www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Trusteeship

Friends,

I first heard of this controversy as it concerned, so I thought, Roman Catholic Churches in America. I've seen this issue raised several times recently as it concerns Greek Catholics. Can someone fill me in?

Someone even suggested that the recent scandals in the Church may be a strong motivation for a return to Trusteeship. The poster suggested that most local Churches would not tolerarate the scandals that the bishops have fousted upon the Church through Her priests. I'm not so confident but might we have a courteous conversation about trusteeship in the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Dan Lauffer

I'm not sure if a return to this style of government is the way to go. I'm also not sure if it could have prevented any of this horrible crap from happening. There are too many draw backs to this form of parish government....you gt cliques in control of a parish that will run things their way, even if it is contrary to the canons and tradition, you get parishes that refuse to obey their bishops and pastors when legitimately ordered to do so and you make it much easier to jurisdiction jump. That's the reason they were done away with here in the USA. A much better alternative is to have a real parish council, not comprised of "yes men/women", who are willing to actually do something and a bishop who will listen to what the parish councils have to say. And there is always the Apostolic Delegate if there are serious problems your bishop can't or won't deal with. That's what they are for! Moe

Not a good way to go... Looking from history, we would only exchange one set of problems for another.

There is another way.

Good or bad is a debatable point. I think most would agree abolishing trusteeship is a latinization which ended up with as many Greek Catholics becoming Orthodox as the married priest issue.

Axios

Was it primarily a Greek Catholic form of governance? Were there any Roman Catholic Churches involved.

I agree that there are many drawbacks to trusteeship. Moe, I like ideas.

The ideal, I guess, would be for the Church to remain primarily a spiritual organization so that political cliques, whether episcopal or lay, would not form. Then again, that may be too much to ask.

It does seem clear, as Father Loya pointed out this morning, that the evil being done is primarily a denial of the Lordship of Christ. (The Eastern Gospel was the story of Jesus driving the demons out of the madmen into the pigs.)

Dan Lauffer

Yes, it was tried in the Latin church in he USA and it caused the same problems I noted. Those cases went all the way to Rome and trusteeship was condemned. There were some parishes that Rome excommunicated...mostly German parishes in the PA area if I remember correctly...I will try to dig out my history of the Church in the USA and see if I can find the details. The trustee issue was another reason the Latin bishops distrusted us in the early part of the 1900's...they didn't like our married priests and the idea that parishes were ran by trustees and not bishops (remember at that time our parishes were under the local Latin bishops). This is one Pandora's box I don't think should be opened again. Moe

Moe,

Thank you for the information. I did know that we were under the authority of the local Latin Bishops but wasn't sure about some of the Latin Churches' involvement in trusteeship. I don't think we want to go there again either.

It is amazing to me that the Eastern Catholic Churches survived the first 1/2 of the last century. It would seem that God has an important work for us to do.

BTW We have had occasions when Orthodox congregations joined us for events and other times when Roman Catholic congregations have joined us. These have been glorious occasions. I don't think that we've ever had them together, however. I suspect that Father is working on that. Have you, or any other poster, had similar experiences?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

Here's a quick read on our early history in the US that discusses the trustee issue:

http://www.cin.org/clash16.html
through
http://www.cin.org/clash23.html

I think that trustee ownership of parish property is not our tradition; it arose in the US in association with peculiarities of our experience as immigrants without an established hierarch of "our own flesh and blood" I don't think that the efforts of Bishop Takach to address this problem can be thought of as a Latinization.

When the ownership of our church properties was contested in many parishes during the 1930s (and some even in the 40s and 60s), the civil courts usually ruled (correctly) that the Greek Catholic Church United With Rome was a hierarchical church and thus the property is ultimately the property of the bishop.

Those who did not agree with this decision were free to establish another church (independent cum Orthodox) of which they were owners and rulers. And they did. The Orthodox Church, at least in the USA, professes to be a hierarchical church, but in practice it is hardly so. We have not a few former Orthodox in our ranks (even among the clergy) who left Orthodoxy for precisely that reason. In fact, I've even heard them refer to Orthodoxy in the USA as "Byzantine Congregationalism" or "Byzantine Presbyterians."

