 |
 |
|||||||||
|
PROFESSOR
LEONARD SWIDLER...
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
ARTICLE
NAVIGATION: You are presently looking at Part VI  Today's commentary is the second half of the second chapter of Professor Swidler's series of talks on the history of democracy in the Catholic Church and how in the last 200 years — basically since the time of the French Revolution — it gradually got snuffed out by the centralists in the Roman administration. Democracy in the early, Medieval and American Catholic Church III. PARTICIPATORY DECISION MAKING (Cont'd)... 3. John England, "Apostle to Democracy"
There was only one other giant church leader in America following upon John Carroll's demise in 1815 until the latter part of the nineteenth century when the subsequently "condemned" Americanists arrived on the scene. That giant was John England of Cork, Ireland, who, in 1820, was named by Rome Bishop of Charleston, South Carolina. John England was called by his first biographer, "Apostle of Democracy."[1] England was indeed a fervent admirer of democracy, but more importantly, he was also a committed and skilled practitioner of democracy in all aspects of his life, and especially as bishop. In the matter of the selection of bishops he followed in the footsteps of his great predecessor John Carroll in his dissatisfaction with the cabalistic appointment of American bishops by Rome. He was so frustrated in the matter that at the point when both the important sees of Boston and New York were vacant and all sorts of power brokering was in process, he took the extraordinary step of placing a notice in his own weekly diocesan newspaper: TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY
AND LAITY OF THE UNITED STATES
England took extraordinary steps in making his diocese a model of American, and Catholic, democracy, but to appreciate them fully they must be seen against the background of the chaos and near-schism that he walked into in the Diocese of Charleston of 1820. As noted above, American Catholic Church historiography has been marred much more by the specter than the reality of "Trusteeism," which ever since has been used by bishops as a club to keep laity in submission. Recall: The laws of the new nation required that church property be placed in the possession of a lay corporation; in the early American Catholic churches this corporation was known as the trustees, and it operated much as was already the case in French Canada at that time. As noted, for the great majority of cases this system worked very well, but in a small minority of cases, partly because of a few manipulative, malcontent Irish priests and partly because of poor administrative tactics by several bishops, cases of serious open conflict between the bishop and the trustees of certain churches developed — in one case a young lawyer named Abraham Lincoln defended the trustees. Because of their notoriety these few cases attained more importance than they intrinsically merited, and the fumbling of the bishops only tended to exacerbate the problems. Charleston, North Carolina of 1820 was the scene of one of the longest, bitterest of these trustee conflicts. One might have expected that this situation would have forced a vigorous young bishop from outside of America to make authoritarian kinds of moves. Nothing, however, could have been farther from the truth with Bishop John England. His initial, and subsequent, actions were the very epitome of toleration, democracy, and voluntaryism. "For England, the evils of trusteeism were the result of the failure of proper constitutional provisions in the original trustee charters....England responded to the sources of these evils by creating his constitutional form of government." There were even precedents in American Catholic history preparing the way for Bishop England's idea of a constitution for the Catholic Church. Already in 1783, just ten years after the Jesuit Society was suppressed by the Pope, Father John Carroll, a former Jesuit, prompted initially by concern for the properties of the former Jesuit Society, formed a "Constitution for the Clergy," providing a number of checks and balances concerning the use of properties, reflecting republican ideals.[3] In addition, among some of the more reflective, knowledgeable trustees, there grew the notion that "clearly defined and published rights and duties within the church would avoid capriciousness in the exercise of ecclesiastical authority. Bishops and clergy...should govern by written law and by reason, not by will power."[4] Nevertheless few trustees actually put forward any concrete proposals for such written regulations or constitutions. The trustees of Norfolk Virginia were among those few. In 1817 they sent a delegate to Rome with a plan for a "Supreme Ecclesiastical Synodus" which should manage the affairs of the new diocese of Virginia. "The plan outlined in detail the rights and duties of people priests, and bishop in the new diocese, giving lay trustees significant powers on the diocesan as well as congregational levels of ecclesiastical government."