F. X. von (Franz Xaver) Funk.

A manual of church history (Volume 2) online

. (page 22 of 34)
Online LibraryF. X. von (Franz Xaver) FunkA manual of church history (Volume 2) → online text (page 22 of 34)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

ftanding, there broke out in 1792 a regular war, the cost of
i\hich was to be borne mainly by the German Church. After
preliminary discussions at the peace of Basel between Prussia
and France (1795), and at the peace of Campo Formio (1797)
between France and the German emperor, the w^hole left bank
of the Rhine, by the peace of Luneville (1801), was definitively
ceded to France on the understanding (Art. VII) that the
hereditary princes, whose provinces were confiscated, should
receive compensation out of the imperial lands. In the event,
however, the decision was carried out in a spirit contrary to
the tenor of the article in question. By decree of the Imperial
Deputation meeting at Ratisbon in 1803 (35), ' all properties
belonging to pious foundations, abbeys, and monasteries were

' H. Bruck, Gesch. der hath. Kirche im 19 Jahrh. 4 vol. 2nd ed. 1901 ff. ;
O. Meier, Zur Gesch. d. romisch-deutschen Frage, 3 vol. 2nd ed. 1885; L.
KoNiG, Die Sakidarisation tind das Reichskonkordat, 1904 ; J. Rinieri, //
congrfsso di Vienna e la S. Sede (1813-15), 1004; Civiltd cattolica, 1905; G.
GoYAU, L' Allemagne religieuse ; Le Catholicisme (1800-^8), 2 vol. 1905. The
Bull.'; and decrees spoken of in this and following section will be found in
MiJNCH (cp. § 199^ ; Phillips, KR. vol. III. ; Walter, Pontes inris eccles. 1862 ;
Nussi, Conventiones, 1870 ; Ph. Schneider, Die partik. Kirchenrechtsqiiellen in
Peutschland u. Osterreich, 1898.

The Church's Losses in Germany 217

placed at the free disposal of their respective princes, for them
to use either for maintenance of public worship, for the support
of educational or other establishments of public utility, or for
the relief of their finances.' ^ A result of this measure was
that all the spiritual principalities were abolished, with the
exception of two which, on personal grounds, were allowed to
survive, though they, too, were overtaken by the fate of the
others a few years later; the two in question were the territories
belonging to the Teutonic knights, the grand master being at
the time the archduke Anton Victor, and the diocese of Ratisbon,
which was erected into an archdiocese and bestowed on the
arch-chancellor Dalberg in compensation for the archbishopric
of Mainz (1805). The domains of the bishops and the
properties of the chapters and monasteries were everywhere
seized, save only in Austria, where the emperor Francis II
refused to take advantage of the right conferred by the Im-
perial Deputation, and contented himself with uniting to his
hereditary domains properties possessed by the mediatised
archbishoprics of Trent and Brixen. The loss to the Church
on both sides of the Rhine has been reckoned as amounting to
1719 square (German) miles, with 3,162,576 inhabitants, and
a revenue (exclusive of that of the monasteries) of 21,026,000
florins.^ On the other hand, the princes undertook to provide
for the support of the injured parties and for the ecclesiastical
needs of their states.

Now that the Church throughout Germany had lost all her
possessions, save those belonging to the parishes and lower
offices, now, too, that vast changes had occurred in the terri-
torial division of the country, a reorganisation of the Church
had become a pressing need. Bavaria, which under Maxi-
milian Joseph (1799-1825) and the minister Montgelas had
forsaken mediaeval methods of government and adopted the
constitution of a modern state, was the first, soon after the
peace of Luneville, to open negotiations in view of a Concordat.
Rome preferred, however, to await overtures from the Empire
rather than enter into agreements with the separate states.
On the downfall of the German Empire in 1806, Napoleon,

' Walter, Pontes, pp. 138-86.

