particularly evident in the state of New York. The state legislative assembly regarded the success achieved by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in its struggle for its rights with some displeasure,[1] and almost considered its policy regarding church property management incompatible with the republican institutions of the country. The trustees detected this sentiment and attempted to use it to restore their rights. Soon a favorable opportunity presented itself. The main enemy of trusteism, Archbishop Hughes, after his victory went to Rome in triumph to attend the promulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The trustees took advantage of his absence and submitted to the state legislative assembly a petition for the restoration of their trampled rights.[2] The petition found favor in the legislative assembly, the majority of which was anti-Catholic in sentiment and was apparently under the influence of the recently concluded anti-Catholic movement of “Know-Nothings.”[3] In consequence the petition was accepted and the legislative assembly developed a “law on church possession,” which not only deprived the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the right to manage and own church property, but in some cases bordered on confiscation of church property. Assuming that the majority of the legislative assembly, as representatives of the ruling party or expressions of the popular will of the state, are owners of all immovable and personal property in the state, and that the actual owners are merely custodians of it, they stipulated that all property held by any person in a church office must, upon his death, be given to the parish if it has corporate rights, or in the absence of the latter—to the people of the state.[2] Another provision stipulated that no transaction concerning property intended for divine worship should be considered legal or have legal force unless made in the name of the corporation.[4] Clearly, not only did these provisions substantially violate the rights of the Roman Catholic Church regarding self-governance according to its own church laws, but they also established by law the exact opposite of its self-governance, and finally, what was worst, the Roman Catholic hierarchy was deprived of all the fruits of its hard-won, extraordinarily difficult victory over trusteism. Trusteism received legal, juridical recognition, and the trustees, as representatives of the corporate rights of the parish, received complete control over church property. Even more, the bishop could not transfer his right to church property, in case of death, to his successor-bishop; he had to transfer it to the parish or trustees, and thus the church property purchased by Archbishop Hughes passed again upon his death to his mortal enemies—the trustees.[5] When Archbishop Hughes returned to his diocese, this law poisoned his spiritual joy occasioned by the happy proclamation of the new dogma. He saw that the victory he had gained had slipped from his hands again, and the hated trusteism once more proudly raised its head, now relying not merely on customary right but on a definite, juridically-formulated legal provision. But the energetic archbishop did not think of yielding his rights and immediately began agitation against the new legislation. Here indeed the Church was entering into struggle with the state, but the archbishop did not shrink from such a struggle in order to secure his rights. He submitted a strong protest to the legislative assembly, demolishing the very foundations on which the new legislation was built. These foundations were the complaints of the trustees that the archbishop demanded from them a formal renunciation of their rights over the church property they managed in favor of his personal right to this property, and the assurances of Senator Brooks that the Archbishop of New York had thus seized enormous property worth five million dollars.[6] The archbishop conducted his case against the trustees with such tact that he forced them to renounce their claim that he demanded the renunciation of their rights in his favor. There remained Senator Brooks, and against him Hughes wrote an entire polemical work entitled: “The Brooklynica,” and not only refuted his assertions regarding the archbishop’s alleged tendency toward personal seizure of property, but also proved the inconsistency of the very figure by which the value of his diocese’s church property was determined, and moreover revealed the secret springs that had promoted this unjust legislation.[7] This strong protest was not fruitless, especially since soon the internal inconsistency of the law itself became apparent, undermining the very foundations of property,[8] and it was finally repealed by the legislative assembly in 1863, after eight years of existence.[9] Instead of it a legal provision was adopted which represents a sort of compromise between the rights of the hierarchy and the trustees, and consists in this that corporate rights are granted to all Roman Catholic parishes and churches, but this corporate right in any case has its highest jurisdiction in the bishop and the vicar general of the diocese, and the pastor and trustees are appointed by the bishop.[10]

Thus in the state of New York the Roman Catholic hierarchy finally achieved some recognition of its rights regarding the management of church property. But since jurisdiction over religious matters belongs exclusively to the realm of local self-government of the individual states, naturally the attitude of the state toward the question of church property management is not uniform in different states. While in one state this attitude is more or less satisfactory for the Roman Catholic Church, in another state it continues to stand in contradiction to its wishes. Thus in the Puritan states of New England the laws regarding church property management are fully based on Protestant principles of parish independence from any higher jurisdiction, and therefore the rights of Roman Catholic bishops are limited in favor of the trustees. In 1866 Bishop Fitzpatrick attempted to present to the legislative assembly of Massachusetts a petition for the reform of laws concerning the management of church property of the Roman Catholic Church according to the plan adopted in New York, namely that “the various Roman Catholic churches or congregations in this commonwealth be empowered to receive corporate power, with the same rights regarding property and possession which religious parishes enjoy by law, and that such corporate power in any case be vested in the bishop and vicar general of the diocese in which such church or congregation may be—and the pastor of such church or congregation and two laymen shall be appointed by said bishop, vicar general, and pastor, or by a majority of them.”