[5] a) The Constitution As the first bishop of Charleston, however, John England was in a position not simply to propose, but to act, and he did just that. To begin with, he wrote a Constitution by which his vast mission diocese (comprised of the states of North and South Carolina and Georgia with perhaps only 1000 Catholics) was to be governed — a most extraordinary procedure, to say the least, especially in the time of the flood-tide of Reaction after the ebbing of the French Revolution and the defeat of Napoleon. He wrote that he had carefully studied the American Constitution, as well as other writings on the subject, and the laws and tradition of the Catholic Church, and was persuaded that his Constitution was in the best spirit of both Americanism and Catholicism. Just two years after he arrived in America he wrote to Cardinal Fontana in Rome when sending him a copy of his Constitution: Having paid great attention to the state of several Churches in America, and studied as deeply as I could the character of the government and the people, and the circumstances of my own flock, as well as the Canons and usages of the Roman Catholic Church, and having advised with religious men and Clergymen, and lawyers, I this day...published the Constitution by which the Roman Catholic Church under my charge is to be regulated, and I trust with the blessing of Heaven much disputation and Infidelity restrained. It was subscribed by the Clergy and by many well-disposed Laymen.[6] Only a few weeks after his arrival in Charleston and a strenuous pastoral journey through much of his mammoth diocese (twice the size of all Ireland), he wrote in his first Pastoral Letter: "And we ourselves have for a long time admired the excellence of your [American] Constitution."[7] Three years later, in 1824, writing to Rome, he stressed the importance of written laws in America and hence their importance for the healthy governance of American Catholicism: But the people desire to have the Constitution printed, so that they may have a standard by which they may be guided. I have learned by experience that the genius of this nation is to have written laws at hand, and to direct all their affairs according to them. If this be done, they are easily governed. If this be refused, a long and irremediable contention will ensue. By fixed laws and by reason much can be obtained, but they cannot be compelled to submit to authority which is not made manifest by law.[8] The Constitution laid out the rights and responsibilities of the several parties involved in the diocese: the laity, the clergy, the bishop. Moreover, the Constitution was not simply unilaterally declared in force by England. Rather, it was submitted for acceptance to every priest and all the leading laymen of the parishes for voluntary adoption; each new congregation, as it was formed, adopted it voluntarily. In fact, St. Mary's Church, the oldest church in the diocese and the one that had previously been involved in the bitter trustee dispute with Archbishop Maréchal of Baltimore, did not accept the Constitution until 1829, at which time their representatives at the annual Convention were warmly received. Until then, England was careful to let them make up their own minds. Furthermore, the Constitution itself included a procedure for amendments. Although, with the single exception of St. Mary's, England's Constitution quickly gained warm acceptance by his laity and clergy, it met with a very cold response by the other American bishops. At the First American Provincial Council of Baltimore, in 1829, which all the American bishops attended, it was rejected as unacceptable in the other dioceses, stating merely that, "by this decree we do not desire to interfere with the method which the Bishop of Charleston now follows in his diocese."[9] Indeed, England's Constitution stood in the way of his being recommended for the much more populous and important sees of Boston or New York. Bishop Patrick Kenrick of Philadelphia magnanimously wrote to Cardinal Cullen in Rome, in 1834, after the Second Provincial Council of Baltimore, that England was, Perfectly disgusted at the treatment he received at the last Council....Besides, Charleston diocese is not a fit theatre for a man of his splendid talents...and I would at any moment resign my mitre to make place for him. This I authorize you to communicate to the Sacred Congregation....I had proposed him for the administration of New York which most sadly needs an efficient Prelate, and in consequence of the entire unwillingness of Bp. Dubois I had offered my place in case I should be forced to put on the thorny crown of that diocese. The Archbishop had signified assent, provided the Constitution would be left behind; but now that hope vanishes.[10]
Somewhat earlier England and his Constitution had suffered the venom of the poison pen of Kenrick's predecessor, Bishop Conwell of Philadelphia, who, Father Andrew Greeley in his brilliant book The Catholic Experience says was, "In the process of making a complete fool of himself ... nevertheless had time to warn the Holy See that 'if this constitution or democratic method of ruling the Church be approved by the Holy See, it might become necessary to extend it to all the dioceses here; it would mean the quick collapse of the American Church.'" Greeley added: It never occurred to Conwell that such a democratic method might have saved his diocese from utter chaos. Later he wrote to Rome warning them once again that England was violating the most sacred of ecclesiastical traditions and was threatening the American Church with ruin.