- Kluber, Vhersicht der diplom. Verhandlnngen des Wiener Kongresses,
1816, p. 404.

2i8 A Manual of Church History

moreover, conceived the idea of obtaining a Concordat for the
whole Confederation of the Rhine. Under these circumstances
neither Bavaria nor Wiirttemberg, which, in 1807, had like-
wise opened negotiations with Rome, were able to secure
what they desired. In the event neither Rome's project nor
the French emperor's was to be realised, the Pope's captivity
bringing the proceedings to a lengthy standstill. As new
territorial changes were, moreover, constantly being made, for
instance, by the peace of Pressburg (1806) and the peace of
Vienna (i8og), the time was not yet come for a definitive

At the Congress of Vienna (1814-15), at which finally the
political relations of Europe were settled anew, the re-establish-
ment of the previous state of things, so far as church property
was concerned, was advocated by cardinal Consalvi and the
representatives of the former ecclesiastical princes. Their
efforts were, however, in vain owing to the lands being already
in the possession of others. Another motion which failed to
find approval was that of Dalberg, or rather of his representa-
tive, the vicar-general of Constance, baron von Wessenberg,
that a Concordat should be entered into for the whole of
Germany. The only decision of the Congress touching religious
matters was contained in Article XVI of the Act of Alliance, by
which the civil equality, which had already been secured by
several of the German States either through the free-will of their
princes, or the pressure of Napoleon, was given to all religious
denominations throughout the German confederation.

This being so, it only remained for each State to regulate
its own church matters. Bavaria 1 was the first to come to an
arrangement with Rome, The Concordat of 1817 ensured
to the Catholic Church throughout the kingdom the retention
of all the rights and prerogatives founded on its Divine constitu-
tion and on Canon Law (Art. I). The country was divided into
two church provinces, Augsburg, Ratisbon, and Passau being
assigned as suffragan sees to the archbishopric of Munich-
Freising, and those of Wiirzburg, Eichstatt, and Spires to that
of Bamberg (Art. II) . The king. Max Joseph I, and his Catholic
successors were to have the right of nominating the bishops, and
the Holy See that of conferring canonical institution (Art. IX),

' H. von SiCHERER, Slaat u. K. in Bayern, 1799-1821, 1874.

Agreements between Church and State 219

the bishops being granted freedom in the government of their
dioceses so far as spirituahties were concerned (Art. XII).
The agreement was pubHshed in the form of an appendix to the
rehgious Edict of 1818, which supplemented the constitution of
the kingdom, this plan being adopted, both to safeguard the
sovereignty of the State and to spare the susceptibilities of
the Protestants, who fancied that their rights were endangered
by Article I. The matter was, however, not yet over. As
the Edict, conformably with the new condition of things, but
contrary to the demands of Canon Law, granted general
freedom of conscience (i), pohtical and civil equality to the
three chief Christian denominations of the country (24),
besides asking of them that they should treat each other with
mutual consideration (80), &c., great discontent was excited
at Rome, whilst in Bavaria many of the clergy refused to take
unconditionally the constitutional oath. In process of time the
ApostoHc See decided not indeed to approve, but at least to
tolerate the measures adopted, and peace was finally restored to
the country by the royal declaration made at Tegernsee (1821) ;
that the constitution was not intended to do violence to the
conscience of anyone, that the constitutional oath concerned
only civil matters, and that the Concordat was part of the law
of the State and was accordingly to be considered and executed
as such.

With Prussia, which through the conquest of Silesia and
the division of Poland had already some time before gained
several Catholic provinces to the East, and which had since
through the new treaties increased its CathoHc population to
the West also, negotiations were opened by Pius VII. The
result was a convention between the Pope and Frederick
William III, which was published by the Bull De salute anima-
rum (1821). It sanctioned the estabhshment of the church
provinces of Cologne, with the bishoprics of Treves, Miinster,
and Paderborn, and of Gnesen-Posen, with that of Kulm, as
well as the two exempt bishoprics of Breslau and Ermeland.
The election of the bishops was to devolve on the cathedral
chapters, the latter being warned in the Brief Quod de fidclmm
to elect only such as were pleasing to the king.

