Science and Catholicism in the Universities of South-East Europe: 1800 to 1920 (South-East European History) [New ed.] 1636671527, 9781636671529

Citation preview

Science and Catholicism in the Universities of South-East Europe 1800 to 1920

Edited by Ana Biocˇ ic´ and Iva Mršic´ Felbar

This edited collection sheds new light on the complex dialogue between religion and science which played out at universities in South-East Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries. This discourse took place against a backdrop of great political, cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity, as well as the long-term transition from Habsburg rule to new nation states. The book’s contributors—an international team of scholars with a wide range of expertise—delve into a range of key questions, including the influence of political regimes on faculties of theology and implications for university autonomy, the role of theology as a science in defining the status of these faculties, and the development of science in the face of religious divisions. The book will appeal to readers interested in religious and intellectual history, the history of science, and the relationship between faith and science, as well as all those interested in South-East Europe either side of the First World War. “The collection holds significant value for graduate and postgraduate students, especially when studying the relationship between faith and science, the approach to theology as a science, and critical examination of specific dogmatic and ecumenical matters. The contributors to this volume provide insightful analyses on these topics, making it an indispensable resource for scholars seeking to enrich their understanding of these complex areas of inquiry.” —Ante Mateljan, Professor of Systematic Theology, University of Split, Croatia Ana Biočić is Associate Professor at the University of Zagreb, Croatia. She is the Executive Editor of the journal of the Institute of the Church History, Croatica Christiana Periodica, and a member of the American Catholic Historical Association and the Ecclesiastical History Society. She is leader of the project Religion and Science—Priests as University Professors and Rectors, hosted by the John Templeton Foundation and the Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion. Her academic interests include church history in the 19th century, Catholic priests in politics, and the history of education. Iva Mršić Felbar is Assistant Professor at the Institute of Religious Sciences at the University of Zagreb, Croatia. Her research focuses on systematic theology, and in particular on eschatology and christology. She is the author of a monograph and numerous peerreviewed articles.

www.peterlang.com

South-East European History

Science and Catholicism in the Universities of South-East Europe

SOUTH-EAST EUROPEAN HISTORY Mihai Dragnea Series Editor Vol. 7

Science and Catholicism in the Universities of SouthEast Europe 1800 to 1920

Edited by Ana Biočić and Iva Mršić Felbar

PETER LANG Lausanne • Berlin • Brussels • Chennai • New York • Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Control Number: 2023025159

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. The German National Library lists this publication in the German National Bibliography; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Cover design by Peter Lang Group AG This research was supported by the University of Oxford project “New Horizons for Science and Religion in Central and Eastern Europe” funded by the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the John Templeton Foundation.

ISSN 2768-7554 (print) ISSN 2768-7562 (online) ISBN 9781636671529 (hardback) ISBN 9781636671536 (ebook) ISBN 9781636671543 (epub) DOI 10.3726/b20622 © 2023 Peter Lang Group AG, Lausanne Published by Peter Lang Publishing Inc., New York, USA [email protected]—www.peterl​a ng.com All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilization outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed.

Table of Contents

Introduction: University—A Place of Conflict or Collaboration Between Religion and Science  1 A na Biočić 1. The Impact of Social-Political Circumstances on the Position of Theology as Science. Case-Study: Priests as Rectors of the University of Zagreb and Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology  13 A na Biočić 2. The Catholic Youth and Student Conflicts at the University of Zagreb in the Early Twentieth Century  43 Tihana Luetić 3. The Attitude of the Communist Authorities Towards the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana in the Initial Post-War Period  67 A leš G abrič 4. Priests-Rectors of the University of Zagreb, Inter-Confessional Relations, and the Unity of Church  89 Slavko Slišković 5. Inaugural Speeches of the Priests-Rectors. The Relationship between the Catholic Faith (Theology) and Science  107 Iva M ršić Felbar 6. The Relation of Religion and Science in the Thought of Antun Bauer  125 Danijel Tolvajčić 7. Mariology of Ivan Bujanović, Scientific and Theological Contribution in the Context of Time  143 M arija P ehar

vi

Table

of

C ontents

8. Father Agostino Gemelli, Founder of the Catholic University of Milan: Faith, Science and Education  171 Simonetta Polenghi 9. The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburg in Transylvania on the Eve of the First World War: In the Institutional and Scholarly Impact of Augustin Bunea  191 A lexandru Simon Brief Author Description  223 Index  225

Introduction: University—A Place of Conflict or Collaboration Between Religion and Science A na Biočić Catholic Faculty of Theology University of Zagreb Zagreb, Croatia [email protected] “Both religion and science, are of God’s origin, and mutual love, unity, and support of the being and source for all bestowed.” Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer: a sermon on the occasion of the opening of the paintings’ gallery

The relationship between religion and science is most often examined through four models: conflict, integration, dialogue or independence.1 However, regardless of which model we advocate, it remains indisputable that, throughout history, there have been ties that bind religion and science. For example, mathematics and physics occupied an important place in the Islamic world in the Middle Ages because, among other things, they were used to calculate the exact praying time or to calculate the direction to Mecca. On the other hand, Jews in early modern Europe contributed to the development of science and the practice of medicine, whereas Catholics supported scientific research, for instance, in astronomy.2 Therefore, the question arises whether these are really the only four possible approaches when exploring the relationship between religion and science, bearing in mind that religion 1 Mikael Stenmark, “Ways of Relating Science and Religion”, in Peter Harrison, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 278–293. 2 Thomas Dixon, Science and Religion. A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 15–16.

2

A na Biočić

and science have been subject to change throughout history. Perhaps their relationship could be regarded, as Stenmark points out, through a new “contact model”.3 The conflict model itself is a landmark concept derived from the nineteenth-century historiography, primarily John William Dreper4 and Andrew Dickson White,5 and it is characterized more as propaganda than historiography, hence it is not surprising that today this model is mostly abandoned.6 The difference between the two is that Dreper addresses the conflict between science and religion, while White reduces it to a conflict between science and dogmatic theology.7 The activity of the Catholic Church has challenged this model of conflict. Specifically, the Church has supported scientific research in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, and other sciences, and it was often priests and monks who brought such knowledge to light. 8 As Heilbron notices, the Catholic Church provided financial and social support to the development of astronomy from antiquity to the Enlightenment unlike any other institution.9 Furthermore, in the past, religious beliefs served as the premise of scientific endeavour, and in supporting the uniformity of cause-and-effect relationships, religious doctrines enabled either sanctions or justification.10 Nevertheless, certain conflicts occur due to the limitation that the Church teachings and dogmas imposed on science, and some of the classic examples are 3 Stenmark, “Ways of Relating Science and Religion”, 293. 4 John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, reprint 2009), 294–295, 301–310, 319– 320, 331–333. 5 Andrewa Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom Vol. 1 (New York: Appleton and Company, 1897), 44–49, 168–170. 6 Peter Harisson—Paul Tyson, “Introduction”, in New Directions in Theology and Science. Beyond Dialogue ed. Peter Harrison, and Paul Tyson (London, New York: Routledge, 2022), 3–4. 7 John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion. Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 46–48. 8 For more examples see: David D. Lindberg, “The Fate of Science in Patristic and Medieval Christendom”, in Peter Harrison, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 21–34; David C. Lindberg, “Science and the Early Church”, in God and Nature. Historical Esseys on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, ed., David C. Lindberg, Ronald D. Numbers (Berkeley, Los Angles, London: University of California Press, 1986), 19–41. 9 See: J. L. Heilbron, The Sun in the Church. Cathedrals as Solar Observatories (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1999), 3. 10 Brooke, Science and Religion. Some Historical Perspectives, 26–36.

Conflict or Collaboration between Religion and Science

3

the 1633 condemnation of Galileo11 or the nineteenth-century condemnation of Darwinism.12 Since the eighteenth century, the gap between faith and science has been constantly widening, scientists have been rejecting the supernatural and the miraculous as scientific arguments, they have been rejecting tradition. The conflict between the Catholic Church and science most often stemmed from certain cognition that contradicted the dogma of the Church or the Bible.13 The glaring case of Galileo should be considered within the historical context and significant local circumstances such as Galileo’s attachment to the pro-Spanish faction at the papal court. Moreover, given that the acceptance or rejection of Galileo’s ideas were present both among theologians and among scientists, we cannot speak of a conflict between religion and science, but rather about conflict within religion and within science.14 It should certainly be pointed out that, for example, the case of Galileo, while observed in a broader historical perspective, is nevertheless an exception, not a rule. At that time, the Church was not opposed to science as such, and as already asserted, new scientific breakthroughs often encountered resistance within the scientific community itself.15 With respect to Darwin’s theory of evolution, although it had caused fierce resistance among some theologians, it was nonetheless accepted by others.16 Perhaps the conflict over the theory of evolution should be considered by way of the Victorian conflict between faith and science, as Livingston suggests, and as a result of the cultural politics of Darwin’s century, that is, the drive to secularize 11 For more information see: Dixon, Science and Religion. A Very Short Introduction, 18–36; Richard J. Blackwell, “Galileo Galilei”, in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition, ed. Gary B. Frengren (New York, London: Garland Publishing, 2000), 98–103; William R. Shea, “Galileo and the Church”, in God and Nature. Historical Esseys on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, ed. David C. Lindberg, and Ronald D. Numbers (Berkeley, Los Angles, London: University of California Press, 1986), 114–133. 12 The Roman Catholic Church is ambivalent on this issue, while Protestants and Muslims are resolute. See more in: Dixon, Science and Religion. A Very Short Introduction, 58–80. 13 Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 9–18. 14 David C. Lindberg, “Galileo, the Church, and the Cosmos”, in When Science and Christianity Meet, ed. David C. Lindberg, and Ronald L. Numbers (Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 33–60. 15 Peter Harrison, “Introduction”, in The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 4–5; John Henty, “Religion and the Scientific Revolution”, in The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 39–40. 16 Jon H. Roberts, “Religious reactions to Darwin”, in The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 82–83.

4

A na Biočić

the society. We should take into account the fact that many religious intellectuals had accepted the theory of evolution or a more or less revised version of it without rejecting theology. The failure to determine the views of the general public on this matter remains an issue, as it diminishes the objectivity of the judgments presented. It is indisputable that there were conflicts between faith and science around Darwin’s theory of evolution, but it is also important to remark that the relationship between faith and science around this issue cannot be moulded into only two categories: conflict or co-operation.17 Throughout history, universities have played an important role in the development of science, and it is therefore compelling to examine the issue of the relationship between religion and science using the example of universities. Had medieval Church aspired to suppress science, then it certainly would not have supported and founded universities.18 At universities, many students became aware of Euclid’s geometry, optics, astronomy in a rudimentary form and arguments for the sphericity of the Earth. We should draw attention to the fact that not all medieval universities taught theology and not all students studied theology. A considerable number exclusively studied liberal arts, logic, natural philosophy or mathematics. Thus, we can claim that the medieval Church did not hinder the development of science, but quite the opposite—and the examples of the Dominican scientist Dietrich von Frieberg or Bishop Nicola Oresma support this argument.19 Additionally, we suggest that medieval universities, along with disputations and scholastic theology, helped create the environment necessary for the development of the seventeenth-century “scientific revolution”. There are certainly many other individuals, lay believers or clerics, who had contributed to the development of science during the “scientific revolution” of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.20 Therefore, we cannot speak of the separation of religion and 17 David N. Livingstone, “Re-placing Darwinism and Christianity”, in When Science and Christianity Meet, ed. David C. Lindberg, and Ronald L. Numbers (Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 194. 18 Edward Grant, “Science and the Medieval University”, in Rebirth, Reform and Resilience. Universities in Transition 1300–1700, ed. James M. Kittelson, and Pamela J. Transue, (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1984), 68–102. 19 Michael H. Shank, “Myth 2: That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the Growth of Science”, in Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, ed. Ronald L. Numbers (Cambridge, Massachusetts & London: Harvard University Press, 2009), 22–27. 20 Lawrence M. Principe, “Myth 11 That Catholics Did Not Contribute to the Scientific Revolution”, in Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, ed. Ronald L. Numbers (Cambridge, Massachusetts & London: Harvard University Press, 2009), 102–105.

Conflict or Collaboration between Religion and Science

5

science in the seventeenth century, firstly because that would presuppose that they had been unified earlier, and Brooke points out it was a relationship of subordination. It is hence more appropriate to speak of differentiation rather than separation.21 Although the model of conflict, which become a paradigm in the nineteenth century, is nowadays abandoned, we can still find traces of it in the general public and the media.22 The aim of these proceedings is to outline the relationship between religion and science at certain universities and to demonstrate that even in the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century, conflict was not the only model of the relationship. Therefore, the focus of research is the relationship between religion and science at universities (more precisely, Catholic Faculties of Theology at the University of Zagreb and Ljubljana, and the Catholic University in Milan) and efforts to determine the implications of social and political circumstances on the relationship, with the presentation of several cases of scientific work that was the result of the impact of these relationships. Our intention is not to engage in scientific debates, but rather to offer a historical context for the relationship between religion and science at universities during the second half of the nineteenth and the twentieth century. The proceedings are largely the result of research conducted through a project funded by the Templeton Foundation. The aim of the contributors is primarily to research the (in)dependence of the faculties of theology at state universities in relation to political authorities, to establish whether professors who were involved in politics suffered consequences (Biočić), and then to point to the impact of politics on the survival of the faculties of theology at state universities (Biočić, Gabrič). Furthermore, the goal is to investigate, using concrete examples, whether there is a possibility of a successful co-operation between natural sciences and faith (Polenghi), and to explore the influence of faith in a society where, unlike in Croatia, Slovenia and Italy, Catholics are not the majority (Simon). The book primarily deals with the relationship between the Catholic faith and science in predominantly Catholic countries, however the case of Romania is also reviewed to provide a diverse perspective. In order to answer the research questions, in addition to analyzing the legislative framework that had enabled the Church to operate with society and allowed the faculties of theology to operate within state universities, the impact of political circumstances on university autonomy and the status of 21 Brooke, Science and Religion. Some Historical Perspectives, 69–109. 22 David Wilkinson, “Pop Science and Pop Theology: New Ways of Exploring an Old Dialogue”, in New Directions in Theology and Science. Beyond Dialogue, ed., Peter Harrison, and Paul Tyson (London, New York: Routledge, 2022), 88–89.

6

A na Biočić

faculties of theology is also probed (focusing on the examples of the University of Zagreb and the University of Ljubljana). The activities of student groups at the beginning of the twentieth century at the University of Zagreb and their conflicts arising from the matter of whether theology is a science (Luetić) are also explored. The book offers a concrete insight into the contributions made by professors of theology teaching at state universities to the fields of theology (Pehar) and philosophy (Tolvajčić). An example of a priest’s contribution to the development of natural sciences and successful cohesion of faith and natural sciences is given with reference to the Franciscan Agostino Gamelli, the founder of the Catholic University in Milan, the first Catholic university in Italy. In Romania, on the other hand, the influence of religion (Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic) on the creation of a historical narrative is given through the example of the Greek Catholic priest and professor Augustin Bunea (Simon). The activities of the priest-rectors of the University of Zagreb from the Faculty of Theology towards Protestants and Orthodox expose tensions (Slišković), which is also affirmed by the Romanian case. Also, the inaugural speeches of the priest-rectors of Zagreb University were discussed in the context of the relationship between religion and science (Mršić Felbar). Topics and contributors were selected by applying the principle of rounding up the topic of the relationship between faith and science through examples of universities in European countries in the second half of the nineteenth and in the twentieth century. The basis of the research is the University of Zagreb and its rectors, who had also served as priests and professors at the Faculty of Theology In order to provide insight into the situation in the wider European context, Slovenia, Italy and Romania are examined alongside Croatia. The link is that following the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy, Croatia and Slovenia entered into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (from 1929 Kingdom of Yugoslavia) and then after the Second World War formed the communist Yugoslavia. The aim is to establish any similarities or differences through the exploration of the fate of faculties of theology in communist societies. For the same purpose, the case of progressive activities of Father Gemelli in Italy and his endeavours around the foundation of the Catholic University in Milan is investigated. The latter serves as evidence that natural sciences and the Catholic faith can come together, and points to the contribution of individual priests to the development of science. The examples of Bauer and Bujanović from the University of Zagreb support the thesis, as they had done the same, albeit in another field of science. The University in Milan is an example of a different solution to the relationship between the Church and the state in terms of education. While in Croatia the Faculty of Theology remained an integral part of the state university until

Conflict or Collaboration between Religion and Science

7

the mid-twentieth century, and it remains a member today, in Italy, a country where the Catholic Church stood in the way of national unification and where direct conflicts between Pope Pius IX and the Italian authorities escalated to the point of prohibiting Catholics from participating in politics—a Catholic University in Milan was established. In order to present a case study different from Croatia, Italy and Slovenia, which are predominantly Catholic, we have introduced Romania as an example where, along with Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox religions are present. We seek to answer the question of how this fact affected the educational university system and scientific discourse. Since the research area is related to the countries of central, southern, and south-eastern Europe, we have collaborated with the Balkan History Association, which promotes the interdisciplinary and comparative study of south-east Europe at the national and international levels. Several monographs have been written thus far on the relationship between faith and science or on the history of individual universities, however these proceedings seek to contribute to discussions by connecting different aspects ranging from the scientific activity of the individual to the impact of socio-political circumstances on the possibility of this activity to the broader contextualisation of European countries. Perceiving the topic of the relationship between faith and science from a variety of interdisciplinary perspectives (historical, theological, philosophical) indicates the complexity of the investigated problem of the relationship between faith and science and contributes to the objectivity of the conclusions presented. While most contributors deliberate the relationship between religion and science through the philosophical and cultural field, we provide a background of socio-political circumstances at the university level. The research is attractive because priests who had served as rectors of state universities by habitus, vocation and occupation had to balance between faith and science. Researching their political and scientific work, attitudes towards other religious communities, and their inaugural speeches provides an example of how to live in “both worlds”. Hence, Ana Biočić in her paper The Impact of Socio-Political Circumstances on the Position of Theology as Science Case-study: Priests as Rectors of the University of Zagreb and Professors at the Catholic Faculty of Theology establishes the legislative framework that had enabled the Church to function in Croatian society, and consequently the theology studies at a stateoperated university. She undoubtedly determines that political power impacted the understanding of theology as a science and the position of the Catholic Faculty of Theology within the state university. While there had been no aspirations in the Habsburg Monarchy to exclude theology from the university, in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes the idea of

8

A na Biočić

excluding Catholic Faculty of Theology emerged as far as 1921, with the purpose of realizing cost savings. Additionally, the fact that after the establishment of the communist government in 1945 priests ceased serving as rectors of the University of Zagreb and the Roman Catholic Faculty of Theology was excluded from the University of Zagreb, serves as further evidence of the impact of politics on the position of theology at state universities, and an example of the breach of university autonomy. As elsewhere in Europe, university autonomy was not complete because universities depended financially on the state, and appointments of professors had to be approved by the government, usually with the consent of the competent minister. This precisely made it possible for the state to interfere in the work of the University and to breach the proclaimed autonomy that had been conceived in the Middle Ages. Thus, political affiliation impacted academic careers, and this reflected on rectors as they were either penalised or prevented from advancing within the University. These proceedings explore the relationship between religion and science at the University of Zagreb, not only at the level of the status of the Faculty of Theology and its professors, but also at the level of student activity. The paper by Tihana Luetić The Catholic Youth and Student Conflicts at the University of Zagreb in the early twentieth Century analyzes the conflicts between liberal and right-wing student factions. Facing a strong penetration of liberalism among high school and academic youth, a Catholic youth group from the University clashed with two other student groups that were active in the period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Acting on the ideas of liberalism, the so-called progressive youth and a right-oriented group of young people, sympathizers of Starčević’s Party of Rights, strongly attacked any influence of the Church in society. Disagreements and conflicts between these three student factions were usually articulated through their magazines and brochures. The concrete struggles and the balance of power between these three factions were most noticeable during the election campaigns for the Croatian Academic Support Society which distributed student aid. Although the conflict is apparent, it could be reduced to one of a worldview nature, even in situations where the academic youth acted in unison in certain student actions. The paper The Attitude of the Communist Authorities Towards the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana in the Initial Post-War Period by Aleš Gabrič explores the relationship of the state authorities towards the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana in the period of Kingdom of Croats and Slovenes, and through the prism of these relationships looks into the relationship between religion and science. A pattern similar to Croatia is established to have existed in Slovenia

Conflict or Collaboration between Religion and Science

9

(in 1952, both faculties of theology were excluded from state universities) and it is proven that despite university autonomy, the state authorities largely dictated the fundamental elements of the relationship towards faculties of theology, guided by wider socio-political circumstances. Nevertheless, the scientific character of theology was not challenged in the context of its exclusion from public education in Slovenia. The relationship between religion and science had to be reflected in the inaugural speeches of the priest-rectors of the University of Zagreb because of the very habitus of the position. In order to deepen the analysis of the relationship between religion and science at the university, Iva Mršić Felbar carries out a review of ten inaugural speeches delivered by priests from the Catholic Faculty of Theology who had served as rectors in her paper Inaugural Speeches of the Priest-Rectors, The Relationship Between the Catholic Faith (Theology) and Science. This analysis confirms the initial hypothesis that, regardless of the thematic diversity of inaugural speeches, ten out of eight affirm theology as a science equal to other sciences. This indicates that these priest-rectors, in addition to utilising their installation in order to promote science, which they themselves were engaged in, also disseminated the official teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue. The above confirms yet again that the status of theology as a science was challenged and there was a need for its defence. In addition to considering the relationship between religion and science on the example of the priest-rectors of the University of Zagreb, it is interesting to observe the relationship of the latter towards other religious communities, as Slavko Slišković does in the paper Priest-Rectors of the University of Zagreb, Inter-Confessional Relations, and the Unity of Church. While they advocated their own rights, they often contested the rights of Old Catholics or Protestants. The actions and writings of the rectors of the University of Zagreb from the ranks of the Faculty of Theology towards Protestants and Orthodox reveal tensions. In this, priest-rectors did not deviate from the official teachings of the Catholic Church, which significantly changed its attitude towards Protestantism and ecumenism only at the Second Vatican Council, opening itself to the world and people of different beliefs. In the works and speeches of the priest-rectors of the University, we find closed-mindedness and polemics, and even criticism. Nonetheless, most of the rectors discussed in the paper had a much more positive attitude towards Orthodoxy than towards the descendants of the Protestant Reformation and Old Catholics. At the same time, they showed special affection for the Slavic Orthodox, whose churches were formed following the schism between Constantinople and Rome. They advocated for unification and as a possible means, they put

10

A na Biočić

forward the Cyril and Methodius heritage, which in Croatia testified to the possibility of preserving its tradition within a united Catholicism. The unionist efforts were also stimulated by the political circumstances that directed the South Slavs to co-operate on the path of national liberation and emancipation, but also to a more harmonious life in the consolidated nation. An unambiguous piece of evidence that natural sciences and the Catholic faith can come together comes from the work and life of Father Gemelli, researched by Simonetta Polenghi in the paper Father Agostino Gemelli, Founder of the Catholic University in Milan: Faith, Science, and Education. It is precisely the example of Gemelli, a physician, and a renowned psychologist, who in 1921 founded the Catholic University in Milan, the first university founded by Catholics in Italy of which Gemelli was appointed rector, that corroborates the thesis of co-operation between religion and science. Gemelli saw no conflict between faith and science and firmly anchored psychology in biology and empirical evidence. All his work was characterized by science and religion operating in harmony: the experimental method in itself was not in opposition to religion. The theology and philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and the Franciscans allowed him to have an optimistic view of nature and mankind and to consider nature as a rational product of God’s creation. A refreshing insight into historiography is offered by Alexandru Simon in the paper The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburg sin Transylvania on the Eve of the First World War: On the Institutional and Scholarly Impact of Augustin Bunea. The author points to the impact of complex religious circumstances on the notion of historiography from the medieval period until the First World War on the example of Romania. A particular contribution to theology is made by the first systematic research of Bujanović’s Mariology and its input to systematic theology analyzed in the paper Mariology of Ivan Bujanović, Scientific and Theological Contribution in the Context of Time authored by Marija Puhar. This is exceptionally interesting because this is an author who wrote the first systematic marioological monograph in Croatian back in the nineteenth century, which helped develop Croatian theological terminology. At a time when theology was still being taught in Latin at most European universities, including Croatia, and when theological works were emerging to meet the growing need for domestic university literature, it was crucial to introduce systematic interpretation of certain dogmatic treatises and even fragmentary incorporation of the content of paternal, classical, and contemporary European theology in the Croatian language. Bujanović thus exhibits a strong sensitivity to national identity within the University and enables the proliferation and popularization of scientific theological thought beyond university circles.

newgenprepdf

Conflict or Collaboration between Religion and Science

11

An analysis of Bauer’s views on the relationship between faith and science contributes to the discussions in the field of metaphysics, as researched by Danijel Tolvajčić in the paper The Relation of Religion and Science in the Thought of Antun Bauer. Antun Bauer, Archbishop of Zagreb and professor of philosophy at the Faculty of Theology, was one of the most important Thomistic philosophers in Croatia in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century and a passionate polemicist with proponents of scientific and philosophical positivism and materialism in Croatia. Starting from the view that metaphysics is possible and rejecting positivism and materialism as philosophically problematic and ultimately unsustainable positions, Bauer advocated the classical scholastic thesis of the complementarity of faith and science by following Thomas Aquinas, and by holding that there could be no conflict between them as they both have the same source in God. The paper demonstrates how Bauer’s solution to the issue of the relationship between religion and science is still philosophically relevant today, particularly in our contemporary context when scientism imposes itself as the dominant epistemological paradigm, claiming that the only valid source of knowledge are the exact sciences. Although religion is in the title of the book, the papers primarily refer to the relationship between the Catholic faith and science in predominantly Catholic countries and one of the reasons is that modern science had developed within the matrix of Western Christianity, and the countries that are the focus of the research mostly belong to that matrix. Other topics or countries could have been included in the proceedings; however, the aim of this book is to offer some historical perspective, general and narrow views/overviews on the topic of the relationship between religion and science in a specific area of the university with a view to introducing readers to some of the key issues and approaches in the field. The book does not aspire to provide answers to all the questions related to the topic precisely because of the breadth of the topic and the conditioning of socio-political circumstances in different areas, which the authors draw attention to, but rather to open to comparative and interdisciplinary research. The proceedings aim to go beyond stereotypical generalizations and to support universities with internal and external research. A university is a component of a society within which it operates, and regardless of varying historical traditions, the model of conflict was not the only applicable model, even in the context of the nineteenth century state—Church emancipation.

1  The Impact of Social-Political Circumstances on the Position of Theology as Science—CaseStudy: Priests as Rectors of the University of Zagreb and Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology A na Biočić Catholic Faculty of Theology University of Zagreb Zagreb, Croatia [email protected] Abstract: The intention of the paper is to see into the attitude of state authorities and society towards theology as a science in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, on the example of the highest scientific and educational institution in Croatia—the University of Zagreb and its rectors who came from the Catholic Theological Faculty. In doing so, we will seek to answer the questions to what extent this relationship depended on political circumstances and whether this meant a consequent violation of the autonomy of the University. We intend to find answers by considering three topics: the legislative framework that enabled the Church to function in Croatian society, ie the priest in the position of rector of the University of Zagreb, then through the analysis of the political activity of Catholic Faculty of Theology professors and the rector of the University in which we will place emphasis on the violation of the autonomy of the University. Keywords: Theology, Science, University of Zagreb, Catholic Faculty of Theology, rectors, modern age

Introduction In the early modern age we do not find many universities, due to socialpolitical circumstances, respectively Ottoman wars, and conquests in the area of central and eastern Europe. However, the situation is improving in the

14

A na Biočić

nineteenth century along with the formation of modern nations.1 Education was the first modernized social field in central and southeast Europe that adopted western European standards. Thus, education and universities became the first modern institutions. Governments, states, and state offices served as a support to southeast European intelligence.2 Croatia was follow­ ing these patterns and in 1874 formed the modern University of Zagreb with three faculties: Theology, Philosophy, and Law.3 Since the Faculty of 1 See more in: Christophe Charle, “The Growth of Nation States and Universities in Central and Eastern Europe”, in Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1800–1945) vol. III, ed., Walter Rüegg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 40–44. 2 Diana Mishkova, “Education and Universities in the Modernization and Europeanization Processes in South-Eastern Europe: Some Reflections on Interpretation and Methodology”, in The Role of Education and Universities in Modernization Processes in Central and South-Eastern European Counties in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century, ed. Peter Vodopivec, and Aleš Gabrič (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, Ljubljana Zentrüm für Soziale Innovation Wien, Avstrijski znanstveni institut v Ljubljani, 2011), 10–11. 3 For more about the history of the University of Zagreb see: Spomenica na svetčano otvaranje Kralj. sveučilišta Franje Josipa I. u Zagrebu, prvoga Hrvatskoga, dana 19. listopada 1874. (Zagreb: D. Albrecht, 1875); Fran Barac, “Teološki fakultet”, in Sveučilište Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca u Zagrebu: 1874–1924: spomenica Akademičnoga senata (Zagreb: Zaklada tiskare Narodnih novina, 1925), 79–95; Vjekoslav Klaić, “Postanje i razvitak sveučilišta”, in Sveučilište Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca u Zagrebu: 1874–1924: spomenica Akademičnoga senata (Zagreb: Zaklada tiskare Narodnih novina, 1925), 55–78; Nada Klaić, “Neoacademia Zagrabiensis (1669–1773)”, in Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu vol. I, ed., Jaroslav Šidak (Zagreb: Izdavački zavod JAZU, 1969), 21–47; Nada Klaić, O postanku Zagrebačkog sveučilišta (Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu, 1969); Jaroslav Šidak, “Regia scientiarum Academia”, in Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu vol. I., ed. Jaroslav Šidak (Zagreb: Izdavački zavod JAZU, 1969), 49–78; Antun Ivandija, “Bogoslovni fakultet u Zagrebu”, in Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu vol. II, ed., Jaroslav Šidak (Zagreb: Izdavački zavod JAZU, 1969), 139–142; Tomislav J. Šagi Bunić, “Proslava 300. godišnjice Katoličkog bogoslovnog fakulteta u Zagrebu”, Bogoslovska smotra 39, no. 4 (1970): 435–467; Tomislav J. Šagi Bunić, “Izvještaj o ekonomsko-financijskim odnošajima između Katoličkog bogoslovnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu i njegovih instituta. Povijest opstanka Fakulteta od 1952”, Croatica Christiana periodica 14, no. 26 (1990): 207–272; Antun Ivandija, “Povijest Katoličkog bogoslovnog fakulteta u Zagrebu. Spomenica za tristogodišnjicu proglašenja zagrebačke isusovačke škole akademijom g. 1699. i stogodišnjicu obnove Zagrebačkog sveučilišta g. 1874”, Bogoslovska smotra 39, no. 4 (1970): 323–336; Hodimir Sirotković, “Kratka povijest Zagrebačkog sveučilišta”, in Sveučilište u Zagrebu, ed. Davor Delić, and Slavko Goldstein, et. al. (Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada Liber, 1979), 17–111; Hodimir Sirotković, “Prvih 300 godina Zagrebačkog sveučilišta (1699‒1969)”, in Sveučilište u Zagrebu, ed. Hodimir

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

15

Theology (later on the Catholic Faculty of Theology) was rooted in the foundations of the state university, priests held the position of rector. The possibilities of priests working at the state university were defined by the relationship between the state and the Church as well as the legal framework in the form of legislation. The very high number of rectors of the University, who were professors of the Faculty of Theology, points to the position of the Church within society. During the existence of the Habsburg Monarchy in the period from 1874 to the collapse of the Monarchy in 1918, fourteen professors from the Catholic Faculty of Theology held the position of Rector of the University of Zagreb. That number is proportional to the number of faculties in the mentioned period, respectively to the election according to annual turns, and the Ban had to confirm the validity.4 Between the two world wars, during the time of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (from 1929 the Kingdom of Yugoslavia), the university law was changed. According to the Act of 1926, the election of the rector was entrusted to the University Assembly and his term in office lasted three years, while the Act of 1930 reduced the term in office to two years. However, for the election to be valid, a confirmation from the minister and a decree of appointment signed by the king was necessary.5 In the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes problems regarding the relationship between the state and the Church increased significantly, and it is important to highlight the fact that during the whole period of the formerly mentioned state, the legal status of the Catholic Church was not standardized because no concordat had not been concluded. Concerning the non-existence of a concordat, other

Sirotković (Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu, 1987), 15–110; Ivan Kampuš, “Prilog razvoju visokoškolske nastave u Hrvatskoj i organizaciji Sveučilišta u Zagrebu do 1914. g”, Historijski zbornik 44, no. 1 (1991): 109–117; Lelja Dobronić, Zagrebačka akademija/ Academia Zagrabiensis. Visokoškolski studij u Zagrebu 1633‒1874 (Zagreb: Dom i svijet, 2004); Matija Berljak, “Položaj i djelovanje Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta u sastavu Sveučilišta u Zagrebu”, Bogoslovska smotra 86, no. 1 (2016): 31–65. 4 The election of the rector was defined by the Act of August 26th, 1875. According to the mentioned act the rector was elected by a delegation comprised of four members. Every year a rector from a different faculty of the Universty of Zagreb was elected, on condition that he received an aposolute majority of votes. In: “Zakon od 26. kolovoza 1875. o izboru rektora na kr. sveučilištu Franje Josipa I. u Zagrebu”, Sbornik zakona i naredaba od godine 1875. kom. XXIX (Zagreb: Tisak Kralj. Zemaljske tiskare, 1875), 791–792. 5 According to an act from 1926 prewar Serbian laws were introduced at the University. Hodimir Sirotković, “Sveučilište između dva rata (1918‒1941.)”, in Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu vol. I, ed. Jaroslav Šidak (Zagreb: Izdavački zavod JAZU, 1969), 126–131.

16

A na Biočić

problems arose such as the question of education and religious instruction in state schools, or, the means of implementing agrarian reforms.6 After World War II, with the communists coming to power not a single priest held the office of Rector of the University. The facts that with the establishment of a communist government in 1945 a repressive activity against the Church with the separation of Church and state, judicial processing of priests, confiscation of Church property, and the prevention of priests from performing public duties, points to the fact that the relationship between state and Church was crucial for priests’ activity at state universities.7 In this regard, the Catholic Faculty of Theology, by political resolution in 1952, was excluded from the University of Zagreb. Thereby, during the formation of the modern University of Zagreb the parent Faculty de facto, but not de iure, ceased to be a part of the University of Zagreb since the Senate never confirmed this resolution.8 The paper intends to give an answer to particular questions such as what the relationship between the state government and society was towards theology as science, by using the example of the highest scientific and educational institution in Croatia, to what extent that relationship was dependant on political circumstances, and consequentially if it involved the impairment of university autonomy. We intend to answer these questions by considering three themes: a legal framework which enabled the Church activity within Croatian society, respectively priests performing the duty of rectors of the University of Zagreb, further on through an analysis of the political activity of the professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, as well as the attitude of the government towards the Faculty and theology as science with the emphasis on the impairment of university autonomy. Using the example of the present group of professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, priests, and rectors of the University, we will endeavour to ascertain the position of theology as science not only at the University of Zagreb but also within society. Although written works dealing with rectors of the University and professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology and books containing their 6 More in: Zlatko Matijević, “Katolička crkva u Hrvatskoj i stvaranje jugoslavenske države 1918–1921. godine”, Povijesni prilozi 5, no. 1 (1986): 3–93. 7 Miroslav Akmadža, Katolička crkva u komunističkoj Hrvatskoj 1945–1980 (Zagreb, Slavonski Brod: Despot Infinitus, Hrvatski institut za povijest—Podružnica za povijest Slavonije, Srijema i Baranje, 2013), 49–65, 100–129. 8 Ana Biočić, “Prilog povijesti Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta. Uloga Vilima Keilbacha u očuvanju Fakulteta 1952. godine”, Bogoslovska smotra 9, no. 11 (2021): 15–30.

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

17

biographies exist,9 Croatian historiography lacks a study that would in one place problematize their views on the relationship between the Church and the state, as well as on religious education, all based on their original thoughts found in records and articles published in periodicals. Since the paper is limited to a group of sixteen priest-rectors of the University of Zagreb, it does not strive to give a complete picture of the impact of socio-political circumstances on the notion of theology as a science, it will rather deal with topics related to these sixteen rectors.

Legal Framework For Priests’ Activities in Education and Science In the nineteenth century, there was no conflict between the Church and the state in Croatia, moreover, throughout all of the period, there was cooperation. Several reasons can account for this occurrence. Firstly, it should be noted that liberal Catholicism emerged in Croatia in the nineteenth century, started mostly by Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer and Canon Franjo Rački. They promoted co-operation between the Church and the state and awareness of one another. The co-operation can be related to the legacy of Josephinism which was felt in Croatia in the nineteenth century. Furthermore, it should be noted among other things that conservative liberalism emerged in the same period, as a consequence of the involvement of the nobility and clergy in public life through politics, culture, or education. Therefore, the liberals in Croatia did not demand the separation of the Church from the state nor any more radical changes. The demands of the liberals in Croatia regarding the Church are most clearly articulated in the document People’s Demands (Zahtijevanja naroda), which was adopted by the City Assembly in Zagreb during the revolutionary 1848. They demanded the abolition of celibacy and the introduction of liturgy in the vernacular, while the lower clergy demanded improvement in their economic circumstances. Given that there were no demands for the separation of Church and State, their co-operation is noticeable throughout the nineteenth century.10 Among other priests, the 9 Ana Biočić, Slavko Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta rektori Sveučilišta u Zagrebu / Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology as Rectors of the University of Zagreb (Zagreb: Katolički bogoslovni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2020). 10 See more in: Mirko Juraj Mataušić, “Odnos katoličke Crkve prema novijim idejnim strujanjima u hrvatskim zemljama 1848–1900”, Bogoslovska smotra 55, no. 1–2 (1985): 196–216; Iskra Iveljić, “Katolička crkva i civilno društvo u Hrvatskoj 1848. godine”, Časopis za suvremenu povijest 25, no. 2–3 (1993): 19–42; Agneza Szabo, “Sudjelovanje svećenstva zagrebačke (nad)biskupije u Hrvatskome narodnom

18

A na Biočić

co-operation was advocated by the rectors of the University Anton Kržan (in office 1876/77) and Antun Bauer (in office 1906/07) later Archbishop of Zagreb. Kržan wrote texts pointing out the necessity of co-operation between the Church and the state. He states that the Church and the state are two separate societies that work for a specific purpose. By using canon law and philosophy he demonstrates that the Church, like the state, is a perfect community.11 He points out that the Church is a spiritual community, but not only spiritual, just as the state is not only a physical community.12 Bauer, on the other hand, was trying to explain the state’s attachment to the Church and the state’s need to respect Church laws. He considered it the state’s purpose to maintain order, and in his opinion, faith restores order within the people. He stresses that the government is legitimate only when it is moral, and faith can guarantee that.13 In the nineteenth century, only two laws were passed to the detriment of the Church in Croatia, and one of them was the Jewish Emancipation Act of 1873.14 With the enactment of this law, the question as to whether con­ versions to Judaism were recognized or not arose. Franjo Iveković (Rector in the term 1879/80) claimed that according to the Act of 1873 conversions were approved, but, it was pointed out that the interpretation of the law was different. As early as 1873, it was clarified in the Sabor that this new act did signify permission to convert from Christianity to Judaism and that the priests-representatives who accepted it in the Sabor at the time, would certainly not have accepted it without such explicit explanation.15 The statement preporodu između godina 1835. i 1848”, in Zagrebačka biskupija i Zagreb 1094–1994. Zbornik u čast kardinala Franje Kuharića, ed. Antun Škvorčević (Zagreb: Nadbiskupija zagrebačka, 1995), 317–331; Juraj Mirko Mataušić, “Susret Crkve s civilnim društvom u 19. stoljeću”, in Zlatko Matijević, ed., Hrvatski katolički pokret, Zbornik radova s Međunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa održanog u Zagrebu i Krku od 29. do 31. ožujka 2001 (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2002), 33–54; Vlasta Švoger, “Vjerska problematika u zagrebačkom liberalnom tisku 1848.–1852”, Croatica Christiana periodica 29, no. 56 (2005): 121–145; Slavko Slišković, “Strossmayer, Crkva i liberalizam”, in Zbornik 7. i 8. Strossmayerovih dana, ed. Ivica Mandić, (Đakovo: Grad Đakovo, 2011), 57–76; Ana Biočić, Svećenici u politici (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2018), 43–59; Ljiljana Dobrovšak, “Emancipacija Židova u kraljevini Hrvatskoj, Slavoniji i Dalmaciji u 19. stoljeću”, Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 37 (2005): 138–141. 11 “Crkva i država”, Katolički list 20, no. 7 (1869): 49–52. 12 “Crkva i država”, Katolički list 20, no. 8 (1869): 57–60. 13 “Prva dužnost države”, Katolički list 37, no. 45 (1886): 352–354. 14 Dobrovšak, “Emancipacija Židova”, 138–141; Ana Biočić, “Katolic ̌k i svec ́enici i liber­ alizacija s ̌kolstva u Trojednoj Kraljevini 1874. godine”, Časopis za suvremenu povijest 3 (2018): 623–654. 15 “O ravnopravnosti izraeličanah”, Narodne novine 50, no. 162 (1884).