Do we want to return to the days where the priest comes back to the rectory from dinner with his family (lucky as they were to be able to afford to eat out once in a while) and finds their belongings in the street, with the rectory and church door locks changed?

How about when the congregation refuses to pay the rectory heating bill during the wintertime?

Just curious. Do Byzantine Catholics normally have rectories? Our priests are expected to buy their own house.

Most all Byzantine Catholic and the great majority of Orthodox parishes in the US indeed have rectories or parish houses. In some jurisdictions however, it has become common in more recent times, for the congregation to encourage the priest and his family to buy their own house. In these instances, the priest still receives a "housing allowance" in lieu of an actual rectory house, which he is to apply to the purchase of a house for himself.

The aim here is at building "equity" and to ensure that in the case of the sudden death of a priest, his family would still have a home and not be forced to "fend for themselves" should the priest no longer be "employed" by the parish. It also looks to the eventual retirement of a priest from active ministry, in which case he and his wife would not have to suddenly look for a place to live, after many years of service to a particular community, as has happened in many instances.

Still another situation has occurred in many smaller or mission type parishes, where the congregation cannot support a full time pastor or housing for he and his family. In this situation, the priest serving the parish either lives at another, established church that has a rectory and serves two parishes and/or provides service to the small parish while taking many of the normal, day to day expenses of running a church on himself, usually by means of a secular job. The situation that many clergy find themselves in today, unfortunately often requires that one or more of the above "missionary" options are put into effect. Many sacrifices are made by good and dedicated priests, for the greater good of their parishioners and looking towards the future growth of a parish.

Fr. Joe

It is true that the issue of "trusteeship" also called the "curator system" among our people, was a major issue in the debates which occurred in the early 20th. century and which contributed to the large "exodus" to the Orthodox Church on the part of Ruthenian Greek Catholics. When Bishop Takach was appointed our bishop in 1924, the two main issues which Rome placed on his shoulders to rectify were (a) celibacy and (2) trusteeship. Both were very heated issues and placed the bishop almost immediately in a position for controversy and attack. His episcopal career was marked from the beginning, by these two matters which Rome and the RC American bishops found to be irreconcilable with the Catholic system. We all know the outcome of Bishop Takach's attempts to enforce the demands of the Holy See.

The existence of the trustee system among Roman Catholic parishes is far less widely known. Where it existed in the US, it centered primarily in those "ethnic" parishes, as Moe mentions, including German, Polish, Slovak and others. So little has been written on this situation among the RCs, that today few are aware that it was even an issue. It is true, that Rome both threatened and actualized to the Romans, the same penalty that would be applied to Bishop Takach in this regard, if he did not comply: excommunication from the Catholic Church.

That it was largely parishes in Pennsylvania (among other "working class" states) in which the trustee system was employed among Roman Catholics makes sense in that this area contained many "ethically-oriented" congregations. This is also a fact very little known today - that the Roman Church even had these ethnic parishes. Their existence was one of the concerns of the so-called "Americanism movement" among whose chief advocates was John Ireland, Archbishop of Minneapolis-St. Paul. This is the same Archbishop Ireland who set the stage and was responsible for the negative reception received by our priests by himself and many other Roman hierarchs. The incident between the Archbishop and Father Alexis Toth is well-known and the result even more widely publicized.

"Americanism" was a complex set of opinions in the early days of Catholicism in the US that would be too lengthy to expound upon here. It will suffice to say that this philosophy, besides making it easier for non-Catholics to convert to the Catholic faith, aimed at integrating Catholic Americans, many of whom were recent immigrants, into every day life in the USA and to removing some of the anti-Catholic bias that was rampant at the time, due to misconceptions about the "loyalty" of these new Americans to the concepts of liberty, freedom and capitalism that were and are the main components of our American system.