In the kingdom of Hanover, afterwards to be incorporated
(1866) with Prussia, the Bull Impensa Romanorum (1824)

220 A Manual of Church History

re-established the old bishoprics of Hildcsheim and Osnabriick
and declared them exempt. The crown also obtained the
so-called Irish veto, i.e. the right of removing from the list
of candidates any persons obnoxious to the government,
provided always that a sufficient number of candidates was
left to render a choice possible.

The Catholics of south-western Germany, i.e. of Wiirttemberg,
Baden, and Hessen-Darmstadt, as well as of the former States
of Hesse, Nassau, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, Hechingen,
and Frankfort, were constituted by the Bull of circumscription,
Provida solersqiie (1821), into the church province of the Upper
Rhine,^ having its metropolis at Freiburg, with bishoprics at
Mainz, Rottenburg, Fulda and Limburg. The condition of the
Church in these regions was further regulated by the Bull Ad
dominicigregis custodiam of 1827 and a Brief Re sacra published
at the same time. The latter gives the canons the same instruc-
tions as those conveyed to the Prussians by the Brief Quod de
fidelium, whilst the Bull itself grants the governments the Irish

Catholics dwelling in the other states were either placed
under the administration of neighbouring dioceses, or under the
jurisdiction of Vicars-Apostolic. The grand-duchy of Oldenburg, for
instance, was placed, in 1831, under the bishop of Miinster, though
a special vicariate was established at Vechta. A Vicariate-Apostolic
was estabhshed for the kingdom of Saxony in 1816. Upper Lusatia
was governed by the dean of Bautzen, a dependency of Prague.
Subsequently to 1830 it became the rule to nominate to this
position the Vicar-Apostolic of Dresden, the ecclesiastical control
of the whole of the countrj^ thus coming into the hand of one person.

§ 201

Church Matters in Germany and Austria-Hungary, 1830-70 2

The arrangements detailed in the previous section by no
means served to settle church matters in Germany to the
satisfaction of all concerned. In the province of the Upper

^ J. LoNGNER, Beitrdge zur Gesch. d. Oberrhein. Kirchenprovim, 1863 ;
Bruck, Die Oberrhein. Kirchenprov . 1868.

- Bruck, Gesch. d. k. K. im 19 /. § 200 ; H. Maas, Gesch. d. k. K. im
Grossherzogium Baden, 1891 ; Pfulf, Kardinal von Geissel, 2 vol. 1895-96 ;
Bischo/ V. Ketteler, 1899 ; Golther, Der Staat u. d. k. K. in Wiirttemberg,
1874 ; H. A. Krose, Konfessionsstatistik Deittschlands , . . im 19 Jahrh. 1904.

Mixed Marriages 221

Rhine, the states were bent on governing the Church themselves
instead of allowing it to be governed by its lawful superiors,
and, even in opening negotiations with Rome, their aim was
not so much to come to real understanding as to hoodwink the
Holy See. They accordingly refused to latify the last two
(V-VI) Articles of the Bull Ad dominici gregis custodiam — ■
which dealt with the training of the clergy according to the
prescriptions of the Council of Trent, with freedom of inter-
course with Rome, and episcopal jurisdiction iuxta canones nunc
vige?ites et praesenteni ecclesiae disciplinam — and in 1830 they
pubHshed a decree in thirty-nine Articles, much of which was
at variance with the Bull. Among other things it was enacted
that all ecclesiastical ordinances, even those dealing with
matters which concerned the Chur-ch only, were to be subject
to the Placet of the State, and that the presentation to livings,
whether the sees were vacant or occupied, was to devolve on
the sovereigns as a part of their right of majesty. Proceedings
such as these could not be allowed to pass unchallenged, and
the Holy See accordingly rejected the thirty-nine Articles by
the Brief Pervenerat (1830). From time to time, in Parliament
and elsewhere, zealous Catholics raised their voices in protest
against the state of subjection in which the Church was kept,
though with very little result. The governments were all
the less disposed to change their methods, seeing that a large
portion of the clergy were on their side, and that most of the
bishops weie apathetic. Only in the electorate of Hesse,
where both bishop and cathedral chapter assumed a more
energetic attitude, was some account made of the Church's

Especially disagreeable to the Chuich were the encroach-
ments of the State in the matter of mixed marriages, which
was soon to excite a great conflict in Piussia. According to the
declaration of 1803 ' legitimate children were to be invariably
brought up in the religion of the father,' and neither party
was ' to obhge the other to depart from this enactment
as by law estabhshed.' The law was first enforced in the
eastern provinces, and mixed marriages were accordingly
celebrated there unconditionally. When, however, the decree
was extended to the western provinces (1825), it encountered
great opposition. The clergy in the Rhinelands and Westphalia

222 A Manual of Church History

refused to bless mixed marriages except on the condition that
the children were brought up in the Catholic Faith, and their
conduct found approval at Rome. The Brief Litteris altero
ahhinc (1830) gave the decision that, in mixed marriages where
the parties refused to educate their offspring in the Catholic
Faith, the priest could only assist passively, i.e. was in
other words to refuse the nuptial blessing. Even so, the
Prussian government refused to withdraw its decree, and as
the bishops were disposed to yield, it seemed for a time that
the government would have its own way. Count Spiegel,
archbishop of Cologne, was persuaded by von Bunsen, the
Prussian minister at Rome, to issue a Convention (1834),
which, while purporting to explain the Brief, really twisted it
into an approval of the practice which had been condemned ;
and this Convention received the approbation of his suffragans
also. A change was not, however, long in coming. Spiegel's
successor, archbishop Clement Augustus von Droste-Vischering
(1835-45), took the Brief for his line of conduct, and the con-
stancy with which, in spite of all cajolements and threats, he
refused to execute the Convention and continued to manifest
when he was accused of treason (1837) and carried off to the
fortress of Minden, did much to put heart into the Catholics.
Not only did the suffragans recall their subscriptions to the
Convention, but even the bishops of the eastern provinces
pronounced in favour of the Brief. The only exception was
the prince-bishop of Breslau, count Sedlnitzky, who was,
however, soon compelled to resign (1840) and afterwards
became a convert to Protestantism (1863). Among other
bishops who had to suffer persecution was the archbishop of
Gnesen-Posen, Martin von Dunin, who was also condemned to
imprisonment at a fortress. The government soon proved
more amenable. Frederick William III himself gave way to
some extent. The clergy were permitted to make private
inquiries beforehand regarding the education proposed for
the children, and the decision as to the wedding was to be
reserved to the judgment of the bishop. His son and successor,
Frederick WilHam IV (1840-61), being a more religious-minded
man than his father, and being animated by kindlier feelings
towards Catholicism, went still further on the path of concilia-
tion. He not only withdrew the decrees which grieved the

Difficulties in Southern Germany 223

consciences of his Catholic subjects, but he restored one of
the banished archbishops to his fold, and appointed Clement
Augustus (t 1845) a coadjutor, with right of succession in the
person of John Geissel, bishop of Spires. Justice was also
done to the Church in other respects. Episcopal intercourse
with Rome, which up to then had always taken place through
the intermediate of the State, was now set free of this restraint
(1841), and to advise the government in church matters a
Catholic as well as a Protestant department was created at
the ministry of public worship. Finally, by the constitution
of 1848 (1850) independence of government was assured to
both Catholic and EvangeHcal Churches (§15).