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

19

by Iveković, that conversions were allowed, caused dissatisfaction within the ranks of the Church. For example, Bishop Strossmayer repeatedly wrote to the nuncio Serafin Vannutelli in Vienna against Iveković and his statement.16 The second law was passed to the detriment of the Church. The Education Act of 1874, according to which the Church retains competency only in the field of religious education. At the time of the emancipation of the state from churches (either Catholic or any other religious community), the emancipation of education was taking place throughout Europe as well.17 In 1848, in Germany, the Frankfurt Parliament passed the law on interfaith schools.18 Similarly, the Prussian Education Act of 1872, in line with lib­ eral efforts, diminished the influence of the Church.19 In France, in 1879, the Paris Municipal Council brought a decision to exclude friars from primary schools, and in 1886 it was resolved that all monks and nuns should be replaced by laypeople as soon as possible, and within five years at the latest.20 In the Netherlands, the United States of America, and Australia, we find secular schools without the influence of religion before 1870, and in the coming decade, their example was followed by Switzerland and Germany.21 In Belgium, the state took control of public schools in 1879, and in Anglican England a dualistic system was introduced, by the Education Act of 1870, establishing secular schools partly to compete with religious schools and partly to meet the growing population’s educational needs, that religious schools could not handle.22 Croatia was no exception regarding educational policy separating the Church from the state, as evidenced by the Act of 1874. Although the state took over the responsibility for education in 1874, priests remained involved in the educational system as teachers or school supervisors due to the lack of 16 Josip Balabanić, Josip Kolanović, ed., Korespondencija Strossmayer—Vannutelli 1881.– 1887 (Zagreb: Hrvatski državni arhiv, Kršćanska sadašnjost, Dom i svijet, 1999), 351– 355, 391, 397–399, 423, 427, 503. 17 Réne Rémond, Religion and Society in Modern Europe, translated by Antonia Nevill (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999), 147–148. 18 More on education in Germany in the late nineteenth century in: Hugh Mcleod, Secularisation in Western Europe 1848–1914 (New York: red Globe Press, 2000), 76–79. 19 Oded Heilbronner, “The Age of Catholic Revival”, in A Companion to Nineteenth-­ Century Europe 1789–1914, ed. Stefan Berger (Viley: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 240. 20 More in: Roger Price, A Social History of Nineteenth-Century France (New York: Holmes and Meyer Pub, 1987), 283. 21 John Mcmanners, European History 1789–1914. Men, Machines and Freedom (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), 316–317. 22 More on the issue of education in England in the late nineteenth century in: H. Mcleod, Secularisation in Western Europe, 71–76.

20

A na Biočić

qualified staff.23 Also, their opinions were appreciated when new curricula related to religious education were being created. Proof can be found in the requests of the Royal Land Government from February 17, 1904, and May 27, 1905, that Feliks Suk (Rector in the term 1882/83) declared himself on the new issue of scientific basis in teaching religion in secondary schools.24 This example shows the co-operation between the Church and the state in the field of education on the issue of religious education, as prescribed by the Act of 1874.25 Fran Barac (Rector in the term of 1915/16) also joined the discussion on this topic with very concrete proposals.26 As expected, priests in Croatia advocated religious education in schools, so we find similar thoughts expressed by the Rector of the University. On this trail, at the end of the nineteenth century, Bauer wrote that it was important to nurture the faith among the upper classes since the rest of the people looked up to them, as well as among the professors who were teaching. He asserted that Croatian education is on the wrong path because “the mind is educated, and the will and temper and are being forgotten.”27 At the begin­ ning of the twentieth century, Barac wrote similarly about the task of the institute, which was to educate earnestly. He opposed liberal views and interpretations that institutes should be political schools while joys of life should freely be consummated, calling modern upbringing “ungodly”.28 At the end of 1914, Barac advocated religious education in vocational schools. He argued that it was the parent’s right to have the state take care of religious education. He made a strong point as to the absence of religious education in vocational schools. The law included weekly religion classes in public and secondary schools, while vocational schools were not included. Barac considered it necessary to introduce religious instruction in all schools.29 23 Biočić, “Katolic ̌k i svec ́enici i liberalizacija s ̌kolstva”, 623–654. 24 Suk had to answer two questions: whether the students were overburdened with reli­ gious education and were any changes needed? He gave specific remarks for changes of the scientific basis for the lower and upper grades of grammar school. For example, he observed that the problem in fifth grade is apologetics (general dogmatics) that students find difficult to master. Neke misli o vjerskoj obuci u srednjim školama, in: “Kršćanska škola” 2, no. 14–15 (1908): 209–219. 25 Biočić, “Katolic ̌k i svec ́enici i liberalizacija s ̌kolstva”, 639–640. 26 He had concrete proposals related to the arrangement of materials by years, prescribing official instructions for lectures, examinations and publishing new books according to the new schedule and instructions. He proposes arranging and printing textbooks for the new special dogmatics and notes the shortcomings of the previous one. “Prilog k reformi za nauk vjere u srednjim školama”, Katolički list 56, no. 16 (1905): 192–194. 27 “Bezvjerstvo naobraženih”, Katolički list 37, no. 5 (1886): 33–34. 28 “Naši zavodi i njihova zadaća”, Katolički list 55, no. 1 (1904): 3–6. 29 “Za nauk vjere u stručnim školama”, Katolički list 65, no. 52 (1914): 555–557.

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

21

The Church’s competencies in the field of education are usually regulated by a concordat as an international treaty. During the period of the Habsburg Monarchy, a concordat was concluded in 1855 between Pope Pius IX. and Emperor Francis Joseph.30 However, in Austria, as early as December 21, 1868, the Imperial Council passed several laws that unilaterally changed certain concordat institutions (religious equality or the abolition of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matrimonial disputes). The concordat was officially annulled by the decision of the Imperial Council of May 7, 1874. It also applied to the Croatian territory of Dalmatia and Istria, which in administrative terms were directly subordinated to Austria. In the Hungarian part of the Monarchy, after the reinstitution of constitutionality in 1860, the concordat was revoked only a year later.31 Administratively, the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia was connected with Hungary, respectively the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen, therefore, the question remains what happened to the validity of the concordat in the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia. The issue of the (in)validity of the concordat from 1855 is best outlined in the controversy between Đuro Stjepan Deželić and Ferdinand Belaj, also a professor at the Catholic Faculty of Theology. Deželić claimed that the concordat had long been gone since it had been abolished, and Belaj claimed that it was still in practice in Croatia, while in Hungary it was officially abolished in 1861 and in Austria in 1874.32 Josip Volović (Rector in the term 1909/10) commented on the controversy between Đuro Stjepan Deželić and Ferdinand Belaj. He notes two papers published in Katolički list in 1888, which proved the validity of the concordat by the author Šandor Bresztyenszky33 and Robert Vernić.34 Bresztyenszky’s main argument was that neither the Ban Conference nor the Croatian Sabor convened in 1861, unlike the Hungarians, concluded that laws and orders passed during neo-absolutism were not valid, but kept 30 More on the concordat in: Owen Chadwick, A History of the Popes 1830–1914 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 105–108; Hubert Jedin, ed., Velika povijest crkve vol. VI/I (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1987), 521–523; Mirjana Gross, Agneza Szabo, Prema hrvatskome građanskom društvu (Zagreb: Globus nakladni zavod, 1992), 509–510. 31 Zlatko Matijević, “Pokušaj ustavnopravnoga definiranja položaja Katoličke crkve u Kraljevini Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca (1918–1921)”, in Liberalizam i katolicizam u Hrvatskoj II. dio, ed., Hans Georg Fleck (Zagreb: Zaklada Friedrich Naumann, 1999), 13. 32 Ferdinand Belaj, “Odgovor g. Gj. Deželiću”, Katolički list 44, no. 10 (1893): 79–81. 33 Šandor pl. Bresztyenszky, “Konkordat u Hrvatskoj”, Katolički list 39, no. 34 (1888): 270–275. 34 Robert pl. Vernić, “Jedna o čl. XIV. konkordata”, Katolički list 39, no. 37 (1888): 293–295.

22

A na Biočić

them in force until new laws were passed. The legal act that the Imperial Patent of November 5, 1855 and the Concordat of August 18, 1855 were not legally valid was not enacted. Consequently, the concordat was still in force, only certain changes were made in public schools’ legislation (October 14, 1874) and in form of a legal article on execution of sentences for priests convicted by state courts (May 17, 1875). Bresztyenszky points out that the revocation of certain patent institutions does not mean it has been completely revoked and that the contract can only be changed through an agreement of both parties the way it was constituted, and not unilaterally.35 On the other hand, Verenić as a lawyer points out that civil courts cannot convict priests since it is contrary to the concordat. He argues that clergy privileges determined by the concordat were not abolished by either the Ban Conference of 1860 or the Croatian Sabor of 1861, and after the conclusion of the CroatianHungarian settlement, i.e. the legal article I. 1868 (items 4 and 5), it could be abolished only at the joint Croatian-Hungarian Parliament. As the joint parliament did not pass such a law, and for such a law to be passed, it ought to be proceeded by an agreement from the Holy See, therefore, the concordat was in force.36 Volović tried to point out the arguments about the concordat still being in force, and thus defended the rights of the Church in Croatia. The issue of concordat was also topical in the new state of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, established after the First World War. After the collapse of the Monarchy, relations with the Church had to be regulated, and the usual way was a concordat However, that mode proved unacceptable for political authorities who sought to transfer the concordat concluded in 1914 with the Kingdom of Serbia, to the newly established state. The Holy See and the Church in Yugoslavia did not agree,37 and after years of procras­ tination, a concordat crisis emerged.38 Angelo Ruspini (Rector in the term 35 “Obstoji li jošte u Hrvatskoj konkordat”, Katolički list 44, no. 12 (1893): 98–100. 36 “Obstoji li jošte u Hrvatskoj konkordat”, Katolički list 44, no. 12 (1893): 100–101. 37 In November 1921, Pope Benedict XV proclaimed the concordats concluded with the Austrian Empire and the Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro invalid. Cf. Matijević, “Pokušaj ustavnopravnoga definiranja položaja Katoličke crkve”, 18. 38 More in: Ivan Mužić, Katolička crkva u Kraljevini Jugoslaviji (Split: Crkva u svi­ jetu, 1978), 45–200; Zlatko Matijević, “Pokušaj razrješenja pravnog položaja Katoličke crkve u Kraljevini SHS 1918–1921. godine”, Časopis za suvremenu povijest 17, no. 2 (1985), 51–67; Zlatko Matijević, “Katolička crkva u Hrvatskoj i stvaranje jugoslavenske države 1918.–1921. godine”, Povijesni prilozi 5, no. 1 (1986): 74–81; Zlatko Matijević, “Pokušaj ustavnopravnoga definiranja položaja Katoličke crkve”, 11–25; Blanka Matković, “Pravni položaj vjerskih zajednica u Kraljevini Jugoslaviji i političko-društveni kontekst konkordata sa Svetom Stolicom”, Bosna Franciscana 38 (2013): 117–144.

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

23

1918/19) as a Church lawyer, publicly advocated for a concordat. On the other side in Obzor the lawyer Mihailo Lanović,39 head of the department for the Roman Catholic Church in the Ministry of Religion in Belgrade, wrote against the concordat, so Ruspini gave him a reply answered in Katolički list. Lanović claimed the concordat was not a legal contract because the pope was not a legal entity and the subject of the concordat was something that the state could not “legally obligatory” contract. Ruspini refuted in detail all of Lanović’s claims.40 A year later, Ruspini again advocated for a concordat. He writes that the government is willing to reach an agreement with the Church, but the opponents to show concordat will endanger Orthodoxy and that the Vatican is an enemy of Slavdom and the promoter of Italian imperialism. He considered the request that the state appoints bishops and that liturgy is in the vernacular (he points out that these are exclusively Church issues, and appointments can only be the state’s concern in the sense that it has the right to make objections, or, in case it is related to foreigners).41 In 1926, he again commented on the concordat, that is, on Lanović’s text, with which he agreed in some aspects and some did not.42 Ruspini reasonably advocated for the conclusion of a concordat, but after years of painstaking negotiations and acceptance of the text of the concordat by both sides in 1935, the Senate never ratified the concordat owing to the interference of the Serbian Orthodox Church.43 Thus, the Catholic Church remained the only religious community in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia without a regulated legal status. Since the concordat was not concluded in the twentieth century, and its validity had been questionable in the nineteenth century, the Church’s activities in the field of education remained regulated by state laws. In addition to the already mentioned law from 1874, after the First World War and the change of state system in 1919, the work on a new school law in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes began. The Church was dissatisfied with its draft. They discussed it at the bishops’ conference held in July 1919 (15–20) and sent a petition to the Minister of Religion Tugomir Alaupović in which they expressed dissatisfaction with the Draft of the School Law. They found 39 He writes under the pseudonym Milanović. 40 Angelo Ruspini, “Protiv konkordata!”, Katolički list 72, no. 14 (1921): 157–161. 41 Angelo Ruspini, “Naš konkordat”, Katolički list 73, no. 47 (1922): 565–566. 42 They disagree on topics such as: confessional schools, seminaries in which the Church will not recognize state interference etc. Cf. Angelo Ruspini, “Konkordat Jugoslavije s Vatikanom”, Bogoslovska smotra 14, no. 2 (1926): 181–191. 43 More in: Matković, “Pravni položaj vjerskih zajednica u Kraljevini Jugoslaviji”, 128–144.

24

A na Biočić

particularly unacceptable the part in which religious education was prescribed only in four lower school grades. Liberals, on the other hand, demanded the separation of religions and schools, as well as the removal of religious education from schools.44 The bishops again discussed this issue at a conference held in May 1921. They protested against the reduction of religious education classes in public schools and lower secondary schools to one per week and against the elimination of religious education classes from fifth to the eighth grade in secondary school. They also opposed the deprivation of the priest’s right to teach religion.45 In 1922, Archbishop Bauer wrote in a Lenten epistle about the problem of education, that is, about the tendency in schools to do without religious education and priests. He blames such occurrences on Freemasons, liberals, socialists, or atheists who came to power in some countries.46 Two Ordinances47 on religious science in schools from the 1930s issued by the state also provoked criticism. Publicly reacting, Ruspini assessed the regulations as a change for the worse.48 The Folk Schools’ Ordinance does not mention religious textbooks, only the curriculum, which should be compiled in an agreement with the Minister and the High Representative of the respective denomination (in those areas the church authorities did not have any influence according to the school law).49 Ruspini reasonably warned that 44 Matijević, “Katolička crkva u Hrvatskoj i stvaranje jugoslavenske države 1918–1921. godine”, 61–6. 45 “Konferencije jugoslavenskog katoličkog episkopata u Zagrebu”, Katolički list 72, no. 19 (1921): 218. 46 Nedjelja 1, no. 11 (1922): 4. 47 The text of the Religious Instruction Ordinance in: Katolički list 81, no. 4 (1930): 43–44. 48 According to the ordinance, the competent Church authorities could only examine the conduct of religious education once a year, which Ruspini considered insufficient and was certain that the concordat would correct this shortcoming. The issue was the exam taken by teacher candidates, and the program and commission should have been determined by the Minister of Education with the competent body. Ruspini noted that religion teachers do not have a clerical capacity, and according to the law on education, priests were trained pedagogically and methodologically during the study of theology, so this should not have apply to them. Cf. Angelo Ruspini, “Pravilnici o vjerskoj nastavi u školama”, Katolički list 81, no. 4 (1930): 47–48. 49 According to the Ordinance, “purely student associations” were prohibited on reli­ gious grounds, but students were allowed to be members outside of school (according to school law, students were forbidden to be members of religious associations, but without this “purely”). Student participation was divided into school, public, and religious ceremonies (there was no mention of religious ceremonies in the law). The Minister, in agreement with the recognized denominations, determined the days when the teacher took the children to the mass (this was not in the school law). The

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

25

religious instruction was being decided without any consultation with the Holy See, and believed the concordat would give a final judgment on the issue, obviously trusting that it would be concluded. The problem with religious education in the 1930s was also identified by Andrija Živković (Rector in the term 1938/39), who advocated religious education in schools after the teachings of the Church. He wrote an article when Vladimir Babić, a teacher from Sisak, had suggested at the 14th regular congress of the Yugoslav Professors’ Association, that religious education should be removed from schools on the grounds that some religion teachers had referred to his student’s work on Baruch Spinoza as school Bolshevism. Babić defended the student’s work claiming that it was the result of freedom of teaching and thought.50 Živković wrote an article against Bolshevism, refer­ ring to Pope Pius XI.51 He also reflected on the “spirit of the times” char­ acterized by social Bolshevism in several institutions (theater, cinema) that were promoting anti-Catholic views. He believes that Catholics should act and oppose these “modern” tendencies.52 Again, in 1935, Živković empha­ sized the importance of faith in education. He wrote that under the pretext of freedom, religious education is about to be removed from schools, despite violating the freedom of those who desire it at school.53 He demands freedom of education in a religious spirit.54

The Attitude of Political Authorities Towards the Faculty of Theology and Theology as a Science/Violation of University Autonomy University autonomy was in principle supposed to include independence from political influences, but this was not the case in modern times. Universities were dependent on the state primarily because of finances. While in the Middle Ages universities were financed by donations, fiefs, and other beneficiaries, in the nineteenth century, due to the disappearance of feudal relations ordinances did not contain any regulations concerning the establishment of religious, private schools, while the law prohibited private secondary and public schools. “Pravilnici o vjerskoj nastavi u školama”, Katolički list 81, no. 5 (1930): 57–61. 50 Andrija Živković, “Tko nam boljševizira školu?”, Glasnik biskupija Bosanske i Srijemske 61, no. 13 (1933): 98–100. 51 Andrija Živković, “Borba protiv boljševiziranja društva”, Katolički list 82, no. 48 (1931): 265–267. 52 Andrija Živković, “Boljševički prodor u dušama”, Nedjelja 4, no. 22 (1932): 1. 53 Andrija Živković, “Vjersko-moralni odgoj srednjoškolske omladine”, Bogoslovska smo­ tra 23, no. 3 (1935): 321–335. 54 Andrija Živković, “Za slobodu misli i slobodu uzgoja”, Nedjelja 8, no. 51–52 (1936): 1.

26

A na Biočić

this was changed. Therefore, the new funding model brought universities into financial dependence on the state, i.e. political authorities.55 The emer­ gence of ministries in charge of education additionally increased the university’s dependence on the state. This was mostly felt during recruitment because although university institutions (such as the Senate) had the right to nominate candidates, the final word came from the state institution, the competent ministry.56 In Hungary, for example, the Minister of Public Education deter­ mined the number of teaching staff, the content of lectures, and the order of examinations. Such practice was also present at other European universities, except for Oxford and Cambridge, thanks to their endowment funds.57 Often, dismissals of politically unsuitable professors were carried out without the approval of university authorities. Such was the case at the University of Göttingen in Lower Saxony where in 1837 seven professors were dismissed for political reasons. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, no political system, no matter how democratic, could support full university autonomy.58 When considering the attitude of state authorities towards the Catholic Faculty of Theology, it should be borne in mind that during the observed period several state administrations changed, from the Habsburg Monarchy, through the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes to the Banovina of Croatia, the Independent State of Croatia and, finally, the communist administration. This circumstance greatly affected the attitude towards the Faculty. From the equality it enjoyed at the state and legislative level throughout the Monarchy, to the problems that arose after the First World War, which culminated in the coming to power of communists whose attitude towards religion and theology were negative. 55 After the First World War I in Germany and Austria, the financial dependence of universities on political authorities became even greater. This was the case in almost all European countries. Paul Gerbod, “Financial Dependence”, in Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1800 –1945) vol. III, ed. Walter Rüegg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 84–88. 56 Such was the situation in Germany, France, Spain and elsewhere. More in: Paul Gerbod, “Creation of Ministries of Public Education”, in Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1800 –1945) vol. III, ed. Walter Rüegg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 88–90. 57 Paul Gerbod, “Legal Guaranty and Actual Repression of Academic Freedom”, in Walter Rüegg, ed., Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1800 –1945) vol. III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 96–97. 58 Paul Gerbod, “University Resistance”, in Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1800 –1945) vol. III, ed. Walter Rüegg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 98–100.

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

27

During the Monarchy, there were no major differences between the Faculty of Theology and other components of the University (Faculties of Law and Philosophy). However, a difference was noted in 1894 with the amendments to the law from 1874, regarding the university professors’ salaries. The Professors’ Assembly of the Faculty of Theology headed by Dean Antun Maurović (Rector in the term 1894/95) reacted to that. They sent a petition to the Sabor regarding the Framework of the law amending, i.e. supplementing some institutions of the legal article of the Sabor of the Kingdoms of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia of January 5, 1874, concerning the establishment of the Francis Joseph I University in Zagreb [Osnova zakona kojom se preinačuje, odnosno nadopunjuje njeke ustanove zakonskog članka sabora kraljevinah Hrvatske, Slavonije i Dalmacije od 5. siječnja 1874. ob ustrojstvu sveučilišta Franje Josipa I. u Zagrebu]. They refer to articles 67 and 68 regarding the regulation of professors’ salaries, according to which associate and full professors of the Faculty of Law and Philosophy would receive a significant salary increase, while the salaries of associate and full professors of the Faculty of Theology would remain the same. Therefore, the Professors’ Assembly of the Faculty of Theology, at a session held on July 12, 1894, decided to ask the Sabor to correct the legal framework and equalize the salaries.59 They explained their request by indicating the fact that all professors have equal duties, and consequently rights under the Act of 1874. An argument emerged about priests not having families, to which the Professors’ Assembly pointed out that even unmarried clerks would not agree to a lower salary. They also highlighted the contribution of priests in the launch of the University.60 According to the Act of 1894, articles 67 and 68 do prescribe that full university professors enter a new salary grade and that the salary of a professor of the Faculty of Law and Philosophy ought to be higher.61 Apart from this 59 See the record in: Arhiv Katoličkog bogoslovnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (hereafter: AKBFSZ), The record from the 10th regular session of the Faculty at the Faculty of Theology in kr. Francis Josip I University held on July 12, 1894, no. file 51/ 894. 60 The salary increase was supposed to be a replacement for the fee “naukovina”, which was forgiven due to economic circumstances, i.e. poverty, and the professors of the Faculty of Theology pointed out that they were deprived of the mentioned fee as well, and not, as the law states, that it was not collected at all. “Predstavka profesorskoga zbora bogoslovnoga fakulteta na visoki sabor”, Katolički list 45, no. 29 (1894): 239–241. 61 For example, for associate professors of the Faculty of Theology 1400 forints, while associate professors of the Faculty of Law and Philosophy a salary of 1600 forints was prescribed. In: Sbornik zakonah i naredabah valjanih za kraljevine Hrvatsku i Slavoniju vol. 1894, kom. 18, no. 63 (Zagreb: Tisak Kralj. Zemaljske tiskare, 1894) 470.

28

A na Biočić

example, we do not find a difference between the Faculty of Theology and other components of the University on the state or legislative level. After the fall of the Monarchy and the founding of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, the government’s attitude towards the Faculty of Theology can be extracted from the news in 1921, informing that the theological faculties in Zagreb and Ljubljana were to be abolished. Stjepan Zimmermann (Rector in the term 1923/24) responded to the news. He points out that the Academic Senate of the University of Zagreb considered the issue of the Faculty of Theology when drafting the new university law, and concluded that the abolition would mean violation of the cultural rights of the people and university. The reason for the abolition would be to relieve the state budget. He considered this cynical because there was far less spent on the Faculty of Theology than on other faculties and he believed that Croats were contributing enough to state finances and therefore deserved the faculty to meet the needs of their people.62 Later on, in 1927, due to finan­ cial difficulties the state was facing, the state budget for the University was reduced, which led to the abolition of work posts and rumors about the abolition of the components of the University of Zagreb. The rumors had been prompted by Article 44 of the Financial Act regarding the budget for the years 1927/28 according to which the Minister of Education was allowed, in agreement with the Council of Ministers, to abolish certain faculties of state universities. Therefore, in 1927 there were new protests by students and teachers in Zagreb and Ljubljana, but also a reaction of the representatives of the city of Zagreb. A delegation of city senators, university professors, and representatives of the city of Zagreb presented Minister of Education Kosta Kumanudi with a memorandum on the importance of the components of the University of Zagreb. In the end, rumors stayed just rumors.63 Similarly, concerning the interference of the state authorities in the activities and organization of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, a newspaper article appeared in 1926 according to which the Minister of Education Stjepan Radić planned to reduce the number of departments at the Faculty of Theology of which there were thirteen, claiming that in Germany there were between seven and ten at the time. Katolički list replied that this was not true because there were fourteen in Strassbourg and fifteen in Innsbruck and Münchenu. The author of the article believed Radić intended to remove unsuitable professors from the University by abolishing departments. They thought it was a political decision because there was no mention of the Faculty of Theology 62 “K pitanju bogoslovskih fakulteta”, Katolički list 72, no. 31 (1921): 361–362. 63 Cf. Sirotković, “Sveučilište između dva rata (1918‒1941.)”, 140–141.

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

29

in Ljubljana, where the number of departments also exceeded ten.64 The last two examples undoubtedly demonstrate the attitude of the political authorities towards theological faculties. It is clear that the political authorities were not inclined to encourage the development of theology as a scientific discipline, but also that efforts were made to influence the faculties politically. In addition to the above-mentioned attitude towards the Faculty of Theology after the fall of the Monarchy, political interventions were recorded at the University, despite its proclaimed autonomy. Such interventions had taken place during the Habsburg Monarchy too in the form of dismissal and employment of professors, Anton Franki or Bauer at the Faculty of Theology for example, which will be discussed later on.65 A striking example of the violation of autonomy were the student strike and riots at the University which took place in December 1924, prompted by the political retirement of Professor Albert Bazala from the Faculty of Philosophy, Fran Barac from the Faculty of Theology, and Ladislav Polić from the Faculty of Law. The latter were politically involved in the Croatian community which supported the idea of federalism.66 The controversial decision of retirement was imposed by Svetozar Pribičević,67 the Minister of Education in Pašić’s government and an advocate of a unitary Yugoslav state with a centralist structure.68 Consequently, students decided to go on strike demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the disputed retirements. At that time, Zimmermann was the Vice-Rector, and since Rector Polić had been retired, Zimmermann took over the position of Rector. In an interview concerning the student strike, he explained that the motive for the strike was the desire for freedom caused by political retirements. The academic authorities concluded that 64 “Radić i teološki fakultet”, Katolički list, 77 no. 13 (1926): 13, 188–189. 65 There were other examples of violations of autonomy at the University of Zagreb in the form of retirement or dismissal, caused by the political affiliation of the professors. For example, Rector Blaž Lorković was suspended by the government in 1884 for his unacceptable conduct during the investigation of students who accused Josip Miškatović of Hungarianization. Furthermore, the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy Đuro Šurmin and the professor of the same Faculty Manojlović were retired in 1908 for supporting the oppositional Croatian-Serbian Coalition. See in: Jaroslav Šidak, “Sveučilište do kraja Prvoga svjetskog rata”, in Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu vol. I, ed. Jaroslav Šidak (Zagreb: Izdavački zavod JAZU, 1969), 106–107. 66 Cf. Sirotković, “Sveučilište između dva rata (1918.‒1941.)”, 138–139; Hrvoje Matković, “Hrvatska zajednica”, Istorija XX veka 5 (1963): 5–132; Hrvoje Matković, Studije iz novije hrvatske povijesti (Zagreb: Golden marketing, 2004), 52–179. 67 Hrvoje Matković, Svetozar Pribičević i Samostalna demokratska stranka do šestojanu­ arske diktature (Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu-Institut za hrvatsku povijest, 1972). 68 “Za autonomiju sveučilišta”, Hrvat 8, no. 1807 (1926): 1.

30

A na Biočić

the University should be closed to maintain order, but “forced by ministerial decree” opened the University and were compelled to call the police to the University to prevent human casualties, thus violating the university’s autonomy. Zimmermann explains that the police was called only to allow the students to get out of the university building safely. He kept repeating that the goal was to protect students and retain the authority of the university administration instead of having someone else run the University. He further explains why the police revisited the University, but this time not by ViceRector Zimmermann’s order. The competent Ministry issued another order demanding that the University should be forcibly opened, but Zimmermann said that he did not support it because he wanted to protect the lives of students. Zimmermann claims that the events had a political background, which is evident from the fact that individuals who were not students entered the University, and possessed student ID cards. He believes that the blame was also on those students who were against the strike, and did not adhere to the decisions of the academic authorities, but wanted to continue their lectures by force.69 Zimmermann supported the freedom and autonomy of the University, which were fundamental academic values, regardless of whether he was a priest, a theologian, or a layman. A few years later, he reflected on the event again and said he knew opening the University would lead to “severe bloodshed” and therefore refused to carry out Minister Pribičević’s order from Belgrade, which he had received by phone, to allow the police open the University immediately.70 Therefore, it was an open violation of the autonomy of the University not only by political retirements but also by order of the competent minister that the University was not to be closed, which was contrary to the decision of the Senate, as well as the entry of the police into the university building. That situation provoked various public accusations regarding the activities of the University, so the university authorities decided to make a public statement. In December, the rector’s notice appeared on the front door of the university building, stating that all students who had publicly and in the press unjustifiably assessed that the academic Senate put their interests above the interests of the University and the people, were violating the morals and reputation of the University. The second point of the notice condemns the newspapers that do not control the news and publish untruths. Accordingly, it was untrue that the academic authorities advocated for the imprisoned 69 “Prorektor. Dr. Zimmermann o događajima na zagrebačkom Sveučilištu”, Jutarnji list 13, no. 4618 (1924), 2. 70 “O događajima na sveučilištu”, Hrvatska straža 11, no. 275 (1939): 1.

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

31

students only on Monday morning, because they interceded with the police for their release from the moment of closing, i.e. the same evening. They also note that they urged the Minister of the Interior and Education by telegram in the morning, and on Sunday morning they intervened with the county authorities, whereupon they received a positive response, which was not carried out. The release of the arrested students finally took place on Monday, only after the Senate had decided to close the University, which also reflects the pressure which was put on the University.71 The mentioned event resonated outside Croatia as well. Ljubljana supported the Zagreb strike. On December 11, 1924, a “protest assembly of academics” was held because of the recent police attack on university autonomy. A resolution signed by all associations was accepted and submitted to the rector and the Great County Prefect. They chose a one-day strike.72 The Senate of the University of Zagreb sent an appeal regarding the disputed retirements of professors A. Bazala, F. Barac, and L. Polić. At its session held on December 11, 1924, the Senate decided to appeal to the State Council, then to send a petition to the Council of Ministers, and finally to appeal to all universities. They decided that the process of retirement affected retired individuals, the University, and some legal regulations. They explain the meaning of university autonomy and point out that it is not just a self-governing activity, but rather “a scientific autonomy of teacher personalities.” State interference in the curriculum or teachers’ freedom in representing certain supervisors was completely unacceptable. Through their supervision, teachers were limited only by the postulate saying that they must not disturb the natural-social order. The retirement of professors who did not violate the natural foundations of the social order was an encroachment on university autonomy. Art. 16 of the Law states that university teaching is unrestrained, then Art. 73 paragraph 4 of the Constitution states that ministers and university professors may “run and, if elected, retain their position” thus proving the right to represent a personal belief without fear of persecution by state authorities. The Senate concluded that it was not acting contrary to state interests, but was performing its duty to protect rights in education and science when it determined that retirements were inconsistent with principles recognized worldwide and the laws mentioned above. In this respect, an appeal was sent requesting that the retirements be annulled. Prorector Zimmermann signed it.73 The epilogue of these retirements was the return of 71 “Oglas”, Jutarnji list 13, 4620 (1924): 3. 72 “Ponovni štrajk na ljubljanskoj univerzi”, Jutarnji list 13, no. 4620 (1924): 3. 73 “Za autonomiju sveučilišta”, Jutarnji list 13, 4620 (1924): 3.

32

A na Biočić

professors to the faculties—Barac was reinstituted in 1925,74 and Bazala and Polić in 1927.75 Two years after the mentioned riots, political interference by the state at the University took place once again. Some professors who were legitimately elected complained about the violation of university autonomy in 1926 due to the employment of some professors which was not in line with university autonomy (they had been imposed). The Senate sent a petition to the National Assembly expressing its concern about the appointment of some professors at the University of Zagreb in a “completely incorrect way, annulling academic law and endangering the proper development of science.” They gave a detail explaination and a list of names: Branko Vodnik, appointed by decree in 1922 as a full professor of Croatian-Serbian literature contrary to the proposal of the Professors’ Assembly who proposed the return of Đuro Šurmin to the department; Viktor Novak, appointed by decree in 1922 as a full professor of Auxiliary Historical Sciences without a proposal from the Professors’ Assembly, who protested to the competent minister; Arthur Schneider appointed by decree in 1922 as full professor of Art and Culture History, and the Professors’ Assembly filed a complaint which was accepted by the Senate; Milan Prelog, appointed by decree in 1922 as professor of General History without the proposal of the Professors’ Assembly because Prelog had not yet been habilitated; Ferdo Koch appointed by decree in 1924 as professor of Geology and Paleosteology without a proposal from the Professors’ Assembly who appointed a committee which was to make a proposal for filling in the department place, and Koch was appointed before the committee even met; Grgo Novak appointed by decree in 1924 as professor of General History without a proposal from the Professors’ Assembly, the same case as with Koch. All appointments took place during Minister Pribičević’s term in office. The petition of the Professors’ Assembly of the Faculty of Philosophy regarding the Vodnik case was kept by the provincial administration and never reached the Minister. Minister Miloš Trifunović replied to the petition of the Professors’ Assembly at the Faculty of Philosophy regarding the Novak case by stating that it would be best for Novak and the morale of the institution for him to resign. The State Council issued a negative decision concerning two lawsuits (Schneider and Prelog) filed by the Professors’ Assembly.76

74 Ivica Zvonar, “Prinos poznavanju političkog djelovanja dr. Frana Barca”, Časopis za suvremenu povijest 34, no. 2 (2002): 412. 75 Sirotković, “Sveučilište između dva rata (1918‒1941)”, 140. 76 “Za autonomiju sveučilišta”, Hrvat 8, no. 1807 (1926): 1.

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

33

Under the law, the state could not impose professors at the university, except if a particular faculty sabotaged the filling of a vacant department place.77 As the Rector of the University, Zimmermann submitted a petition to the King emphasizing the importance of freedom and university autonomy. Given the situation and appointments made by the Ministry without a proposal or against the will of the Professors’ Assembly at the University of Zagreb, he implored the King to stand up for the University in the “mentioned respect” bearing in mind the unwritten cultural law and natural law of the university.78 This unequivocally proves Zimmermann’s repeated com­ mitment to university autonomy. The provincial governor Juraj Demetrović reflected on the resentment of some professors of the Faculty of Philosophy regarding the controversial appointments with fierce attacks in Jugoslavenska njiva. Professors A. Bazala, J. Majcen, S. Hondl, G. Manojlović, S. Ivšić, and V. Vouk responded to the attacks with a specially printed booklet. They explained in detail the illegalities in the appointments (Vodnik, Prelog, Novak, and Schneider), presented details from the Professors’ Assembly meetings and obvious problems related to the appointments, such as the fact that Šišić lied about Prelog’s work which was allegedly in the press at the Serbian Academy, which soon proved to be true. They ascertained that the university autonomy had been violated, but also that the law prescribing who was in charge to nominate candidates for the professor position was not observed, and that it was necessary to conduct a job application procedure for a particular position. They also proved that political motives had been imputed to the actions of the majority of the Professors’ Assembly of the Faculty of Philosophy who were labeled as “Frankists”, “separatists”, “anti-Yugoslavs”, whereas they were only keeping to the basic principles of higher education. In addition, an attempt was made to scientifically and personally discredit all professors who were against the disputed appointments, and also signed as the authors of the book (Bazala, Ivšić, Majcen, Manojlović, Hondl), which they argumentatively refuted in the booklet.79 In 1939, some incidents broke out again at the University. In October, students of left-wing political affiliation distributed their petition in the main building, which led to a clash with “Frankist” students. The clash culminated, there were gunfire shots and the police had to intervene. The incident was 77 This is the Act of 1874 and its amendment from 1894, because after the collapse of the Monarchy until 1930, no new law on universities was passed. 78 “Za autonomiju sveučilišta”, Hrvat 8, no. 1807 (1926): 1. 79 Albert Bazala, Juraj Majcen, Stanko Hondl, Gavro Manojlović, Stjepan Ivšić, and Vale Vouk, Sveučilište i politika (Zagreb: Tisak Tipografije, 1923), 2–36.

34

A na Biočić

followed by disciplinary proceedings against the participants.80 Zimmermann interceded on behalf of the students who participated in the incident as he believed two years of deportation was not a punishment appropriate to their crime. He blamed people’s ideals which were present among students and young people and regarded that estimating guilt and placing a sentence not only had a legal aspect but also a pedagogical one. In his opinion professors were expected to be “a relevant factor in the objective assessment of university students’ actions.” He notes that this principle was recognized by the late King Alexandar when Rector Zimmermann visited him in 1924 to complain about the persecution of the University of Zagreb by Minister of Education Svetozar Pribićević. Back then, it was, among other things about students’ riots related to the activities of the latter minister. He notes that at the time the consequences for students were not nearly as harsh as these. He proposes that the sentence of two years’ persecution be reconsidered.81

The Influence of One’s Political Affiliation on a University Career The Faculty of Theology professors, as well as rectors of the University, refrained from public political activity. Considering what was said previously about university autonomy in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, it becomes clear why this was so. After all, a newly elected rector had to be confirmed by the ban and the king, which meant that it would be difficult for the politically ineligible to be confirmed.82 For example, Bauer’s political exposure as a member of Starčević’s Party of Rights stood in the way of his advancement at the University during the time of Ban KhuenHéderváry.83 The Faculty Council sought to obtain his promotion from 1891 but succeeded only in 1904 after the departure of Ban Khuen, so Bauer’s example is clear evidence of political involvement in university activities.84 Possibly the professors of the Faculty of Theology were following the instructions of Archbishop Josip Mihalović not to let priests be involved in politics (if they were the opposition).85 With the fall of the Monarchy, a new law from 80 Vojo Rajčević, Studentski pokret na Zagrebačkom sveučilištu 1918–1941 (Zagreb: Mladost, 1959), 264–265. 81 “O događajima na sveučilištu”, Hrvatska straža 11, no. 275 (1939): 1. 82 “Zakon od 26. kolovoza 1875. o izboru rektora na kr. sveučilištu Franje Josipa I. u Zagrebu”, Sbornik zakona i naredaba od godine 1875, 791–792. 83 N. Kolarek, “Nadbiskup dr. Antun Bauer”, Katolički list 88, no. 51 (1937): 600. 84 AKBFSZ, Letter from the Dean’s Office dated June 21, 1904, no. 30. 85 Jasna Turkalj, Pravaški pokret 1878‒1887 (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2009), 153.