In relation to our churches though, the phenomenon of Americanism purported, among other things, that in order to become accepted into the mainstream of American society, Roman Catholic parishes were to adopt an "all-American" style of operation and pastors were to encourage their parishioners to become "invisible" among their fellow-Americans, their neighbors and co-workers. The implementation of this idea was achieved by limiting any extra-liturgical or para-liturgical services and prayers to the English language; (the Mass was in Latin, so that was ok), discouraging particularly ethnic or European traditions (such as blessing Easter food, homes, Holy Week observances, etc.), in favor of a more generic "American" style; and the closing or integration of any parishes founded along ethnic lines of demarcation. Another aim of the "Americanism" philosophy was naturally to confine and discontinue any parishes which operated along the style of the trustee system, since these, although similar to the methods used in many American Protestant congregations, limited the control of the hierarchy, which was counter-productive to enforcing the aims of "Americanism."

The existence of Greek Catholic churches, liturgically and canonically different from those of the Roman Church were a most pointed "thorn in the side" of the American RC bishops who were on a campaign to fully integrate their flocks into a predominantly Protestant American society. To these RC prelates, Greek Catholic churches had to be eliminated at all costs. It was their hope that by severely limiting the progress and development of Greek Catholicism in the US, their prayers would be answered that, "This sect will die." See instruction given by Bishop Ignatius Hortsmann, auxiliary of Philadelphia to faithful of his Archdiocese, cited in John Slivka, "Historical Mirror." In relation to the existence of parishes of the Greek Rite in their area, the bishop directs the faithful to offer prayers and devotions that, "This sect will die."

Pope Leo XIII, in 1899, made some condemnations of the ideas of "Americanism" in the encyclical, Testem Benevolente Nostrae. It can be viewed at the following link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13TESTE.HTM

An interesting point of history struck me as I was reading Moe's response to this post. For those interested in NYC and its history and churches, the problem of trusteeship was responsible for the foundation of one of the most popular churches in New York and even around the world. The Church of St. Francis of Assisi, located on W. 31st. St. between 6th. and 7th. Aves. was established by a German-Franciscan priest, who was previously the pastor of another popular church, that of St. John the Baptist, located on the next block of the same street (between 7th. and 8th.). St. John's, founded by German immigrants, was placed under ecclesiastical interdict by the Archbishop of New York precisely because of the issue of the trustee system. Since the parish council of St. John's was at odds with the bishop, he refused to allow the Mass to be offered in St. John's and removed the pastor. Without a church to celebrate in and with parishioners deprived of the sacraments, the Franciscan pastor organized the Church of St. Francis of Assisi at a nearby location, also with a primarily German foundation of parishioners.

The interdict at St. John's did not last long, but the existence of two separate parishes for the same community became a lasting reality, in what was to become the busiest section of NYC. Located near Herald Square (a major subway hub), Penn Station (the LIRR, Amtrak, NJ Transit, PATH), the Empire State Building, and countless shopping and office attractions, today, both churches are active "commuter parishes" or "service churches", meeting the liturgical, devotional and sacramental needs of the thousands of commuters who pour into this part of Manhattan on a daily basis. Additionally, they also sponsor and participate in numerous social-justice type programs serving the needs of the Midtown community in which they're located. Both continue to be served by Franciscan clergy, St. John's by the Capuchin Friars of St. Mary Province (OFM Cap) and St. Francis by the Franciscan Friars of Holy Name Province (OFM).

While the community at St. John's may have to work hard to make ends meet to a certain degree, it is still a busy place, across from Madison Square Garden & Penn Station, with six daily masses and additional devotions, prayers groups and activities. The Church of St. Francis of Assisi is among the most crowed and popular churches in the Roman Catholic world. With at least thirteen masses daily and numerous devotions, confessions and daily visits, St. Francis serves the community in a way not possible in most other parishes. The level of piety visible at the church, from people of all walks of life, coupled with the amount of outreach to the local community and its needs (food programs, counseling, service to the elderly, immigrants, poor, and much more) is inspiring to see in action. Would that all of our parishes were so active, both spiritually and socially.