[11] England was convinced that despite the trustees' difficulties, it was far better that the Church and its clergy depend primarily on the Catholic people at large rather than the government-as it still is in many European countries, e.g., Germany. According to his Constitution each congregation elected representatives who were to constitute a Vestry. Then, also despite the trustee controversies, the Constitution provided that, "The churches, cemeteries, lands, houses, funds, or other property belonging to any particular district [here meaning parish], shall be made the property of the Vestry of that district, in trust for the same." All money belonging to the congregation could be "expended only by authority of an act of the Vestry of that district." At the same time the approval of the bishop was also required for the sale of any property. Thus, the key notions of the American constitution of "election of representatives," "separation of powers," and "checks and balances" were here incorporated into England's Constitution. In addition, the salary of the parish priest was also to be raised by the Vestry, but kept separate from the general funds so that no improper pressure could be levied on the pastor. The wisdom and practicality of this structure was demonstrated by the fact that it operated flawlessly for the twenty years of England's episcopacy.[12] b) Annual Convention A second critical element of the Constitution was the provision for annual diocesan Conventions for all the clergy, and a proportional representation of the laity from each congregation, elected by all the people. The Convention possessed certain decision-making powers parallel to those of each Vestry, such as control of the General Diocesan Fund (used for the seminary, schools, hospitals-all of which England started-widows and orphans and similar concerns). The Convention has a House of Clergy and a House of Laity. The lay house selected its members, elected its president and met on its own. No act of the Convention was valid unless a majority of clergy, a majority of laity, and the consent of the bishop are in harmony. If a majority of both houses disagreed with the bishop, delegates could appeal to Rome to have the bishop do what they wished. The bishop was required to make a full report on the expending of all funds to the Convention; England in fact did an exemplary job of this at every Convention. In addition, he took the opportunity to present an overview of the Church in all America as well as in his diocese at each Convention. Consequently his twenty-six Convention Addresses give a history of the Catholic Church in America for those years. Most importantly, it was through the Convention that the scattered Catholic churches began to grow together with a sense of unity and belonging to a larger church, a "catholic" Church, which was their Church where they had both rights and responsibilities. In the beginning years of his episcopate the Convention was legally incorporated in each of the three states and met accordingly. It was only in 1839 that the mission diocese had developed sufficiently to legally incorporate the Convention for all three states together so that there could be a single annual diocesan-wide Convention (twenty-six state Conventions were held between 1823 and 1839). The first General Convention of the diocese lasted for 7 days, with 16 priests and 30 laymen present as delegates; in 1840 there were almost double that number. The third Convention was scheduled for late in 1841, but was delayed because of England's extended mission in Europe. Then, early in 1842, he died, and with him his Convention, Constitution, and mostly everything else, it seemed, that made him great, for the small leaders who came after him could not match the stride of his footsteps. 4. Excursus: Canonization of St. John Carroll and St. John England Fortunately, at the beginning of the American Catholic Church there were two giants: Bishop John Carroll and Bishop John England. Unfortunately the subsequent U.S. bishops were insensitive regarding democratic election inside the Church. It would seem that, ordinarily, nothing can be done about this past. However, John Carroll and John England were not "ordinary" men, they were "extraordinary"! What do we Catholics do about our religious leaders who were truly extraordinary? We canonize them! We declare them to be outstanding models to be admired and emulated. Hence, I would like this evening to launch a double movement for the canonization of St. John Carroll and St. John England — not through the now highly politicized Roman process, but through the traditional process of proclamation by the faithful, the sensus fidelium! I urge each of us to think creatively about how we make these canonizations become real-through word of mouth, the internet, the news media, developing liturgies relating to them, insert them in study clubs… ARTICLE
NAVIGATION: You are presently looking at Part VI  Footnotes:
What are your thoughts on Dr Swidler's commentary? ©2007 Leonard Swidler |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
PREVIOUS
Dr
Leonard Swidler is Professor of Catholic Thought and Interreligious
Dialogue at Temple Univierty, Philadephia. He is also one of the
founders of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church
(ARCC) and its current president. With his wife, Arlene Anderson
Swidler, he has written and been published extensively over the
decades. Further information about their work can be found at: |
Catholica Australia |