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

35

1926 introduced pre-war Serbian laws at the University. According to those, responsibility for administration was transferred to the University Assembly, instead of the Senate, as was the case previously,86 the University Council,87 and University Management,88 while the election of the rector was entrusted to the University Council along with the confirmation from the Minister and the decree of appointment signed by the King.89 Hence, out of 16 University, and (Roman Catholic) Faculty of Theology professors, only four were publicly politically active, namely: Josip Pazman, Antun Bauer, Fran Barac, and Andrija Živković. Although few were publicly politically active, they had their views on political circumstances. Owing to abundant Bishop Strossmayer’s correspondence, we can find information about individuals, including Feliks Suk.90 Strossmayer states in a letter to Rački that Suk, although inactive politically, supported “their” side—the Independent People’s Party, against the unionists. Evidence of his not being at the government’s mercy can be traced to 1893 when the government halved his financial support while he was president of the Society of St. Jerome.91 Bishop Strossmayer also wrote favourably about Gustav Baron (Rector in the term 1885/86) and interceded on his behalf with the Nuncio Vannutelli in Vienna to award him the honor of a secret papal chamberlain.92 However, we cannot say anything more about Baron’s political views, only assume that he was acceptable to Strossmayer and that he shared his political views. We have the case of Ivan Bujanović (Rector in the term 1891/92 and 1903/04) who came to the Faculty on Bishop Strossmayer’s recommendation since his application had been denied when first he applied.93 Being familiar

86 The members were all full professors of the University. 87 The members were the Rector, Vice-Rector, deans and vice-deans of all constituent faculties. 88 The members were all deans and the Rector of the University. 89 Zakon o univerzitetima (Zagreb: Zaklada tiskare Narodnih novina, 1930), art. 9, 5. 90 Fran Barac in an obituary published in Katolički list also confirms that he was not involved in politics and was not a member of any political party. Usp. Fran Barac, “Dr. Feliks Suk”, Katolički list, 66, no. 15 (1915): 155. F. Plevnjak, on the other hand, states that Suk was a representative of the City of Zagreb, but we did not find confirmation of that. Cf. Fran Plevnjak, Prilozi za kulturnu povijest hrvatskog svećenstva (Rad svećenstva na školskom-prosvjetnom polju) (Zagreb: Piščeva naklada, 1910), 445. 91 Cf. Ferdo Šišić, ed., Korespondencija Rački ‒ Strossmayer. Knjiga četvrta (Zagreb: Tisak nadbiskupske tiskare, 1931), 355. 92 Kolanović, ed., Korespondencija Strossmayer—Vannutelli, 605, 611, 613. 93 Ana Biočić, Iva Mršić Felbar, “Ivan Bujanović (1852–1927)—profesor Bogoslovnog fakulteta, rektor Sveučilišta u Zagrebu i autor prvoga mariološkog priručnika na hrvatskom jeziku”, Bogoslovska smotra 86, no. 2 (2016): Zagreb, 383–386.

36

A na Biočić

with the Bishop’s activity, we doubt that he would intercede for someone with opposing political views. The bishop had a very favourable opinion of Bujanović, which is evident from his correspondence with Rački.94 On the other hand, the fact that Bujanović refrained from any political exposure, can render an explanation for the fact that he had been twice elected rector during the time Khuen-Héderváry held the office of the Ban.95 We also learn about Juraj Dočkal’s political affiliation (Rector in the term 1897/98) between the lines in Strossmayer’s correspondence. Bishop Strossmayer speculates that Dočkaj voted for the government party in 1892 to secure a place at the Faculty.96 At that time he did apply for the position of full professor, and it should be noted that Ban Khuen-Héderváry refused to confirm Dočkal’s appointment in 1887.97 Political views inevitably influenced university careers, and Anton Franki (Rector in the term 1888/89) is a glaring example, as an opponent of the ruling unionists he was forcibly retired by Ban Khuen-Héderváry’s political

94 Strossmayer wrote that Bujanović was a honest priest, a learned and diligent man. Cf. Bishop Strossmayer’s letter to Rački dated July 31 and August 25, 1880 in: Ferdo Šišić, ed., Korespondencija Rački ‒ Strossmayer. Knjiga druga (Zagreb: Tisak nadbiskupske tiskare, 1929), 295, 298. Bujanović also often reported news from Zagreb to Strossmayer. More in: Ferdo Šišić, ed., Korespondencija Rački ‒ Strossmayer. Knjiga treća (Zagreb: Tisak nadbiskupske tiskare, 1930), 103, 328. 95 See: Biočić, Mršić Felbar, “Ivan Bujanović (1852–1927.)”, 383–384, 390–393. 96 Strossmayer does not specify what kind of voting it was. Cf. Šišić, ed., Korespondencija Rački ‒ Strossmayer. Knjiga četvrta, 373. 97 In a report prepared for the Dean’s Office by F. Suk on candidates for professors at the departments of Ecclesiastical Law and Special Dogma in 1882, Dočkal was not recommended for neither position because other candidates, especially A. Franki, far surpassed Dočkal. Suk recommended Franki and Matija Martin. Cf. AKBFSZ, Report of F. Suk to the Dean’s Office on candidates for vacant chairs at the Faculty of Theology on January 31, 1882, record no. 9/1882. A few years later, he re-applied and the report was made by A. Franki and recommended him to the Professors’ Assembly, but not for the Department of Fundamental Dogmatics, rather for the Professor of Old Testament Biblical Sciences and Hebrew Language because F. Iveković left that position (in: AKBFSZ, A. Franki’s report on the candidates registered for the competition from October 2, 1887, record no. 70/1887). The professors accepted his election with one vote against (in: AKBFSZ, The record from the first session of the Faculty of Theology on October 4, 1887, record no. 70/1887.). However, this time Ban KhuenHéderváry rejected his appointment, after the Professors’ Assembly recommendation (Cf. AKBFSZ, Letter to the Dean of the Faculty of Theology from October 16, 1887, record no. 61/1887).

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

37

decree. He had been accused of denouncing Zagreb’s Archbishop Josip Mihalovic to Church authorities.98 In the last years of the Monarchy’s existence, priests were also politically active and contributed to the creation of the new State of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, later the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. Josip Pazman (Rector in the term 1912/13) had radically opposite views. He advocated the survival of the Habsburg Monarchy and opposed the creation of a new state and unification with the Kingdom of Serbia and Montenegro. Because of his “Frankists” political activities on the side of the, he was imprisoned and retired in 1919 (a protest against the new state was sent to the Peace Conference in Paris and the session of the Provisional National Assembly in Belgrade).99 Pazman was first arrested on March 25, 1919, and was soon retired by the decree of September 3, 1919.100 The Professors’ Assembly of the Faculty of Theology and Dean Hugo Mihalović, as well as the Archbishop of Zagreb Antun Bauer, interceded on his behalf, but without success.101 Apart from Pazman, professors Hugo Mihalović and Franjo Zagoda were also retired, and, interestingly, the ban appointed Rudolf Vimer (Rector in the term 1900/01), a politically inactive professor who left his work at the Faculty in 1912, as their surrogate. At the same time, Archbishop A. Bauer and Professor F. Barac were supporters of the Yugoslav concept and Starčević’s Party of Rights. Bauer was actively involved in politics as a member of the Croatian Sabor for five terms and a member of the joint parliament in Budapest.102 He sent a let­ ter to the clergy of his archdiocese in October 1918 in which he called on

98 Ana Biočić, “Svećenik, intelektualac i rektor Sveučilišta Anton Franki (1844– 1908)—disciplinski ili politički proces?”, Croatica christiana periodica 39, no. 75 (2015): 121–138. 99 Ana Biočić, “Politički rad svećenika Josipa Pazmana u svjetlu saborskih govora”, Croatica christiana periodica 40, no. 78 (2016): 160–62. 100 Decree of September 22nd, 1919 in: AKBFSZ, record no. 32 485/1919; Resolution of the Royal Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian Provincial Government of the Department of Religion and Education concerning Pension and its Conditions in: Archiv of the Rectorate of the University of Zagreb (hereafter: ARUZ,) Osobnik J. Pazmana, 2. cover 1913–1921, no. 31. 101 Letter to the Commission dated February 26, 1920 from Dean Ivan Bujanović in: ARUZ, Osobnik J. Pazmana, 2. cover 1913–1921, no. 29 (60/920); Archbishop Bauer’s petition of March 21, 1920 in: ARUZ, Osobnik J. Pazmana, 2. cover 1913– 1921, no. 29 (3 216); Letter from the Dean of the Faculty of Theology dated October 31, 1920 in: ARUZ, Osobnik J. Pazmana, 2. cover 1913–1921, no. 30. 102 Matijević, “Katolička crkva u Hrvatskoj i stvaranje jugoslavenske države 1918‒1921”, 18, 21.

38

A na Biočić

them to support the activities of the National Council of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.103 Like Bauer, Barac was a member of Starčević’s Party of Rights and a supporter of the idea of breaking up the Monarchy. His activity was agile in this sense.104 Andrija Živković also joined the non-partisan organization Hrvatsko kolo in Slavonia after the founding of the National Council of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes took place. That group embarked on an active policy supporting the National Council after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. As soon as Hrvatsko kolo ceased with its activities in 1919 Živković joined, as most of the seniors,105 the political party of the Croatian Catholic Movement— the Croatian People’s Party.106 This party did not achieve the desired success during the elections, and after the introduction of the dictatorship in 1929, it ceased to function.107 After the fall of the Monarchy, as it has already been stated, some of the priests welcomed the establishment of the new state with enthusiasm and full confidence in the better future, and Barac was one of them. However, he soon changed his opinion. He publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the agrarian reform, poor financial and trade policy, and corruption.108 He sup­ ported the community of Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes, but was founded on equality and justice.109 He also criticized the Greater Serbia policy.110 Such 103 Zlatko Matijević, “Politička orijentacija Hrvatskoga katoličkog pokreta u posljednjim godinama postojanja Austro-Ugarske Monarhije i prvim danima stvaranja Kraljevstva SHS (1903‒1918)”, Društvena istraživanja 10, no. 1–2 (2001): 153. 104 Bogdan Krizman, “Povjerljive veze između Jugoslavenskog odbora i domac ́ih politic ǎ ra za I. svjetskog rata”, Historijski zbornik 15, no. 1–4 (1962): 217, 225–226; Zvonar, “Prinos poznavanju politic ̌kog djelovanja dr. Frana Barca”, 409–433. 105 The seniors were members of the seniorata, an elitist organization that was the umbrella organization in the Croatian Catholic Movement in terms of decisionmaking and policy-making. Members could be laymen and priests alike. More in: Zlatko Matijević, “Hrvatski katolički seniorat i politika (1912–1919)”, Croatica christiana periodica 24, no. 46 (2000): 121–162. 106 Zlatko Matijević, “Politička orijentacija dijela hrvatskih katoličkih seniora u Slavoniji od objavljivanja ‘Svibanjske deklaracije’ Jugoslavenskog kluba u Beču do osnutka Hrvatske pučke stranke (1917‒1919)”, Scrinia Slavonica: godišnjak Podružnice za povijest Slavonije, Srijema i Baranje Hrvatskog instituta za povijest 1 (2001): 200, 203, 205–206, 210–214. 107 Zlatko Matijević, Slom politike katoličkog jugoslavenstva. Hrvatska pučka stranka u političkom životu Kraljevine SHS (1919–1929) (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, Dom i svijet, 1998). 108 “ ‘Demokrati’, Komunisti i opsadno stanje”, Srijem. Glasilo Hrvatske zajednice 1, no. 1 (1920): 1–2. 109 “Slogu hoćemo, a ne razdor”, Srijem. Glasilo Hrvatske zajednice 1, no. 60 (1920): 1. 110 “Otvorena riječ”, Srijem. Glasilo Hrvatske zajednice 2, no. 27 (1921): 2–3.

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

39

criticism had an impact on his scientific career, and he was retired in 1924. Students and the Academic Senate rose against the violation of university autonomy and his retirement. Thus, Barac was reinstituted at the Faculty in 1925.111 The mentioned example is clear evidence of the involvement of poli­ tics in the activities of the University. Zimmerman supported the Yugoslav concept during the First World War, as did Barac, but after 1928 he sought greater autonomy for Croatia. He defended Croatian independence and the affirmation of Croatian national history against cultural unitarism. He kept rejecting the public political activity and the position of Minister of Religion which was offered to him in 1925 in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, as well as different political functions during the Second World War and the Independent State of Croatia.112 During the Independent State of Croatia, he performed the duty of commissioner for higher education and was in charge of the group drafting the new university law. When it became clear that there would be no autonomy for the University, Zimmermann resigned.113 For stated activity, he was tried in the Court of Honor in 1946 for collaborating with the Ustashas, printing the book Crisis of Culture [Kriza kulture], and receiving the state decoration of the Independent State of Croatia. Although exonerated of all those charges, he retired in 1946.114 We can sum up by saying that regardless of the university autonomy, politics played an important role in the appointment of professors and rectors of the University of Zagreb, as well as in their retirement, which was a direct encroachment on the university autonomy.

Conclusion The possibility of priests’ activity in the political, educational, or cultural field was determined to the greatest extent by the relationship between the Church and the state, which was usually legally regulated by the concordat. The situation during the Habsburg Monarchy regarding the concordat for Croatia 111 Biočić, Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta / Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, 213–217. 112 Stipe Kljajić, “Intelektualni i društveni angažman Stjepana Zimmermanna između dva svjetska rata (1918‒1941)”, Časopis za suvremenu povijest 43, no. 2 (2011): 565– 572; Ivan Tadić, Filozofska misao Stjepana Zimmermanna (Split: Crkva u svijetu, 2010), 15–16. 113 Cf. AKBFSZ, The record of Investigative commissions of the University Court of Honor of the Roman Catholic Faculty of Theology assembled on January 2, 1946, Osobnik S. Zimmermanna, without no., 4–6. 114 Biočić, Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta / Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, 260–267.

40

A na Biočić

was dubious because while Austria officially put the concordat of 1855 out of force in 1874, and Hungary in 1861, the political authorities in Croatia did not disclose the matter. Consequently, Church jurists claimed that the concordat of 1855 was in force in Croatia, while those more liberal politicians and jurists claimed that the concordat was abolished. After the First World War, no concordat was concluded in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, which made the Catholic Church the only religious community without a regulated legal status. The fact that the validity of the concordat during the Habsburg Monarchy was questionable and that the concordat was not concluded after the fall of the Monarchy prompted, professors at the Catholic Faculty of Theology and rectors to defend the Concordat of 1855 and support the idea of the conclusion of a new concordat after World War I. Also, the non-existence of the concordat left many questions unanswered, and for this topic the most important issue is the possibility of priests working in public schools and universities and the regulation of religious education. Besides the concordat, state laws that regulate in certain areas the relations between the Church and the state were also important. The legal framework related to education in the observed period allowed priests to work in public schools and at the university, as evidenced by the priests who served as rectors at the state university. Although the Church lost jurisdiction over education under the Act of 1874, it still had jurisdiction over religious education, and priests could still teach and operate in state schools and universities. While in most European countries priests were excluded from state schools, in Croatia they remained involved in the educational process as teachers or school supervisors. Despite participating in the field of education the example of rectors who were professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology demonstrates that they advocated greater rights of the Church in education. We can say that the latter, regardless of the state system, promoted religious education in schools and the situation was similar in both the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century—religious education was the cause of many controversies and encouraged priests to speak publicly about it. Ultimately, religious education in state schools depended on the state system, so it was allowed in monarchist systems, while after the Second World War the communist government in Yugoslavia did not allow it. We can unequivocally state that political power marked the notion of theology as a science as well as the place of the Catholic Faculty of Theology at a state university. While the Habsburg Monarchy did not seek to separate theology from universities, in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, in 1921 the idea of removing the Catholic Faculty of Theology from the University, for financial reasons, arose as well as the idea of the Minister of

Impact of Social-Political Circumstances

41

Education to reduce the number of departments at the Faculty. Also, the fact that after the establishment of communist rule in 1945, there were no more priest-rectors at the University of Zagreb, and the Roman Catholic Faculty of Theology was removed from the University of Zagreb, which is evidence of political influence on the role of theology at state universities. As elsewhere in Europe, the university autonomy was not complete because universities depended financially on the state, and the appointment of professors had to be approved by the government, usually through a competent minister. It was precisely this that made it possible for the state to interfere in the work of the university and to violate the proclaimed autonomy in the way it was perceived in the Middle Ages. Thus, political affiliation had an impact on university careers, no matter if priests or laypeople were in question. Out of the sixteen priests who held the office of Rector Franki, Pazman and Barac were retired for political reasons, and Bauer could not secure an advancement due to his political affiliation. Professor Zimmermann, although a priest, was an extremely agile rector and vice-rector in the defence of university autonomy, and also theology as an equal component of the university. During his term in office as Rector in 1926, he struggled against the appointment of professors foregoing the faculty councils and the Senate, although a theological faculty was not in question. Zimmermann also advocated for students on the eve of the war when the conflict between the left and right-wing factions broke out at the University. He was certainly an example of a university professor defending the dignity of the University and proof that priestly duties did not stop him from doing so. Finally, we can conclude by saying that socio-political circumstances influenced the position of theology as a science, and the rectors of the University of Zagreb were those who prove this claim. During the existence of the Habsburg Monarchy, the Faculty of Theology provided the largest number of rectors, compared to other state systems in the twentieth century. Regardless of whether it was the nineteenth or twentieth century and regardless of the country in question, priests, including rectors of the University who were professors at the Catholic Faculty of Theology, defended the rights of the Church in the field of education while defending the position of theology.

2  The Catholic Youth and Student Conflicts at the University of Zagreb in the Early Twentieth Century Tihana Luetić Department of Historical Sciences Institute of Historical and Social Sciences Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts Zagreb, Croatia [email protected] Abstract: The paper will analyze the conflicts of student currents at the University of Zagreb in the early twentieth century, with emphasis on the conflict between the liberal group (so-called progressive youth), right-wing group (supporters of the Party of Right called Young Croats, Mladohrvati), with a Catholic group among students. Catholic group was a part of Croatian Catholic Movement and stood up to defend Christian values. Based on the student periodicals and brochures of that time the crucial issues of the student conflicts (such as the exclusion of the Faculty of Theology from the university) and related student activities will be analyzed. As it was a group of students from whose ranks the key names of the Croatian Catholic Movement will be generated, it is worth to discuss their activities during their academic period, as the basis of their future public work. Keywords: Croatian Catholic Movement, Catholic youth, University of Zagreb, early twentieth-century history, history of student life, social history, political history

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Croatian student movement in many ways shared the characteristics of student movements throughout Europe in that period.1 In almost all European countries during the 1 Extensively on student political life at the Royal University Francis Joseph I in Zagreb in the period from the foundation of the university untill the beginning of the First World War, student organizations, ideas and publications see in: Mirjana Gross, “Studentski pokret 1875–1914”, in Jaroslav Šidak, ed., Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu vol. I (Zagreb: Izdavački zavod JAZU, 1969), 451–479; Tihana Luetić, Studenti Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (1874–1914): Društveni život,

44

Tihana Luetić

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, students joined political and cultural organizations. Most of the demonstrations and conflicts of these organized groups were sporadic and local, but many of them greatly influenced global socio-political developments. 2 Generally speaking about stu­ dent political movements in Europe during the nineteenth and in the first half of the twentieth century, they had some common basic characteristics in their manifestation which were shared by the student movement in Croatia, i.e. the movement on the only university in the country, the one in Zagreb. As a rule, it was a collective action of students with the purpose of influencing the rest of the society.3 The most common connection was with the current general political movement, within which the student movement represented a radical current, and also served as a channel for the mobilization of young people. It should be said that, although the student movement regularly adopted the ideological basis and motives for the struggle from the wider political movement, it itself, on the other hand, modified this broader movement. Furthermore, the student movement had a wider social impact, preparing its members for later assignments, i.e. future political action. It strengthened their political beliefs and idealism for later socio-political role. Prerequisites for all student movements were means of communication and “mobilization channels” such as student meetings, periodicals, and publications.4 All these features can be detected in three key political and cultural youth groups in Croatia, before the beginning of the First World War. In the period after the People’s Movement and the fall of Ban Khuen Héderváry in 1903, the establishment of new parties in the country was reflected in the differentiation of the student movement. Thus, new political groups among young people emerged during this period. In ideological and political terms, the student youth of the University of Zagreb at the svakodnevica, kultura i politika (Zagreb: Srednja Europa, 2012), 359–406; Mate Ujević, Prilozi za povijest pokreta hrvatske omladine koncem XIX i početkom XX stoljeća, s osobitim osvrtom na borbu starih i mladih (Zagreb: Alfa, 2015). 2 Mark Edelman Boren, Student Resistence. A History of the Unruly Subject (New York: Routledge, 2001), 42–43. For more information on student movements in European countries during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, see in: Boren, Student Resistence, 28–64; Lieve Gevers, Louis Vos, “Student Movements”, in Walter Rüegg, ed., Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1800–1945) vol. III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 269–337; Lewis S. Feuer, The Conflict of Generations: The Character and Significance of Student Movements (New York, London: Basic Books, 1969). 3 Gevers, Vos, “Student Movements”, 269–270. 4 Ibid, 270.

The Catholic Youth and Student Conflict at the University

45

beginning of the twentieth century was divided into three basic groups, two of which (supporters of Party of Right and so-called progressive youth) fractionated over time but basically belonged to the same ideological circle. There was a group of so-called progressive youth, which was formed after the return of a group of students from Prague, where they went to study as the famous generation of “1895”5 and were strongly influenced by the liberal ideas of the Czech professor Thomas G. Masaryk.6 Their maga­ zine Hrvatski djak, published at the beginning of the twentieth century, was presented as a magazine of a new modern generation, representing liberal ideas.7 It was started by Jurislav Janušić and published from 1907 to 1911. In a broader sense, the progressive youth was an integral part of the Progressive Party. Their ideological struggle was mainly directed against the influence

5 Student emigration happened in 1895 after the burning of the Hungarian flag in Zagreb in October 1895 during the visit of Emperor Francis Joseph I to Zagreb. It was one of the most famous Croatian student protests. With this manifestation, academic youth wanted to warn the Emperor that Croatia had not been converted into an obedient Hungarian region. This act also had far reaching consequences, not only for this student generation, but for the whole atmosphere at the university before the Great War. New political environment had appeared as a consequence of students emigration to Prague. Students, punished and expelled from the University of Zagreb, continued their education at universities across the Empire, but the majority went to Czech capital. About the political events in 1895 see: Bosiljka Janjatović, “Sudski proces zagrebačkim studentima u studenome 1895”, Historijski zbornik 50 (1997), 91–108; Hrvatski đaci pred sudom. Stenogram suđenja hrvatskim sveučilištarcima u Zagrebu 1895 (Zagreb: Dom i svijet, 1895, reprinted in 1995); Ljerka Racko, “Spaljivanje mađarske zastave 1895. godine u Zagrebu”, Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 23 (1990): 233–245; Damir Agičić, “Hrvatski studenti na češkom sveučilištu u Pragu 1882–1918”, Časopis za suvremenu povijest 30 (1998): 296–314; Sarah Kent, “State Ritual and Ritual Parody: Croatian Student Protest and the Limits of Loyalty at the End of the Nineteenth Century”, in The Limits of Loyalty: Imperial symbolism, popular allegiances and the state patriotism in the late Habsburg Monarchy, ed. Laurence Cole, and Daniel L. Unowsky (New York: Berghahn Books, 2007), 162–177; Luetić, Studenti sveučilišta u Zagrebu (1874–1914), 206–208, 372–374; Filip Šimetin Šegvić, Patriotizam i bunt. Posjet Franje Josipa I. Zagrebu 1895. godine (Zagreb: Srednja Europa, 2014). 6 Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850–1937), Czech politician and university professor, member of the Imperial Council, first president of the Czechoslovak Republic. For more on him and his attitude towards Croats until the First World War, see in: Ante Kadić, “Tomas G. Masaryk and the Croats”, Journal of Croatian Studies 28, no. 29 (1987/1988): 81–102; Damir Agičić, Hrvatsko-češki odnosi na prijelazu iz XIX. u XX. stoljeće (Zagreb: Ibis grafika, 2000), 222–242. 7 Hrvatski djak, glasilo hrv. naprednog djaštva 1–4 (1907–1911).

46

Tihana Luetić

of the church in society and at the university level against Catholic student societies.8 Second youth group was gathered around the magazine Mlada Hrvatska. It was an organ of supporters of the Starčević’s Party of Right who had a strong presence among Croatian student and high-school population.9 They were called Young Croats (Mladohrvati) after their magazine. The politicization of the youth and the recruitment of future supporters of Starčević’s Party of Rights was their primary goal. The Young Croats movement, gathered around its magazine launched in 1908, founded the ideological basis in the concept of liberal nationalism.10 Catholic youth represented a third group at the university. According to its ideological postulates, this group distinguished itself from the majority in terms of their strong Christian worldview. Catholic youth gathered around magazine Luč, under the slogan “God—People—Social Justice”, and it was published for over 37 years.11 The idea of launching the magazine originated within the academic Catholic Society “Croatia” in Vienna. The first issue was published in the autumn of 1905 in Vienna, on the initiative of the bishop of Krk, Antun Mahnič. Since 1911, Luč has been edited in Zagreb and since then it has been the property of the “Domagoj”, Catholic academic society in Zagreb.12 The Catholic academic society “Domagoj” was founded 8 Mirjana Gross, “Nacionalne ideje studentske omladine u Hrvatskoj uoči I svjetskog rata”, Historijski zbornik 21–22 (1968–1969), 77–79; Luetić, Studenti sveučilišta u Zagrebu (1874–1914), 384. More about so-called Progressive youth see in: Gross, “Studentski pokret 1875–1914”, 459–462; Agičić, “Hrvatski studenti na češkom sveučilištu u Pragu”, 300–302, 313–314. 9 Mlada Hrvatska, glasilo starčevićanskog djaštva 1–7 (1908–1914). 10 More about Young Croats and their magazine Mlada Hrvatska see in Gross, “Studentski pokret 1875–1914”, 451–479; Gross, “Nacionalne ideje studentske omladine”, 75–142, Stjepan Matković, “Josip Matasović i ‘mladohrvatski pokret’ ”, in Josip Matasović i paradigma kulturne povijesti, ed., Suzana Leček (Slavonski Brod, Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, Podružnica za povijest Slavonije, Srijema i Baranje, Hrvatski državni arhiv, Društvo za hrvatsku povjesnicu, 2013), 151–163; Mislav Gabelica, “Pravaška mladež na hrvatskom Sveučilištu uoči Prvoga svjetskog rata”, Društvena istraživanja 20, no. 4 (2011): 1139–1161; Mislav Gabelica, “Mladohrvatski pokret do odvajanja od Starčevićeve hrvatske stranke prava 1910. godine”, Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 34 (2016): 213–238. 11 Luč, list hrvatskog katoličkog đaštva, 1–5 (1905–1910). The magazine was published until 1942, but here I list only the years that were used for the purposes of this paper. 12 Extensively about magazine Luč see in: Vladimir Lončarević, Književnost i Hrvatski katolički pokret (1900–1945) (Zagreb: Alfa, 2005), 180–190; Vladimir Lončarević, “Svjetlo katoličke obnove. Uz stotu obljetnicu Luči—‘Lista hrvatskog katoličkog đaštva’ (1905–2005)”, Obnovljeni život 61, no. 1 (2006): 59–78.

The Catholic Youth and Student Conflict at the University

47

on a Catholic basis after the first meeting of Croatian catholic students on Trsat in 1906. The purpose of founding “Domagoj”, according to its first Vice-President Stjepan Markulin, was “progress in religious principles, practice in charitable deeds, and showing due honour at church ceremonies and events.”13 As an integral part of the Croatian Catholic Movement, expanding at the beginning of the twentieth century, these young people organized into their own Catholic organizations stood up for defending the Christian values. With the efforts of Bishop Mahnič, who was the real initiator of the Croatian Catholic Movement, the action of organizing Catholic academic youth and launching their media began, all for defending of Christian values against the onslaught of liberalism.14 The basic orientation of Luč, as well as the move­ ment in general, is clearly stated in the first programatic article “What do we want?” in its first issue, authored by the editor-in-chief, philosophy student Ivan Butković. The main goal of the young Catholics was the “strong organization of all Croatian catholic students.” Such organizations were intended for students, seminarians, but also for high-school pupils. The name Luč [The Light] was chosen because, in their opinion, “80% of our youth wander in the darkness of nihilism”, so the Christian light should have illuminate their lives.15 In addition to organizing congregations in secondary and high schools, a special request was to organize Catholic youth in Zagreb, where in its stagnation a society needed to be formed: “… that would be sharp against our bloody enemy—liberalism or progressiveness, and begin quiet work without noise and huke for the benefit of us and all our people …”16 The ultimate goal was the “Catholic revival”, which according to them, it referred to “the revival of the Croatian people.”17 The youth took over this idea from their initiator, Bishop Mahnič, who believed that “the entire Croatian social practice, and especially scientific and cultural production, 13 Luka Perinić, “Iz moje ladice—IX, ‘Domagoj’– povodom 90. obljetnice osnutka”, Marulić 29, no. 6 (1996): 1043; O “Domagoju” i njegovu osnutku vidi opširnije u: Ivan Markešić, “Počeci djelovanja Hrvatskog katoličkog akademskog društva ‘Domagoj’ ”, in Hrvatski katolički pokret, Zbornik radova s Međunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa održanog u Zagrebu i Krku od 29. do 31. ožujka 2001, ed. Zlatko Matijević (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2002) (henceforth: Zbornik HKP), 309–320. 14 Zlatko Matijević, “Hrvatski katolički pokret i politika (1903–1929)”, Croatica chris­ tiana periodica 25, no. 47 (2001): 182. 15 Ivan Butković, “Što hoćemo”, Luč 1, no. 1 (1905): 1–3. 16 ***, “Zavjerismo se”, Luč 2, no. 1 (1906): 2–3. 17 Ljubomir Maraković, “Naši ideali”, in Koledar hrvatskoga katoličkoga narodnoga đaštva, za školsku godinu 1910/1911, ur.. Milko Kelović (Zagreb: Tisak A. Scholza, 1910), 78–79.

48

Tihana Luetić

has completely lost its Christian character”, and therefore it was necessary to re-Christianize Croatian society.18 Furthermore, Luč and “Domagoj” were supposed to help train young Catholics in the field of journalism and teach them how to win Croatian public opinion.19 The entire movement of young Catholics was an integral part of the Croatian Catholic movement.20 It was based on religious (Catholic), national (Croatian), and social (democracy) components.21 In the religious context, the youth of this group acted radically: living according to Catholic principles in all areas of life. In the national context, they advocated the right of the Croatian people for freedom and self-determination, the unification of Croatian regions, but unlike other groups, according to catholic postulates, without “violent and subversive change of socio-political reality.” With the right-wing youth they shared the opinion that Croats are the only political people in Croatia. The democratic component of this movement meant, first of all, Christian democracy; a democracy that would exclude the Christian faith, for them it was not democracy.22 Their primary goal was agitation

18 Mario Strecha, “Od katoličkog hrvatstva do katoličkog pravaštva”, Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu 34–35–36, no. 1 (2004): 1, 104. 19 Jure Krišto, Hrvatski katolički pokret 1903–1945 (Zagreb: Glas Koncila, Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2004), 43. 20 More about the Catholic youth, their societies and the magazine Luč see in: Gross, “Studentski pokret 1875–1914”, 451–479; Lav Znidarčić, “Organizirano djelovanje katoličkih svjetovnjaka na području Zagrebačke nadbiskupije (1852–1994.)”, in Zagrebačka biskupija i Zagreb. Zbornik u čast Franje Kuharića 1094–1994, ed. Antun Škvorčević (Zagreb: Nadbiskupija zagrebačka, 1995), 376–381; Matijević, “Hrvatski katolički pokret i politika (1903–1929),” 181–205; Zlatko Matijević, “Politička orijentacija Hrvatskog katoličkog pokreta u posljednjim godinama postojanja AustroUgarske Monarhije i prvim danima stvaranja Kraljevstva SHS (1903–1918)”, Društvena istraživanja 10, no. 1–2 (51–52) (2001): 141–163; Zlatko Matijević, ʻ“Narodno-obrambena sekcija”, Hrvatskog katoličkog akademskog društva “Domagoj” (1913./1914. godine)”, Croatica christiana periodica 26, no. 50 (2002): 157–175; Antun Bozanić, “Djelovanje biskupa Mahnića na formaciji i organizaciji katoličkog laikata do 1912. godine”, Zbornik HKP, 273–288; Krišto, Hrvatski katolički pokret 1903–1945, 39–48, 62–79, 81–96; Lončarević, “Svjetlo katoličke obnove”, 59–78; Tihana Luetić, “Časopis Luč o dokolici i društvenom životu katoličke mladeži početkom 20. stoljeća”, Croatica Christiana periodica 36, no. 69 (2012): 51–84. 21 Krišto, Hrvatski katolički pokret, 45. The basic principles of the youth of the Croatian Catholic Movement and, on the other hand, the principles of the progressives are presented in tabular form. In terms of worldview, the progressive group advocated liberalism, as opposed to the religious principle, and that was their fundamental difference. 22 Ibid, 44–46.

The Catholic Youth and Student Conflict at the University

49

among high-school and academic youth, among whom liberal ideas were widespread. The umbrella organization was the “Croatian Catholic Students’ Union.”23 In addition to its primary goal, Catholic youth showed a significant interest in the issue of social justice and volunteer work among the lowest strata of society, especially in the field of literacy of illiterate and in the fight against alcoholism. Many of them attended at that time very popular social courses of the Slovenian Janez Ev. Krek and soak up the ideas of Christian Socialism.24 Lectures and courses were most often organized together by society “Domagoj” and “Association of Spiritual Youth”, although the societies that brought together youth throughout the province also recorded their activities. According to the social issue, Catholic youth advocated Christian Socialism, often providing an example of “the Slovene’s brothers” in whom some principles of this social model took root. The text of law student Rudolf Eckert on the social movement, inspired young people to be “guards of social peace” and emphasized that the best work for the people is social work (charitable activities such as those in the societies of St. Vinko Paulski, illiteracy courses, fight against alcoholism etc.).25 The concrete struggles and balance of power between these three factions were most noticeable during the campaigns for the elections for the “Croatian Academic Support Society”.26 It was the largest student society at the university whose membership consisted of students, regardless of affiliation with other clubs and organizations. It shared student grants and material aids. In fact, the struggle for the leadership in that society was a training ground for the clashes of these three factions. Conflicts were waged through student magazines and brochures. Young people gathered around Luč and society “Domagoj” became a center of the fight against liberalism at the university, and the crucial tool was usually the 23 For more details on the organization and membership of this alliance, see: Velimir Deželić iur., “Hrvatski katolički đački savez”, in Koledar hrvatskoga katoličkoga narodnoga đaštva za školsku godinu 1910/1911, ed. M. Kelović (Zagreb: Tisak A. Scholza, 1910), 92–98. 24 On the influence of John Ev. Krek on the Croatian Catholic Movement, especially in the education of pupils, students and workers on the Christian Socialism, see in: Andrej Rahten, “Janez Ev. Krek i Hrvatski katolički pokret”, Zbornik HKP, 383–391. 25 Rudolf Eckert, “Socijalno gibanje”, in Koledar hrvatskoga katoličkoga narodnoga đaštva za školsku godinu 1910/1911, ed. M. Kelović (Zagreb: Tisak A. Scholza, 1910), 98–107. 26 About the “Croatian Academic Support Society” extensively see in: Tihana Luetić, “Hrvatsko akademsko potporno društvo (1894–1914.)”, Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 29 (2011): 311–332.

50

Tihana Luetić

blade of their writing pens. Luč constantly strives to activate the Catholic youth in the active struggle against liberalism, as tit was considered the main enemy: Let’s move on (…), let us unite first as true Catholics, and work together against our main enemy liberalism … Let us therefore place ourselves on the only true logical position: let us gather as Catholics on Catholicism … (…) We emphasize our Croatian position: ‘in necessariis unitas’ …27

In this attitude, as it was already mentioned, Catholic youth followed faithfully Bishop Mahnič, who saw in Croatian Catholic Movement the possibility of squeezing liberalism out of Croatian society, but not only on an ideological basis but in concrete actions in society, culture and literature.28 Speaking about the everyday struggle, Stjepan Markulin described the atmosphere at the university just before the foundation of “Domagoj”, in the period when modern liberal ideas founded fertile ground within the majority of the academic youth: The spirit that reigned among the university youth was extremely intolerant, imbued with hatred for anything ecclesiastical. Thus, for example, at the University of Zagreb, advertisements of St. Mary’s Congregation of the University of Zagreb, when hung in the university lobby, for a moment ‘conscious’ academics streaked with various derogatory expressions, crossed out the word ‘academic’ and instead wrote the word ‘cleric’, instead of the word ‘congregation’, put the word ‘scum’ etc.29

By the concept of freedom and the right to choose, so-called progressive youth encompassed all spheres of life and in practice it often meant selfdestructive behaviour, as it was seen by their Catholic colleagues: They all seek ‘freedom’, freedom of thought, speech, and action, so they can do whatever they like, whatever they want … The notion of this ‘freedom’ captures all their opinion and will and they simply do not see what will happen to the people, if everyone accept their idea of freedom.30

According to Luč, the idea of freedom was mostly misunderstood by the progressives, leading the youth to the moral ruin. Decadence during the student days, a life without any social and moral boundaries, could not give birth to 27 ***, “Odveć politike”, Luč 2 (1906/1907), 37. 28 Željko Mardešić, “Hrvatski katolički pokret i liberalizam”, Zbornik HKP, 263–265. 29 Luka Perinić, “Iz moje ladice”, 1045. It is about the Stjepan Markulin’s report tittled “Domagoj u svojim počecima” which was read at the celebration marking the 25th anniversary of “Domagoj”. 30 ***, “Odveć politike”, Luč 2 (1906/1907): 36–37.

The Catholic Youth and Student Conflict at the University

51

a generation in whose hands the political future of the country would be.31 Regarding the lifestyle of young people, especially the progressive youth, Luč sharply criticized the management of the “Croatian Academic Support Society”, which for most of its existence was in the hands of the progressive group. As the society shared various grants, including support for medicines and hospital treatment, critic of Luč often pointed out that the treatments of venereal disease are the most supported, and thus actually the society supported ʻsportsʼ that were not worthy of a young man. It is stated that in academic year 1906/1907 of the 100 student patients, 98 were infected with veneral diseases and all of them received support from “Croatian Academic Support Society”.32 The accusations by Catholic youth went so far as to call it “a society for supporting prostitution.”33 Apart from Luč, members of “Domagoj” also defended their views and criticized the opposite side in the brochure Fiat lux! and in the Koledar hrvatskoga katoličkoga narodnoga đaštva, published by “Domagoj”. The need of publishing a brochure Fiat lux! “Domagoj” explained in another brochure called Zora rudi … The reasons for publishing this brochure do not lie only in the harsh attacks of the progressive youth, in which their members were ʻhonoredʼ with epithets such as: “church mercenaries”, “clerical plague”, “leprosy on the cultural development of the Croatian people”, but also in the desire to discredit them in public.34 Special attention was paid on the behaviour of the progressive youth during the student emigration to Prague in 1907/1908, while big student strike in Zagreb occured. They described their decadent behaviour and spending the state money on various vices.35 This discussion was continued in the progressive’s brochure Klerikalci i istina. Here, however, in addition to defending themselves from Catholic’s critics, they attacked not only the youth but the morals of the Church in general, which, according to their examples, preached one thing and lived another. They respond about the issue of so-called ʻimmoral lifeʼ of students in Prague that there were representatives of all currents among Croatian students in Prague, and that the blame of individuals could not be 31 Tihana Luetić, “Časopis Luč”, 56. 32 ***, “Moloh u mantiji”, Luč 2 (1906/1907): 431. More about the critics of “Croatian Academic Support Society” regarding treatments of veneral diseases see in: Akademičar, “Iz Hrv. akad. potpornog društva”, Luč 5 (1909/1910): 262–263. 33 A., “Jedno isključenje”, Luč 5 (1909/1910): 301. 34 Zora rudi … riječ hrvatskomu djaštvu povodom brošure “Fiat lux!” upravlja “Domagoj”, hrv. katol. akadem. društvo u Zagrebu (Zagreb: Tiskara Hrv. katol. tiskovnog društva, 1909), 4–5. 35 Ibid, 5–7.