From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some "Americanism." . . . For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world. - Leo XIII on "Americanism."

I wanted to give a little bit of background on the subject of the trustee system as it relates to both RC and our parishes, and to provide an interesting historical outcome of the debate between the RC bishops and the proponents of trusteeism, for all those who know and love the City of New York. God bless you all.

Fr. Joe

[ 06-24-2002: Message edited by: Fr. Joe ]

For my contribution to this interesting thread, I concur that trusteeism is not a tradition in the sense that it was brought over from the old country. But, a reading of PA parish histories bears out this common story: Small groups of recently settled faithful gathered in homes or rented halls to pray the prayer life they knew and loved. What they needed for a full sacramental parish life was a "lowerarch," i.e., a priest, so they set out to retain one by way of requests, ads, invitations addressed to the old country, whatever. The identity of "hirers of priests" remained with the lay "founders" of the parish. When a hierarchy finally was set up in America by Rome, the task of extracting the charters from each parish was never easy.
I am given to understand that the trustee system developed among the Roman Catholics as a way of being "democratically American," but this was trumped by an even deeper sense of Catholic obedience, so the RC bishops had a comparatively easier time of it when calling in the deeds.

This is the historical reading given to me by a Ruthenian priest who served a "committee parish."

Comments, corrections, anyone?


Just and ordinary kind of fool.

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

Many of us Orthodox do see it as part of our traditions. Old World or New World, the principle was consistent. In the Old World, the Czar or civil ruler (representing the laity) had "trustteship" over the Church's temporal goods. In the New World, teh lay power was invested in the congregation, but in both Old and New, it was lay control.

Axios

"Many of us Orthodox do see it as part of our traditions. Old World or New World, the principle was consistent. In the Old World, the Czar or civil ruler (representing the laity) had "trustteship" over the church's temporal goods. In the New World, teh lay power was invested in the congregation, but in both Old and New, it was lay control."
Axios,

Thank you for your reply. In most cases, though, the civil ruler in no way "represented the laity."
He represented nothing but his own personal whims. The will of the peasant faithful he could care less about. To suggest the Czar himself, though a layperson, "represented" the laity is an excercise in sheer monarchist romanticism.
If indeed "Many of us Orthodox do see it as part of our traditions," I would recommend a sober rethinking of the whole issue among you. I know a few Orthodox priests who would urge likewise.

Respectfully submitted,
durak the fool.

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

The fact that the tsar or emperor or whatever civil authority was in power, also had control over the parish churches' temporal goods, demonstrates yet again how these often "foreign" powers attempted to manipulate our people. Far from a likeness to the situation in this country, where the parish committees or "upravas" had the direct responsibility for ensuring the ongoing welfare of the parishes, making sure that all matters temporal were provided for, including the upkeep of the church buildings, the salary of the priest and cantor, improvements and advancements of the church in the material realm (schools, new churches, rectories, etc.), that members kept up to date with their stewardship (dues, weekly and special contributions, etc.) and much more, the civil powers in Europe cannot always be said to have had the same concerns. Moreover, it was easy for a temporal ruler to keep control over his/her subjects when their very existence depended on that ruler's benevolence.

That the Orthodox Church was directly supported by the state in countries such as Russia, up to and including the Soviet period, is evident in the mentality of the church even today. As an official "state religion" Orthodoxy had the comfort of a captive audience in regards to membership and the control exercised by the state over the church was easily translated a step further, to that of the hierarchy over the uneducated and manipulated laity. Besides creating an oppressive atmosphere all around, this comfortable arrangement also stymied any great evangelical zeal that those churches would have otherwise have had to maintain in order to keep people in the church. The effects of this arrangement can be seen today in the mentality of the Russian Church, which clearly wishes to remain the one and only source of spiritual edification in the country.

Of course, a similar situation can be said to have existed in those officially Roman Catholic countries, where the Latin monarchs acted much in the same way as those in Orthodox states.