Whilst in Prussia matters were already mending, in central
and southern Germany they continued as they were, the
marriage question causing trouble here also. The motion
which was brought in at the Wiirttemberg house of representa-
tives by Keller, bishop of Rottenburg (1841), and which
demanded for the Church the exercise of that autonomy
which had been granted by the constitution, was of little avail.
Measures of a more energetic character were required to free
the Church from the thraldom of the State. So far the bishops
had fought their cause singly, now they determined on united
action, the determination coinciding with the revolutionary
year of 1848. In the autumn of that year the whole German
episcopate met in conference at Wiirzburg, under the pre-
sidency of archbishop Geissel of Cologne. Soon after (1850)
the bishops of the province of the Upper Rhine assembled at
Freiburg, and drew up a memorandum to the governments in
which was asserted, among other things, the right of the bishops
to educate and appoint their clergy, to take their own dis-
ciplinary measures, to erect schools, to control the conduct of
their flocks, and to administer the belongings of the Church
(1851). As the reply of the governments was considered-
unsatisfactory, a new meeting was held at Freiburg and a new I
memorandum presented (1853). At the same time the bishops^-, f
began to take the law into their own hands and to make us6 ■ I
in practice of the rights withheld from them. As the govern- /
ments were, however, in no mood to make concessions, the
bishops' action only sharpened the conflict.. The archbishop
of Freiburg was placed under police supervision, and finally

224 ^ Manual of Church History

imprisoned. At the same time the protests of the Catholics
had made some impression on the governments, and soon after
they consented to come to terms. Wiirttemberg and Baden
concluded Conventions with Rome in 1857 and 1859 respec-
tively, whilst in 1854 Hessen-Darmstadt, and in 1861 Nassau
made their arrangements directly with the bishops of Mainz
and Limburg. The two Conventions were, however, rejected
by the Estates, and the matter had ultimately to be decided
by ministerial decree, 1 though with very different results in
either country. In Wiirttemberg so great was the success of
the new measure (1862) that the country has enjoyed rehgious
peace ever since. In Baden, on the other hand, new conflicts
broke out. The death of H. von Vicari (1868), archbishop of
Freiburg, was even followed by an interregnum of fourteen
years. In Hesse the Convention was so violently opposed
that it was voluntarily withdrawn by W. E. von Ketteler,
bishop of Mainz (1866).

Bavaria had at first followed the bad example set by
her neighbours, and, contrary to the Concordat of 1817,
had greatly interfered with the government of the Church,
Ludwig I (1825-48) ^ showed, however, greater friendhness.
He allowed the bishops free access to Rome (1841), erected a few
monasteries, and manifested his religious dispositions and his
love of art in a series of ecclesiastical buildings, some of them
restorations and others entirely new. After his abdication the
episcopate appealed on two occasions to his son Maximilian II
(1848-64), and some, though not all, of its demands were
ultimately accorded.-^

In Austria * the fetters which had been fixed on the Church
in the eighteenth century were, in the main, burst only in 1848.
A few of the Josephite enactments had, however, been with-
drawn previously, Leopold II (1790-92), for instance, having
again estabhshed diocesan seminaries instead of the hated
central seminaries. In 1850 the Placet was aboHshed by the
emperor Francis Joseph, the bishops also receiving freedom

' Bruck, Oberrhein. Kirchenprov. p. 561 ff.

- Mg. by Sepp, 1869 ; 2nd ed. 1903 ; Heigel, 1872.

•' Systematische Zusammenstellung der Verhandlungen des bayrischen
Episkopats mit der k. b. Staatsregierung von 1850 bis 1889 uber den Vollzug des
Konkordats, Freiburg, 1905.

-* J. Beidtel, Unteh. iiber die kircJil. Znstdnde in den k. osterreichischen
Staaien, 1849.