52

Tihana Luetić

put only on the backs of the progressive youth. In addition, they retaliated with the same measure, citing a number of harsh examples of the immoral life of Catholic students and members of some Church orders.36 In fact, the progressive youth presented themselves as an antipode of the Catholic group at the university: “(…) And precisely because of the difference between their religious and cultural-social point of view, the progressives (with the socialists) are sharply opposed to the clerical group.”37 One of the features of their ideology was the critique of everything related to the Catholic Church, the clergy and the faith. It was they who popularized the terms “clericalism” and “clericals”. It should be mentioned that for the progressive group, the term “clericalism” meant “the church’s effort to gain political power through religion and to become an unlimited master of the society.”38 Regarding their attitude towards the faith, the more prominent progressives initially declared themselves as Christians, but over time they radicalized their attitudes towards Catholicism, considering it anti-national and non-national.39 The entire struggle against clericalism was summed up by one of the main ideologues of progressives and role models of progressive youth, Milan Marjanović, in an article in Pokret, a magazine of the Croatian People’s Progressive Party, on which the progressive youth actually relied on: “No one can seriously imagine our entire young movement without a strong fight against clericalism. (…) This struggle is not perhaps an hourly caprice of the individual, but it rises from our entire worldview. It is an essential part of our soul …”40 Progressive youth was also attacked for open atheism, pointing out that they have “self-adorned themselves with the sonorous epithet of progressivity”, attacking their role models “the greatest thief of modern science confused Häckel” and “inmoral madman Nietzsche.”41 Youth’s obsession with progressivity, i.e. liberal ideas was condemned, believing that young people had accepted Masaryk’s ideas for the sake of fashion:42 “They were there­ fore raw material, which had to be sent to the famous Masaryk’s factories 36 Klerikalci i istina. Odgovor na furtimaške klevete u “Fiat lux!” (Zagreb: Hrvatska napredna omladina, 1909), 7. 37 Vladimir Čaldarović, “Grupe hrv. djaštva na univerzi i njihovi medjusobni odnošaji”, Hrvatski djak 1 (1907): 147–148. 38 Jure Krišto, “Naprednjačka kritika katolištva”, Zbornik HKP, 294. 39 Ibid, 295–296. 40 Quoted by: Ibid, 297. 41 Fiat lux! Riječ hrvatskomu đaku i narodu upravlja “Domagoj” hrv. katol. akad. društvo u Zagrebu (Zagreb: Tiskara Hrv. katol. tiskovnog društva, 1909), 6. 42 On the relationship between Croatian students in Prague and T. G. Masaryk, exten­ sively see in: Agičić, Hrvatsko-češki odnosi, 159–164.

The Catholic Youth and Student Conflict at the University

53

in Prague, and then shipped back to Croatia in the “finest workmanship”, to continue poisoning a small remnant of our healthy public.”43 The main focus of the critics on the pages in magazine Luč was the progressive youth’s commitment to the separation of church from the state, emphasizing modern natural sciences, especially the theory of evolution.44 They also resented the right-wing current for their liberalism and their resistance to the influence of the clergy in society, while concerning the national issue they themselves used their ideological concept. The main criticism that ʻwentʼ to Young Croats was putting their “monopoly on patriotism”. Catholic youth believed that the representation of the national position they shared with the Starčević’s youth did not conflict with membership in Catholic societies and the St. Mary’s Congregations, which, according to Starčević’s youth ideals, excluded each other.45 They condemn the exclusivity of the Young Croats: Mlada Hrvatska resolutely chases from their ranks all, who feel Catholic and are members of either the St. Mary’s Congregation or “Domagoj”, or any other Catholic society. They wrote the motto themselves: ʻaut—autʼ, i.e., according to them, one cannot be a Catholic and a supporter of Party of Right at the same time.46

They also condemn the “shameless immorality” preached by Mlada Hrvatska “filled with hatred of the Catholic faith”, thus quarrelling in ideological terms with its founder Ante Starčević: “Spread morality with good deeds, for this world and the next!”47 The Young Croats fiercely fought against clericalism, accepting the ideas of Antun Gustav Matoš, the ideological leader of the right-wing circle who presented himself as the last right-wing liberal, rejecting the “Roman politics”. Thus, in the agitations at the university, which were the loudest at the time of the election for the Croatian Academic Support Society, they often found themselves in the camp together with the progressive youth, and against the Catholic youth. “Domagoj” went to the polls with an independent list in 1908, which happened due to the escalation of the conflict between the Starčević’s youth and the Catholic current inside and outside

43 Fiat lux!, 8. 44 Gross, “Studentski pokret 1875–1914”, 462; Krišto, “Naprednjačka kritika katolištva”, 289–298. 45 Fiat lux, 3. 46 Ibid, 19. 47 Ibid, 19, 21.

54

Tihana Luetić

its ranks.48 Until then, Domagoj’s candidates were on the Starčević’s Youth list, but since 1908, when the magazine Young Croatia was launched, there has been a stronger divergence between youth who shared the same political program: for the Catholic group, the liberal views of Young Croatia were unacceptable. In a lengthy article on the disagreement with Young Croatia, Catholic youth criticizes its circumvention of religious issues on its pages. They point out that, in fact, the Starčević’s youth and the progressive youth, apart from their addition political motives, are “equally anti-religious.”49 In 1909, for the first time, a joint list of the Organization of Progressive Youth and the Starčević’s Academic Youth went to the student elections, as opposed to the Domagoj’s group. On the elections for the “Croatian Academic Support Society” in 1911, “Domagoj” came out with its own list and refused to support the Starčević’s youth, which led to even greater conflicts. The editorial of Young Croatia, which celebrates the victory of the its youth in this election (“Young Croats hold the University!”), vehemently attacks “Domagoj”, which they consider “abnormal in its religious fanaticism”, and declares even the progressives possible allies.50 The right-wing critique of organized Catholicism was very similar to the progressive one, based on fierce anti-clericalism. The basis of rightwing anti-clericalism was that the Catholic group “narrowed the foundations of the Croatian national movement by identifying Croatianhood and Catholicism”, resenting to the Catholic group for religious divisions against Muslims, which was understood as “weakening the national front.”51 In their brochure Riječ Mlade Hrvatske, Young Croats call the magazine Luč “the infant of the ultramontanes.”52 The core of their critique of the Croatian Catholic Youth Movement, including their fundamental principle “Omnia renovare in Christo”, is that it sees all Croats as enthusiastic Christians, and Catholics, Roman Catholic Christians … (…) but we know that the Croatian people are divided into several religions; we also know that each of them wants to continue to exist, that

48 Gabelica, “Mladohrvatski pokret”, 224. 49 Ibid, 223. See also: ***, “Starčevićanska omladina u svom glasilu”, Luč 3, no. 5 (1907/1908): 255–264. 50 ***, “Izbori u “Hrvatskom akademskom podpornom društvu”ʼ, Mlada Hrvatska 4 (1911): 249. Extensively about these electiones see in: Gabelica, “Pravaška mladež”, 1145. 51 About the conflict with Young Croats see more in: Krišto, Hrvatski katolički pokret, 74–75. 52 Riječ mlade Hrvatske. Hrvatskom đaštvu i svomu narodu posvećuje Starčevićanska mladost (Zagreb: Pučka tiskara, 1911), 42.

The Catholic Youth and Student Conflict at the University

55

these religions do not stand in such a relationship, that they could be united, and therefore, every religious agitation on the one hand provokes a reaction on the other.53

The basic right-wing position towards the Church was taken from the liberal Starčević’s Party of Right view of respecting the religious freedom of all Croatian inhabitants: Catholics, Muslims, and Orthodox Christians, Jews and Evangelics. This relationship should be viewed in the context of a party standpoint that is interested in establishing a Croatian state composed of a diverse confessional population.54 This issue was also pointed out by Matoš in the editorial of Stekliš, the Starčević’s youth magazine, where he clearly emphasized that his group had nothing in common with the Catholic youth because “a party of one denomination, even a Catholic one, cannot be a party of an entire diverse nation.”55 He spoke openly about their closeness to the progressives: “While the Progressives are not far from us, because, like us, they are now in opposition …”56 The editorial board of Mlada Hrvatska, which resigned due to dis­ agreements in the Young Croats ranks with the policy of the parent party, has now, gathered around A. G. Matoš, launched a new magazine Grabancijaš, a publication of Starčević’s youth which came out in only one issue, and was edited by Krešimir Kovačić.57 In his attacks on clericalism, Grabancijaš emphasized that giving Croatian nationalism “pure national, liberal character of unconditional tolerance” was a “duty of youth”, believing that “pure Croatian nationalism” lost its meaning when it became “national idea of the 53 Ibid, 52. 54 Stjepan Matković, “Odnos vjerskog i nacionalnog u pravaškoj ideologiji”, in Humanitas et litterae. Zbornik u čast Franje Šanjeka, ed. Lovorka Čoralić, and Slavko Slišković (Zagreb: Dominikanska naklada Istina, Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2009), 567–568. about the relation of the Party of Right and religion see more extensively in: ibid., 563–575. The author points out that the issue of religion did not play a prominent role in the political life of right-wingers and points out that the key was Ante Starčević’s view that religion is a matter of personal attitude, personal mentality and that the religious feelings of people of any denomination should be respected. It was from this attitude that the prevailing opinion was that the supporters of Starčević’s Party of Right advocated religious tolerance and the avoidance of religious conflicts, with a goal not to harm the idea of a united Croatian people (564). The Party of Right in the later period also referred to Starčević’s principles: “the people is not divided by religion, religion must be free, in Croatia live people of different religions but of one nationality and homeland.” (567). 55 Antun Gustav Matoš, “Stekliš”, Stekliš 1, no. 1 (1911): 2. 56 Ibidem. 57 Luetić, Studenti sveučilišta u Zagrebu (1874–1914), 393–394.

56

Tihana Luetić

Church.”58 On the appearance of “free-minded Starčević’s students”, i.e. the secession of one wing from the circle around Mlada Hrvatska, Luč confirmed her position that this is actually a progressive group: “… so there are not only progressives no. 1, but also progressives no. 2”, identifying liberal right-wing youth with the progressive youth.59 One of the conflicts among Catholic group with Young Croats and progressive youth occurred during the attempt of separation the Rijeka parish from the Senj-Modruš diocese and foundation of Rijeka diocese. On the news of the Hungarian request to separate Rijeka into a separate diocese, the Young Croats youth, together with the progressive youth, accused Rome and the pope of anti-Croatian policies. While seminarians in Zagreb threatened to leave the seminary if Rome complied with this request, the rightwing youth, led by Mile Budak, issued a resolution in Senj threatening to convert to Orthodoxy if this attempt to separate the Rijeka parish materializes. Members of “Domagoj” tried to direct the accusations from Rome to Vienna and Pest. However, the open conflict occurred during the student assembly held in a tavern in Medulićeva Street, where the protest resolution was discussed. They also failed to prevent the student procession to Kaptol, where the resolution was to be read in front of the seminary. However, mostly thanks to “Domagoj” and the commitment and speech of its member Velimir Deželić Jr., the text of the resolution was softened. Academic youth, influenced by “Domagoj”, pointed out that church reasons were not the cause of the idea of separating the Rijeka parish, emphasizing loyalty to the Holy See. The youth stressed that the cause was “Hungarian ruthless chauvinism combined with Austro-Roman diplomacy, to the detriment and destruction of Croatia.” However, Archbishop Bauer finally calmed the student unrest by announcing the news that the separation of the Rijeka parish from the SenjModruš diocese was unfounded.60 The Yugoslav nationalist-unitarian youth, who grew up from the ranks of radical progressives, and appeared before the beginning of the First World War gathered around the radical magazine Val, also acted distinctly anticlerical. Attacking any influence of the clergy and the church in society, they point out that they are “the leaven of anti-clerical struggle” based on education and science, focused on “modern, free-minded principles.” One of the leaders of the Yugoslav nationalist youth Matej Košćina emphasized in one of 58 ***, Grabancijaš 1, no. 1 (1910): 9. 59 ***, “Slobodoumni Starčevićanci!”, Luč 5 (1909/1910): 255. 60 Zoran Grijak, “Problem odvajanja riječke župe od Senjsko-modruške biskupije (1891– 1913)”, Časopis za suvremenu povijest 28, no. 3 (1996): 315–318; Krišto, Hrvatski katolički pokret, 74–75.

The Catholic Youth and Student Conflict at the University

57

his programmatic articles that they do not want just to separate the church from the society, but he went further: “We want to develop completely freely, independently society on the basis of modern, free-minded orchards without clergy, even against it.”61 Also, this group of young people considered them­ selves the only true fighters against clericalism in Croatia, judging that the Croatian Progressive Youth, which considered itself as an anti-clerical group, did so only declaratively, only “on the bare word.”62 Advocating the idea that “the anti-clericalism is the basis of all progress”, they gave priority to various struggles against the church and the clergy, over various other socio-political issues.63 Conflicts between Catholic youth and the progressive youth were especially provoked by the demand of the liberal youth for non-recognition of the Faculty of Theology as a component of the University of Zagreb. One of the manifestations of this liberal demand was a proclamation in October 1906 where this group of students declared that they refused to attend the installation of new rector Antun Bauer, a professor at the Faculty of Theology, who was appointed rector that year. During the rector’s appointment ceremony, the progressive youth stated that with their absence from the ceremony, they would protest “against the installation of the rector, a professor of theology” for the reason “the Faculty of Theology should not be considered as a part of the country’s highest educational institution, because theology is no modern science.”64 Nevertheless, many of them came to the gala-event at the Croatian Music Institute and accompanied the lecture of the rector’s signs to the new rector Bauer with noise and whistling. The demonstration continued on the street.65 In their proclamation, the progressive youth stated that they do not recognize the Faculty of Theology in Zagreb, “but only the dark school, where within the convent walls young people are buried. These students are preparing for the world within these walls, but at the same time they are prevented from knowing the world.” The progressive youth, analyzing the

61 Matej Košćina, “Naš klerikalizam i naš antiklerikalizam”, Val 1, no. 2 (1911): 16. 62 Ibid, 1, 6. 63 Matej Košćina, “Mi i politika”, Val 1, no. 4 (1911): 37. 64 Jurislav Janušić, “Za odijeljenje Teologije od Sveučilišta”, Hrvatski djak 1 (1907): 16. 65 Jaroslav Šidak, “Sveučilište do kraja prvoga svjetskog rata”, in Jaroslav Šidak, ed., Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu vol. I (Zagreb: Izdavački zavod JAZU, 1969), 108–109; Ana Biočić, Slavko Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta rektori Sveučilišta u Zagrebu / Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology as Rectors of the University of Zagreb (Zagreb: Katolički bogoslovni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2020), 157–159.

58

Tihana Luetić

nature and composition of theology, came to the conclusion that Faculty of Theology in general has no right to be an integral part of the university: The university is a temple of science, and the heart of the material, which is taught at the theology, as a science of God and religion, is not a science. As such, it has a place at the Faculty of Philosophy, as an integral part of cultural history, as well as the other subjects taught at the seminary.

The magazine of progressive youth Hrvatski djak wrote that the seminarian actually is not a student. He is more a pupil, and his freedom competes with the one in the monastery, i. e. for him, freedom does not exist, the theologian is a slave bounded by the discipline of a soldier. (…) What is therefore more natural than calling for the principle of the separation the Church from the state and the request to separate the seminary from university.66

Regarding this issue, Croatian progressive youth had a role model in Czech students who at the same time demanded that their authorities abolish church rites at the beginning of the academic year, exclude the Faculty of Theology from the University of Prague, and introduce departments of theology and history of religion and churches at the Faculty of Philosophy.67 Among the arguments for separating the Faculty of Theology from the university, the progressives cited the debate in the Croatian Parliament just before the foundation of the modern University of Zagreb. In 1873, the government of Ban Mažuranić submitted to the Parliament the legal basis for the establishment of a university. At a session held on October 13, 1873, the politician, publicist, and lawyer, Milan Makanec argued with Franjo Rački about the incorporation of the Faculty of Theology within the new university.68 Considering “that what strictly belongs to theology is not science, but only knowledge”, Makanec suggested that the study of theology should be continued in the diocesan lyceum [seminary], and therefore no faculty was needed. Rački acknowledged that “there are voices” demanding that “the faculty of theology should be separated from the university” but argued that “theology is a positive science” such as legal science, with a deeper historical foundation. Makanec disagreed, arguing that theology is not a science and all other subjects taught at the Faculty of Theology can be studied at the remaining faculties of the university, such as canon law at the Faculty of Law, 66 Janušić, “Za odijeljenje Teologije od Sveučilišta”, 16–17. 67 ***, “Češko djaštvo proti bogoslovnom fakultetu”, Hrvatski djak 1, no. 26 (1907): 53–56. See also: Pavao Frohlich, “Praško diaštvo protiv teološkog fakulteta”, Hrvatski djak 1 (1907): 198–199. 68 Janušić, “Za odijeljenje Teologije od Sveučilišta”, 16.

The Catholic Youth and Student Conflict at the University

59

church history at the Faculty of Philosophy, as well as the ancient languages. There was a question of dogmatics, which Makanec does not consider a real science “because it does not allow any changes, it is eternal.” Racki answered by analogy: if theology should not be considered as a science, then it was the same case with the astronomy as a science.69 Apart from the argument that theology is not a science, Makanec cited another reason for separating the Faculty of Theology from the future University of Zagreb, namely that the education of the priests is not a matter of the state but of the Church: “The seminary, as a state institution, swallows every year a good number of people’s intelligentsia, especially the poorest, mostly of peasant origin, who are then brought up in a manner of spiritual slavery … And such an institution is supported by the state!” Emphasizing that this does not mean the negation of theology and the Church, Makanec stated that “everyone who is free-minded will recognize its right to exist.”70 Regarding this issue, it should certainly be mentioned that Rector Bauer’s inaugural speech “Religion and Science” dealt with the issues of the relationship between religion and science.71 New rector pointed out the collaboration of “true science” and religion.72 On the other hand, progressive’s criticism pointed to the exact opposite: while the rector “denies any opposition between religion and science”, they pointed to a fundamental difference that religion and science cannot be in a relationship: according to them, science is based on intellect, and faith (religion) is based on the feeling.73 However, there were few common points among the student youth, where they agreed despite ideological disagreements. This was, for example, the issue of violation of university autonomy, as a result of which students boycotted university classes. Members of all student factions showed solidarity, and in the second semester of 1908 they left the university. The reason for the strike was the political retirement and suspension of university professors Đuro Šurmin and Gavro Manojlović by the regime of Ban

69 Ibid, 17. 70 Ibidem. 71 “Vjera i znanost. Inauguralni govor rektora magnifika dra. Ante Bauera govoren pri svečanoj instalaciji dne 19. listopada godine 1906.”, Katolički list 57, no. 43 (1906): 1–4; see also in: Biočić, Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta, 405–410. 72 More about Antun Bauer’s work as a professor, rector and patron, see in: Biočić, Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta, 154–170. 73 Jurislav Janušić, “Inauguralni govor rektora Bauera”, Hrvatski djak 1 (1907): 18–20.

60

Tihana Luetić

Pavle Rauch, which violated the honour and autonomy of the university.74 Catholic Luč, with some objections, wrote that despite the fact that “the progressives (…) took action and painted the whole thing with their colour”, the students in the strike were united without political differences. Catholic youth pointed out that “patriotism and freedom are sacred to them, even then when they are abused by progressive youth.”75 Matija Belić in Luč states an attitude that goes beyond political disagreements: he wrote that “obvious injustice” was committed during Šurmin’s retirement, and according to professor Manojlović it was the case of “bypassing the autonomy.” For these reasons, the Catholic youth of the university showed solidarity with the others and pointed out “… that there were quite a number of us who were determined to strike.” However, he resents the organization of the whole thing, which bypassed the members of the Catholic group during the organization of the Central Committee, composed only of the progressive youth, Starčevićs’ youth and representatives of Serbian students.76 According to their writing, the students also kept the unity in Prague. In an extensive article entitled “Croatian Diaspora in Prague”, they proudly point out the fact that they were still united against Rauch, regardless of party affiliation, and reported: “Life together develops in unusual tolerance and friendship. The party’s quarrels were blunted, so each retaining his party’s conviction, the whole student community settled as one family under one roof.” This neglect of political affiliations, “solidarity and harmony” as one of the main features of the strike, is emphasized on several occasions in Hrvatski djak: “Once we were nothing but patriotic youth, only academics and colleagues. That is why we succeeded.”77 During the academic emigration, there were interesting experiences of Catholic youth, “intimidated” by Prague. Although in their magazine Luč within the news about student emigration, those who “fooled and dishonored the Croatian name” were often mentioned,78 still they concluded that there were no reasons to fear of Prague, as a new academic environment. The 74 Tihana Luetić, “Studenski štrajk na Sveučilištu u Zagrebu 1908. godine”, Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 30 (2012): 295–326. 75 ***, “Domagoj u šk. g. 1907/8.”, Luč 3, no. 9–10 (1907/1908): 601–602. 76 Matija Belić, “Štrajk na hrvatskom sveučilištu”, Luč 3/9–10 (1907/1908): 609–610. 77 Obzor, 49/145, 1; ***, Hrvatski djak 2 (1908): 151; ***, Hrvatski djak 2 (1908): 185. Usp. Agičić, Hrvatsko-češki odnosi, 169. 78 The negative picture of student migration in Prague is emphasized especially after the end of the strike, when the vast majority of Zagreb students returned to their home university, considering the strike a failure (A. Donković, “Zagrebačko emigrantsko pitanje”, Luč 4 (1908): 6–9).

The Catholic Youth and Student Conflict at the University

61

experience of staying there for Catholic youth was actually quite positive, in terms of getting to know their Czech Catholic colleagues with whom they hung out and launched a joint initiative to publish a Catholic student magazine.79 As for the reception, upon arrival in Prague, Czech Catholic aca­ demics organized a friendly evening for Croatian students.80 They themselves admitted that until then they were sceptical about the Czech youth: “We did not know anything about the young Czech Catholic life, which is developing wonderfully. In it, Croatian Catholic academics in Prague gain new strength and new views.”81 Socializing with Czech colleagues continued in the years after the strike. Luč mentions the founding of the “Slavic League of Catholic Academics in Vienna”, to which all the local student societies of Catholic orientation belonged. Luč mentions the gatherings of “Domagoj” members with colleagues from the “Czech League” and other Slavic colleagues, belonged to the “Slavic League”.82 In the context of the student unrest in the Monarchy, it is important to mention that just during the stay of Croatian student emigration in Prague, one of the most famous scandals related to the violation of university autonomy within the Habsburg Monarchy broke out. It was an affair involving professor of church law Ludwig Wahrmund in Innsbruck. In fact, it was a conflict between the clerical and anti-clerical currents over his dismissal. Just at the time of the arrival of Croatian students in Prague, a general strike was announced at the universities of Vienna, Prague, Graz, and Innsbruck due to the suspended lectures of Professor Wahrmund. The affair started when Wahrmund in his lectures publicly criticized the new “antimodernist” and in one pamphlet he attacked the Catholic Church and Pope Pius X. Catholics led by the Jesuit Leopold Fonck defended themselves in a large number of articles and assemblies. Many Austrian liberals and Prague professor T. G. Masaryk took Wahrmund’s side. Vienna government took advantage of this situation and moved him from Innsbruck to the German University in Prague. At the same time, this affair caused semester-long student protests on Austrian and 79 Belić, “Štrajk na hrvatskom sveučilištu”, 610; ***, “Katolički pokret među češkim đaštvom”, Luč 4, no. 2 (1908): 123–124. 80 ***, “Prijateljska veče u čast “Domagojcima”ʼ, Luč 3, no. 9–10 (1907/1908): 616. 81 Belić, “Štrajk na hrvatskom sveučilištu”, 609–610. 82 It is a Czech academic society that brought together students of Catholic orientation ʻČeská liga akademičkáʼ (Luč 5 (1909/1910): 299). It was written about co-operation with them in newspaper Obzor (Obzor 49, no. 145: 1). ʻSlavic Leagueʼ in Vienna included other Catholic academic societies like ʻDanicaʼ, ʻZarjaʼ, ʻHrvatskaʼ, ʻPoloniaʼ, ʻSpolek Českyh akademikuʼ, and together they numbered over 250 members (L. S., ʻSlavenska liga katoličkih akademičara u Bečuʼ, Luč 5 (1909/1910): 299–300).

62

Tihana Luetić

Czech universities, giving a support to Professor Wahrmund and believing that his academic freedom was limited. There were also university closures and fierce parliamentary debates.83 Apart from the issue of violation of university autonomy, the issue of preserving the Glagolitic alphabet also connected all student factions, although in the end there were differences in reaching final conclusions. Representatives of “Domagoj” participated on February 25, 1907, on the student assembly for the defence of the Glagolitic, held in the lobby of the University, which brought together members of all student factions. The reason for this student action was the new decree of St. Choir for rituals on the use of the Glagolitic in Croatia, issued in Rome on December 18, 1906. These were decisions published by the Congregation for Rites, which were, with some minor exceptions, identical to those of the decree from 1898, according to which the Old-Church Slavonic rite could be served only in those churches where it was served for at least thirty years, starting with 1868. This time, however, it was explicitly stated that it was considered necessary to limit decisions the Holy See once allowed. In fact, the Holy See for the first time recognizes discontinuity in its decision on the Glagolitic liturgy in an official document, narrowing the privileges of the Old-Church Slavonic liturgy in Croatian lands.84 According to the statements of the progressive youth, “the entire assembly, according to its original commitment, had to move within the limits of protests against Rome’s stepmotherly treatment of the Glagolitic.” The representatives of all student groups were present at the assembly, but the homogeneous conclusion of the majority was not reached without opposition: the reason was the attitude of the representatives of “Domagoj”. The 83 Luetić, “Studenski štrajk na Sveučilištu u Zagrebu 1908. godine”, 315–316. See also: Obzor, 49, no. 129: 3; Obzor, 49, no. 138: 3; ***, Hrvatski djak 2 (1908): 188–189; Iskra Iveljić, Branka Molnar, et. al., ed., Memoari bana Pavla Raucha (Zagreb: Zagrebačko arhivističko društvo, 2009), 80 and reference 223, also in: Petar Grgec, Dr. Rudolf Eckert (Rijeka: HKD Sv. Ćirila i Metoda, 1995), 54; Gary B. Cohen, Education and Middle-Class Society in Imperial Austria 1848– 1918 (Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1996), 111–112. Extensively about this affair see in: Jan Surman, “University scandals and the public sphere of Imperial Austria: the Wahrmund and Zimmermann affairs”, European Review of History 26, no. 2 (2018): 1–25. 84 Zoran Grijak, “O nacionalno-političkim aspektima zahtjeva za afirmacijom glagol­ jaške liturgije u hrvatskim zemljama od sredine 19. do početka 20. stoljeća”, Croatica Christiana periodica 43, no. 83 (2019): 110–111. The publication of the decisions, in which the Congregation for the Rites openly acknowledged that it had denied the rights it had previously allowed, sparked violent protests in Dalmatian municipalities, the Dalmatian Parliament in Zadar, and its representatives in the Vienna Imperial Council. The university youth in Zagreb also reacted to this.

The Catholic Youth and Student Conflict at the University

63

progressives wrote that “the confusing ‘position’ of several clerical students also came in, and the uncompromising accentuation of the Latin position, which warns of unconditional submission to Rome.” The resolution accepted at the assembly states that the new decree of St. Choir for rituals on the use of the Glagolitic in Croatia “tightens the use of the Glagolitic in only a few churches” and it “hurts the religious and national feelings of the Croatian people.” In this decree, the progressives see a consistent tendency to pursue a “centralist and internationalist policy of Rome towards Croatia, which is certainly influenced by the Viennese diplomacy, hostile to the Croats.” They conclude that “Rome is the enemy of the Croatian people” and that a sharp reaction is needed, not only a request. They demand a radical secession from Rome: “… he addresses to Croatian people, and especially on his intelligence, to make every effort with all available forces and means to do so, so that in the foreseeable future ripe decision for complete secession from Rome within Croatian people would arise.”85 Considering Domagoj’s position, there was a discussion in the society about whether their representative should participate in this student assembly at all, believing that the Glagolitic question to the progressives is in fact “a disguise under which they are fighting against the Catholic Church.” Finally, it was decided to participate, considering the issue of Glagolitic as an important question.86 However, the representative of “Domagoj”, philosophy student Mato Radovanović, despite the agreement to defend the preservation of the Glagolitic in Croatian parishes, did not want to participate in signing the radical “anti-Roman” resolution on the Glagolitic, because it was composed primarily by progressive leaders led by Jurislav Janusić. Along with progressive “anti-religious cries” such as those “away from Rome” (in accordance with the belief that Rome is an opponent of the Glagolitic), which were accepted by Starčević’s youth, the representative of “Domagoj” withdrew, and this participation within the ranks of “Domagoj” was considered as a mistake.87 Another interesting issue that had been a subject of conflicts at the University of Zagreb was the issue of higher education for girls. After women were given the right to enroll as full-time students at the university in 1901, discussions about their abilities and the meaning of women’s academic education continued for a long time after that.88 It is interesting that the Catholic 85 Jurislav Janušić, “Hrvatsko djaštvo protiv Rima”, Hrvatski djak 1 (1907): 79–81. 86 Domagojac, “III. redovna glavna skupština “Domagoja”“, Luč 2 (1906/1907), 231–232. 87 ***, “Iz zagrebačke đačke skupštine “za glagolicu”“, Luč 2 (1906/1907), 233–234. 88 On the views of all three groups on the issue of women’s higher education, see more in: Tihana Luetić, “Studentski časopisi početkom 20. stoljeća o ženama na

64

Tihana Luetić

group of young people in all discussions, in the discourse of liberal and conservative labels, accepted the idea of a female member of its largest Catholic academic society “Domagoj”, and thus accepted one of the first students at the university, Božena Kralj in its ranks in 1911.89 Although the Catholic youth was characterized as the most conservative, the youth gathered around Luč acted rather differently in the case of their female colleagues. Though they were against radical emancipation of women, pointing out women’s crucial role in the family life, they complimented the women’s desire for studying. The Christian attitude is emphasized, believing that it was Christianity that “put an end to all disorder.” Catholic youth believed that “a woman has equal honour with her husband”, and he must respect her for the reason “she is equal to him in God’s eyes.” They opposed the radical emancipation of women, which “completely forgets the natural task of women.”90 Finally, it is worth mentioning that participants in all these discussions and conflicts were future members of the Croatian Catholic Seniority, elite clerical-secular organization of the Croatian Catholic Movement. These were prominent public figures whose work certainly had its roots in their youthful ideals. Membership in the Seniorate was chosen from the ranks of graduates, former members of Croatian academic societies (“Domagoj”, “Croatia”, and others) and “Association of spiritual youth”.91 Among them we find the Kr. sveučilištu Franje Josipa I. u Zagrebu”, in Žene kroz povijest. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga skupa Dies historirae 2012, ed. Matea Jalžečić, and Petra Marinčić (Zagreb: Društvo studenata povijesti Ivan Lučić—Lucius, 2014), 103–127. 89 Božena Kralj, married Deželić, was one of the first female students at Royal University of Franz Joseph I. in Zagreb. She made a breakthrough into strictly manly world—in 1911 she became the first girl accepted in the ʻDomagojʼ. This, naturally, provoked numerous reactions but in spite of isolation her contacts from that period remained stabile even in her later days. She became a high-school teacher, wife of Velimir Deželić Jr. and active member of female section of Catholic seniorate. Beside her activities in the social section of ʻDomagojʼ Božena Kralj during her university days worked on literacy of illiterate persons within ʻABC clubʼ at the University. With such a social life, which was followed with many rumors within conservative bourgeois environment, Božena Kralj also won many battles in the academic field. She was supported by her family and friends, and managed to graduate at Faculty of philosophy in Zagreb. Soon she defended doctoral dissertation and became doctor of philosophy. During her studies she received scholarship from Foundation of Julije Bubanović of Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts, and was indicated as the best candidate for specialization in Slavic studies at University in Moscow in 1912/1913. (Tihana Luetić, ʻ“Pa, mora i to biti!”—“sveučilištarka” i prva “domagojka” Božena Kralj’, Croatica Christiana periodica 38, no. 73 (2014): 127–143). 90 S. Filipović, “Ženska emancipacija”, Luč 5 (1909/1910): 424–429. 91 Zlatko Matijević, “Hrvatski katolički seniorat—ekskluzivna organizacija Hrvatskoga katoličkog pokreta (1912–1919.)”, Zbornik HKP, 457; Daniel Patafta, Zlatko

The Catholic Youth and Student Conflict at the University

65

most active members of “Domagoj” and associates of Luč, who later became prominent Catholic clergyman and laymen. Here is the list of only some of them who participated in early twentieth-century acitivites of Catholic youth: Petar Grgec, writer and translator;92 Stjepan Barić, politician, jour­ nalist, and businessman;93 Ivan Butković, priest;94 Velimir Deželić Jr., writer, producer, and sociologist;95 Petar Rogulja, journalist;96 Ljubomir Maraković, literary critic, editor, and professor,97 Josip Andrić, writer and musicologist;98 Rudolf Eckert, journalist;99 Fran Binički, priest and writer.100 Matijević, “Hrvatski katolički seniorat (1913–1941.) Osnovne značajke od osnutka do raspuštanja”, Croatica Christiana periodica 44, no. 85 (2020): 134–135. 92 About P. Grgec extensively see in: Radovan Grgec, “Petar Grgec—hrvatski pisac i katolički javni radnik”, Marulić 20, no. 5 (1987): 552–559; Ivo Balentović, Redakcija, “Grgec, Petar”, in: Hrvatski biografski leksikon (https://hbl.lzmk.hr/cla​nak.aspx?id=7643, 13.12.2021) 93 About S. Barić extensively see in: ***, “Barić, Stjepan”, in: Hrvatska enciklopedija (http://www.encikl​oped​ija.hr/Natukn​ica.aspx?ID=5934, 23.12.2012.). 94 About I. Butković extensively see in: Atanazije J. Matanić, “Ivan Butković i Hrvatski katolički pokret”, Zbornik HKP, 299–307; Anton Bozanić, “Ivan Butković—jedan od najbližih suradnika biskupa Mahnića u organiziranju Hrvatskog katoličkog pokreta i formacije laikata”, Riječki teološki časopis/Ephemerides theologicae fluminenses 13, no. 2 (26) (2005): 539–560; Mate Anić, “Ivan Butković (1876–1954.)”, Croatica Christiana periodica 43, no. 84 (2019): 57–75. 95 Abotu V. Deželiću Jr. extensively see in: Radovan Grgec, “Dr Velimir Deželić (1888– 1976)”, Marulić 9, no. 2 (1976): 89–90; Andrea Bogner-Šaban, Redakcija, “Deželić, Velimir, ml.”, in: Hrvatski biografski leksikon (https://hbl.lzmk.hr/cla​nak.aspx?id=4714, 13.12.2021). Valuable testimony to his young days and activities within the Croatian Catholic Movement can be found in his memoirs.: Velimir Deželić, sin, Kakvi smo bili?: zapisi mojoj unučadi vol. 1–2 (Zagreb: Družba “Braća Hrvatskoga zmaja”, Društvo za povjesnicu Zagrebačke nadbiskupije “Tkalčić”, 2011). 96 About P. Rogulja extensively see in: Jure Krišto, “Petar Rogulja i razvoj Hrvatskoga katoličkog pokreta: uz 80. obljetnicu smrti”, Croatica christiana periodica 25, no. 47 (2001): 207–223. 97 About Lj. Maraković extensively see in: Helena Peričić, “Ljubomir Maraković, zanemareni katolički kritičar i engleska književnost”, Croatica: časopis za hrvatski jezik, književnost i kulturu 30, no. 49–50 (2000): 109–125; Vladimir Lončarević, Luči Ljubomira Marakovića: život i rad, estetički pogledi i kritička praksa (Zagreb: Filozofsko-teološki institut Družbe Isusove, 2003). 98 About J. Andrić extensively see in: Darko Žubrinić, “Josip Andrić, istaknuti hrvatski muzikolog, skladatelj i pisac iz Bačke i autor prve povijesti slovačke glazbe”, in Jozo Čikeš, ed., Muka kao nepresušno nadahnuće kulture. Pasionska baština Hrvata u Podunavlju (Zagreb, Sombor: Udruga Pasoionska baština, Zavod za kulturu vojvođanskih Hrvata, 2012), 310–322. 99 About R. Eckert extensively see in: Grgec, Dr. Rudolf Eckert. 100 About F. Binički extensively see in: Nikola Bičanić, “Dr. Fran Binički—život i djelo”, Senjski zbornik 22, no. 1 (1995): 327–334.

66

Tihana Luetić ***

Conclusively it can be emphasized that the Catholic youth of the University of Zagreb, as an integral part of the Croatian Catholic Movement, at the initiative of Bishop Mahnič in the early twentieth century, as the ultimate goal of its social activities had a vision of Catholic revival of the Croatian people. The re-Christianization of Croatian society and public life was the guiding idea of the youth gathered around the magazine Luč and the academic society “Domagoj” in Zagreb. Facing a strong breakthrough of liberalism among high-school and academic youth, Catholic youth clashed with two other youth factions which were active in the same period. Operating on a liberal basis, the so-called progressive youth and right-wing youth of the university, supporters of Starčević’s Party of Right, strongly attacked the influence of the Church in the society. Disagreements and conflicts between these three student groups took place primarily through their magazines and brochures. The actions and struggles were the fiercest during the elections for the largest student society at the University “Croatian Academic Support Society”, which distributed material supports to the students. The worldview reason for the conflict can be read on the pages of all youth publications, even in those situations when the academic youth acted in joint student actions.