[11] The petition was referred for examination to the “committee of parishes and religious societies,” naturally composed of a majority of Puritan clergy, and this committee gave a unanimous unfavorable opinion to the petitioners. This opinion is a characteristic document in clarifying the position of the question of church property management in Massachusetts, so that certain passages from it are not out of place. “With such an arrangement, say the committee, parish or public corporations would be in any case only nominal. The actual corporation would consist of three clergymen and two laymen of their choosing, since members of the parish community have no voice in appointing their nominal representatives. In a word, parish corporations would have no corporate powers at all. We assert with full confidence that such an anomalous society can never be created or legalized by an act of legislation. It would be contrary to the whole theory and purpose of our civil and religious institutions. At the present time the documents (title-deeds) to all Roman Catholic church property in the state are made out in the name of the bishop and are in his hands. By his will he transmits all to his successor, since there is no law against it—although in reality he owns not a single dollar of all the value. Thus Bishop Williams[12] enters into possession of all the numerous and valuable estates which the late Bishop Fitzpatrick either received from his predecessor or acquired through his own administrative abilities. Possession of such property, which now amounts to hundreds of thousands and millions (of dollars) and in the future may increase indefinitely and infinitely, gives the one occupying the episcopacy, as anyone must see, enormous influence both ecclesiastical and political. And this influence certainly would not be diminished if the change were made which the petition before us proposes… The committee sees no reason why those who build church buildings and who so abundantly support their pastors, bishops and other clergy should not have control over these buildings under their own names as their secure property for religious purposes in accordance with the existing laws of the republic. The corporate organization and management of Roman Catholic parishes or societies, we do not doubt, would find general approval from their members; and according to our American principles and experience, would give them more mental activity, self-respect, and all the qualities of usefulness as good citizens. It would be a crying injustice, an abuse of power, unforgivable in the legislative assembly of Massachusetts,—whatever may be done elsewhere,—if any of our fellow-citizens should be deprived of the full measure of that freedom to which, by the favor of our God toward us, we owe so much and so openly. And that surely we would deprive our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens if we granted the request of the petitioners”[13]. Thus the claims of the Roman Catholic hierarchy for the right to manage church property in accordance with its own canonical law were found by the Massachusetts legislative assembly to be incompatible with the general structure of the public-political life of the republic and were rejected as violating the rights of citizens to self-government. Therefore trusteism continues to prevail in New England more than in all other states of the country.[14]

The struggle of the hierarchy with trusteism and the government over the question of church property management, although apparently concerned only separate dioceses and localities, could not but stir the whole Church, and its vicissitudes were reflected therefore in the various councils that took place during the period of the struggle itself. The councils carefully followed the vicissitudes of the struggle and made various determinations which defined the Church’s view on this question and adopted various measures for its most favorable resolution for the Church. The highest expression of the Roman Catholic view on the question of church property management found its expression in the determinations of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. The prelates of the council regarded this matter very seriously and devoted to it an entire section, presenting a careful compilation of various determinations of previous councils, their comparison with the general canonical law of the Church and with the directives of the Roman Curia, and concluding with the prelates’ own determination regarding the Church’s rights in property management in relation to trustees and government.[15] “In order better to arrange, say the prelates, the management of church property and suppress the abuse of secular trustees, the First Council of Baltimore decreed: Since lay trustees often abuse the rights given them by civil authority, to great harm to religion and not without confusion to the faithful, we greatly desire that henceforth no church shall be built or dedicated unless it be transferred (adsignata) by written document to the bishop of that diocese in which it is to be built, for divine service and the use of the faithful.”[16] The bishop is declared the complete owner of church property with the right to pass it to his successor by will. The order of transfer is determined by a decree of the “Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith” from December 15, 1840, “the essence of which is as follows: each bishop must make a will, by which one of his fellow bishops of his country, whom he deems more worthy (idoneum) in the Lord, is designated as heir, with the purpose that, being thus the heir, he may transfer to the successor of the deceased bishop all the property which came to him by right of inheritance. But this however must not be stated in the will itself, but must be made known to the designated heir by letter, which he must burn after reading it. A bishop who has a coadjutor should make him his heir.”[17] The prelates repeat the determination of the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore that “all churches and other church property, acquired either by the offerings or donations of the faithful, for the purposes of charity or religion, belong to the ordinary (ad Ordinarium pertinere), unless it be written stated that they have been transferred to some monastic order or congregation of priests for their use.”[18] Repeating the determination of the First Plenary Council of Baltimore, the prelates “strictly forbid the laity to interfere in the management” of church property “without the voluntary consent of the bishop. If they shall attempt to intrude into this management without any consent, convert it to their own use, or what is entrusted to the care and custody of bishops they shall tear from their hands, even by the prestige of law, we declare that they ipso facto are subject to the punishment determined by the fathers of Trent for rash plunderers of Church property.”[19] Finally the prelates themselves determine the property position of the Church in relation to the general legislative principle of the state and say: