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

“Since in the United States all citizens and inhabitants are permitted to live freely and without hindrance in accordance with the principles of their religion, which the civil laws themselves recognize and proclaim; it seems nothing at all should prevent us from exactly fulfilling those laws of the Church which were decreed by the councils and supreme pontiffs for the acquisition and proper keeping of church property. Therefore the fathers wish to set forth and clearly place before the eyes of all and in full light for the state itself the true right of the Church concerning the receipt, maintenance, and administration of sacred property, such as the lands on which temples are built, the temples themselves, houses for priests (presbyteria), schools, cemeteries, and such like, so that Catholic citizens might be permitted to exactly follow (ob oculos habere) the laws and determinations of the Catholic Church. This same full freedom can exist only if the laws and determinations made by the Church itself are admitted to full execution and are thus given civil force. Protection is given to every right by them; abuses which accidentally arise are prevented by them; and the power of bishops is not only not increased but rather diminished by the determinations made by the Church itself. For in order to guard against undue intrusions of secular tribunals, which scarcely recognize, and in practice not at all recognize, the laws of the Church, bishops have no recourse for directing all matters according to the rule of Church laws except to be granted the fullest administration of property before the civil authority. Since this recognition of Church laws and tribunals does not yet exist in some states, we consider it our duty thus to arrange matters (nostrum est ita res componere), so that in places where the civil laws have not made better provisions, the difficulties arising for the freedom of the Church or for the security of property from civil laws may be eliminated or as far as possible reduced. To prescribe to lay trustees their proper limits and the manner of their election, we extend to all churches of these provinces the determinations made at the Third Provincial Council of New York and recognized by the apostolic see, and advise everyone to follow them everywhere. They are as follows: 1) No one should be accepted as a trustee who is known at the time of selection, or shortly before, to have given his name to some secret society or has not received the Easter sacraments. 2) Let trustees understand that it is entirely unlawful for them to transfer even the smallest portion of church property for their own use under any pretense whatever, or for others’ use except with the permission of the bishop and in accordance with apostolic determinations concerning the alienation of church property.[1] 3) Except for ordinary expenses, trustees are not permitted to request for any special purpose a sum of money exceeding three hundred dollars (scutatos nummos) unless the bishop gives his written consent. 4) Let the trustees know that the power to appoint the pastor of the church, to keep him in his position or not—belongs to the bishop. To the bishop alone belongs the power to determine a certain sum of money for the support of pastors of souls; and the trustees are not permitted either to withhold, reduce, or increase this salary. 5) To the pastor belongs the power to appoint the organist, the singers, the sacristan, the sexton or servant, the teacher (if there is a school in the parish), and other persons of such a kind serving the altar or temple. 6) Let trustees beware, without consulting the pastor, of prescribing any law or rule for the parishioners. If any disagreement arise between the pastor and the trustees, and this disagreement they cannot settle among themselves, then let the bishop decide the dispute, to whose judgment and sentence all must obey.”[2] “Thus we declare as a universal law of the Catholic Church that all those who in any manner whatsoever administer church property have this right only by the consent of the apostolic see or the bishop and in their administration are subject to the power and jurisdiction of the bishops, or, if exempt, to the power and jurisdiction of those whom the apostolic see shall appoint.”[3]

The fundamental idea of these determinations is evidently that administrators of church property in parishes should do nothing without the consent of the bishop. “To observe this law and secure themselves from the danger of intrusion by secular tribunals, the bishop has no other recourse except to appear before the civil authority and declare his right to full administration of all the property belonging to his church as a single corporation. Some states have recognized this right. In others it is not yet recognized. Therefore the council determinations propose the best means for avoiding or at least reducing the inconvenience resulting from such a state of affairs. By them it is required that mutual security be adopted on the part of the bishop and trustees. Upon his appointment to the see, the prelate must make a will and give a copy of it to his metropolitan. Besides the property of which he is the sole owner, he should be ex-officio president of all the trusteeships which in the eyes of the law hold parish property.”[4]