3  The Attitude of the Communist Authorities Towards the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana in the Initial Post-War Period A leš G abr ič Institute of Contemporary History Ljubljana, Slovenija [email protected] Abstract: The understanding of theology as a scientific science also plays a role in defining the role of theological faculties in the system of state universities. In Slovenia, this question did not arise only in 1945, when the Communist Party of Slovenia took power. In that year, the Faculty of Theology at the University of Ljubljana entered a difficult period. The authorities considered it an ideological pillar of the Catholic Church with a strong influence on people. Nevertheless, in 1945. the Faculty of Theology was still not considered a decisive target of the authorities, because at that time they were concerned with the private Catholic educational institutions, which were abolished, while the Faculty of Theology remained within the state university. The first directive to expel the faculty from the University of Ljubljana was issued in November 1946 but was not completed. Thereafter, in September 1949, the exclusion was legislated by the Slovenian Act on the Regulation of Higher Education. Although the Faculty of Theology was no longer a member of the University, contacts between these institutions were maintained. Like all other institutions, the Faculty of Theology was bound by certain laws concerning scientific organizations, which meant that the state authorities did not deny the scientific character of its work. During the purges directed against Catholic intellectuals, when relations between Yugoslavia and the Vatican were severely strained in 1952, the Faculty of Theology was excluded from the public education system. The Faculty was forced to accept the Statute that allowed the authorities to interfere in its inner organization and academic affairs, issued diplomas lost their validity, the students lost their students’ status and rights, and professors lost their rights that belonged to their colleagues in the state faculties. In excluding the theological faculties from the universities, the state authorities invoked the constitutional provisions on the separation of church and state. Neither in the decisions of the state authorities nor in the statements of the state leadership do we find any questioning of theology as a scientific discipline or of the theological faculties as scientific institutions. The authorities considered them

68

A leš G abr ič

simply as inner-church schools for the training of the clergy. After the end of the communist regime, when discussions began about the reintegration of the Faculty of Theology into the University of Ljubljana, the debates returned to the points that had divided opinions about the theological faculties even before the communists came to power. Keywords: Faculty of Theology, University of Ljubljana, church-state relations, communist reign

Introduction The question of whether the Faculty of Theology, considering its character, belonged into the state university framework did not become an issue only with the communist takeover of power, as this had already been considered during the preceding decades of secularisation in the context of the relations between the state and the Church. For example, the 1855 Concordat with the Austrian Empire also involved universities, while the 1914 Concordat with the Kingdom of Serbia did not. This was, of course, due to the predominantly Catholic character of Austria, while Serbia, which was united with the South Slavic part of Austria-Hungary in 1918 to form the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, was predominantly Orthodox. However, both Concordats discussed the issue of religious instruction and schools.1 Once the preparations for the establishment of the University of Ljubljana were underway after the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in 1918, the Belgrade Ministry of Education sought to organise it in accordance with the legislation that defined the functioning of the University of Belgrade. The process of the establishment of the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana was based on the tradition of the theological schools that had operated under the auspices of dioceses. The first professors of the Faculty of Theology of the University of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Ljubljana, founded in 1919, were appointed from among the professors teaching at these schools. The self-evident inclusion of the Faculty of Theology into the new University was based on the conviction that theological science belonged to the circle of other sciences and was modelled after the German and Austrian university traditions. However, soon after the founding of the University of Ljubljana, the Faculty of Theology turned out to be a hybrid, as it had to consider the ecclesiastical legislation as well. During their establishment, the other faculties of the University of Ljubljana thus adapted their operating principles to those of the University of Belgrade, but not the Faculty of Theology, as the one in Belgrade was Orthodox. It 1 Gašper Mithans, Jugoslovanski konkordat: pacem in discordia ali jugoslovanski ʻkultur­ kampf” (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2017), 55.

The Attitude of the Communist Authorities

69

therefore established closer contacts with the Catholic Faculty of Theology in Zagreb, and both later relied on the Constitution on the Ecclesiastical Higher Education issued by Pope Pius XI in May 1931. Meanwhile, the Yugoslav Minister of Education approved the decree defining the activities of the theological faculties in Zagreb and Ljubljana in May 1935. Therefore, the Faculty of Theology of the University of Ljubljana was an organizational peculiarity from the very beginning of its existence, as it did not only refer to the Yugoslav legislation like the other faculties but also took into account the provisions issued by the Holy See and the pope. While the other faculties of the University of Ljubljana only had a rector and the Minister of Education in Belgrade to oversee them, the Faculty of Theology also answered to the Grand Chancellor: the bishop of Ljubljana. Although the latter did not get directly involved in the work of the Faculty of Theology, the very existence of this function underlined the unique role of the Faculty in the structure of the University.2 This peculiarity was also reflected in the drafting of the Concordat between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Holy See at the beginning of the 1930s, as it included the appointment of the professors of the theological faculties as its integral part. In this regard, the Church authorities retained the right to judge the suitability of professors to teach at the University,3 which was, of course, a unique feature of the University legislation, as the appointment of professors at other faculties was in the exclusive jurisdiction of the University. The article on theological faculties was based on the provisions of the Austrian Concordat of 1855, which had long since ceased to be in force, even in Austria. Regarding the withdrawal of the teaching rights of theology faculty professors, the proposed agreement with the Holy See went beyond the rights confirmed by the state in its agreement with the Serbian Orthodox Church.4 Due to the reproaches from the Orthodox part of the country that if the treaty were approved, the Catholic Church would enjoy certain privileges not granted to other religious communities, the agreement with the Holy See was not ratified. The rights granted to the Catholic Church by the provisions of the Concordats had therefore been an anachronism long before the communists came to power in Yugoslavia, and so they were not the first to put the issue of theological faculties or the equalisation of the law for all 2 Tatjana Dekleva, “Teološka fakulteta ljubljanske univerze”, in Teološka fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani skozi čas in prostor (Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, 2008), 30–31; “Teološka fakulteta”, in Roman Modic, ed., Petdeset let slovenske univerze v Ljubljani (Ljubljana: Univerza, 1969), 567–569. 3 Mithans, Jugoslovanski konkordat, 180. 4 Ibidem, 196.

70

A leš G abr ič

members of the University on the agenda. Even after the end of the communist rule and the reintegration of the Faculty of Theology into the University of Ljubljana, the prerogatives of the Church authorities in approving the professors of the Faculty of Theology remained a point of contention between intellectuals of different opinions.5

Ideas About the Exclusion of the Faculty of Theology from the University The communist takeover of power in Yugoslavia (and Slovenia) in 1945 put the issue of the specificity of theological faculties in the context of the Universities back on the agenda. This time, however, it was not only the organizational peculiarity of theological faculties that was questioned but also whether they, as ecclesiastical institutions, at all belonged in the framework of state universities where diverse sciences were supposed to be taught. Dialectical materialism as the ideology of the new political elite was diametrically opposed to the ideology defended by the Catholic Church. In the case of Slovenian communists, the opposition was even exacerbated by the strong clericalist tradition in Slovenia, as the professors lecturing at the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana were among the leading Catholic ideologues in Slovenia, and the Faculty educated the majority of new priests in Slovenia.6 In 1945, the problem of the Faculty of Theology did not yet come to the forefront of the relations between the state and the Church. The Catholic Church leadership opposed both the attacks on the Church and the clergy as well as the moves that could be seen as a continuation of the incomplete secularisation. However, economically, it was most adversely affected by the agrarian reform and the nationalisation of the Church properties. The state also nationalised all private schools, grammar schools, boarding schools, and student homes, most of which had been owned by the Church institutions before the war. Some of these, especially in the northern half of Slovenia, had already ceased to function under German occupation during the war, including the theological school in Maribor, which was not allowed to resume its activities in 1945. As a scientific institution, the Faculty of Theology was 5 Zdravko Kobe, “Kaj je avtonomija univerze?”, in Aleš Gabrič, ed., 100 let Univerze v Ljubljani (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, Univerza, 2020), 225 (vse 215–228); Boštjan Zupančić, “Ločitev Cerkve od države. Pravni in politični okruški klerikalizma”, Sodobnost 38, no. 11 (1990): 1091–1092. 6 For more on the relationship between the state and the church in the first period of communist rule, see: Dragoljub R. Živojinović, Vatikan, katolička crkva i jugoslovenska vlast 1941–1958 (Beograd: Prosveta, 1994).

The Attitude of the Communist Authorities

71

most frustrated by the fact that it could not resume the publication of its scientific magazine Bogoslovni vestnik. Its last issue during the war was published in 1944, while after the war—like much of the scientific press—it was not revived any time soon. The only difference was that the periodicals of other scientific institutions started to appear again at the end of the 1940s or the beginning of the 1950s, while the deterioration of the relations between the state and the Catholic Church kept delaying the question of the resumed publication of the Bogoslovni vestnik magazine indefinitely. In 1945, as a part of the University of Ljubljana, the Faculty of Theology was therefore not affected by the measures taken against private schools. Due to the transformation of Yugoslavia into a federation, the Slovenian University of Ljubljana was placed under the authority of the Slovenian government, which, in 1945, also took over the department responsible for education, while the writer and publicist Ferdo Kozak became the first Slovenian Minister of Education. In the first year after the war, the Faculty of Theology was therefore subject to the same principles as all other state higher education institutions. Matej Kobal, who studied there later, wrote the following about this topic: “The new situation resulted in certain benefits for theologians. As university students, they enjoyed social and health insurance, discounts on transport tickets, and the possibility of deferring military service.” Behind the scenes, however, disturbing factors could already be felt, as the authorities exerted pressure to reduce the number of theology students and the interest in the study of theology.7 A confirmation that in 1945 the Faculty of Theology was not yet subject to intolerant measures of the authorities like in the case of other religious educational institutions can also be found in the Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Bishops of Yugoslavia, adopted at the Bishops’ Conference in Zagreb on 20 September 1945, which represented the strongest criticism of the communist authorities in the initial post-war period. In the part referring to the repression against the educational institutions of the Catholic Church, the letter listed private Catholic secondary schools, boarding schools, and similar institutions but did not mention the study of theology or the Faculties of Theology in Zagreb and Ljubljana.8 The differ­ ence was also evident in the state leaders’ response to the criticism voiced by the Church authorities. They only mentioned educational institutions if

7 Matej Kobal, “Delo slovenskih študentov teologije”, Bogoslovni vestnik 50, no. 1–2 (1990): 35. 8 Bogdan Kolar, V Gospoda zaupam: iz zapisov nadškofa Antona Vovka (Ljubljana: Družina, 2000), 119; Živojinović, Vatikan, katolička crkva i jugoslovenska vlast, 137–138.

72

A leš G abr ič

they were private but consistently refrained from bringing up the Faculties of Theology.9 The separation between the Church and the state was defined in Article 25 of the Constitution of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, adopted on January 31, 1946, which stated: “Religious schools training the clergy shall be free but under the general supervision of the state.”10 The Faculty of Theology was subject to the same principles as all the other faculties of the University of Ljubljana, and the entire educational system faced various difficulties due to the ideological pressures exerted by the new authorities. According to the Constitution, education, science, and culture were under the jurisdiction of the individual republics. However, this did not prevent centralisation attempts by the central state authorities in Belgrade. In March 1946, the Committee for Schools and Science was therefore established with the Government of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and tasked with drawing up uniform guidelines for the scientific development in the state, thus including the Universities. On November 5, 1946, the Committee sent a circular to all the Ministries of Education in the individual republics, demanding a stricter attitude towards religious education as a whole. Among other things, it stated: “At the same time, ensure that the Faculty of Theology as a specific religious school is excluded from the University.” Ljubljana reacted quickly: ten days later, on November 15, the Minister of Education of the People’s Republic of Slovenia, Ferdo Kozak, issued a decision in which he merely summarised the instructions from Belgrade “to exclude the Faculty of Theology as a specific religious school from the University.”11 In the meagre formulations during the first attempt at excluding the Faculty of Theology from the University, there was nothing to suggest that theology as a specific scientific discipline was called into question. The state leaders would invoke the separation between the Church and the state and refer to the Faculty of Theology as a mere religious school for training the clergy. In fact, this was the only characterisation of this Faculty’s activities that emphasised its religious and pedagogical character. However, they would not express any opinions about theology as a scientific discipline. The decision in question did not even enter into force,12 nor did it become a part 9 Josip Broz Tito, Edvard Kardelj, Boris Kidrič, O pastirskem pismu (Ljubljana: s. n., 1945). 10 Uradni list FLRJ 2, no. 10 (1946): 77–78. 11 Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Ministrstvo za prosveto LR Slovenije (henceafter: SI AS 231), 55, Odločba, št. 20563, no. 1–46. 12 Aleš Gabrič, “Ozadje izključitve Teološke fakultete iz Univerze v Ljubljani leta 1952”, Bogoslovni vestnik 63, no. 2 (2003): 258–261.

The Attitude of the Communist Authorities

73

of the Faculty staff consciousness, as references to it cannot be found in the chronologies of the Faculty of Theology.13 Until the legislative changes of 1949, the Faculty of Theology remained a member of the University of Ljubljana. Enrolment kept increasing: from 52 students during the winter semester of the academic year 1945/46, it more than doubled by 1948/49.

The Faculty of Theology Outside the University—Yet Still a Part of the Public Education The Faculty of Theology was excluded from the University of Ljubljana in the academic year 1949/50, when the entire structure of higher education in Slovenia was changed. At that point, the Higher Education Act in Slovenia divided the previously unified University into three higher education institutions: the University of Humanities and Social Sciences, the Technical College, and the Medical College. The Act stipulated that “the Faculty of Theology of the University of Ljubljana shall be separated from the structure of the University of Ljubljana and become an independent faculty.”14 However, it was not the only higher education institution to operate outside the framework of the three higher education associations. It remained subject to the same legal provisions as all other independent higher education institutions, as it remained a state faculty, subordinate to the Ministry of Science and Culture. The implementing regulation issued in December 1949 stated unequivocally that “all the provisions of this Regulation shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the independent faculties, which shall be directly subordinate to the Minister of Science and Culture.”15 Although the Faculty of Theology was no longer a member of the University, contacts between these institutions were maintained. Like all the other institutions, the Faculty of Theology was bound by certain laws on scientific organizations, which meant that the state authorities did not deny the scientific character of its work. It was therefore no worse off than before the changes, as it was a part of the publicly recognised state education system, regularly funded from the budget of the ministry responsible for science, while its professors and students remained on an equal legal footing with their peers from other higher education institutions.

13 Vilko Fajdiga [F.V.], “Iz kronike teološke fakultete v Ljubljani v letih 1945 do 1965”, Bogoslovni vestnik 25, no. 1–2 (1965): 187–188. 14 Uradni list Ljudske republike Slovenije 6, no. 33 (1949): 237. 15 Uradni list Ljudske republike Slovenije 6, no. 39 (1949): 271.

74

A leš G abr ič

The separation process was carried out by mutual agreement between the University and the Faculty. The Rector, Dr Anton Melik, entrusted the deans of the new independent faculties with the task of establishing their bodies and stated in his reports that the co-operation between them remained smooth.16 The Faculty Council of the independent Faculty of Theology was constituted on March 23, 1950. Dr Stanko Cajnkar was elected as the new dean,17 and he then set the Slovenian continuous deanship record, as he kept this position for more than a decade and a half. The lists of lectures printed by the University before each semester indicates that the old connections between the University and the Faculty were not broken. For the academic year 1949/50, the Faculty of Theology was still listed as a part of the University, while in the following academic year of 1950/51, all the faculties were included in the list of lectures except for the Technical College, which operated completely independently and published its own printed materials. The list of lectures for the winter semester of 1950–51 included the programmes of four higher education organizations—the University and the Medical College, as well as the independent Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry and Faculty of Theology.18 The pressure on the Faculty of Theology intensified with the demand to introduce courses based on the ideology of the ruling Communist Party. However, in August 1950, the Slovenian Minister of Science and Culture Dr Jože Potrč prescribed the same for the students of all faculties: “Students are to be trained as highly qualified specialists in the particular fields of science, technology, or art, and educated in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, devoted to their socialist homeland and to the cause of socialism.”19 Since the princi­ ple also applied to the Faculty of Theology, the inclusion of theology among scientific disciplines was therefore self-evident.

Exclusion of the Faculty of Theology From Public Education The Faculty of Theology was de facto separated from public education in 1952. Although the relations between Yugoslavia and the Vatican had been far from good even before then, the beginning of the 1950s brought further aggravation caused by the strained international relations due to the problem of Trieste. The Holy See supported Italy, which kept stirring up opposition to Yugoslavia, posing as a bulwark of Western democracy against 16 Gabrič, “Ozadje izključitve”, 261–264. 17 Marijan Smolik, “Kronika državne Teološke fakultete”, Bogoslovni vestnik 29, no. 3–4 (1969): 177. 18 Seznam predavanj za zimski semester 1950–51 (Ljubljana: Univerza, 1950), 5. 19 Ibidem, 97.

The Attitude of the Communist Authorities

75

this communist state and demanding for itself the whole of the Free Territory of Trieste, which would have cut off Slovenia’s access to the sea. In such a situation, Slovenian (and Yugoslav) politicians perceived the Catholic Church as an organization that supported the solutions of the Trieste issue that were unfavourable to Yugoslavia/Slovenia. Therefore, they increased the pressure against the Church and its institutions, attempting to alienate them from the Vatican’s influence. Slovenian priests inclined to seek a compromise between the Church authorities and the state founded the Cyril and Methodius Society of Catholic Priests of the People’s Republic of Slovenia. The Society, however, operated without the approval of the Church authorities,20 which even ostracised the organiser of the Society and looked with disapproval on some of the professors of the Faculty of Theology who were its members. Alojzije Stepinac, the imprisoned Archbishop of Zagreb, had represented an international problem for years. However, when he was appointed a cardinal on November 29, 1952, the Day of the Republic, the Yugoslav authorities saw this as an unforgivable provocation. When the state and the Church both made it clear that they were not prepared to compromise or make concessions, the severance of diplomatic relations between Yugoslavia and the Vatican in mid-December 1952 was an almost logical conclusion to the conflict year of 1952.21 The strained foreign political relations also led to the deterioration in the relations between the state and the Roman Catholic Church in Yugoslavia. The Communist Party of Slovenia outlined its stricter attitude towards the intellectuals from the Catholic circles at the Politburo meeting of December 20, 1951. The following issues in particular were discussed: religious instruction, the writer and politician Edvard Kocbek (the last Christian Socialist to hold an important political office), religious women in the teaching and educational services, and other (allegedly) “clerical” influences in the intellectual circles. The need to establish the Commission for Religious Affairs at the top state administrative level, which would be responsible for the relations with the Church authorities, was also expressed. The Faculty of Theology was mentioned only in passing, although there was no doubt that it would also be subject to more severe sanctions in the context of the new offensive of the authorities against the Catholic Church. In his introductory paper, for example, Boris Kraigher criticised the Council for Education and Culture of the 20 Ana Marija Lotrič, Cirilmetodijsko društvo katoliških duhovnikov in njegovo delo­ vanje: diplomska naloga (Železniki: A. M. Lotrič, 1998), 9–15. 21 Živojinović, Vatikan, katolička crkva i jugoslovenska vlast, 347–365; Mateja Režek, Med resničnostjo in iluzijo: slovenska in jugoslovanska politika v desetletju po sporu z Informbirojem: (1948–1958) (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2005), 96–115.

76

A leš G abr ič

Government of the People’s Republic of Slovenia (i.e. the state body responsible for education) for allowing “some issues to be resolved by the apparatus itself (e.g. the confirmation of new professors at the Faculty of Theology)” without regard to the political needs. In the tense political situation, even such a passing remark represented a sufficient indication that something was seriously wrong and that such decisions would have to be weighed against the political needs of the authorities in the future. The Faculty of Theology was not directly mentioned in the decisions adopted at the Politburo meeting. However, a decision was reached to finally abolish religious instruction from schools and establish the Commission for Religious Affairs to guide the state’s policy towards the Church.22 The method of dealing with the Catholic Church was agreed at the state level—at a joint meeting of the leaderships of the Communist Parties of Slovenia, Croatia, and Yugoslavia on January 15, 1952, where the complete removal of religious instruction from the curricula of all public schools was discussed. Josip Broz Tito, however, said that the procedures needed to be justified based on the constitutional provisions on the separation of church and state.23 In the beginning of 1952, the state authorities started to implement the adopted guidelines. In Slovenia, religious instruction was ultimately eliminated from the curricula, even at the primary school level, as of the second semester of the 1951/52 school year. The first months of 1952 were marked by the Kocbek affair, when Edvard Kocbek as the last politician to defend the positions that the Christian Socialists had advocated when joining the Liberation Front in 1941, was forced to retire as well as banned from publishing literary works for quite a long time. The Church side was limited in defending its positions with further restrictions that were imposed on the press, as in 1951 and 1952, the newsletters of both diocesan ordinariates in Ljubljana and Maribor were abolished. The trial against Jakob Šolar, a research associate of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and Janez Fabijan, a full professor at the Faculty of Theology, represented a particularly serious warning to all Catholic intellectuals who would dare to oppose the state authorities.24 The process was accompanied by a propaganda war against 22 Darinka Drnovšek, ed., Zapisniki politbiroja CK KPS/ZKS 1945–1954 (Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2000), 281–282. 23 Radmila Radić, “Izdvajanje Bogoslovnog fakulteta iz okvira beogradskog univer­ ziteta”, in Ideje i pokreti na beogradskom univerzitetu od osnivanja do danas: saopštenja i prilozi sa Simpozijuma održanog u Beogradu 15–17. novembra 1988. godine vol. II (Beograd: Centar za marksizam Univerziteta, Prosveta, 1989), 261 (all 255–262). 24 Žiga Koncilija, Politično sodstvo: sodni procesi na Slovenskem v dveh Jugoslavijah (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2015), 260–261.

The Attitude of the Communist Authorities

77

the Church, which more or less openly implied that the Catholic Church had betrayed Slovenian national interests during the war and was still acting as a “traitor”. The retaliation against the Faculty of Theology was thus only a part of the broader Yugoslav political developments, outlined at the end of 1951 and carried out in 1952. In Croatia, the complete exclusion of the theological faculty from public education was swifter than in Slovenia, as the Croatian government abolished the Faculty of Theology of the University in Zagreb on January 29, 1952, and the Croatian Council for Education, Science, and Culture issued instructions to that effect on February 13, 1952. The Dean’s Office of the Faculty of Theology in Zagreb and the Church authorities appealed against the poorly formulated decision and tried to get an audience with Josip Broz Tito but were unsuccessful. Minister Miloš Žanko made it clear to the Dean of the Faculty, Vili Keilbach, that these were the views of the Yugoslav federal government and that there would be no derogations.25 The decision did not apply only to the theological faculties of the Universities of Zagreb and Ljubljana but also to the Faculty of Orthodox Theology, which was excluded from the University in Belgrade at the same time.26 The Dean of the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana, Stanko Cajnkar, sent a special memorandum to the President of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito, in which he expressed his wish for the Faculty to remain a state institution in the future.27 However, he did not succeed in his request, as the decisions had already been made. On March 4, 1952, the Council for Education and Culture of the Government of the People’s Republic of Slovenia sent a short yet concise letter to the Dean of the Faculty of Theology. It read: “In view of the constitutional provision on the separation of church and state, we inform you that as of June 31 this year, the Faculty of Theology shall cease to be a state institution and that as of that date, all budgetary and other obligations of our Council towards your Faculty shall be terminated. Problems arising in this regard should be resolved through the Commission for Religious Affairs with the Presidency of the Government of the People’s Republic of Slovenia.”28 25 Ana Biočić, “Prilog povijesti Katoličkog bogoslovnog fakulteta: uloga Vilima Keilbacha u očuvanju fakulteta 1952. godine”, Bogoslovna smotra 91, no. 1 (2021): 20–24; Matija Berljak, “Položaj i djelovanje Katoličkog bogoslovnog fakulteta u sastavu Sveučilišta u Zagrebu”, Bogoslovna smotra 86, no. 1 (2016): 38–43. 26 Radić, “Izdvajanje Bogoslovnog fakulteta”, 261–262. 27 Modic, ed., Petdeset let slovenske univerze v Ljubljani 1919–1969, 573. 28 Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Vlada Republike Slovenije (henceafter: SI AS 223), box 19, 442–52, Dopis Sveta za prosveto in kulturo—Dekanatu Teološke fakultete, 4. 3. 1952.

78

A leš G abr ič

The haste to remove the Faculty of Theology from the public education system is attested to by the very fact that the letter states that the Faculty of Theology shall cease to operate as a state institution as of June 31—a day that does not exist on calendars. The leaders of the faculties and the Church authorities pointed out that the way in which the exclusion of theological faculties from the public education system was carried out was also controversial because the provisions of the higher education legislation were changed by simple instructions from the Councils for Education and Culture of the individual republics, without the competent state bodies discussing them at their meetings or even contacting the leaders of the affected institutions. Due to the criticism regarding the constant attacks on the Church in Yugoslavia, coming from the Catholic Church as well as from abroad, President Josip Broz Tito addressed the issue in public statements. In a conversation with a group of U.S. journalists on March 11, 1952—not even a week after the aforementioned instructions had been issued in Ljubljana— Tito replied to the question regarding the attacks against the Church in the press. Among other things, he said Until now, we have supported the Church and religious communities, which has not exactly been in accordance with the Constitution. We have supported theological faculties—not only the Catholic ones but also others. Now, we are separating them from the state, but we are not stopping the Church from continuing to maintain its schools and faculties. They can keep them, but we want to ensure a principled separation of church and state. Our Constitution does not give us the right to support these faculties from the state budget because the church is separate from the state.29

It is clear from the whole situation as well as from Tito’s speech that in excluding theological faculties from the universities, the state authorities referred to the constitutional provisions on the separation of church and state, which allowed religious schools for the education of future priests to operate under the general supervision of the state. Neither in the decisions of the republic Councils for Education and Culture nor in Tito’s words can we find any consideration of theology as a scientific discipline or theological faculties as scientific institutions. In this case, the authorities—because it suited their purposes—regarded them merely as internal Church schools for the education of clergy. Josip Broz Tito reiterated the same position in slightly different words in a conversation with the delegation of the First Congress of the Student League 29 Josip Broz Tito, Borba za socialistično demokracijo: šesta knjiga (Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1956), 17.

The Attitude of the Communist Authorities

79

of Yugoslavia on March 15, 1952. He said that, based on the experience with the conviction and imprisonment of Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac, the critics of the Yugoslav regime had been expected to express their outrage also regarding other controversial points of the relationship between the state and the church. However, they would not always react in such a manner, which was also the case in connection with the change in the status of theological faculties. “When we decided to separate theological faculties from the state, I expected a furious reaction from abroad, but this did not happen”, noted the president, suggesting that some points had received stronger reactions than others. However, he made it clear that theological faculties were also a part of the state-church relationship issues, linked to the increasing tensions in international relations, We used to support these faculties, although this was not in line with the Constitution. We did this because we wanted to salvage the relationship with the Church so that it would not be used against us from abroad. But it was indeed used against us.30

The administrations of the Catholic theological faculties in Ljubljana and Zagreb faced a number of difficulties, as they had to adapt to the new situation by a certain deadline and get the state authorities to allow them to operate as private Church institutions. In April 1952, the Operating Committee of the Episcopal Conference of Yugoslavia in Zagreb drew up a plan to make the transition from the status of state institutions to that of private ecclesiastical faculties based on canon law as painless as possible. On April 23, 1952, the Acting President of the Episcopal Conference, Archbishop of Belgrade Dr Josip Ujčić, and the Secretary of the Conference, Dr Viktor Burić, sent letters to the relevant authorities. In Ljubljana, the letters were sent to the Presidency of the Government, the Council for Education and Culture, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Commission for Religious Affairs. Ujčić and Burić mentioned that the Church was suddenly confronted with the fact that its two theological faculties in Yugoslavia had been abolished, while it had no means to maintain them itself since the agrarian reform had deprived it of the property that could have sustained the faculties as ecclesiastical institutions. Therefore, they requested that the federal and republican (Croatian and Slovenian) state authorities grant a regular annual subsidy to these two faculties based on the final paragraph of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, which stated that the state could provide material assistance to religious communities. Specifically for Slovenia, 30 Ibidem, 24–25.

80

A leš G abr ič

the Presidency of the Episcopal Conference asked the state authorities to allow—in accordance with the canon law regulations regarding the collection of contributions for the education of priests—for the collection of contributions from the faithful twice a year, intended for the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana. The Episcopal Conference also requested a tax exemption for these contributions. As for the students and professors at the theological faculties, it was proposed that they should continue to enjoy the same rights as before. The students of the theological faculties should also continue to be able to defer military service for the duration of their studies, and the titles and incomes that the professors had already been awarded should be recognised.31 The authorities granted the Church authorities only a small fraction of their requests, so they were mostly forced to rely on their own resources. On April 24, 1952, Anton Vovk, the Grand Chancellor of the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana and the Auxiliary Bishop of Ljubljana, authorised the Dean, Stanko Cajnkar, “to take over the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana from the Government of the People’s Republic of Slovenia as the representative of the Slovenian dioceses, and to settle all questions that may arise in this regard.”32 In a subsequent note, Cajnkar wrote: The professors’ argument that the Faculty of Theology should remain part of the University because theology is also a science could not convince them, because the new philosophy, which had been given an almost exclusive say in the laws on education and public life, did not recognise theology as a true science. The argument that theology was an integral part of our universities was irrefutable but too weak for the time of the revolution, which was not afraid of novelty.33

The preserved written documentation does not support the claim that the question of whether or not theology belonged among sciences was also discussed during the process of excluding the Faculty of Theology. It is more likely that this was discussed only directly with the representatives of the competent Slovenian school authorities, who—as elsewhere in Yugoslavia— avoided defining the importance of theology as a scientific discipline in official documentation and official statements.

31 SI AS 223, box 19, 442–52, Dopisi Predsjedništva biskupskih konferencija— Predsedstvu vlade LRS, 23. 4. 1952. See also: Biočić, “Prilog povijesti Katoličkog bogoslovnog fakulteta”, 45–46. 32 SI AS 223, box 19, 442–52, Dopis škofijskega ordinariata v Ljubljani dekanatu teološke fakultete v Ljubljani, 24. 4. 1952. 33 Stanko Cajnkar, “Delo fakultete po ločitvi od univerze”, Bogoslovni vestnik 29, no. 3–4 (1969): 179.

The Attitude of the Communist Authorities

81

The Faculty of Theology as a Private Church Institute The exclusion of the Faculty of Theology from the public education system therefore had nothing to do with the question of theology as a science. Instead, it involved the political pressure against the Church’s structures and the establishment of state control over its institutions. During the first years of its exclusion, the unpleasant situation in which the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana found itself was mostly handled by Stanko Cajnkar, who initially communicated with the Ministry of the Interior. However, in November 1953, the new Commission for Religious Affairs was established with the Slovenian government and assumed the responsibility for the communication between the state and the Dean’s Office of the Faculty of Theology. For many years, the Commission for Religious Affairs was headed by Boris Kocijančič, who was also a member of the government commission tasked with transforming the Faculty of Theology from a state into a private institution in 1952. The Faculty of Theology had to register with the Ministry of the Interior and agree to a statute that met the demands of the communist rulers and strengthened the possibilities for the state authorities to interfere with the internal workings of this private Church institution. The Commission for Religious Affairs reported to the superiors that the Church authorities had agreed to the provisions, although unfavourable to them because the authorities had made this a condition for the continued funding of the Faculty.34 The Statutes of the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana, approved under the pressures from the authorities in the autumn of 1952, defined this institution as “a Church institute for theological science, education, and training of the future clergy.” As the Faculty became a private institution, its diplomas were no longer considered publicly recognised documents and “may only be used in the ecclesiastical sphere.” The state authorities could also interfere in the matters of the Faculty’s personnel because “the election or appointment of lecturers, as well as deans and vice-deans, shall be legally valid if the competent state authority does not object to the election or appointment within one month.” Similar reservations applied to the enrolment of students who had been convicted in court or with regard to political offences. The Faculty was also required to submit any regulations adopted based on its Statutes to the competent state authority for approval.35 Thus, the state authorities were given the right of veto over all major decisions regarding the operations of the Faculty of Theology, which was now a 34 Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Komisija za odnose z verskimi skupnostmi (henceafter: SI AS 1211), box 83, Stanje rimokatoliške cerkve v LR Sloveniji (april 1956), 6. 35 SI AS 1211, box 141, Statut Teološke fakultete v Ljubljani.

82

A leš G abr ič

Church institute. During the first years after the Faculty of Theology ceased being a public institution, contacts between its long-time Dean Stanko Cajnkar and the long-time Chairman of the Commission for Religious Affairs Boris Kocijančič were maintained more informally, on a personal basis. However, as the years passed and the relations between the state and the Church gradually normalised, they resumed through the usual official channels. As a member of the Cyril and Methodius Society (Cirilmetodijsko društvo) and the editor of the Catholic publishing house Mohorjeva družba, Cajnkar had to mediate in many conflicts between the state and the Church, therefore facing double pressure. On the one hand, he was hindered by the communist authorities, while on the other hand, he faced reproaches from the Church authorities because of his membership in the Cyril and Methodius Society. After its exclusion from the public education system, the Faculty of Theology was financed through the Commission for Religious Affairs of the Slovenian government rather than from the budget of the Ministry of Science and Culture. The Slovenian political leadership felt that the Faculty of Theology should be provided with an adequate level of funding in order to control it and thus counter the influence of the Slovenian dioceses. However, during the period of increasing inflation, the budgetary grant stagnated. In the following decades, the Faculty therefore often faced financial shortages, and the Dean had to ask several times for the grant to be adjusted to the increasing prices in the country. With the Faculty’s exclusion from public education, the social situation of the professors at the Faculty of Theology certainly worsened, and in the following decades, it was not comparable to that of their colleagues at state faculties. However, the state authorities took special care to ensure that the situation of the members of the Cyril and Methodius Society would not deteriorate.36 In some cases, the state authorities attempted to make use of the right of veto they had gained by approving the Statutes of the Faculty. However, they were inconsistent, and Dean Cajnkar’s resourcefulness allowed him to occasionally appoint lecturers that the authorities had initially been sceptical of. When Dr Anton Strle was considered for appointment, Kocijančič remarked to Cajnkar in a conversation in June 1956 that “it is not particularly favourable for the Faculty that people who have been convicted and whose political restraint is therefore dubious gather around it, especially recently.” In private, Kocijančič told Cajnkar that the authorities were not considering blocking 36 Gabrič, “Ozadje izključitve”, 269–275; Edo Škulj, “Teološka fakulteta kot cerkvena ustanova (1952–1991)”, in Bogdan Kolar, ed., 90 let Teološke fakultete v Ljubljani (Ljubljana: Teološka fakulteta, 2009), 86–99.

The Attitude of the Communist Authorities

83

his appointment at the moment. However, “if Dr Strle were to do something wrong in the future, they will simply demand that he be recalled.” Cajnkar attempted to appease Kocijančič by assuring him that Strle would not cause any problems, adding that he would be lecturing on “dogmatics, which has been taught for 2000 years, and therefore he cannot change anything about the subject itself.” Cajnkar declared that his main concern as Dean was to avoid the situation where Strle or anyone else needed to be removed from the Faculty.37 The authorities were more resolute when the Faculty of Theology discussed appointing Dr Vinko Bevk as a part-time lecturer in Canon Law. In their conversation of November 7, 1962, Kocijančič told Bevk directly that the right of veto would be exercised if there was ever an official proposal to install him.38 Thus, no prohibitions ʻfrom aboveʼ by the state authorities took place at all, as all potential veto-decisions were eliminated in advance in closed-circle discussions. Those who offended the state authorities were not the only ones to experience problems. The same fate was shared by the people—especially the members of the Cyril and Methodius Society—who were not to the liking of the Church dignitaries. In April 1964, Kocijančič therefore firmly told ViceDean Dr Vilko Fajdiga that “we definitely consider unacceptable any refusal of the CMS (i.e. Cyril and Methodius Society) members to the positions of professors at the Faculty of Theology simply because they are members of the CMS, and we will always fight against such discrimination.”39 He was referring to the three professors who, although they taught at the Faculty, carried out their activities without the nihil obstat of the Church authorities. The Dean, Dr Stanko Cajnkar, was among these three.40 After 1952, theology students faced even greater difficulties than their professors, as they lost the rights they had previously enjoyed as state faculty students. They no longer had the right to defer military service for the duration of their studies, lost the social and health security enjoyed by the students of state faculties, and they could no longer benefit from student discounts on public transport. 37 SI AS 1211, box 114, Zapisek o razgovoru med dr. Cajnkarjem in predsednikom Komisije za verska vprašanja Borisom Kocijančičem, 2. 7. 1956. 38 SI AS 1211, box 141, Zabeležka o razgovoru predsednika Komisije za verska vprašanja LRS tov. Borisa Kocijančiča z dr. Vinkom Bevkom, župnikom iz Semiča, 7. 9. 1962. 39 SI AS 1211, box 141, Zabeležka o razgovoru predsednika Komisije za verska vprašanja SR Slovenije Borisa Kocijančiča s prodekanom Teološke fakultete v Ljubljani dr. Vilkom Fajdigo 2. 4. 1964. 40 SI AS 1211, box 141, Izvleček iz zabeležke o razg. Preds. KVV SRS B. Kocijančiča z vsemi tremi slov. ordinariji, 7. 1. 1966.

84

A leš G abr ič

The opportunities for the study of theology and the social position of theology professors and students started improving at least partially at the beginning of the 1960s when some of the Church dignitaries whom the leading communists considered as obstacles to the improvement of the relations between the state and the Church were no longer present. The Holy See changed its views after the death of Pius XII in 1958, when his successor, John XXIII, opened the door to a new dialogue. Meanwhile, the authorities in Slovenia and Croatia were more in favour of dialogue after the deaths of the figures they considered to be their opponents: the Ljubljana Bishop Gregorij Rožman in 1959 and Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac in 1960. The funeral of Rožman’s successor Archbishop Dr Anton Vovk in 1963 was a visible sign that the relations in Slovenia were improving. It was also attended by the representatives of the state authorities, while the Commission for Religious Affairs donated a sum of money that was “made freely available for the regular needs of the Faculty of Theology” instead of a wreath.41 In 1966, when Yugoslavia and the Holy See re-established diplomatic relations, talks between the representatives of the state and Church authorities were already taking place in a more relaxed atmosphere. On January 7, 1966, during the discussions at the Commission for Religious Affairs, the representatives of the Slovenian dioceses talked about the Faculty of Theology, among other things. The Ljubljana Archbishop Jože Pogačnik mentioned that the Church wanted a change in leadership because “the Dean of this Faculty has not been replaced ever since the war, which is abnormal and unique.” He added that even at the Faculty itself, “everyone is laughing and remarking that only Marshal Tito and Dr Cajnkar are always elected.” If a replacement were to take place, Pogačnik added, Rome would likely issue a nihil obstat, i.e. its consent to appoint members of the Cyril and Methodius Society as full lecturers at the Faculty of Theology.42 In addition, after the signing of the Protocol between the states, the state and religious authorities reached a number of compromises that improved the Faculty of Theology’s prospects in the subsequent years. It was important for the development of theology as a scientific discipline that the Bogoslovni vestnik publication was re-launched in 1965, opening up more opportunities for theologians to publish their scientific work.43 The topic of the attitude towards believers, their position in the society, the attitude towards religion, and the controversy between the 41 SI AS 1211, box 141, Dopis Komisije za verska vprašanja—Dekanatu Teološke fakultete, 11. 6. 1963. 42 SI AS 1211, box 141, Izvleček iz zabeležke o razg. Preds. KVV SRS B. Kocijančiča z vsemi tremi slov. ordinariji, 7. 1. 1966. 43 Škulj, “Teološka fakulteta kot cerkvena ustanova”, 89–90.

The Attitude of the Communist Authorities

85

advocates of the Christian and Marxist worldviews gradually returned to the world of the media, where Christian thought, albeit less likely to be published, now nevertheless enjoyed a much greater presence than during the first two decades of the communist rule.44 For theology students (and for stu­ dents of private diocesan grammar schools), however, conditions started to improve after Josip Broz Tito visited Paul VI in the Vatican in March 1971.45

Conclusion The first two decades after the end of World War II, when the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (and in Slovenia, the Communist Party of Slovenia) had assumed power, were the most difficult period in the history of the Faculty of Theology. It went through different phases of the higher education organization in Slovenia and finally ended up in a marginal position. However, during the reoccurring conflicts, the state authorities in charge of science and higher education did not raise the question of whether theology belonged among scientific disciplines. The gradual exclusion of the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana from the system of public education was (merely) the result of the political pressures against the Church structures, which, in the eyes of the authorities, included the institution of higher education where the clergy were being educated. Even when theological faculties were still a part of public education, certain regulations were adopted that raised the question of whether all institutions and scientific disciplines were treated on an equal footing with others, and it was not only theology that was involved. For example, when the decision on the scientific fields in which it was possible to take a doctorate under the new principles was published in 1949, theology was not on the list. As a member of the delegation of the Cyril and Methodius Society that visited Josip Broz Tito, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana at the time—the well-known Slovenian psychologist, philosopher, and theologian Dr Anton Trstenjak—took advantage of the visit with the president to raise the question of whether the regulation in question meant that the Faculty of Theology would no longer be allowed to award doctorates. Tito, who did not exclude theology from the context of the organization of scientific work in the statements addressed to him, reiterated such a position also in this case,

44 Jure Ramšak, (Samo)upravljanje intelekta: družbena kritika v poznosocialistični Sloveniji (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2019), 191–222. 45 Aleš Gabrič, “Oblast in katoliško šolstvo na slovenskem po letu 1945”, in France M. Dolinar, ed., Sto let Zavoda sv. Stanislava (Ljubljana: Družina, 2005), 222–225.