The Church in Switzerland 225

of intercourse with Rome, and the acknowledgment of their
right to control discipline and to regulate the public worship.
On the other hand, the Concordat entered into \vith Rome, in
1855, "^^3-3 not of long duration. After it had been to some
extent damaged by legislation in 1868, it was, on account of
the Vatican decrees (1870), formally revoked and replaced by
a special law governing the external relations of Church and
State (May 7, 1874). ^

The population of the German Empire in 1900 (December i)
was 56,367,178 ; of these 35,231,104 were Evangelicals, 20,321,441
Roman Catholics, and 586,833 were Jews. Cp. Statistik des
Dentschen Reiches, vol. 150 (1903), p. 105. Austria, in 1900, on
a total population of 26| millions, had 20,661,000 Latin Catholics,
3,134,000 Uniate Greeks, 607,000 non-Uniates, 494,000 Protestants,
1,225,000 Jews. In Hungar}^ in 1902, the population of 19J millions
was divided into 10,179,035 Latin Catholics, 1,893,410 Uniates,
2,863,095 non-Uniates, 3,796,881 Protestants, 69,499 Unitarians,
875,431 Jews, &c. Cp. O. HiJBNER, Geogr. Tabellen, 1904, pp. 33-36.

§ 202

The Church in Switzerland^

The French Revolution was not without consequences
in Switzerland. The temporary annexation of Geneva to
France led to the restoration of Catholic worship in Calvin's
own city after an interruption of more than two centuries and
a half. By the congress of Vienna the same city was granted
some twenty Cathohc rural parishes, with the result that
the Catholic population of the canton was notably increased.
The changes occurring in Germany also had an effect on
Switzerland. The Swiss portion of the diocese of Constance
was detached (1814) from the German, that it might escape the
reforms of the vicar-general von Wessenberg, and the separa-
tion was soon consummated by the abolition of the bishopric

^ On the present relations between State and Church in Austria-Hungary,
see Vering, KR. 2nd ed. pp. 106-56.

- Rheinwald, Acta hist. eccl. saec. XIX (1835-37) ; Kath. Schweizer
Blatter, 1885, p. 27 ff. ; Rolfus-Sickinger, Kirchengeschichtliches in chrono-
logischer Feihenfolge, 3 vol. 1877-82 ; Woeste, Hist, du Culturkampf en
Suisse, 1887 ; Peri, La questtone diocesana Ticenese, 1892 ; A. Buchi, Die
hath. Kirche in der Schweiz, 1902.


226 A Manual of Church History

itself. The Swiss portion of the territory was first placed
under a Vicar-Apostolic and, later on, was divided between
the sees of Chur (1823), Basel-Solothurn, and the newly
erected diocese of St. Gall (1845). According to the new
arrangement (1828), the diocese of Basel was to comprise
the cantons of Basel, Bern, Solothurn, Lucern, Zug, Aargau,
and Thurgau.

Though, to begin with, the Church enjoyed peace, this
state of things did not last long. In the canton of Aargau
{1841) she lost all. her rehgious houses with the exception
of three convents of women, which were re-established owing
to the displeasure of the people at the arbitrary measure.
No sooner had Lucern (1844) allowed the Jesuits to establish
a settlement in the canton than it was invaded by a Free
Corps, and, on the Catholic cantons forming a defensive
alliance, there broke out the Sonderbund war in which
the Catholics were utterly defeated (1847). Marilley, bishop
of Lausanne, having ventured to protest against the laws
of the cantons which formed his diocese, was banished for
nearh^ eight years (1848). The Vatican Council furnished
an occasion for new persecutions, particularly at Geneva
and in the diocese of Basel. When the former canton was
separated from the diocese of Lausanne and erected into
a Vicariate- Apostolic (1873), bishop Mermillod, the occupant
of the new see, was forthwith driven into exile, and the
Catholic churches were handed over to the Old Catholics. For
having threatened censure to those of his clergy who refused

Online LibraryF. X. von (Franz Xaver) FunkA manual of church history (Volume 2) → online text (page 22 of 34)