In the case of our people in the Carpathian mountain region of then Austria Hungary, our bishops had their hands full merely trying to get the support due the clergy and parishes out of the then-called "religious fund." Being "second class" citizens, both of the empire and the Catholic Church, "the powers that were" did not easily relinquish any extra funds to our people. The bishops had to appeal time and again to the government at Budapest, in order for our clergy to be on the payroll and our church buildings and institutions supported in the manner that the Roman ones were. Eventually, this arrangement was secured through repeated efforts of our hierarchy.

So to say that the tradition of lay leadership in Orthodoxy in both the old and new countries is consistent, is to over simplify the issue and to look at it simultaneously from two different perspectives. As difficult as the trustee system has often been for our clergy and parishes, I think it is fair to say that the interests of particular congregations were met with a far greater amount of concern than in the days when the churches were directly supported by civil rulers, often far withdrawn from the experiences of the "common people in the pews."

Fr. Joe

Oh yeah, what Fr. Joe just said.

Here is an interesting commentary on "trusteeism" from the perspective of the OCA, taken from the history section of their website:
__________________

The creation of "new immigrant" parishes was independent of any ecclesiastical assistance and, in many cases, even formal hierarchical approval. The experience of a New Britain (Connecticut) parish was typical:

In Russia only the Tsar builds churches. How can you build a church in America?" questioned one immigrant. So the brotherhood devised the following plan. First each of them placed $5 on a table; then the new immigrant was asked to do the same. The new man was then asked to select one of his own friends as treasurer for the money, holding it in trust until such time as it would be needed. Using this approach, the Brotherhood found and attracted many. [2]

The parish churches that resulted from the efforts of these local brotherhoods were responsible only to their own "trustees," that is, to a democratically elected parish council composed of prominent laymen. In most instances it was only after purchase (or less often, construction) of a building that the trustees turned to a bishop for a priest.

Unlike other Eastern European Catholic immigrants (Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, etc.), Uniate Slavs could not easily merge into the Roman Catholic Church in America. Seeking to forestall a resurgence of "Cahenslyism" -- a 19th century lay movement in American Roman Catholicism that demanded that priests and bishops be of the same ethnic background as their parishioners -- the Catholic bishops in the United States openly sought to discourage the establishment of specifically Uniate (Greek Catholic) parishes. Largely ignorant of the historical, cultural, linguistic, and liturgical particularities of the Uniate Church, the Catholic bishops preferred that Uniate "new immigrants" attend instead existing Latin-Rite Hungarian, Polish, or Slovak parishes.

This general hierarchal antipathy was exacerbated by the reluctance, and often refusal, of Uniate "trustees" to sign over their new parish properties to Irish-American bishops as required by Roman Catholic canon law. Lawsuits, forced evictions, and even occasional rioting were not uncommon as "independent" Uniate parishes, led by their trustees, struggled with authoritarian, and increasingly hostile, Latin-rite Catholic bishops for control of Greek-Catholic properties and assets throughout the United States.

_________________

Across the board, trusteeism in our early history is well documented and in general agreement. I thought that some might appreciate this evaluation of the situation from a source outside of our church, as it relates to the topic here.

Fr. Joe

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: Fr. Joe ]

Fr. Joe,

I have heard it said that one of the contributing factors in the founding of the Polish National Catholic Church was the issue of lay ownership of Church property and control of parish finances. In your studies have you come across any information that supports such a claim?

Thanks again for sharing your wealth of knowledge and your wisdom with us here.

Steve

Dear Steve:

Thank you for your kind words. They really mean a lot to me.

Regarding the Polish National Catholic Church, I have not studied its particulars that much, but I believe that you are most likely correct in your estimation that trusteeism, which was prevalent in "ethnic" parishes was one of the factors in the formation of the PNCC.

Some other issues may well have been married clergy and the make-up of the episcopacy, but I'm not certain.

Good point and an insightful contribution.

Fr. Joe