Having set forth these determinations as palliative measures for the most favorable possible realization of the canonical law of the Church under the given difficult circumstances, the prelates naturally did not consider their work finished. They resolved solemnly to express their protest against state restrictions regarding the management of church property in accordance with the canonical law of the Church. This protest they expressed in their pastoral letter to the clergy and people.[5] “While gladly recognizing, say they, the fact that thus far the general and state governments of our country, except for some brief periods of excitement and delusion (delusion), have not interfered with our church organization or our civil rights, we however have reason for sorrow that in many states we are not yet permitted by law to take those measures for the security of church property which would be in accordance with the rules and discipline of the Catholic Church. We gratefully recognize that in some states we have been granted in this respect all that we could reasonably ask for. The right of the Church to own property—be it churches, houses for clergy, cemeteries, or schools, asylums, etc.—cannot be denied without depriving it of the necessary means to achieve the purpose for which it was established. We are aware of the purported grounds for this refusal to recognize the Church’s corporate right except on condition that in the matter of church property management it conforms to the general laws established for that purpose. These laws, however, are for the most part based on principles which it cannot accept without deviating from its practice from the beginning, so soon as it was permitted to enjoy the freedom of divine worship. They are an expression of distrust in church authority as such; and are the fruit of perverted ideas which were entertained about the Church’s activity in past centuries. To impose on it a system of property management which is alien to its principles and which is borrowed from those who have rejected its authority is the same as if the civil authority should prescribe to it the doctrines which it must preach and the divine service by which it must worship God. Rather than trying to refute the various grounds cited for this denial of Church rights in some states, we content ourselves with a formal protest with which we step forward against this denial; and we briefly note that even on the supposition, which we utterly reject, that this denial results from legitimate motives, this denial in itself is incompatible with the full measure of that church or religious freedom which we presumably enjoy. This is not an unimportant matter or one which would not have the most outrageous practical consequences. Because we are not permitted to administer church property on Catholic principles, we are not only forced to place church property in conditions of extreme uncertainty; but in at least one of the States of the United States, namely Missouri, laws have even been enacted by which all church property not held by corporations was made subject to monetary taxation; and the evident purpose of this provision was hostility toward the Catholic Church. In conclusion of these remarks, we simply point out this attempt made in that state to place the conduct of divine service in dependence on a condition imposed by the civil authority.”[6]

Thus regarding the management of church property in its proper sense, the Roman Catholic Church, despite the important results it has achieved in this respect, considers itself oppressed by the state. But more important results it has succeeded in achieving regarding the management of another kind of property, which while essentially church property, nevertheless appears to have a separate existence and independent purpose. Such is the property belonging to various Roman Catholic educational and teaching institutions: colleges, high schools, and boarding schools for girls, directed by various monastic orders. The United States government is more favorably disposed toward these institutions than toward the Roman Catholic Church itself, places them under special legislation which grants them full freedom. “States generally grant these institutions corporate rights without much difficulty, and their property is completely under the control and administration of the council of these institutions, consisting of the rector and chief officers of the college or institute, and sometimes also friends who from time to time are elected as trustees. Many colleges directed by Jesuits and other orders are thus maintained.”[7] However, in this respect also there are not without obstacles, and everything depends on the general disposition of the legislation of a given state toward Roman Catholicism. Thus, the legislative assembly of the Puritan state of Massachusetts stubbornly refused to grant corporate rights to the Jesuit college of the Holy Cross in Worcester (Worcester), although it apparently satisfied all the legal conditions for this.[8]

From the data presented it is evident that regarding the question of church property management, Roman Catholicism does not yet enjoy in the United States the independence and freedom which it considers necessary for the successful development of its external prosperity and which, in its conviction, belongs to it by virtue of the state’s proclaimed principle of the separation of Church and state and the resulting freedom for church-religious life. In such a case it is all the more remarkable the fact that even under such, in its view, restrictive circumstances, it has managed to develop its external prosperity to enormous proportions, determined by the figure of the value of its church property cited above. But this success would be even more striking if compared with the success of other religious communities and sects. At the beginning of the independent political life of the country, a hundred years ago, the Roman Catholic Church was the poorest and occupied the last place in its material value among American denominations. Through a hundred years this relationship has radically changed, and at the centennial anniversary of the country’s independence it already occupied the first place among those same denominations in the material respect,[9] a position it certainly continues to hold now.