86

A leš G abr ič

as Trstenjak noted in his report: “Marshal Tito stated that he did not see why the Faculty of Theology should be an exception among other faculties in this respect. He explicitly allowed the Faculty to refer to his statement if necessary.” When Dean Trstenjak mentioned President Tito’s position during a conversation with the Slovenian Minister of Science and Culture Jože Potrč, the latter replied that he did not understand the regulation in a manner that would restrict the Faculty of Theology regarding the awarding of doctorates. According to Trstenjak’s notes, their conversation ended in the following spirit: “No one has yet challenged the right of the Theological Faculty to confer doctorates, but if there should ever be any controversy on this issue, Comrade Tito’s opinion will definitely prevail.”46 Similarly to this issue, the scientific character of theology was not challenged in the context of its exclusion from public education. During the frequent reorganizations of university studies between 1945 and 1960, the University and university professors kept underlining that certain schools did not belong to the system of university studies. However, this was mainly brought up during the discussions of the newly established colleges or institutions of higher education that were initially pedagogical institutions rather than anything else and were just starting out in their respective scientific fields. The Faculty of Theology did not face similar concerns during the higher education reforms. Furthermore, Rafko Valenčič, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the time of its reintegration into the University at the turn of the 1980s into the 1990s, did not mention anything related to the scientific character of the Faculty among the three problems that came up during the talks. Two problems were easily resolved. When asked why it wanted to rejoin the University, the Faculty of Theology replied that it had been a member when the University had been founded and that it was time to right the injustice it had suffered by being excluded. To the comments that it wanted to become a university member mainly for financial reasons, the Faculty of Theology replied that it had not raised this question at all and that if it had been able to survive on modest means up to that point, it would be able to do so in the future. However, the most serious objection was that the Faculty of Theology was not an autonomous institution, as it was overseen by the Grand Chancellor, whose competencies were not comparable to other scientific institutions. The representatives of the Faculty of Theology rejected the accusation, arguing that precisely the Faculty’s connection with the Roman 46 Bogdan Kolar, “Delovanje Teološke fakultete med letoma 1919 in 1952”, in Bogdan Kolar, ed., 90 let Teološke fakultete v Ljubljani (Ljubljana: Teološka fakulteta, 2009), 66.

The Attitude of the Communist Authorities

87

Congregation allowed for the internationally comparable habilitation of lecturers and study programmes.47 The debates therefore returned to the points that had divided the opinions about theological faculties even before the communists rose to power. In the autumn of 1990, when asked what to do with the Faculty of Theology, the lawyer Boštjan M. Zupančič pointed out two controversies that needed to be considered when reintegrating it into the public university. He was bothered that it was only a Catholic theology faculty, not a theology faculty for studying any religion in the region. Boštjančič was not convinced by the argument that this was also the case at most universities in Central Europe. Furthermore, he found the hierarchical connections “where the archbishop himself is the “Grand Chancellor” (whatever that means) completely unacceptable: the situation here is identical to that of declaring the Party school as a member of the University.” As for the doubts about theology as a science, Zupančič stood on the other side of the argument, because “theology as an exegetical science of sacred texts has its own inner substance that cannot be denied scientificity.” To those who judged science by its empirical power alone, he said that, along with theology, the law, and the humanities could not be called sciences either if the same criteria were applied.48 Theology was therefore considered an equal scientific discipline in the dominant public discourse after the founding of the University of Ljubljana, at the time when it was excluded from it, as well as after its reintegration into the University in 1992.

47 Rafko Valenčić, “Prvi koraki zbliževanja med Univerzo v Ljubljani in Teološko fakulteto”, in Bogdan Kolar, ed., 90 let Teološke fakultete v Ljubljani (Ljubljana: Teološka fakulteta, 2009), 288–289. 48 Zupančić, “Ločitev Cerkve od države”, 1091–1092.

4  Priest-Rectors of the University of Zagreb, Inter-Confessional Relations, and the Unity of Church Slavko Slišković Catholic Faculty of Theology University of Zagreb Zagreb, Croatia [email protected] Abstract: The second half of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century was marked by attempts to unite the Christian Churches, although it is still not possible to speak of ecumenism in the contemporary sense. The idea also found fertile ground among Croats who were on the crossroads of Eastern and Western Christianity having a centuries-old tradition of Glagolitic specificity within Roman Catholicism. The need for religious unity was additionally motivated by political reasons—opposing Hungarianization and Germanization via closer co-operation of the Slavic peoples, for which the affiliation to different confessions was often an additional obstacle. The intellectuals of this time, including some priest-rectors of the University of Zagreb, actively participated in this process. In addition to reflecting on the possibility of ecclesial unity, they also dealt with practical issues from the everyday life of a confessionally plural environment, such as the conclusion of mixed marriages and the obligations arising from them in the matter of the religious upbringing of children. In the spirit of their time, they also wrote apologetic works and warned of the incompatibility of certain teachings with Catholic doctrine, but likewise presented to the Croatian public initiatives and persons who selflessly worked in favour of the unity of the Church. Keywords: Church unity, mixed marriages, religious upbringing of children, apologetic works, University of Zagreb, rectors

Introduction This paper aims to present sixteen priests, professors at the Catholic Faculty of Theology who served as rectors of the University of Zagreb, their attitudes and commitments related to Christian unity, and their relationship with other Christian denominations. These are Antun Kržan, Franjo Iveković,

90

Slavko Slišković

Feliks Suk, Gustav Baron, Anton Franki, Ivan Bujanović, Antun Maurović, Juraj Dočkal, Rudolf Vimer, Antun Bauer, Josip Volović, Josip Pazman, Fran Barac, Ivan Angelo Ruspini, Stjepan Zimmermann, and Andrija Živković. Examining their scientific work and social engagement, we can conclude that we do not find any evidence of interest in our topic with three of them—Suk, Dočkal, and Vimer. The reason for this, apart from personal preferences, can be found in their narrower specialization, which was not directly related to this issue. Suk was a professor of moral theology, Dočkal was a professor of the Old Testament and Hebrew, and Vimer was a professor of the introductory fundamental sciences of Scripture and Semitic languages. The topic was addressed incidentally by Kržan (dogma), Iveković (Old Testament and Semitic languages), and Maurović (Church history), while the other ten rectors justify the undertaken research. We have also found that non-Christian religions did not enter the sphere of their interest, except an incidental mentioning of Judaism in one article.

Protestantism The priest-rectors dealt with Protestantism only when a specific situation had prompted them to do so or occasionally when they declared themselves in the spirit of the ecclesiological understanding and theological teaching of the Church to which they belonged. Thus, Iveković, while preaching about Marko Križevčanin, praises is fidelity to the Catholic Church for which he endured the “rage of Lutheran ecstasy.”1 Gustav Baron presents the Croatian Blessed as a symbol of “the fidelity and loyalty of our fathers to the holy Catholic faith and to Peter’s Cave” against the “false Protestant faith” whose members he calls “apostates from the holy faith of Christ” and those who are “infected by the Protestant doctrine.” For him, Protestantism is “apostasy from Christ” and he denies ecclesiology to Protestant communities, holding that “there is no God for the Father for those who have no Church for the mother.”2 With such views, it is not surprising that there is resistance to modernization processes aimed at regulating the legal position of other religious communities and Christian denominations. Antun Maurović did not address his attitude towards other denominations and religions in his writing, nor did he speak about them during his professorial and rector’s

1 Franjo Iveković, “Marko Križevčanin”, Zagrebački katolički list 10, no. 52 (1859): 409–413. 2 Cf. Gustav Baron, “Govor k proslavi beatifikacije bl. Marka Krizina držao u prvostol­ noj crkvi u Zagrebu 15. listopada 1905.”, Katolički list 56, no. 42 (1905): 501–505.

Inter-Confessional Relations, and the Unity of Church

91

service. However, on November 30, 1905, he delivers a “Statement” against the governmental “Fundamentals of the Religious Relations” in his name and on behalf of the clergy in his diocese. While emphasizing that he is “quite unpleasantly” surprised by the draft, he maintains that it contradicts the canon law of the Catholic Church in our homeland; and in addition, even if only indirectly, it “violates the Concordat” and, hence, he solemnly protests “against the fundamentals.”3 Given that in Banska Croatia relations between different religions and their members were not fully resolved, at the session of the Croatian Parliament on 10 November 1905, the Religious Relations Bill was proposed, which was based on the principle of confessionalism obliging every citizen to belong to one of the legally recognized denominations. The Catholics found some provisions particularly problematic, for instance in addition to guaranteed freedom to practice religion every legally recognized church or religious community was allowed to admit new followers and the Bill regulated transition from one denomination to another. The Bill was nevertheless passed on December 14 with 10 opposing votes and was enacted on January 17, 1906.4 The Catholic Church viewed with distrust the ecumenical movement that had been developing largely within Protestantism since the mid-twentieth century. The movement was motivated primarily by the need to end conflict and rivalry among preachers of different Christian denominations in the missionary receiving countries, which called into question the authenticity of their proclamation of the faith to the pagans. The international conference of various Protestant missionary organizations, held in Edinburgh in 1910, is taken as the institutional beginning of this activity. At the conference, 1,200 representatives from 150 missionary societies and churches discussed the possibility of establishing a single church in missionary non-Christian countries. This was followed by several similar conferences but without Catholic participants.5 For the Catholic Church, ecumenism was still the way of returning schismatics and heretics to its fold. It is not surprising, therefore, that Andrija Živković has a rather negative assessment about this movement. Speaking about the concrete ecumenical conference held in Lausanne from 3–21 August 1927, he even with a dose of triumphalism found it disappointing for those Christians who expected more concrete results of rapprochement. He questions its “ecumenical” character, as it was held without Catholic 3 “Izjava”, Katolički list 56, no. 49 (1905): 585. 4 More in: Ignjat Valenčić, Zakon o vjeroispovjednim odnosima (Zagreb: Tiskara Franje Rulica nasljednik Mirko Kos i drug, 1908). 5 Cf. Reinhard Frieling, Put ekumenske misli. Uvod u ekumenologiju (Zagreb: Teološki fakultet Matija Vlašić Ilirik, 2009), 38–43.

92

Slavko Slišković

participants, and he disputes the ecumenical label of the whole movement, arguing that by its nature it could not bring significant progress because it did not lead to unity with Rome. He refers to other similar movements and meetings within Protestant denominations in the same spirit.6 Despite a generally negative view of Protestantism, Catholics living in denominationally mixed surroundings had various forms of encounter and co-operation with members of this religious community. Hence, specific questions arose that required a clear answer. One of them was: “Could a Catholic be an organist in a Jewish synagogue or a Protestant place of worship?”. Josip Pazman answers this in detail. He refers to a specific example of a teacher to whom such activity supplemented income and based on Catholic doctrine and the opinion of eminent theologians, concludes that such an engagement was unacceptable because “Catholics are forbidden from religious intercourse with unbelievers and heretics.”7 When asked about the validity of mixed mar­ riages between Catholics and Protestants, the same author describes specific legal solutions in some European countries and, particularly important for Croats, information on how the Holy See recognized the validity of marriage before Protestant pastors in Hungary.8

Old Catholicism The Old Catholic Church in Croatia had a distinctly national character. It spread and was institutionalized after the First World War primarily due to unfulfilled social demands of the lower clergy, and not on rejection of the conclusions of the First Vatican Council as was the case with the formation of this church community in general. The need to regulate one’s own legal position within the state led this movement into the fold of Old Catholicism.9 This is probably the reason why we do not find theological treatises on Old Catholicism of theologians that we deal with in this paper, but above all specific instructions on how to treat members of this community and it as an institution. Undeniably, one of the rectors of the University, this time in 6 Andrija Živković, “Problem vjerskog ujedinjenja”, Bogoslovska smotra 16, no. 2 (1928): 153–160, 305–312, 440–455. 7 Josip Pazman, “Smije li katolik biti orguljaš u židovskoj sinagogi ili protestantskoj bogomolji?”, Katolički list 57, no. 9 (1906): 99–100. 8 Josip Pazman, “O valjanosti mješovite ženidbe”, Bogoslovska smotra 7, no. 3 (1916): 305–310. 9 Daniel Patafta, Reformni pokret i Hrvatska starokatolička crkva od 1919. do 1929., Doctoral dissertation defended at the Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Zagreb in 2016.

Inter-Confessional Relations, and the Unity of Church

93

the service of the Archbishop of Zagreb, Antun Bauer, excommunicated the founders of the new denomination from the Catholic Church and thus forced them to seek a legal framework within which they could operate, and they found it in the Old Catholic Church.10 Considering it was created mainly for the practical reasons of the founders, this denomination also wished to facilitate the practical issues of everyday life for its members. The Old Catholic Church, among other things, permitted divorce and conclusion of a second marriage. The ceremony remained largely the same as in the Catholic Church, while the act of wedding enabled regulation of family relations in the civil law field. This was often the reason for the transition from the Catholic to the Old Catholic Church. Ivan Angelo Ruspini repeatedly addresses this topic from the legal point of view, mainly in terms of marriage laws. Firstly, he raises the question of the jurisdiction of the Old Catholic Spiritual Table over Catholics who are married in the Catholic Church, and the consequences in the civilian field of its activities. The author encourages the government to make clear legal solutions so that there is no unequal treatment. He emphasizes that Old Catholics, despite the Catholic adjective in their name, are not in unity with the Catholic Church, hence this should be clearly defined in civil legal affairs.11 He questions the jurisdiction of the Old Catholic Church for persons married in the Catholic Church. The topic was extremely interesting because in line with the civil law, a second wedding in the event when the first spouse is still alive is a crime of bigamy. Seeing that calls for legal solutions to this issue have not borne fruit, the author concludes that any person who is already married in the Catholic Church and then remarries in the Old Catholic Church commits a crime under state law. Witnesses to such a wedding are equally criminally responsible, including Old Catholic Church officials. Ruspini considers any contrary claim coming from the Old Catholic circles to be “propagandistic in nature.” However, he does not dispute the validity of marriages that “Old Catholics concluded before an Old Catholic official, and to which no obstacles stand in the way.”12 Occasionally the main reason for converting to Old Catholicism was the possibility of a second marriage which is evidenced by the examples of those who had left the Catholic Church, joined the Old Catholic Church and got married in it, and then again requested to be readmitted into Catholicism. As there were many such 10 Antun Bauer, “Pastirsko pismo o katoličkoj crkvi i o otpadništvu te osnutku staroka­ toličke crkve”, Katolički list 75, no. 9 (1924): 97–101. 11 Ivan Angelo Ruspini, “Sudovanje starokatoličkog duhovnog suda u ženidbenim stvarima za građansko (državno) područje”, Katolički list 78, no. 45 (1927): 609–611. 12 Ivan Angelo Ruspini, “O valjanosti starokatoličkih brakova”, Katolički list 82, no. 10 (1931): 109–112.

94

Slavko Slišković

cases, this issue was discussed first at the diocesan level, and then the opinion of the Holy See was sought. Summarizing the decisions of the competent authorities, Ruspini concludes that those who are not ready to give up their second marriage cannot be reunited because only the first marriage is valid for the Catholic Church. He acknowledges the existence of exceptional situations in terms of questioning the validity of the first wedding, but such cases should be sent to the Vatican for resolution.13

Orthodoxy Relations between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy were exceptionally relevant in Croatia in the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth century due to the Cyril and Methodius movement and in the aftermath of the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy with the emergence of a new state union in which the Catholic Church for the first time found herself not a dominant confession but was rather instructed to co-operate with, but also to confront Orthodoxy, which took the form of a national Serbian church here, seeking to integrate all its believers into the Serbian nation.

Cyril and Methodius Movement and Unionist Movement When we discuss the Cyril and Methodius idea, it is necessary to emphasize that Croats were at the crossroads of Eastern and Western Christianity with a centuries-old tradition of Glagolitic specialty within Roman Catholicism and therefore some dignitaries of ecclesiastical unity assigned them the role of a link between the Eastern and Western churches and a testimony to the possibility of preserving their own liturgical and disciplinary uniqueness within the Catholic Church.14 Such an effort was particularly supported by the important anniversaries associated with the Slavic Apostles celebrated in the observed period. In 1863, the thousandth anniversary of the arrival of missionaries Constantine and Methodius in Moravia was celebrated. Six years later (in 1869) the thousandth anniversary of the death of St. Cyril—Constantine was marked. The epistle of Pope John VIII Industriae tuae from June 29, 880 to Duke Svatopluk, which confirmed Methodius’ orthodoxy, approved his teaching, and included the Old Church Slavic language among the three sacred 13 Ivan Angelo Ruspini, “Primanja lica u Crkvu, koje je od nje otpalo radi ženidbe”, Katolički list 78, no. 11 (1927): 133–135. 14 Cf. Andrija Šuljak, “Biskup Josip Juraj Strossmayer i Ćirilometodsko-glagoljska baština”, Diacovensia 2, no. 1 (1994): 278–279.

Inter-Confessional Relations, and the Unity of Church

95

languages, Latin, Hebrew, and Greek, permitting Roman liturgy to be held in that language. In the celebratory year of 1880, the famous encyclical of Pope Leo XIII Grande munus was published, which gave the Old Slavic language a new impetus in Church life, while the worship of the Holy Brothers was included in the calendar of the Catholic Church and was extended to the world. We should also point out the thousandth anniversary of Methodius’ death (1885). In the anniversary atmosphere, Antun Kržan speaks homiletically about the Holy Brothers on the occasion of their holiday in 1881.15 The speech of Gustav Baron during the consecration of the Greek Catholic Church of Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Zagreb in 1886, after its restoration based on the project by Herman Bollé, is similar. Baron reminds that the ʻcosmicʼ councils and Church Fathers had recognized the primacy and authority over the whole Church to the Roman bishops and that the same doctrine was also accepted by the Slavic apostles Cyril and Methodius even at the time when it was disputed in Constantinople. Instead of siding with their own Constantinople Church, they sided with the Roman Church. This Cyril and Methodius’ heritage is most evident in the church that cultivates the Eastern rite and the Old Slavic language while recognizing the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, he believes that the church building in the Upper Town will be “one of those enchanting levers, which will, as we consolingly hope, by the grace of God, unite the whole of Slavdom in one of Christ’s sheepfolds.”16 One of the lasting fruits of this movement were the Velehrad Congresses. They began in 1907 at the site of St. Methodius’ death in the Czech Republic intending to unite the Catholic and the Orthodox Church. They were held every two years with the participation of Slavic Catholic theologians and with occasional meetings with Orthodox clergy and laity. After a break during the Frist World War, they were revived in 1921. Their work was particularly followed by Andrija Živković, who sees them as an excellent means of achieving unity between Catholics and Orthodox. He points out that unity is possible only if no one is expected to give up their doctrines. I do not think that unification would require anyone to sacrifice their dogmas. It would only require, to come to the conviction, that there is no new dogma, which is not fully contained in both revelation and tradition. Impartial, objective, and scientific research can lead to this belief. Of course, even after the

15 Antun Kržan, “Govor u slavu sv. slavenskih apostola Ćirila i Metoda”, Katolički list 32, no. 27 (1881): 211–214. 16 “Posveta grčko-katoličke crkve sv. Ćirila i Metodija u Zagrebu (Govor dra Gustava Barona.)”, Katolički list 37, no. 50 (1886): 1–3.

96

Slavko Slišković scientific results, the grace of the Lord is still needed, which shelters the will and governs the consent to the revealed truth.17

In his report on the congress held from July 31 to August 4, 1924, Živković calls it a continuation of “chaste efforts and full of sacrifices” and writes, with explicit sympathy, that in a way, the family enthusiasm and verve of Slavic theologians for the unification of the blood brothers with the holy Catholic Church disappears, and it is slowly becoming the concern of those who are not bound by any tribal considerations but are driven by thought and desire to invest their own efforts forces in this ideal work.

Speaking about the mutual relationship of individual Slavic peoples, he notes that “nationalism is the greatest obstacle to selfless and noble efforts for church unification.” Describing the course of the congress, he stresses the need to understand Russian desire for greater social, charitable, and pedagogical work of the Catholic Church and concludes that in his opinion, “the pope’s mission to save Russian children from starvation contributed more to unification than all four previous Velehrad congresses.”18 The following year, Živković presents the congress proceedings, emphasizing its importance in, among other things, contributing to a deeper knowledge of us Slavs in the West and to a stronger interest in the problems of church unification especially in church and scientific circles of European nations. No matter how hard we try, we are still small and insignificant in their eyes.19

In a review of the proceedings of the next congress (1927), he summarizes how such meetings were conceived as “little stones for the construction of a magnificent building: Slavic church unity. They bear the mark of the true Christian spirit: love and the pursuit of Christ’s perfect work: a one Church.” He sees the obstacle to this mission as a burden of the past but asserts that “today, of course, with ingrained prejudices of a religious nature, the nationalist issue and the pagan glorification of nationalism play a major role.” He hopes that Orthodox will join these Catholic attempts. “Whether the current form of the congress will be the most appropriate way for such talks or some 17 Živković, “Problem vjerskog ujedinjenja”, 455. 18 Andrija Živković, “Unionistički kongres na Velehradu”, Bogoslovska smotra 12, no. 4 (1924): 491–498. 19 Andrija Živković, “Acta IV. conventus velehradensis anno MCMXXIV., Sumptimus arhiepiscopi olomucensis, Olomucii, 1925”, Bogoslovska smotra 13, no. 3 (1925): 508–509.

Inter-Confessional Relations, and the Unity of Church

97

other, is secondary.” He calls the idea of unity “great and holy” and wishes “to haste the day when we will be united in one faith and one Church.”20 Fran Barac also writes about the Velehrad Congresses, calling them “an impressive choir of excellent participants in two denominations of one Christian faith” and highlights the papal support for this project.21

Faith and Nation The desire for religious unity among Croats was further motivated by political reasons for opposing Hungarianization and Germanization through closer co-operation with other Slavic peoples. Orthodox Slavs who were under Ottoman occupation mostly achieved liberation and the formation of nation-states in the second half of the twentieth century, and in this sense, they were a model and a possible ally to the libertarian desires of the Catholic Slavs who were still obstructed in attempts at full national emancipation. In his review Crkva i narodnosti [Church and Nationalities], Antun Bauer points out that “nationalism is completely opposed to the very essence of Christianity” and claims that it is all the more dangerous in a “multilingual monarchy with various nations.” He cites the example of the Czech Republic, where Germans petitioned for their own diocese, noting that they are prone to “national fanaticism and exclusivity” elsewhere so that in Slovenia they appoint almost exclusively Germans as bishops. Slovene and Croatian clergy in Trieste and Istria faced similar problems from the Italians. Bauer concludes: “In the north and west a German, and in the south an Italian: all against the Slavs.”22 On the other hand, different views on the political future of individual Slavic nations were often a stumbling block in the religious field. In the areas of the Slavic south, in the processes of national integration, denominational affiliation was often the determinant of identity. Thus, Croatian-Serbian relations largely determined the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. It is precisely in this area that the most significant, but also the most polemical, engagement of the priest-rectors of the University of Zagreb took place. On the occasion of the anniversary of St. Methodius and papal encyclical Grande Munus a Slavic pilgrimage to Rome was held in June 1881. In addition 20 Andrija Živković, “Acta V. congresus velehradensis”, Bogoslovska smotra 16, no. 1 (1928): 122–123. 21 Fran Barac, “Bilješke iz bogoslovsko-filozofske literature. Iz apologetike. Naučan zbor za istočno bogoslovlje”, Bogoslovska smotra 13, no. 1 (1925): 145–152. 22 Antun Bauer, “Crkva i narodnosti”, Katolički list 38, no. 3 (1887): 17–18.

98

Slavko Slišković

to Catholics, the invitation to pilgrimage was also extended to Orthodox believers. The hierarchy of the Orthodox Church experienced this negatively in terms of the Catholic desire to unite their believers, proselytism, and a direct threat to the survival of Orthodoxy. Extensive epistles were published about that matter by the Dalmatian and Istrian Episcop from Zadar, Stevan Knežević, and Episcop of Boka Kotorska, Dubrovnik and Split from Kotor, Gerasim Petranović. Anton Franki responded by refuting each of the individual anti-Catholic claims with extremely strong arguments and breadth of presentation of the stated problem.23 Orthodox theologian and later Bishop Nikodim Milas wrote about the same topic in the work Slavenski apostoli Kiril i Metodije i istina pravoslavlja [Slavic Apostles Cyril and Methodius, and the Truth of Orthodoxy] and Franki argued with him in eight issues of the newspaper Katolička Dalmacija [Catholic Dalmatia].24 It is interesting to note, because it reveals the breadth of the author’s views, that Franki was also forced to answer to Catholic theologians who objected him calling Orthodoxy ʻchurchʼ in the previously mentioned book, which gave the impression of its orthodoxy, and did not use the official name for Orthodox ʻGreek Orientalsʼ. In his response, he explains that he believes everyone should be called by the name they personally use, although Orthodox episcopes did not refer to Catholics as Catholics but ʻRomans, papists, Westernersʼ. He expressed the belief that insults should not be retaliated with the same measure, and his position that between Catholics and Orthodox “there are no questions about faith, but only about the church.” The significant conclusion is: Orthodox today, and especially Slavs, are not personally to blame for their condition. Whoever wishes to clarify their situation, and whoever does it with the utmost consideration, is indeed doing a good deed. Let an Orthodox treat a Catholic in the same manner as a Catholic treat Orthodox.25

The work of Archbishop Peter Smirnov Izloženje hrišćanske pravoslavne vjere [Exposition of the Christian Orthodox Faith], which was translated from Russian and accepted as a school textbook for Orthodox religious education in Croatia, also caused controversy. Ivan Bujanović writes an extensive 23 Anton Franki, Dvie poslanice dvaju pravoslavnih episkopa u Dalmaciji obielodanjene prigodom slavenskoga hodočašća u Rim (Zadar: Tiskara Ivana Vodicke, 1881). 24 Anton Franki, “Slavenski apostoli Kiril i Metodije i istina pravoslavlja”, Katolička Dalmacija 13, no. 35 (1882): 1–2; 13, no. 36 (1882): 1–2; 13, no. 37 (1882): 1–2; 13, no. 38 (1882): 1–2; 13, no. 39 (1882): 1–2; 13, no. 40 (1882): 1–2, 13, no. 41 (1882): 1–2; 13, no. 42 (1882): 1–2. 25 Anton Franki, “O pravoslavlju pravoslavne crkve”, Katolički list 37, no. 51 (1886): 408–409.

Inter-Confessional Relations, and the Unity of Church

99

review. He considers it necessary to warn “relevant circles about the harmful consequences that cannot be avoided” if this book is indeed going to be used in religious education. He does not doubt that the students of the ʻGreekEastern Churchʼ should have an appropriate religious textbook, but he specifically considers this one to be completely inappropriate. He underlines that it is problematic for schools attended by students of different religions and that it is easy to instigate their mutual hatred and conflicts. He believes that when choosing and approving school literature, one should take into account that it is intended for “immature but fiery youth, easily ignited in their young age.” As specific objections, he points out that in the book states that “Roman Catholics have strayed far from the truth in the fundamental dogmas of the revealed science.” He believes that “if the existing differences must be addressed, it must always be so that by refuting fornication, those who do not believe or learn as the Church teaches and believes are never ridiculed or despised.” In this textbook, Bujanović outlines in detail the misinterpretations of Catholicism, some of which he even calls ʻviciousʼ. He notably tries to demonstrate that there is no real difference in belief between Catholics and Orthodox, while the author of the textbook insists there is, and in some segments, the author does not differ Catholic doctrine from Protestant, and he presents it as such to religious students. Bujanović summarizes the complete review of this book in three points: 1. that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is not accurately represented in that translation; 2. that in some issues it is presented incorrectly and untruthfully; 3. that Catholics in this translation are wrongly and tendentiously accused with such expressions that must be insulting and humiliating.26

Antun Bauer also writes polemically and apologetically. Giving a review of the book Pravoslavni dogmat o crkvi [The Orthodox Dogma about the Church] by Emilijan Radić, he looks back at his views on the Catholic Church and concludes that the author “neither knows what he intends nor understands what he is asking.” He even thanks him with a dose of irony: “Now Catholics will be able to capture the authoritative definition of the church, and Dr. Radić has gained immortal merits not only for the Eastern so-called Orthodox Church, but also for the Catholic Church.”27 Interestingly, Bauer uses the term ʻso-calledʼ for the Orthodox Church, which we do not find in other authors. Radić wrote an Open Letter in response to this text which 26 Ivan Bujanović, “Protojereja Petra Smirnova Izloženje hrišćanske pravoslavne vjere”, Katolički list 43, no. 31 (1892): 248–249; 43, no. 32 (1892): 255–258; 43, no. 33 (1892): 260–264. 27 Antun Bauer, “Pravoslavni dogmat o crkvi”, Katolički list 43, no. 26 (1892): 203–207.

100

Slavko Slišković

was published on eleven pages in the newspaper Srpski Sion [Serbian Zion] published in Novi Sad. Not refuting his arguments but stooping to the personal level, Radić states that Bauer “writes about things for which he is simply not mature enough.” The text becomes more ruthless to the point that he claims that Bauer has lost his mind and declares him of diminished capacity and childish, with insufficient intelligence, and derisively calls him a “simpleton”. Radić attempts to present Bauer’s review as an attack on the sanctities of Orthodoxy, which he is ready to defend by all means. Therefore, Bauer concludes this discussion in his answer with the words: “Whoever touches the sanctity of Orthodox Serb? But does he think that he is free in Srpski Sion in Novi Sad for no reason, no cause, wrongly and criminally to mock the Holy Catholic Church, and us in Croatia not to be free to repel such attacks? We do not touch anyone, but noble Dr. Radić should know, that we will slap him and everyone on the wrist when we find them in a business such as this.”28 His review Znaci prave Kristove crkve po naučanju prote Lebedeva i prof. Petrovića [Signs of the true Church of Christ according to the teachings of Archbishop Lebedev and Prof. Petrovic] published in several sequels in Katolički list is written in a similar polemical tone.29 Andrija Živković analyzes the inaugural lecture of Justin Popović at the Faculty of Theology in Belgrade in 1935. He introduces it extensively and quotes it abundantly with the aim of establishing how an assistant professor and future professor at the Orthodox Faculty of Theology can write about and discuss Catholicism and Catholics in a non-objective way; how he can do so in a state where half of the citizens are of the Catholic faith, without thinking that his excerpts offend half of the population; how he freely violates the principle of “endurance”, which probably applies to members of other religions. Živković points out that he writes with the goal of Letting our readers see what kind of a professional theological science will acquire in our country and how, in what spirit, a future professor at a faculty of theology will educate his students when he speaks to them about Western Christianity and Catholicism. At the same time, we wish to emphasize that no one among us Catholics has written so wickedly about Eastern Christianity.30

28 Antun Bauer, “Pravoslavni dogmat o crkvi”, Katolički list 43, no. 40 (1892): 318–322. 29 Antun Bauer, “Znaci prave Kristove crkve po naučanju prote Lebedeva i prof. Petrovića”, Katolički list 43, no. 41 (1892): 326–327; 43, no. 42 (1892): 334–335; 43, no. 43 (1892): 340–342; 43, no. 44 (1892): 350–352. 30 Andrija Živković, “Izvodi g. Justina Popovića o katolicizmu”, Bogoslovska smotra 23, no. 2 (1935): 218–220.

Inter-Confessional Relations, and the Unity of Church

101

On the other hand, we find contrasting examples. At the ecclesiastical and people’s council of the Orthodox Karlovac Metropolis in Srijemski Karlovci in 1892, one of the speakers praised centralization as a feature of the Catholic Church which, unlike Orthodoxy, gives it the strength of unity throughout the world and the possibility of stronger resistance to state authorities in some countries. This debate did not go unnoticed by Josip Volović, who proudly underscores that the ʻopposing partiesʼ also see the value of primacy. Positively assessing such thinking, the author believes that it should be an incentive for Orthodox to accept unity with Rome because there will never be a permanent organization of their national-church relations until as the first sign they recognize those words of Christ: ‘You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.ʼ31

State and Legal Frameworks After Serbia achieved state independence the question arose of regulating the legal status of its citizens of the Catholic faith, but also other Catholics who resided in this country. It is the regular practice of the Holy See to regulate its relations with the states by concluding concordats. In Serbia, the Orthodox Church opposed this, believing that in that way the Catholic Church would be better protected by an international agreement and even privileged in relation to the majority religious community. Some Orthodox theologians pointed out that the concordats are concluded with Catholic countries, which then gives the Catholic Church an advantage over others, while Serbia should sign a convention with the Vatican that would ensure religious tolerance for Catholics in this non-Catholic country. Ivan Angelo Ruspini joins the discussion, expressing the opinion that the concordat is the only right solution and that it is needed to the Holy See because it would regulate the legal position of the Catholic Church in this country. Also, it is needed to Serbia itself for the loyalty of its citizens of the Catholic faith and for international prestige. He does not doubt that this would be “for the benefit of both the Church and Serbia”, but he concludes that it can only be achieved “if the relevant circles in Serbia know how to rise above the narrow borders of the national church.”32 The Concordat between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Vatican was concluded in June 1914, just a few days before the assassination in Sarajevo, which was followed by a worldwide conflict when it was unrealistic 31 Josip Volović, “Hrišćanin o primatu rimske crkve”, Katolička Dalmacija 23, no. 76 (1892): 1–2. 32 Ivan Angelo Ruspini, “Srbija i konkordat”, Katolički list 64, no. 9 (1913): 97–99.

102

Slavko Slišković

to expect the implementation of concordat articles. With the emergence of the South Slavic state union, this issue became relevant in new circumstances. Ruspini re-joins the debate, opposing the Yugoslav government’s proposals on the content of the concordat. He explains in detail that the proposed “state sovereignty is in diametrical opposition to Christian principles and to the whole Christian past of mankind”, which is why the pope is not an equal partner because his exercise of power over the Church in a country would depend on its civil authority. Although he confirms the many advantages of the concordat, such a form is questionable because it would oblige Catholics’ conscience to carry out laws that they cannot accept in their conscience.33 He also presents Catholic readers with the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church in an objective style without his own comments, except for the notes explaining certain terms specific to Orthodoxy.34 Similarly, he introduces the document Bračna pravila [Marriage Rules] of the same church, their interpretation as well as the relationship towards civil law and the legislative and judicial jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church in marital matters in the civil area.35 In the new state there were numerous difficulties in the government’s attitude towards the Catholic Church. The professors we deal with in this paper were often involved in public debates on this topic. Stjepan Zimmermann, who, like most of the Croatian clergy, was a supporter of unification, reminds that the creation of a new state union prompted fears among some Catholics of a possible deficit of religious rights. In order to avoid proving them right, he decided to discuss a topic that appeared in the media very soon after the formation of the common state, and that is the possibility of abolishing the Catholic faculties of theology in Zagreb and Ljubljana. Personally, he doubted the existence of a real intention for such an act, but he wished to warn of its negative consequences in international relations as well as the attitude of Catholics towards the state if it were to be realized.36 Antun Bauer, now as the Archbishop of Zagreb, signed the Petition of Yugoslav Catholic Episcopate on injustices against the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia after the assembly in Zagreb held 24–29 April 1922, and addressed it to the King, 33 Ivan Angelo Ruspini, “Konkordat Jugoslavije s Vatikanom”, Bogoslovska smotra 14, no. 2 (1926): 185–195. 34 Ivan Angelo Ruspini, “Ustav srpske pravoslavne Crkve”, Katolički list 82, no. 51 (1931): 623–627. 35 Ivan Angelo Ruspini, “Bračna nadležnost pravoslavne Crkve”, Katolički list 84, no. 44 (1933): 529–530. 36 Stjepan Zimmermann, “K pitanju bogoslovskih fakulteta”, Katolički list 72, no. 31 (1921): 361–362.

Inter-Confessional Relations, and the Unity of Church

103

the Presidency of the Ministries and the Ministry of Religion. The petition describes in detail what the bishops consider injustices that the state inflicts upon the Catholic Church, such as closing schools, prohibiting certain church organizations, imposing military service on theologians and priests, confiscating property through agrarian reform, media attacks, and the like.37

Publicist Writings The priest-rectors had carefully considered the literature on CatholicOrthodox relations and unionist efforts and regularly brought it the attention of the Croatian readership. Josip Pazman presents the magazine Roma e l’Oriente, which was published in the abbey of Grottaferata not far from Rome and was launched to unite the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The publishers were the monks of St. Basil, whom the author describes as a Greek island in the Latin Sea. He acknowledges the nobility of their intentions but critically questions their readiness to publish ʻeverythingʼ that the Orthodox write. He is particularly strict about the notion of unification, which would be based on certain equality, and advocates the so-called ʻRoman termʼ in which Orthodoxy is called for a return to unity. He sharply criticizes authors who question such a notion, even when it comes to professors at reputable Catholic universities. He holds that the eastern metropolises and patriarchates are limbs cut off from the head, divided among themselves, and entirely subjected to earthly authority. Pazman compares authors who place them on an equal footing with the Catholic Church with heretics and modernists.38 Bringing a review of F. Grivec’s book Pravoslavlje, Apostolstvo sv. Ćirila in Metoda [Orthodoxy, Apostleship of St. Cyril, and Methodius] published in Ljubljana in 1918, he publicly posits that the Orthodox Church is not a church in the full sense. He is also highly sceptical about the question of unity that is “the ideal of many friends of the union. Judging by the human nature, the chance for that is very low, but the ways of God are incomprehensible.” A similar distrust in the possibility of unity is shown in the review of the book ʻVladimir Sergeyevich Solovyovʼ by the same author.39 Ivan Angelo Ruspini without personal comments and judgments reviews the magazine Orientalia Christiana published by the Pontifical Oriental 37 “Predstavku jugosl. Katoličkog episkopata o nepravdama protiv kat. Crkve u Jugoslaviji”, Katolički list 73, no. 18 (1922): 210–212. 38 Josip Pazman, “Roma e l’Oriente”, Bogoslovska smotra 2, no. 1 (1911): 71–77. 39 Josip Pazman, “F. Grivec, Vladimir Sergejevič Solovjev, Čas, Ljubljana, 1917”, Bogoslovska smotra 9, no. 1 (1918): 96.

104

Slavko Slišković

Institute in Rome.40 On the other hand, he is very critical and without a single positive word in his evaluation of the work of Rade Kušej Cerkveno pravo katoliške i pravoslavne cerkve s posebnim ozirom na razmere u Kraljevini Srbov, Hrvatov i Slovencev [Church law of the Catholic and Orthodox Church with special regard to the situation in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes], published in Ljubljana in 1923. He factually cites errors in the presentation of the canon law of the Catholic Church.41 Along with the previously mentioned proceedings of the Velehrad Congresses, Andrija Živković presents to the readers of Bogoslovska smotra [Theological Review] an article about Bishop Strossmayer, which was printed in Constantinople magazine L’union des eglise published by the Assumptionists monks. He praises the author’s positive attitude towards Bishop Strossmayer, and especially emphasizes his studious treatment of the First Vatican Council in the light of the unity of the churches, and his understanding of the Bishop’s reluctance to the dogma of papal infallibility precisely from unionist motives.42 He also follows the writings of Bulgarian Orthodox theologians, introducing to Croatian readers four volumes (13– 16) of the ʻYearbookʼ of the Faculty of Theology in Sofia, calling it “serious and professional work.” Without entering into a discussion or discernment of the views of individual authors, he briefly recounts the content of their works and concludes that “the Faculty of Theology at Sofia University has developed an enviable activity, which, both at home and abroad, can only serve at its honour.”43 However, in the review of the first textbook of moral theology in Bulgarian by Professor Pašev from the faculty, despite the general praise of the work, he does not hesitate to point to the unfoundedness of the author’s objections to Catholic moral teaching, especially because it is based on outdated literature from which certain parts “unjustifiably pass from book to book” without taking into account the development of Catholic moral theology. He concludes: “Scientific truth can also contribute much to understanding and better relations between individual nations if it removes unfounded

40 Ivan Angelo Ruspini, “ ‘Orientalia Christiana’, Papinski Orijentalni institut, Rim, 1923–1934”, Bogoslovska smotra 22, no. 1 (1934): 102–103. 41 Ivan Angelo Ruspini, “Rado Kušej, Cerkveno pravo katoliške i pravoslavne cerkve s posebnim ozirom na razmere u Kraljevini Srbov, Hrvatov i Slovencev, Ljubljana, 1923”, Bogoslovska smotra 12, no. 2 (1924): 266–268. 42 Andrija Živković, “L’union des eglises o Strossmayeru”, Bogoslovska smotra 13, no. 3 (1925): 500–501. 43 Andrija Živković, “Naučni rad bugarskog bogoslovskog fakulteta u Sofiji”, Bogoslovska smotra 28, no. 6 (1940): 479–483.

Inter-Confessional Relations, and the Unity of Church

105

objections raised by its members, which arose in ancient times for completely unscientific reasons.”44 In Catholic-Orthodox relations, there was also a need for practical solutions to the daily life of the believers. Among other things, the question of the attitude of Catholics towards the Serbian translation of the Holy Scriptures was raised. Josip Pazman writes that “it is a pity that the text is not purely Catholic within this beautiful language.” Highlighting the differences between Catholic and Orthodox translations, he warns of incomplete translation and lists the biblical books it lacks. However, he does not hide his enthusiasm with the translation in which “he found wonderful expressions and whole sentences, which from a practical point of view attract him so that they can easily be given priority over some Catholic translation.” He cites several such examples. Nevertheless, he warns readers that this translation is unacceptable for Catholics because it was not approved by relevant church authorities, nor was it prepared with notes, that is, interpretations taken from Church Father and Catholic scholars. Therefore, his final answer is that the translation should not be used by all Catholic writers, but by those who study biblical and theological sciences with the permission of a bishop.45

Conclusion Centuries of accredited existence all over the world, and the fact that it did not gain a particularly large number of supporters among Croats, did not make Protestantism scientifically challenging or religiously detrimental enough to be the subject of studious research or apologetic impugnment by Catholic theologians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in Croatia, including the priest-rectors of the University of Zagreb. None of them differed in their attitudes from their Catholic contemporaries, nor did they develop a special doctrine of Protestantism. Those who wrote about it considered it heresy and denied the ecclesialism to the communities that grew out of the Reformation. Hence the distrust of the ecumenical efforts they have witnessed, which have their roots within Protestant denominations. In this, the priest-rectors did not deviate from the official teaching of the Catholic Church, which significantly changed its attitude towards Protestantism and

44 Andrija Živković, “G. St. Pašev: Pravoslavno-hristijansko učenie za nravstvenost-ta”, Bogoslovska smotra 30, no. 2 (1942): 134–135. 45 Josip Pazman, “Smije li katolički pisac rabiti Daničićev ili Vukov prijevod Sv. Pisma?”, Katolički list 60, no. 2 (1909): 19–20.

106

Slavko Slišković

ecumenism only at the Second Vatican Council, opening itself to the world and people of different beliefs. The Old Catholic Church was viewed mainly from a legal point of view in terms of the legal regulations governing its relations with the state and with the believers of the Catholic Church who joined it. Despite the criticism and even polemics, most of the rectors we have written about in this paper have a much more positive attitude towards Orthodoxy than towards the heirs of the Protestant Reformation and Old Catholics. Admittedly, individuals also denied to this denomination the right to be called a church, but most held that it was the same belief as that of Catholics with a lack of unity with the Roman bishop. At the same time, they showed special affection for the Slavic Orthodox, whose churches were formed after the break between Constantinople and Rome. As a means of possible unification, they proposed the Cyril and Methodius heritage, which in Croatia testified to the possibility of preserving its tradition within a united Catholicism. The unionist efforts were also stimulated by the political circumstances that directed the South Slavs to co-operate on the path of national liberation and emancipation, but also to a more harmonious life in the consolidated nation. The priestrectors did not hesitate to argue with their Orthodox theologian colleagues, following theological and publicist writings even beyond the South Slavic framework.

5  Inaugural Speeches of the Priest-Rectors The Relationship Between the Catholic Faith (Theology)1 and Science Iva M r šić F elbar Catholic Faculty of Theology University of Zagreb Zagreb, Croatia [email protected] Abstract: The starting point of the article is the analysis of ten inaugural speeches of the priest-rectors, professors at the Catholic Faculty of Theology of the University of Zagreb: Antun Kržan, Franjo Iveković, Feliks Suk, Gustav Baron, Anton Franki, Ivan Bujanović, Antun Maurović, Juraj Dočkal, Rudolf Vimer, and Antun Bauer. The aim of the analysis was to determine the relationship between faith, theology, and science. This analysis confirms the initial hypothesis that, regardless of the thematic diversity of inaugural speeches, ten out of eight of them affirm theology as a science equal to other sciences. This indicates that these priest-rectors, in addition to taking advantage of the installation in order to promote science, which they themselves were engaged in, also disseminated the official teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue, as can be seen from the links they had to the Church documents (dogmatic constitution Dei Filius on the Catholic faith of the First Vatican Council, the encyclicals Aeterni Patris, and Providentissimus Deus), or simply defended the position of the Catholic faith against various attacks or disputes. Keywords: inaugural speeches, priest-rectors, analysis, theology, science 1 Although religion and theology are fundamentally different concepts, we look at them together here because in the context of the inaugural speeches of the priestrectors, they are essentially connected. Finally, theology expresses the readiness of faith for understanding, fides quaerens intellectum, while faith always refers to content. Theology “presupposes faith as an experiential basis, and in it and according to it seeks theological knowledge and understanding”. Aldo Starić, ed., Encyclopedic Theological Dictionary (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2009), 1161.

108

Iva M r šić F elbar

Introduction—Status Quaestionis The issue of the relationship between religion, i.e., theology and other sciences is visible in the inaugural speeches of the priest-rectors from the Catholic Faculty of Theology of the University of Zagreb. The starting point of the paper is the issue of religion and science in the inaugural speeches of the rectors-priests, and our analysis aims to observe how they address and introduce it in their argumentation and in what context. Specifically, these are the inaugural speeches of Antun Kržan, Franjo Iveković, Feliks Suk, Gustav Baron, Anton Franki, Ivan Bujanović, Antun Maurović, Juraj Dočkalo, Rudolf Vimer, and Antun Bauer. Inaugural speeches could, together with political inaugural speeches, be placed in the context of appropriate ceremonial speeches related to the assumption of a certain duty, in this case, the duty of rector. From the foundation of the University until 1906, the newly elected rector took office in a ceremonial installation, and the public ceremony was attended by professors and students. In doing so, the future rector received from his predecessor the symbols of the rector’s honour, the rector’s chain and sceptre, and his inaugural speech.2 Given that sixteen priest-rectors3 originated at the Catholic Faculty of Theology of the University of Zagreb, the fact that only ten of them had inaugural speeches is immediately striking. The reason for this is of political nature. Until 1903 this ceremony had been carried out smoothly, while from 1903/04 there was a three-year break, after which it took place once more—in the autumn of 1906.4 Students 1903 protested against the rule of Count Khuen-Héderváry and clashed with the police. Consequently, due to the riots and arrests of students, students petitioned the government to apologize and punish the perpetrators, and since the unpleasant events took place in the University premises, which violated its autonomy, students in protest did not attend the installation of the rector for three years. The government of the Croatian-Serbian coalition provided the requested statement,

2 Cf. Jaroslav Šidak, “Sveučilište do kraja Prvoga svjetskog rata”, in Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu vol. I, ed. Jaroslav Šidak (Zagreb: Izdavački zavod JAZU, 1969), 108. 3 Cf. Ana Biočić, Slavko Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta rektori Sveučilišta u Zagrebu / Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology as Rectors of the University of Zagreb (Zagreb: Katolički bogoslovni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2020). 4 Cf. Šidak, “Sveučilište do kraja Prvoga svjetskog rata”, 108.

Inaugural Speeches of the Priest-Rectors

109

but the students, most of whom were progressives at the time, continued to protest, this time against the appointment of theology professor Antun Bauer as rector, emphasizing that theology could not be considered a modern science.5 Because of these demonstrations, further installations of the rector were discontinued.6 The issue of the relationship between theology and science is not new: it was present in the nineteenth century. It can also be seen at the level of the relationship between faith and reason, which the First Vatican Council points out in its dogmatic constitution Dei Filius on the Catholic faith (1870): Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God, who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.7

Moreover, in another place, it emphasizes that not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another, but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of faith (…). Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways.8

The encyclical Aeterni Patris from 1879, by Leo XIII, specifies that theology is a science.9 On the other hand, the same pope in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus from 1893 refers to “great help to the knowledge of the natural sciences”10 in exegesis, that is, he states that “there is no real oppo­ sition between theologians and connoisseurs of nature.”11 “The drama of the separation of faith from reason” is much later discussed in the encyclical by John Paul II, Fides et ratio12, and the connection between science and faith, as well as the problematization of theology as a science in that sense, we also find in the inaugural speeches of the priest-rectors from the Catholic Faculty 5 Cf. Ibid., 108. 6 Cf. Ibid., 109. 7 Heinrich Denzinger, Peter Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, definicija i izjava o vjeri i ćudoređu (Đakovo: Verbum, 2002), no. 3017. 8 Denzinger, Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, no. 3019. 9 Cf. Denzinger, Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, no. 3137. 10 Denzinger, Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, no. 3287. 11 Ibid. 12 IVAN PAVAO II., Fides et ratio—Vjera i razum, enciklika svim biskupima Katoličke Crkve o odnosu vjere i razuma (14. 9. 1998) (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2013), no. 45–48.

110

Iva M r šić F elbar

of Theology, who, as it will be seen from the analysis of their speeches, echo that subject in their time.

An Analysis of the Inaugural Speeches Given by Priest-Rectors Antun Kržan dedicates his inaugural speech to “the scientific research of the origin of man”13, which is not surprising because the focus of his scientific research was Darwinism and the theory of evolution.14 He wrote several articles on this topic in Katolički list published from Zagreb (1872/1873, 1875/1877), which he later published in a book titled O postanku čovjeka po posljedcih mudroslovnih i narodnoslovnih znanosti, published in two volumes (Zagreb, the first part in 1874, and the second part in 1877).15

Moreover, by writing in Katolički list, he clearly emphasizes that theology and other sciences go together and that there are many priests among famous scholars.16 In his speech, Kržan states the multiplicity of demands that the science of that time was putting before man.17 Right at the begin­ ning of his speech, he gives the example that the idea of creation is unscientific, and tries to challenge it, correlating it between scientists in the field of natural sciences (Justus von Liebig, Ernst Häckel, Emil Du Bois-Reymond, Gustav Fechner, etc.) and the starting point of Christian Revelation.18 He underlines his position by claiming that “it is certainly not enough for science to be a hypothesis”19, emphasizing at the end of his speech that the progress of the University depends on social virtues, mostly on truth and freedom.20 Unlike Kržan, Franjo Iveković’s speech is more exact, i.e., more concrete, and puts theology in the foreground, that is, the divinity which, unlike other sciences that, according to Iveković, make a man a scholar, theology

13 Cf. “Govor nastupajućega rektora dra. Antuna Kržana”, Govori državni povodom instalacije rektora na Kr. Hrv. Sveučilištu Franje Josipa I. za školsku godinu 1876/7. obavljene dne 19. listopada 1876 (Zagreb: Tiskara Narodnih novinah, 1876), 27–47. 14 Cf. Biočić, Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta / Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, 37. 15 Ibid., 39. 16 Cf. Katolički list 20, no. 7 (1869): 49–52. 17 Cf. “Govor nastupajućega rektora dra. Antuna Kržana”, 28. 18 Cf. Ibid., 29–34. 19 Cf. Ibid., 35–36. 20 Cf. Ibid., 46–47.

Inaugural Speeches of the Priest-Rectors

111

makes him a man.21 He believes that “the mind leads us to the truth and the truth to God because He is the truth itself.”22 On the other hand, Iveković is aware that the religious framework of theology can be considered obsolete and that many are religiously indifferent, nevertheless, he claims that religion is innate to human nature and that without it man does not exist.23 Moreover, “he who rejects the religion given by God will quickly create a religion for himself.”24 Ivekovic defines theology “as a scientific term and a systematic account of the Christian religion”25, and although it begins in the form of apologetics, it is not limited to it. He considers it to be a historical science26, although he himself objects to the fact that it is not a science at all, and on the contrary, points out that “true science and true religion are like two halves of one truth.”27 Science cannot assume the role of religion. However, it is important that Iveković also asserts that theology is not afraid of the progress of other sciences, on the contrary.28 However, he states and is aware of the negative relationship between other sciences and theology, but despite that, he believes that they again come to results that are close to theological position and warns that we should not make an idol of science.29 Feliks Suk’s relatively short (16-page) inaugural speech is built around the category of conscience, which is also the recurring theme of his speech. He believes that today the reputation of conscience and its freedom are no longer disputed.30 He considers the state, religion, and science to be the main movers of people, and yet all three rely on conscience.31 Suk empha­ sizes that for both science and the advancement of science, conscience is of vital interest, all the more so as science strives for truth.32 The pursuit of truth, on the other hand, unites ethics and knowledge, which ultimately 21 “Govor nastupajućega rektora dra. Franje Ivekovića”, Govori rečeni prigodom insta­ lacije rektora na Kr. Hrv. Sveučilištu Franje Josipa I. za školsku godinu 1879/80. objavljene dne 19. listopada 1879 (Zagreb: Tiskara Narodnih novinah, 1879), 20. 22 Ibid. 23 Cf. Ibid., 24. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., 27. 26 Cf. Ibid., 28. 27 Ibid., 31. 28 Cf. Ibid., 32. 29 Cf. Ibid., 34–37. 30 Cf. “Govor nastupajućega rektora dra. Feliksa Suka”, Govori rečeni prigodom insta­ lacije rektora na Kr. Hrv. Sveučilištu Franje Josipa I. za školsku godinu 1882/83. objavljene dne 19. studena 1882 (Zagreb: M. Brusina, 1883), 22. 31 Cf. Ibid., 23. 32 Cf. Ibid., 32.

112

Iva M r šić F elbar

leads to advances in science resulting in a love of truth.33 Linking education, not only with intellectual but with moral growth and development, Suk points to the important role of the University in this field. In this way, the success that will follow is inevitable, if scientists keep to the voice of conscience in their research.34 Gustav Baron begins by stating that it is traditional for a rector’s inaugural speech to stem from their academic discipline,35 and as such, the focus of his speech is on the Holy Scriptures. In his introductory remarks, he specifically states that it will be about the antiquity of biblical books, biblical writers, the authorship of God, the spread of the Holy Scriptures and the interest in it as well as its content.36 Seeing this is a distinctly theolog­ ical discourse that correlates with theological exposition, it is possible to observe only certain indications that reflect Baron’s attitude towards the role of faith in the development of science and their relationship. In the part of the speech on the interest of intellectual people in the Scriptures, Baron does not fail to mention Croatian poets and literary greats (N. Dimitrić, I. Gundulić, B. Bettera, S. Gjorgjić), and their interest in the Scriptures. Finally, he points out that a truly wise man, studying anything in this world and looking for the ultimate reason for everything, finally meets the eternal and almighty God, the creator, sustainer, and master of this world. Only superficial people in science may be inclined to atheism, but never men of great spirit and pure morals.37

Furthermore, in his speech, he quotes, in his words, “the educated Englishman Chalmers” who claims that “Christianity can hope for everything and fear nothing of the natural sciences.”38

33 Cf. Ibid., 32–33. 34 Cf. Ibid., 35. 35 Cf. “Govor nastupajućega rektora dra. Gustava Barona”, Govori rečeni prigodom insta­ lacije rektora na Kr. Hrv. Sveučilištu Franje Josipa I. za školsku godinu 1885/86. objavljene dne 18. listopada 1885 (Zagreb: M. Brusina, 1885), 15. 36 Cf. Ibid. 37 Ibid., 27. 38 Ibid., 33.

Inaugural Speeches of the Priest-Rectors

113

At the end of his inaugural speech, Baron briefly reviews the sociopolitical and ecclesiastical circumstances, emphasizing the concern of Juraj Haulik39 and Josip Juraj Strossmayer40 for religion and the homeland.41 Rector Anton Franki dedicates his inaugural speech to the theme of Christianity as the form and soul of civilization, at the same time problematizing its opponents.42 He mostly focuses on Hellenism and the debates that Christianity had with the pagan world in its beginnings. He refers mainly to the patristic age and singles out various apologists Church Fathers who, in his opinion, won the thought battle of Christianity and the philosophy and paganism of that time. Yet at the same time, he argues that all that was good in Hellenism has survived, which Christianity itself was valuing and further developing.43 He believes that all these struggles were aimed at Christianity because it was precisely that Christianity has forced them to think and fight

39 The Archbishop of Zagreb, Cardinal Juraj Haulik (1788–1869), was enthroned as the first archbishop in 1853, and with his engagement the Diocese of Zagreb was elevated to an archdiocese and metropolis (1852). He founded Katolički list in 1849 and the Croatian Economic Society (Hrvatsko gospodarsko društvo) in 1841 and proclaimed a parliamentary resolution to introduce the Croatian language in all public institutions. More about (Arch)bishop Haulik, in: Franjo Emanuel Hoško, “Haulik, Juraj (Georgius)”, in Trpimir Macan, ed., Hrvatski biografski leksikon vol. V (Gn-H) (Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, 2002), 454–456; Olga Maruševski, “Juraj Haulik”, in Zagrebački biskupi i nadbiskupi, ed. Juraj Batelja, et. al. (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1995), 461–473; Agneza Szabo, “Zagrebački (nad)biskup Juraj Haulik i hrvatski narodni preporod: (1835–1848)”, Kaj časopis za književnost, umjetnost i kulturu 27, no. 4–5 (1994): 29–41. 40 Josip Juraj Strossmayer (1815–1905) was the bishop of Đakovo (1850), the founder and patron of the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts (today: HAZU), the founder of the Croatian University in Zagreb (1874). He built the Cathedral in Đakovo and advocated for a free Church within the state. At the First Vatican Council, he opposed the proclamation of the dogma of pope’s infallibility. More about Bishop Strossmayer in: Matija Pavić, Milko Cepelić, Biskup Josip Juraj Strossmayer (Đakovo: Biskupski ordinarijat, 1994); Franjo Šanjek, ed., Međunarodni znanstveni skup Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Zagreb, 19. svibnja 2005. – Đakovo, 20. svibnja 2005: povodom 190. obljetnice rođenja i 100. obljetnice smrti: zbornik radova (Zagreb: HAZU, 2006); Stanislav Marijanović, ed., Međunarodni znanstveni skup Lik i djelo Josipa Jurja Strossmayera: zbornik radova (Osijek: Filozofski fakultet Osijek, 2008); Ivica Mandić, ed., Zbornik radova 7. i 8. Strossmayerovih dana (Đakovo: Grad Đakovo, 2011). 41 Cf. “Govor nastupajućega rektora dra. Gustava Barona”, 40–44. 42 Cf. “Govor nastupajućega rektora dra. Antuna Franki-a”, Govori izrečeni dne 19. lis­ topada 1888. kod instalacije rektora za školsku godinu 1888/89. u Kr. Hrv. Sveučilištu Franje Josipa I. (Zagreb: Tisak dioničke tiskare, 1889), 2–39. 43 Cf. Ibid., 38.

114

Iva M r šić F elbar

mentally, regardless of the side they would choose.44 He concludes the speech by emphasizing “the seriousness and difficulty of religious issues”45, encour­ aging listeners to persevere in their work, so that they may one day be good advisers to their people, and finally expresses his gratitude for the trust given for the position of rector.46 Ivan Bujanović, as the only two-term rector,47 dedicates his inaugu­ ral speech to Christianity. For this topic, it is important to point out that Bujanović tried in his speech to answer the question of the possibility and necessity of co-operation between science and theology and to defend the thesis that theology is a science.48 Thus, Bujanović claims that “Christianity is the principle of intelligence and the soul of true culture.”49 He states that the empirical sciences have taken “the place of demolished Christian truths”50 and advises that the representatives of both sciences (empirical and theological) operate within their fields.51 Furthermore, he emphasizes that Christianity, in addition to answering fundamental existential questions, teaches the equal dignity of all people and promotes their equality. He mentions the negative connotations related to the notion of dogma, while he, in contrast to these objections, considers them the most successful answers to natural religious problems52, which do not hinder progress. Moreover, “in the very existence of the Christian faith lies the principle of development.”53 Bujanović, therefore, thinks that the Christian faith does not exclude development and progress, especially since it is directed towards the perfection represented by God himself. He thus concludes that everything that serves the truth is in the service of the Catholic faith. This conclusion has been confirmed by cultural history because everything that the human mind has brought out of the inexhaustible depths of science over the 44 Cf. Ibid. 45 Ibid., 39. 46 Cf. Ibid. 47 Cf. Biočić, Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta / Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, 107. 48 Cf. “Inauguralni govor”, Katolički list 42, no. 46 (1891): 369–372; Katolički list 42, no. 47 (1891): 377–381; Katolički list 42, no. 48 (1891): 386–389; Katolički list 42, no. 49 (1891): 393–397. 49 “Govor novoga sveučilištnoga rektora dra Ivana Bujanovića prigodom njegove insta­ lacije”, Katolički list 42, no. 46 (1891): 370. 50 Ibid. 51 Cf. Ibid. 52 “Govor novoga sveučilištnoga rektora dra Ivana Bujanovića prigodom njegove insta­ lacije”, Katolički list 42, no. 47 (1891): 378. 53 Ibid.

Inaugural Speeches of the Priest-Rectors

115

centuries has become the property of the Christian faith, which the results of science miraculously confirm.54

In order to confirm his conclusion, he reaches for the examples of the first Christian philosophers and theologians, with scholasticism led by St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as quotes from dignitaries: a statesman (E. Burke), a historian (F. Guizot), and a writer (C. Balbo) about civilization as eminently Christian.55 On the other hand, he also mentions the voices of opponents who, for example, do not recognize scholastic philosophy as a science and call it “a rigid petrified mummy.”56 In particular, he attacks empirical and materialist philosophy, considering them the enemy of true science because of their closeness to scepticism. It is important to indicate that he calls the Church “a caring mother of science”57, particularly in terms of its support and foundation of universities, schools, and libraries. He points out that since its beginnings, the Church has sharpened its speculative thinking and has always gathered people around itself, which, according to Bujanović, testified that “Christianity is the principle of intelligence and the soul of culture”58 and does not prevent a person from being a good scientist and Christian at the same time. In his writing on whether theology is a science, Bujanović claims that “when it comes to hypotheses and opinions, every scholar is free, but he is not free from truth.”59 Science is therefore bound by truth, and theol­ ogy considers God to be the greatest truth. He believes that when objective remonstration cannot be found for theology to its scientificity or reputation, then attacks initiated by anti-religious motives start.60 Rector Antun Maurović dedicates the inaugural speech to the influence of Christianity on family life and marriage.61 Presenting a kind of historical overview of the development of the institution of marriage, he emphasizes the welfare of Christianity, which restores “moral importance and independence”62 to marriage. Maurović states that the influence of Christianity on 54 Ibid., 379. 55 Cf. Ibid., 381. 56 Ibid., 386. 57 “ Govor novoga sveučilištnoga rektora dra Ivana Bujanovića prigodom njegove insta­ lacije”, Katolički list 42, no. 49 (1891): 393. 58 Ibid., 395. 59 Ivan Bujanović, “Je li teologija znanost?”, Katolički list 74, no. 15 (1923): 178. 60 Cf. Ibid., 179. 61 “Inauguralni govor”, Katolički list, 45, no. 43 (1894): 352–354; Katolički list 45, no. 44 (1894): 361–365; Katolički list 45, no. 45 (1894): 368–371. 62 “Govor novoga rektora magnifika dra Antuna Maurovića”, Katolički list 45, no. 44 (1894): 365.

116

Iva M r šić F elbar

family marriage and life is distinctly reflected in the fact that Christianity lays the foundations of a new family order: “unity, equality and indissolubility, and thus it first and foremost established nature in its law.”63 Moreover, mar­ riage becomes a sacrament and a sacred bond, which also changes the view of the equality of spouses, where Maurović indicates a woman has been in an unfavourable and subordinate position for centuries without any rights.64 He points out that Christianity has not only raised the honour and dignity of a woman as a wife but also as a mother. He explains the important contribution of Christianity in the form of understanding the person and her inviolable dignity, which was reflected in a higher level of dignity in marriage and personal freedom.65 In his inaugural speech, Rector Juraj Dočkal discusses the origin of the human race.66 At the very beginning of his speech, he argues that “there can be no contradiction between a theologian and a natural scientist and that the true result of world science cannot conflict with the true meaning of the Holy Scripture: for the truth cannot contradict the truth.”67 He conceives his speech around three central theses: that all people form one species (I), that people today could have originated from one biblical couple, that is, after the great flood, from Noah’s family (II), and that people could populate all continents from one centre (III).68 In his speech, he strictly adheres to the biblical accounts by interpreting them literally, since he was an excellent expert for the Hebrew language. However, his speech also contains certain controversial statements.69

63 Ibid., 368. 64 Cf. Ibid. Thus, for example, Maurović states that in pre-Christian times laws were one-sided and allowed a husband to kill an unfaithful wife without a court verdict, while conversely, the wife could not do anything to her husband, moreover, she was forbidden from touching him. Cf. Ibid. 65 Cf. “Govor novoga rektora magnifika dra Antuna Maurovića”, Katolički list 45, no. 44 (1894): 370. 66 Cf. “Inauguralni govor”, Katolički list 48, no. 42 (1897): 330–334; Katolički list 48, no. 43 (1897): 339–341; Katolički list 48, no. 44 (1897): 349–351; Katolički list 48, no. 45 (1897): 355–359; Katolički list 48, no. 46 (1897): 364–367. 67 Katolički list 48, no. 42 (1897): 330. 68 Cf. Katolički list 48, no. 42 (1897): 330–334; Katolički list 48, no. 43 (1897): 339– 341; Katolički list 48, no. 44 (1897): 349–351; Katolički list 48, no. 45 (1897): 355– 359; Katolički list 48, no. 46 (1897): 364–367. 69 Therefore Dočkal, for example, considers Aboriginals and Afro-americans to be peo­ ple at the lowest level of culture. Cf. “Inauguralni govor Jurja Dočkala”, 19.

Inaugural Speeches of the Priest-Rectors

117

Rector Rudolf Vimer dedicates the inaugural speech to his area of interest, i.e., Semitic languages.70 In his much longer speech, compared to other rectors (59 pages!), he first looks back at Semitic languages and linguistics, and then elucidates what the Catholic Church presupposes under the notion of progress. He also, like most of his predecessor priests, addresses the opponents of Christianity who consider Christianity backwards.71 The speech ends with a call to perform “Christian and official duties” by which we will also show patriotism. In that name, unlike the others, he ends with a prayer: “Let God endow our beautiful homeland with every happiness and glory and in it our Croatian university, so dear to all of us!”72 The inaugural speech of Antun Bauer is titled Faith and Science, and the emphasis is on co-operation between science and religion.73 For Bauer, the search for truth is at the heart of the notion of science.74 He states that in the twentieth century, the religious question came to the fore again, and for Bauer, religion is “an inescapable need for the human heart, for the life of the individual, the family and society.”75 By asking questions, he expresses objections to the relation between Christianity and science: How is it that a man of science can still be able to accept Christianity? Isn’t the main principle in science that nothing should be accepted, which has not been proven? Can the truth of Christian Revelation be proved? Does not science further conflict in its very principle and nature with the Christian religion? Is it not the case, finally, that the Christian faith includes such beliefs, which science has already overthrown?76

Asking if science is at odds with faith, Bauer replies that “this opposition is only apparent.”77 He then points out that “Christianity, therefore, does not 70 Cf. “Inauguralni govor”, Katolički list 51, no. 43 (1900): 374–377; Katolički list 51, no. 44 (1900): 383–386; Katolički list 51, no. 45 (1900): 390–393; Katolički list 51, no. 46 (1900): 398–402. 71 Cf. “Inauguralni govor”, Katolički list 51, no. 45 (1900): 390. 72 “Govor sveučilišnoga rektora gosp. Dra. Rudolfa Vimera prigodom ovogodišnje insta­ lacije”, Katolički list 51, no. 46 (1900): 402. 73 Cf. Biočić, Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta / Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, 159; Inaugural speech in: “Inauguralni govor u: Prilog Katoličkom listu k broju 43. Od 25. listopada 1906.”, Katolički list 57, no. 43 (1906): 1–4. 74 Cf. “Govor nastupajućega rektora dra Ante Bauera”, Govori izrečeni dne 19. listo­ pada 1906. kod instalacije rektora za šk. god. 1906/1907. (Zagreb: Tisak Kr. zemaljske tiskare, 1906), 24. 75 Ibid., 25. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid., 26.

118

Iva M r šić F elbar

require blind, but reasonable belief; every Christian should have a reason why he believes.”78 Furthermore, he emphasizes that reason is capable of knowing the truth, and absolute scepticism denies all science.79 Bauer argues that sci­ ence must accept “without any proof—hence dogmatically—(…) these three facts: the fact of one’s own consciousness, the principle of contradiction, and man’s ability to know the truth,80 and God cannot be other than eternal truth.”81 Bauer is aware that the Christian religion encompasses truths that do not belong to the realm of science, such as the mystery of the Holy Trinity, the instruction/incarnation of Jesus Christ—the reason could not know anything about these truths without Revelation.82 Despite that, he believes that “there can be no contradiction between the secrets of faith and the positive results of science.”83 He defends the thesis that the Catholic Church supports science and believes that there should be no dispute between science and faith.84

The Results of the Analysis Our analysis of the inaugural speeches delivered by the priest-rectors from the Catholic Faculty of Theology in Zagreb reveals the most crucial points they address regarding the issue of religion, theology, and science, and their relationship. We also examine how they integrated these issues into the context of their speeches and the type of argumentation used. Hence, the table below outlines the relationship of each priest-rector whose speech we analyzed to the questions of faith (theology), and science and displays the type of argumentation used. Our analysis of the ten inaugural speeches by priest-rectors from the Catholic Faculty of Theology found that the most frequent assertion is that theology is a science, as stated explicitly by Iveković, Bujanović, and Bauer, and implicitly present in other speeches. This supports the idea that theology and science can and should coexist and collaborate, as stated by Iveković, Suk, Baron, Bujanović, Dočkal, and Bauer. Thus, for example, Iveković points out that theology, like other sciences, should lead to truth, that is, ultimately to God who is the Truth. 78 Ibid., 27. 79 Ibid., 28–29. 80 Ibid., 30. 81 Ibid., 32. 82 Cf. Ibid. 83 Cf. Ibid. 84 Cf. Ibid., 37.

Inaugural Speeches of the Priest-Rectors

119

Table 5.1.  Priest-rector’s argumentation about the question of faith/theology and science in their inaugural speeches Rector Kržan A.

Iveković F.

Suk F.

Baron G.

Franki A.

Bujanović I.

Faith/ theology Science Argumentation the idea of Darwinism and the it is not enough for science creation as a theory of evolution to remain a hypothesis; legitimate idea the progress of the University depends on truth and freedom theology is science cannot take science must not be an a science; it over the role of idol; both theology and is a scientific religion; negatively other sciences should expression and inclined towards lead to truth —which is a systematic theology ultimately God representation of the Christian religion the voice of the aspiration advances in science conscience for truth that result in a love of truth; is crucial for unites ethics and education presupposes progress knowledge intellect, but also moral growth and development the Holy only superficial Christianity is not afraid Scripture in the scientists have of the natural sciences—a centre of his atheistic tendencies true intellectual finally speech comes to the knowledge of God through exploration the seriousness Christianity cherishes and and the difficulty develops further what is of religious issues good in every way (e.g., Hellenism) theology is a empirical and the necessity of science; it answers materialist co-operation between existential philosophy as theology and science; faith questions and enemies of true and science share a love of moves forward science arising from truth; man can be both dignity and the scepticism a good scientist and a equality of all Christian people; faith does not exclude development and progress; the Church is a caring mother of science (Continued)

120

Iva M r šić F elbar

Table 5.1. Continued Rector Maurović A.

Faith/ theology Christianity restores moral significance to marriage, equality of spouses, and dignity of a woman as wife and mother Biblical reports about creation—literal interpretation

Science only mentions (moral) theology

Argumentation the contribution of Christianity in the form of understanding the person and her inviolable dignity is reflected in the level of dignity in marriage and personal freedom natural sciences and theology cannot contradict each other for truth also does not contradict truth

Vimer R.

Semitic languages—the Bible

reliance on other sciences and statistics in the interpretation of the origin of the human race only mentions linguistics as a science in a general sense

Bauer A.

between secrets of faith and the results of science there is no opposition; the Catholic Church supports science

points out the value of language, but there is no customary argumentation on the level of faith—science the search for truth the opposition of is at the very heart science and faith is only of science illusionary because Christianity requires reasonable belief

Dočkal J.

In his speech on conscience, Suk does not neglect to assert that intellectual growth presupposes moral growth, and that progress in science should be associated with the search for truth. Baron believes that research inevitably leads to the knowledge of God. Bujanović claims that faith and science share the love of truth and that the Church is the caring mother of science. In Maurović’s case, value claims are manifested in the dignity of the human person, especially in the contribution of Christianity through the sacrament of marriage. Dočkal again relies on the virtue of truth with to explain that neither theology nor the natural sciences are in conflict because truth does not contradict truth, and ultimately, Bauer underlines the thesis that the Catholic Church supports science, and that the search for truth is at its centre. This is also the case with faith, that is, with theology that seeks a foothold in the reason for its belief in order for it to be reasonable and warranted. The

Inaugural Speeches of the Priest-Rectors

121

arguments presented in the priest-rectors’ speeches can partly be found in the First Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution Dei Filius and Pope Leo XIII’s encyclicals,85 indicating that the rectors were disseminating the Church’s teachings on the topic. It is not surprising, therefore, that in their value argumentation the most common is the appeal to the virtue of truth which was not an unusual motif in inaugural speeches.86 Practical arguments are desirable, both in speech and within the argumentation itself because, among other things, they encourage concrete action and are related to practical issues and situations.87 Suk, Baron, Bujanović, Maurović, Dočkal, and Bauer use practical arguments in their speeches. Statistical and numerical data are used only by Dočkal, while examples, definitions, references to authority are used by all the priest-rectors in their speeches, and we notice that this is a pattern that most of them follow. Additionally, Kržan, Iveković, Suk, Baron, Maurović, and Bauer use preliminary argumentation, with which they try to introduce and make the listeners aware of the topic and the problem they present. The majority of the priest-rectors’ inaugural speeches highlight the significance and emphasis on the role of theology as a science that does not lag behind the empirical sciences, which helps them maintain a focus on truth and moral progress. However, a significant part of the analyzed speeches implicitly displays a certain frustration with opinions that challenge theology and Christianity, evidenced by an apologetic tone and arguments against such opinions, which the priest-rectors attempt to resist or refute with their counterarguments. Thus, regardless of the different styles or starting points in the themes of the priest-rectors, the desire to affirm theology as a science, that is, to affirm theology as equal in relation to other sciences is common to all of them. However, some speeches do not directly address this issue. It is primarily the speeches of Rudolf Vimer and Antun Maurović, who, due to their field of expertise (Semitic languages and moral theology/marriage), do not discuss this issue.

85 Cf. Denzinger, Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, no. 3017, 3287. 86 Thus, for example, Rector Vjekoslav Klaić also ends his inaugural speech with an invi­ tation to love truth. Cf. Govori izrečeni dne 19. listopada 1902. kod instalacije rektora za šk. god. 1902/03. u Kraljevskom hrvatskom sveučilištu Franje Josipa I. (Zagreb: Tisak Kr. zemaljske tiskare, 1902), 43. 87 Cf. Zdravka Biočina, “Analiza govora hrvatskih zastupnika u Europskom parla­ mentu”, Govor 32, no. 2 (2015): 170.

122

Iva M r šić F elbar

In Lieu of a Conclusion The starting point of this paper is the analysis of the inaugural speeches of the priest-rectors of the University of Zagreb that aims to provide an answer to the question of the relationship between (religion) theology and other sciences, and the status of theology as a science from their point of view. We did not make a semantic distinction between the concepts of religion and theology due to the general nature of the speeches themselves, and because in a significant part of the analyzed speeches theology (religion) is closely related to faith and grows out of it by its nature. Despite the various topics represented in the inaugural speeches of the priest-rectors (the origin of man—Kržan; theology—Iveković; conscience— Suk; the Bible—Baron; Christianity—Franki and Bujanović; marriage— Maurović; the origin of the human race—Dočkal; Semitic languages—Vimer; faith and science—Bauer), there is a visible common tendency to affirm theology as a science equal to other sciences, especially the empirical ones. Our analysis of the priest-rectors’ inaugural speeches in terms of the relationship between religion (theology) and science revealed that this relationship is directly addressed in most speeches, with the exception of Vimer and Maurović. The speeches also reflect the need to defend theology’s status as a science and the Catholic faith against attacks or disputes from liberals. The structure of the priest-rectors’ inaugural speeches typically begins with a greeting and introduction. In the introduction, the rectors provide a preview of the topic of their speech, which mostly focuses on their specific area of specialization. This helps familiarize the audience with the content and spark their interest. The speeches mostly end with a traditional exclamation, either in Croatian or Latin: ʻLet the Croatian university live, grow and flourish …ʼ (Vivat, crescat, floreat croatica alma mater nostra FranciscoJosephina universitas). Out of ten inaugural speeches, only three of them do not end in such a manner (Iveković’s, Franki’s, Vimer’s),88 but in some form of gratitude (Franki), prayer89 (Vimer) or an appropriate ecphonesis (Iveković).

88 Cf. “Inclosure 2: Rektorski govori profesora Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu”, in: Biočić, Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta / Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, 305–410. 89 It is interesting to note that prayer, that is, thanksgiving to God was not reserved only for priest-rectors, because, for example, Rector Fran Vidović thanked the Almighty in his inaugural speech for being elected rector: For makings it so, I praise first of all the great and undeserved mercy of the Almighty …, in: Govori izrečeni dne 19. listopada 1901. kod instalacije rektora za šk. god. 1901/02. u Kraljevskom hrvatskom sveučilištu Franje Josipa I. (Zagreb: Tisak Kr. zemaljske tiskare, 1901), 15.

Inaugural Speeches of the Priest-Rectors

123

The issue of the relationship between theology and other sciences was also dealt with by Church teachers, as was evident from isolated examples of the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius on the Catholic faith, and two encyclicals—Aeterni Patris and Providentissimus Deus, and the question of affirmation of theology as a science remains present today. As the pastoral constitution on the Church, in the modern world of the Second Vatican Council Gaudium et Spes, observes, in keeping with the fundamental thought of the inaugural speeches of the priest-rectors: Through the tireless use of his genius over the centuries, man has certainly advanced in the empirical sciences, in technology and in artistic creation. And in our time, he has achieved sweeping successes, especially in the exploration of the material world. However, man has always sought and found a deeper truth. Namely, the mind is not limited to the phenomena themselves but can reach the intelligible reality with the right certainty, although it is partially obscured and weakened due to sin. Finally, the rational nature of the human person is perfected and should be perfected by wisdom, which gently attracts the human spirit to seek and love truth and good, and when a man is imbued with it, it leads him through the visible things towards the invisible.90

The inaugural speeches of the priest-rectors offer us a particular insight into the development of the notion of science in its “long process of emancipation, connection, dialogue, and tension with philosophy and theology, through the discovery of human subjectivity and historical awareness.”91 The priest-rectors’ speeches also reflect the increasing importance and prestige of empirical sciences in education during that time, a trend that continues to this day. Theology, on the other hand, always exists as a science of logos92, and continually strives to balance faith and reason, as demonstrated by its fundamental principle of fides quaerens intellectum, and the encyclical Fides et ratio by John Paul II. The coexistence of religion, theology, and other sciences must not be at the level of principled, unproductive coexistence, but in terms of dialogue, mutual criticism with the desire for both sides to progress and enrich each other. In an environment in which the autonomy of science, culture, politics, religious pluralism is rightly emphasized, theology must not and should not be closed, but listen to and dialogue with modern culture, and exchange ideas 90 Denzinger, Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, no. 4315. 91 Željko Tanjić, “Riječ teologije u vrtlogu znanosti”, Bogoslovska smotra 76, no. 2 (2006): 271. 92 Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, Vjera—Istina—Tolerancija. Kršćanstvo i svjetske religije (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2004), 146–164.

124

Iva M r šić F elbar

and thoughts with it. Only in this way will it be possible to avoid marginalization …93

The priest-rectors certainly made an effort to contribute to this process within their time. This is evident from their inaugural speeches, although some of them remained closed to dialogue, some were only confronting the arguments of their opponents, and some were genuinely open to dialogue and different opinions.

93 Tanjić, “Riječ teologije u vrtlogu znanosti”, 282–283.

6  The Relation of Religion and Science in the Thought of Antun Bauer Danijel Tolvajčić Catholic Faculty of Theology University of Zagreb Zagreb, Croatia [email protected] Abstract: This paper intends to critically present the topic of the relationship between the Christian religion and science in the thought of Antun Bauer (1856–1937), Archbishop of Zagreb and professor of philosophy at the Faculty of Theology. Bauer is one of the most important Thomistic philosophers in Croatia in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century and a passionate polemicist with the representatives of scientific and philosophical positivism and materialism at that time in our country. Starting from the view that metaphysics is possible and rejecting positivism and materialism as philosophically problematic and ultimately unsustainable positions, Bauer advocates the classical scholastic thesis of the complementarity of faith and science by following Thomas Aquinas, and by holding that there can be no conflict between them as they both have the same source in God. In our paper we shall try to demonstrate how Bauer’s solution to the issue of the relationship between religion and science is still philosophically relevant today, particularly in our contemporary context when scientism imposes itself as the dominant epistemological paradigm, claiming that the only valid source of knowledge are the exact sciences. Keywords: Antun Bauer, the relationship between religion and science, metaphysics, Thomism, positivism, materialism

Introduction Antun Bauer (February 11, 1856, Breznica near Varaždin—December 7, 1937, Zagreb)1, professor of philosophy, university rector, academic, and 1 For an overview of Bauer’s life and work, see: Zora Križanić, Ante Bauer i njegova filozofija (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1986); Ivan Macan, “Antun Bauer—filozof i nadbiskup”, Obnovljeni život 54, no. 2 (1999): 149–158; Ivan Macan, “Philosophy of Antun Bauer in its Time”, Disputatio philosophica. International Journal on Philosophy

126

Danijel Tolvajčić

Archbishop of Zagreb, is one of the most important Croatian philosophical authors from the end of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century. He was a full professor of philosophy and fundamental theology at the Catholic Faculty of Theology, Zagreb since 1904. He was the dean of the same faculty in the terms 1905–1906 and 1906–1907, and 1906–1907 the rector of the University of Zagreb. From 1896 he was also a member of Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts [Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti]; first as a correspondent, and from 1899 as a full member. As a philosopher and theologian, Bauer undoubtedly belongs to the tradition commonly called neo-scholasticism. As it is widely known, it is a movement within the philosophy and theology of Catholic inspiration that sought to revive, develop and in a modern context defend the fundamental postulates of Thomas Aquinas and other significant Christian medieval thinkers. The emergence of Thomism should initially be understood as a Church reaction to the rationalism of Enlightenment, idealistic immanentism, and many versions of political liberalism, i.e., as an attempt to meet the demands of the new (modern) age by returning to Thomas’ philosophical and theological doctrine as the most adequate expression of Catholic thought. Generally speaking, the emphasis was on both research and interpretation of the thoughts of Thomas Aquinas in a historical perspective, and on finding a mode of thematizing contemporary problems in the culture, society, philosophy, theology, and other sciences taking into account the basic assumptions of the Angelic Teacher in philosophy and theology. The formal institutional incentive came in the form of the publication of the encyclical Aeterni Patris by Leo XIII in 1879. Antun Bauer, along with Josip Stadler2, belongs to the ranks of “indisputable founders of Croatian neo-scholasticism who, conscious ‘of their efforts’, explicitly took the encyclical Aeterni Patris as a foundation.”3 This is already evident from the foreword to his Naravno bogoslovlje [Natural Theology] from 18924 (otherwise the first complete philosophical textbook written in the Croatian language) wherein the preface he states the following:

and Religion 1, no. 1 (1999): 153–165; Stjepan Zimmermann, “Bauer kao filozof”, Ljetopis Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 51 (1939): 108–127. 2 Bauer was a student and successor of the professor, later the Archbishop of Vrhbosna, Josip Stadler at the Chair of Philosophy at the Faculty of Theology in Zagreb. 3 Zlatko Posavec, “Umjetnost i pojam ljepote u hrvatskoj neoskolastici”, Prilozi za istraživanje hrvatske filozofske baštine 26, no. 51–52 (2000): 199–256, here 202. 4 Cf. Antun Bauer, Naravno bogoslovlje. Koliko može čovjek samim razumom spoznati Boga (Zagreb: Tiskara i litografija C. Albrechta, 1892). The second edition of this textbook was edited for publication by Stjepan Zimmermann in 1918 under the title Teodiceja ili nauka o razumnoj spoznaji Boga.

Religion and Science: Antun Bauer

127

I followed St. Thomas Aquinas and his best interprets. This will be understood by anyone who knows how much he is worth to the Catholic Church and how much his teaching is valued, especially after the epistle of the famous Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris; and it is precisely in this teaching that he cannot be surpassed.5

He initially secured his place within Croatian philosophy by writing university textbooks6 in neo-scholastic philosophy for theology students; in addition to the previously mentioned Naravno bogoslovlje he authored Obća metafizika ili ontologija from 18947, as well as critical studies of materialism and positivism by the German philosopher Wilhelm Wundt, our Bogoslav Šulek and other foreign and Croatian philosophical and scientific writers from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.8 Taking all this into consideration, we can undoubtedly claim that a significant part of his oeuvre is the thematization of the relationship between Christianity and the natural sciences, which in his time acquired an essentially materialist-naturalist framework. Along these lines, this paper intends to present and critically reflect on the understanding of the relationship between religion and science in Bauer’s philosophy. We shall try to demonstrate that Bauer’s solution on the lines of Thomistic thought is still philosophically relevant today, especially in our contemporary context when scientism imposes itself as the dominant epistemological paradigm, claiming that only the exact sciences are the only valid source of knowledge. The basis of the analysis shall be the inaugural speech on the occasion of his installation as rector of the University of Zagreb entitled Vjera i znanost [Religion and Science] from 19069, as well as his other relevant writings.

The Context of Bauer’s Thought If we wish to understand how Bauer conceives the relationship between religion and science, then we should certainly understand him—as his successor at the Chair of Philosophy at the Faculty of Theology in Zagreb, Stjepan Zimmermann points out—as “an outstanding representative of scholasticism”10 among Croats. This excellence is manifested not only in the previously 5 Ibid., III. 6 Cf. Zimmermann, “Bauer kao filozof”, 113. 7 Cf. Antun Bauer, Obća metafizika ili ontologija (Zagreb: C. Albrecht, 1894). 8 Cf. Antun Bauer, “Wundtov metafizički sustav”, Rad JAZU 132, no. 48 (1897): 48–102; Područje materijalizma (Zagreb: C. Albrecht, 1889). 9 Antun Bauer, Vjera i znanost. Inauguralni govor rektora dr. Ante Bauera (Zagreb: Kr. zemaljska tiskara, 1906). 10 Cf. Zimmermann, “Bauer kao filozof”, 113.

128

Danijel Tolvajčić

mentioned authorship of university textbooks (which are mainly synthetic) but even more so in his original philosophical endeavours which were written “critically and contemporarily.”11 Specifically, Bauer was one of the first Croatian neo-scholastics to enter into serious dialogue and polemic with the modern philosophical currents of the second half of the nineteenth century, mainly various forms of materialism in philosophy and science. Two studies should be outlined in particular: Firstly, Wundtov metafizički sustav where Bauer mainly criticizes the epistemology of German philosopher and psychologist Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920), an advocate of a kind of philosophical voluntarism that is essentially a positivistic position.12 As commentator Ivan Macan summarizes this pithily: “Bauer thus opposed Wundt’s positivism, which sought to reduce philosophy to the same cognitive methods used in the natural sciences.”13 If this is so, philosophy necessarily remains trapped in what is available to the senses and then metaphysics is not possible. Furthermore, we can never reach God with our minds, and secondly, Područje materijalizma14 where Bauer enters into a fierce polemic with Croatian linguist Bogoslav Šulek, who also spreads positivistic and materialistic views in philosophy and science. Bauer’s study is in fact a polemical response to a lecture15 given by Šulek at the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts on 14 April 1888. He argues that materialism is ultimately not sufficient to explain where the world and man come from; that is, how critical empiricism, which claims that “there is nothing but matter and material forces”16, cannot offer adequate fundamental principles but remains trapped in everlasting scepticism. It is understandable why Bauer feels compelled to criticize these tendencies in the philosophy of the time; he, as has already been pointed out, argues that philosophy must necessarily be metaphysical if its task is to investigate all reality in the form of questions about ultimate causes; the human mind must not be confined to the world of what is accessible to the senses, and 11 Ibid. 12 Bauer, “Wundtov metafizički sustav”, 48–102; Many commentators point out that this work is the most original and the most meaningful Bauer’s contribution to Croatian philosophy. See, e.g., Ivan Koprek, “Djelovanje u filozofiji Ante Bauera”, Obnovljeni život 54, no. 2 (1999): 219–222, here 220. 13 Macan, “Antun Bauer—filozof i nadbiskup”, 153. 14 Bauer, Područje materijalizma. See also: Antun Bauer, Bogoslav Šulek kao filozof i polemik (Zagreb: C. Albrecht, 1890). 15 Cf. Bogoslav Šulek, “Područje materijalizma”, Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 92, no. 9 (1888): 1–72. 16 Anto Mišić, “Bauerova kritika materijalizma”, Obnovljeni život 54, no. 2 (1999): 211– 217, here 215.

Religion and Science: Antun Bauer

129

we can arrive in a purely philosophical way to the notion of God’s existence. Likewise, we cannot reduce religion to subjective feeling or anti-scientific irrationality, but on the contrary, we can demonstrate its justification and meaning philosophically. It is important that Bauer in no way rejects the autonomy of science and its results but believes that it is not within the competence of science to give answers to questions that are prominently metaphysical and religious.17 From this point of view, one should thus think of the relationship between science and faith.

The Question of Truth and the Autonomy of Science As we have already asserted in the Introduction, Bauer’s understanding of the relationship between religion and science will be based on his inaugural speech on the occasion of his installation—as rector of the University of Zagreb in 1906. It is representative not only because it explicitly deals with our topic, but also because Bauer had already written his earlier mentioned relevant works by then. In his thematization of the relationship between religion and science, Bauer starts from the explication of the “consciousness of duty”18 according to which man becomes a moral being. Duty is defined as a “moral attachment, moral obligation, which appears to us in our consciousness.”19 It is such a moral attachment that has not only a subjective character (originally driven by the will), but to an even greater extent objective character, and that is because in the epistemological order “reason firstly cognizes and then communicates to the will.”20 It is a dynamic that belongs “to the very essence of the rational nature of man.”21 Thus, man realizes the moral order and the notion of duty, which proves to be an absolute and unconditional human obligation. This philosophical insight—in the context of theistic thought— testifies to the fact that, as Augustine has already concluded, “in conscience the Creator of our rational nature speaks himself.”22 However, duty goes beyond the objective moral order; it, because of its absoluteness and unconditionalness, affects the whole man in his totality, ultimately, the duty also affects the ultimate objects of human interest, and its most sublime question 17 Cf. Zimmermann, “Bauer kao filozof”, 126–127. 18 Bauer, Vjera i znanost, 3. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid.

130

Danijel Tolvajčić

is that of truth. Truth is the culmination of all human cognitive and other endeavours and as such, it is man’s ultimate duty. This of course also applies to the science of purpose which is the search for truth that should be autonomous. Under the term science, Bauer originally has in mind all those disciplines that are traditionally taught and studied at university. Science is entitled to truth, and no one should stop it. Science should use all methods of research, which can lead it to truth, with complete freedom. That why the need for freedoms and autonomy is urgent for the University if it is to serve the progress of science.23

For Bauer, autonomy of science, and consequently of a university, is something untouchable; moreover, it is an a priori setting of science itself. Nevertheless, Bauer raises a further question: how should the autonomy of science be understood? It is not a question of absolute detachment from everything, for the autonomy of science is necessarily linked to truth. Science is the search for truth. “If anyone thought that in his scientific work he was not bound by the supreme law, according to which he has only truth to seek, he would destroy the very notion of science.”24 Specifically, Bauer maintains, this is mainly about the objective laws of thought, especially logic, as well as the methodological principles of a particular science. These are the limits of the autonomy of each particular science that cannot be exceeded if we care about authentic research and ultimately about truth. Here Bauer expresses the official position of the Catholic Church on the autonomy of science, which has never been questioned.25

The Religious Question of Truth and Science In addition to the scientific question of truth, the archbishop also recognizes the religious question of truth.26 And it is also legitimate. Bauer sees the legit­ imacy of the religious question of truth in the fact that there was not a single period in the history of mankind that did not, in its specific way, articulate its religious endeavours as a search for truth. The reason for this is that religious issues are of such a nature that they ultimately concern every human being, 23 Ibid., 5. 24 Ibid., 6. 25 More about the position of the Catholic Church about the autonomy of science in the nineteenth century see in Pope LEO XIII Encyclical Providentissimus Deus: https:// www.vati​can.va/cont​ent/leo-xiii/en/ency​clic​a ls/docume​nts/hf_l-xiii_en​c _18​1118​ 93_p​rovi​dent​issi​mus-deus.html 26 Cf. Bauer, Vjera i znanost, 7.

Religion and Science: Antun Bauer

131

and everyone must declare themselves about them. Additionally, as early as 1906, the archbishop recognized those tendencies, still prevalent today, more than a century later, in a considerable part of scientific discourse like in authors such as Jerry Coyne or Richard Dawkins27, and that is the idea that the progress of science will abolish the need for religion. This did not happen in Bauer’s time, however, and it seems that it will not happen in ours either. Yet, with regards to the question of religious truth, Bauer considers that contemporary solutions to a religious question such as Schleiermacher’s are not satisfactory for him because they ultimately reduce religion to feeling and subjectivity.28 In the wake of his Thomistic tradition, he advocates the idea of objective religious truth. Religious truth can never be left to the subjectivity of the individual because, as Thomas Aquinas teaches, God, in whom there can be no dichotomy, is the ultimate source of both natural knowledge and revealed truths.29 This brings us to the key question for the issue of the relationship between religion and science. Can a man of science accept religion, especially Catholic Christianity? Furthermore, has not modern science already overthrown some of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity? Moreover, does not science and its method exclude religious belief? “Does not (…) science in its very principle and nature conflict with the Christian religion?”30 Would not a scientist who were a believer at the same time violate the principle of scientific autonomy (which is also the autonomy of reason)? Critics of religion (those in the nineteenth century and contemporary ones) hold that Christianity requires believers to unconditionally accept religious content without sufficient 27 These are one of many contemporary works that promote the scientific criticism of religion but basically repeat the arguments of nineteenth-century positivism similar to ones of Šulek: Jerry A. Coyne, Faith vs. Fact. Why Science and Religion are Incompatible (New York: Viking, 2015); Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005). Although they have every right to criticize the religion, we can still ask whether they have made an effort to understand what they criticize. About their understanding of religion, especially classical theism, see: Edward Feser, The Last Superstition. A Refutation of the New Atheism (Indiana: South Bend, St. Augustine’s Press, 2008). 28 For Schleiermacher’s understanding of religion, see Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, O religiji. Govori obrazovanima među njezinim prezirateljima, translated by Željko Pavić (Zagreb: Naklada Breza, 2011). Although Schleiermacher undoubtedly proves problematic from a scholastic-Thomistic point of view, it remains questionable to what extent Bauer ultimately correctly understood his philosophy of religion. 29 Cf. e.g., Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles of St. Thomas Aquinas SCG lib. I, cap. 7, translated and edited by Joseph Rickaby S. J. (London: Burns and Oates, 1905), 28–30. 30 Bauer, Vjera i znanost, 7.

132

Danijel Tolvajčić

evidence, and science, on the other hand, has an experimental method and measurable results. Is it then possible to combine religious belief with a fundamental scientific habitus? It seems—as anti-religious philosophers and scientists consider—that it is not possible to reconcile the openness of scientific research and the blind belief that Christianity, especially the Catholic Church, requires of its believers. Bauer, of course, as a philosopher, theologian, and Catholic bishop, disagrees with this but maintains that the opposition of the Christian religion and science is “only apparent, that it is only a shining foam.”31 What is the basis for this claim?

The Task of Catholic Apologetics Firstly, Bauer refers to the insights of Catholic apologetics of his time (today, in post-conciliar thought, better known in the Catholic context as fundamental theology); especially to the uniqueness of Christ’s miracles confirming his divinity and thus the truth of his message. However, it also emphasizes the Pauline principle of reasonable belief (latreia logike), which became dominant in the Church of the first centuries and represents one of the fundamental principles of Catholic theological and philosophical thought. As articulated by the greats like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, the Christian belief is not a fall into irrationality but presupposes rational foundations.32 “Christianity, therefore, does not require blind, but reasonable belief; every Christian should have a reason, why he believes.”33 Rational in the context of Bauer’s thought does not mean rationalistic; it is not a question of abolishing the mystery of the fundamental truths of Christianity and subjecting them to the mind, but scholastic philosophers—as Stjepan Zimmermann explains—seek to outline that we are “capable of objective or absolute truth in general by rational or mental (logical, intellectual, rational) knowledge, and especially that we can logically know metaphysically objective truths.”34 Here Bauer argues that reasonable belief, which should be the ideal of every (Catholic) believer, has the same source—the search for truth as is the case with science. Here, too, one must look for the reasons for the emergence of what is called apologetics in the context of Catholic theological and philosophical thought. In other words, it is a matter of “scientifically developed 31 Ibid., 8. 32 More about it in: Robert Sokolowski, The God of Faith and Reason. Foundations of Christian Theology (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1995). 33 Bauer, Vjera i znanost, 9. 34 Zimmermann, “Bauer kao filozof”, 114.

Religion and Science: Antun Bauer

133

consciousness which can turn to one’s belief by philosophical reflection”35 and will, “of course, seek scientific theoretical knowledge of those reasons, knowledge of those reasons for which one believes.”36 “The task of Christian apologetics is to prove, by scientific reasons alone, that the Christian faith is the true revelation of God, and that therefore certain teachings of the Christian faith are revealed truths by God.”37 Theological apologetics considers as its fundamental endeavour that it is possible to arriving to objective truth (as it is understood in the wake of the Aristotelian-Thomistic speculative tradition) or that “human reason is capable of finding truth based on experience or testimony or reasoning.”38 The ontological foundation of apologetics is also Aristotelian-Thomistic: the starting point is the existence of a real, objectively accessible world ruled by “immutable laws”39 accessible to human cognitive power, and “which allow us to know the past from the present of natural phenomena and infer the future.”40 The point is that apologetics represents the existence of an objec­ tive order in a world that is an epistemologically accessible object of human cognition. The laws and principles of the natural order in the world represent “the negative principles of apologetics”41 while its positive principles are internal and external facts as well as scholastic general principles of reason such as the principles of contradiction and causality “by which it proves by philosophical reasoning the purposeful natural significance of these facts, their transcendence, because from the connection of natural causes they cannot be interpreted or understood.”42 In addition to that available to the empirical sciences, Bauer also points to the necessity of metaphysics as a necessary complement if we are to philosophically grasp reality in its totality. Of course, it is at the core of Bauer’s view that metaphysics is possible. As it is generally known, he firmly defends the scholastic (especially Thomistic) system of metaphysical philosophy against all modern critics such as Hume and Kant, but also against his natural science contemporaries. The supersensible can also be known. Therefore, he defines metaphysics as a discipline that deals with “supersensory causes of objects and phenomena.”43 Metaphysics is 35 Bauer, Vjera i znanost, 9. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., 9–10. 39 Ibid., 10. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Bauer, Opća metafizika ili ontologija, 2.

134

Danijel Tolvajčić

“real science (scientia ens realis) which deals with those real objects which the soul perceives by the most general notions of cognition.”44 The human mind, in other words, can, through valid application of the principle of causality, know the order that lies beyond the sensory world. In line with this, Bauer defines apologetics as historical-critical and philosophical-critical science, which means that it must both establish the truth of historical facts concerning matters of the Christian religion, and also philosophically point to their supernatural origin. Metaphysically speaking, apologetics “leads us from certain facts with the help of the principle of reason, namely the principle of causality, to the realization of their natural cause—God.”45 It is important to keep in mind that Bauer maintains here that the fundamental scientific principle of the autonomy of reason is satisfied. Apologetics cannot then be challenged by science, and belief is not irrational, but prudent. Now Bauer compares this to science and its method; just like Christian apologetics, so does science start from the possibility of knowing the truth. Absolute scepticism is not possible even in science. “And science holds that we can come to the truth through experience, testimony, and reasoning. And science demands that we do not accept anything as the truth, for which we do not have enough reasons.”46

Is There Antagonism Between (Christian) Religion and Science? The question that arises is: what, then, is the conflict between science and religion? Bauer holds that those scholars (like Šulek and others who belong to the scientific and philosophical positivism of the nineteenth century) who disprove the truth of Christianity have devoted almost no time to research the truth of religion. Likewise, the claim that the Christian religion is incompatible with the freedom of scientific research does not stand.47 Religion, however, has its unchanging dogmatic truths and that would be incompatible with science. Bauer points out that for every science, the more it reveals the truth to a greater extent, the more it captures the freedom of thought. “Every established truth is a clamp for freedom of opinion. In the strict sense, only that

44 Ibid., 3. 45 Bauer, Vjera i znanost, 10. 46 Ibid., 10–11. 47 Ibid.

Religion and Science: Antun Bauer

135

thought is free, which has not yet been scientifically determined, which is not yet finished, which is not yet there.”48 Moreover, every science starts from some assumed truths that it does not discuss but understands as self-evident. Without them, it would not even be possible. Bauer cites three such dogmatic truths of science: “the fact of one’s consciousness, the principle of contradiction, and man’s ability to know the truth.”49 Bauer assumes that empirical science receives these truths from higher sciences, specifically philosophy and logic. Of course, when it comes to hypotheses, focus is different. They represent free scientific thought in the full sense. However, it should be borne in mind that hypotheses are a kind of experiment, of a temporary nature, the purpose of which is to grasp the truth. “Their value is temporary, problematic; they arise and pass, to be replaced by others, more probable and convenient.”50 When we speak of the freedom of scientific thought, this is exactly what we have in mind. Bauer quotes Pascal as saying that “it is so natural for a man to deny, believe and doubt, as it is natural for a horse to run away”, but he points out “that there must be no logical difference between one who denies, believes, or doubts because everyone must have a valid reason for their denial, belief or doubt.”51 It is characteristic of both science and Christian theology (and, of course, apologetics) to investigate “whether an already known truth can be scientifically proven.”52 To that extent, these two areas of the human spirit are not methodologically different. The study of divine mysteries as a subject of theology in this sense is not in conflict with scientific research. The next question that Bauer raises is: has not the development of modern science, however, overthrown some religious dogmas, that is, the truths which the Church holds to be revealed? Starting from traditional Thomistic teaching, Bauer points out that we can speak of two kinds of truths: those that have been revealed and that go beyond the capabilities of the human mind, and those that are not subject of Revelation like science, physics, biology, chemistry, and so on.53 The former belong to the mysteries of the faith (such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.) which no philosophical, theological, or scientific reasoning can comprehend at all, but—in Christian understanding—are revealed by God himself in whom and to whom we believe. Traditional scholastic philosophy and theology never proved them 48 Ibid., 12. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid., 13. 52 Ibid. 53 Thomas Aquinas, SCG lib. I, cap. 7, 28–30.

136

Danijel Tolvajčić

but sought to demonstrate that they were logically coherent. Truths that seek to grasp modern (exact) sciences are not the subject of the content of Revelation, and ultimately are not the subject of apologetics and theology in general, which prefixes Revelation. “There is no revealed physics, no chemistry, no philosophy, no astronomy, etc., and no method has been revealed to use these sciences in research.”54 Therefore, there can be no conflict between religion and science, of course, if each of them holds its territory. The religious set of questions that the bishop considers also includes those questions that today we would call existential and which have tormented people of all ages, and these are the questions such as where did man come from, where does he go, what is the designation of his life, his death?55 Of course, science is sometimes involved, but according to Bauer, it wandered and despaired here because it went beyond its method. The answers to these questions about the meaning of human existence undoubtedly belong to the sphere of religion and its truths, and the fullness of the answers to them is given—for Bauer as a Christian— by Christian Revelation. Therefore, when the sciences, abandoning both their method and their field, speak on these subjects, they “err against the duty to the truth, against the law of their very reasonable nature, which they humiliate.”56 Why does Bauer think so? Because as a Thomist he believes in the possibility of metaphysical cognition that is not trapped in the “tight fences of sensory cognition.”57 He correctly concludes that (which is often the case even today58) scientists rise against metaphysics while using essentially materialistic and a priori irreligious metaphysics. When the Christian scriptures speak of those things which belong to the sphere of science, such as the origin of man, then it should be borne in mind that they use pre-scientific language and often mythological insights of their time; biblical writers do not speak of “the inner essence and nature of sensory objects and phenomena”59 but seek to convey the religious truth that man has his ultimate origin in that reality which is his foundation as well as the foundation of all that is.

54 Bauer, Vjera i znanost, 15. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid., 16. 57 Ibid., 17. 58 This is evident in already mentioned scientists who represent so-called ʻNew Atheismʼ, while at the same time they have an extremely anti-metaphysical position and advocate scientism without acknowledging that their own standing point implies metaphysics of some kind. See more in: Edward Feser, Scholastic Metaphysics. A Contemporary Introduction (Lancaster: Editiones Scholasticae, 2014). 59 Ibid., 18.

Religion and Science: Antun Bauer

137

Scientists often do not understand this; they may point out and often point to the inadequacy of old pre-scientific conceptions, but they do not refute or disprove the religious truth that Revelation seeks to communicate to us. Simply put, Christianity must not be interpreted literally, especially in relation to the Scripture. In this sense, the opposition between religion and science is, Bauer argues, false, pointing out that this is the official position of the Catholic Church expressed in Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus.60

A Review of Bauer’s Position: Scientism, Metaphysics, and the Christian Faith From everything presented, it is evident that Bauer advocates the thesis of the complementarity of religion and science. It is obvious if we have in mind all the main theses of his relationship between religion and science, and it was clearly outlined in his works even before the rector’s speech. In addition, it is important to keep in mind that the problem of the relationship between faith and knowledge (and consequently science) has existed in the germ since the very emergence of Christianity and was particularly articulated during the Christian reception of Aristotle in the time of Albert the Great and especially Thomas Aquinas. Of course, science for these medieval thinkers should be understood not in the modern, but in the Aristotelian sense as “universal, demonstrated, and organized knowledge of facts and truths and their reasons or causes.”61 Moreover, Brian Shanley asserts that it was Aristotle’s thor­ ough reception that led to the articulation of the problem of the relationship between the Christian faith and science: “The central intellectual problem of the day was to determine whether this powerful, systematic, and pagan worldview (comprising what we would now call both philosophy and science) was compatible with the central theological claims of the Roman Catholic Church.”62 Although the notion of science has changed greatly since the time of Aristotle, Thomists to this day hold that Thomas’ solution is in principle applicable. There can be no irreconcilability between the truths of science and revealed truths because, ultimately, the source of both is in God. Religious issues belong to the sphere of the metaphysical (in things belonging to the 60 Cf. LEO XIII, Providentissimus Deus in: https://www.vati​can.va/cont​ent/leo-xiii/ en/ency​clic​a ls/docume​nts/hf_l-xiii_en​c _18​1118​93_p​rovi​dent​issi​mus-deus.html) 61 Bernard Wuellner, SJ, Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy (New Hampshire: Loreto publications, 2012), 112. 62 Brian J. Shanley, OP, The Thomist Tradition (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002), 67.

138

Danijel Tolvajčić

praeambula fidei) and the revealed truth which is beyond what we can know by the light of the natural mind (incarnation, creation, redemption, Trinity), and the natural sciences deal with the physical. This key distinction should be followed if we are to understand Bauer. Bauer is very critical of materialism, sensationalism, empiricism, and positivism because they deny the possibility of metaphysical cognition and remain closed in the senses. And our time today, more than a hundred years after Bauer, operates from the same or at least comparable positions. A commonality of all the currents of thought is that true science is exclusively tasked with “examining phenomena and their interrelationships, comparing and organizing them into types, and deriving general laws by induction, and any reasoning about the insensitive causes of these phenomena is nothing but fantasy.”63 This is a problem that is commonly called scientism today. It is the view that only the results of exact sciences are true and authentic knowledge. Outside of science, no quest for knowledge is ultimately rational or expands human cognition. This is true of both metaphysical philosophies and religions. They are a priori doomed to irrationalism and have no right to lay claim to any form of knowledge. In recent decades, such an attitude has been particularly articulated by the so-called New Atheism. Firstly, one has to ask whether such a concept of true science is coherent? It does not seem to be and that is exactly what Bauer recognizes. Specifically, when the opponents of metaphysics deal with some of the most elementary analyses of mental phenomena and acts or when they implement their scientific method on certain phenomena they study, they then already unknowingly necessarily use metaphysics, although mostly one that is not recognized as such or is simply demonstratively wrong. Why? Because: No physical, or any natural law, can (…) be conceived or set without a speculative basis, without supersensible principles. At every step, therefore, which these advocates of positive cognition make in their research, they are inadvertently metaphysicians.64

Still, Bauer maintains it is precisely those who, by rejecting metaphysics, deny the possibility of supersensible cognition, that they implicitly accept it— without understanding what it is all about. In other words, when opponents of the possibility of metaphysical cognition hold that the impossibility of supersensible cognition is “an unconditionally necessary and valid judgment”, then they do not come to that judgment based on some experiential facts, but

63 Bauer, Opća metafizika ili ontologija, 3. 64 Ibid., 4.

Religion and Science: Antun Bauer

139

it also belongs to “the metaphysical category”65, that is, they cannot prove it by implementing their method. And here we come to the central problem of scientism: it, as Edward Feser articulates it pregnantly, does not distinguish between the scientific hypothesis and the attempt at the metaphysical demonstration66, moreover, it seeks to refute any validity of the latter by referring to the former. The problem is that proponents of scientism do not understand that their position is nothing but dogmatically metaphysical (because they unreasonably assume that their assumptions are true): Of its very nature, scientific investigation takes for granted such assumptions as that: there is a physical world existing independently of our minds; this world is characterized by various objective patterns and regularities; our senses are at least partially reliable sources of information about this world; there are objective laws of logic and mathematics that apply to the objective world outside our minds; our cognitive powers—of concept-formation, reasoning from premises to a conclusion, and so forth—afford us a grasp of these laws and can reliably take us from evidence derived from the senses to conclusions about the physical world; the language we use can adequately express truths about these laws and about the external world; and so on and on. Every one of these claims embodies a metaphysical assumption, and science, since its very method presupposes them, could not possibly defend them without arguing in a circle. Their defence is instead a task for metaphysics, and for philosophy more generally; and scientism is shown thereby to be incoherent.67

Scientism, it turns out, is a metaphysical position that science alone, if it remains true to its method, cannot prove. We necessarily go beyond what the senses deliver to us, thus here we have an unintentional attempt to derive metaphysics from the scientific method. Metaphysics, scientism proponents argue, is impossible. Because of this, it is a position that is in itself contradictory. Yet what is shown here, too, is that the metaphysical problem is ultimately indestructible. Scientific knowledge itself rests on assumptions that are beyond the reach of the results of the empirical sciences. If we therefore acknowledge, contrary to modern thinkers such as Hume and Kant, the possibility of metaphysics, consequently, the horizons for religion are opened. This is precisely one of the propositions that Bauer defends in his thesis on the complementarity of faith and science. All this, of course, does not mean that science is not valuable and necessary for man. Its significance, we hold, is unquestionable to everyone today and it is not necessary to point it out further. Still, it should be borne in 65 Ibid. 66 Feser, The Last Superstition, 83. 67 Ibid.

140

Danijel Tolvajčić

mind that science is not omnipotent. We need to understand the limits of its methods: they are interested in “the order, structure, and existence of the physical world”68, which means that they raise the question of how the world and its laws function, i.e., they remain in the realm “of the obvious fact.”69 In other words, science deals with intraworldly causes. Everything beyond that goes beyond the scientific method and is no longer science. Just as there is no revealed physics whatsoever in the layers of Revelation, as Bauer puts it, so there is no scientific answer to the question of human meaning in science. On the other hand, in Bauer’s (and scholastic-Thomistic) understanding, the metaphysical philosophy only begins where single exact sciences cease: it ultimately raises the question of the ultimate causes. It also means that philosophy takes seriously all scientific results as its assumptions, but it also goes beyond the realm of the senses in which science remains. The most sublime part of such a scholastic metaphysical philosophy is precisely natural theology, i.e., theodicy, which, starting from the idea of the supra-experiential validity of the principle of causality, from “questionless, experienced limited effects derives the being (existence) of a cause that exists in itself, and then with the help of ontological principles about the being in general, it seeks to interpret the nature and action, the essence and properties of that cause.”70 Starting from the world as an effect we come to God as the first cause. However, we immediately come to the maximum of what can be said about God by the power of the mind; we come to the already mentioned foyer of faith. Although it turns out that if Bauer’s argumentation is correct, it is not irrational to believe in God and that it can be philosophically demonstrated, it has not yet said anything about specifically Christian theism. The truthfulness and credibility of Christian revelation is a matter of apologetics that has traditionally emphasized trust in God to whose existence we have come to in theodicy, as well as in an effort to show how Christ is, by his very extraordinary works, the true God and the true man. Nevertheless, the belief in Christian Revelation and its contents is a gracious gift of God in which the existential meaning of man’s life is revealed. It seeks to answer the ultimate why of a man, history, and the world. Science cannot answer these questions without leaving its field but leaves that question to religion. However, what is obvious is that they both seek the truth, but do not belong—as Živan Bezić puts it—“to the same order of knowledge.”71 Science aims to discover about what we find in the world, and religion about what not 68 Živan Bezić, ʻZnanost i vjeraʼ, Crkva u svijet, 37, no. 2 (2002): 199–222, here 211. 69 Ibid. 70 Bauer, Teodiceja ili nauka o razumnoj spoznaji Boga, 1. 71 Bezić, ʻZnanost i vjeraʼ, 211.

Religion and Science: Antun Bauer

141

only transcends the world but is the cause of the world and man. Therefore, we hold, Bauer is right when he states that—if each does not go beyond its area of competence—there is no conflict between religion and science, nor can there be.

7  Mariology of Ivan Bujanović, Scientific and Theological Contribution in the Context of Time M ar ija P ehar Catholic Faculty of Theology University of Zagreb Zagreb, Croatia [email protected] Abstract: Ivan Bujanović, multiple Rector and Vice-rector of the University of Zagreb, was also a long serving professor at the Faculty of Theology in Zagreb where he taught several dogmatic treatises. He is best known for his Mariology, the first systematic Mariological monograph in the Croatian language. This paper deals with his contribution to Mariology as a scientific and dogmatic discipline, and we attempt to explore his writing in its specific historical, theological, and nationally emphasized Marian context, as well as a contribution to the broader scientific field of dogmatics and systematic theology. The research is guided by the specificity of scientific Mariology, according to which, if properly presented theologically, it can and should be a kind of internal link, i.e., the focus of almost all dogmatics. In this exposition of Bujanović’s Mariology, in its context, the extent to which, and in the manner that he, as a university professor, connects and harmonizes the religious worldview and scientific theological method, i.e., the religious Marian worship and its scientific theological argumentation, and systematic dogmatic exposition, is finally examined. Keywords: Ivan Bujanović, Mariology, University, theology

Introduction Mariology is not the main or fundamental dogmatic discipline, in the sense that it would contain basic knowledge of the Catholic doctrine, or reflect on those contents of dogmatic doctrine from which other systematic theological contents can be derived, but it is a dogmatic discipline in which harmoniously in focus or intersection the fundamental elements of almost all other dogmatic treatises (Christology, Trinitarian theology, ecclesiology,

144

M ar ija P ehar

pneumatology, Christian anthropology, eschatology, the science of grace) are collected and recognized as true, and within it they show their inner harmony and unity, discovering their goal and meaning. Precisely for this reason, Mariology can be viewed as a kind of litmus paper of the correctness, truthfulness, but also the purposefulness and pastoral applicability of the entire dogmatics, i.e., its individual treatises. In this sense, throughout the history of the organization of faculties of theology and their courses, it has always been very difficult to determine which of the dogmatic treatises the Mariological contents would be added to if they could not be realized as a separate course. Additionally, when it was it was a separate course, Mariology was always taught in final years at faculties of theology, or as one of the final dogmatic treatises, which confirms our earlier assertions about the place and meaning it held within dogmatics, or overall systemic theology.1 As a consequence of this internal definition of Mariology and its intratheological, i.e., intra-dogmatic positioning, in this paper we use Mariological content as a kind of key to examine the complete scientific work of dogmatic theologian Ivan Bujanović, that is, his contribution to the scientific field of dogmatics and systematic theology, which he practiced as a professor at the Faculty of Theology and rector of the University of Zagreb.

Mariology in the Scientific Theological Opus of Bujanović Ivan Bujanović was born in 1852 in Piškorevci and died in 1927 in Zagreb. After primary school and grammar school, he completed a two-year course in philosophy in Đakovo and studied theology at foreign universities in Pest and Vienna, where he also received his doctorate. He was a professor of Special Dogmatics at the Faculty of Theology in Zagreb, in the period from 1882 to 1922. He served as dean of the same Faculty of Theology in several terms. He served as rector of the University of Zagreb in two terms (1891/1892, and 1903/1904), and after both terms, as was the custom of the time, he also held the position of vice-rector. He was also a university preacher for many years. He published the results of his scientific work to theological periodicals of the time, mainly in Katolički list [The Catholic Gazette] and

1 Cf. Wolfgang Beinert, “Maria, Mutter Jesu. II. Historisch-theologisch”, in Walter Kasper, ed., Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche vol. 6 (Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 2009), 1321–1322; Johannes Stöhr, “Mariologie”, in Remigius Bäumer, Leo Scheffczyk, ed., Marienlexikon vol. 4 (St. Ottilien: EOS Editions, 1992), 320–326, especially 324.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

145

Glasnik biskupija Bosanske i Srijemske [The Gazette of the Dioceses of Bosnia and Srijem].2 As a dogmatic theologian, he is mainly known for monographs in eschatology3, sacramentology4, Christology and soteriology5, and Mariology6. Written at a time when theology was still taught in Latin, these monographs in Croatian were of great benefit firstly to students, because they primarily served as university course literature, but are certainly significant as they mark the beginning of the creation of significant theological works in Croatian. In this sense, they could also serve as an incentive and an opportunity for serious theological content for those scholars who were interested in such content without being directly involved in theology. Thus, although they were written primarily for students of theology, their goal is not scientific research discussion but a systematic presentation of the Catholic doctrine in certain dogmatic treatises, and the content, while basically primarily scientific theological, is mixed with moral reflections, and in some places presented in a preaching style. Certainly, this was one of the intentions of the author himself, who in the Prefaces of these monographs, in addition to their study purpose, emphasizes the desire to serve in the practical application in the Christian life.7 However, this does not diminish, but precisely increases the 2 More about biographical elements, about the Rector’s service, historical and social circumstances, and university activities in: Ana Biočić, Slavko Slišković, Profesori Katoličkoga bogoslovnog fakulteta rektori Sveučilišta u Zagrebu / Professors of the Catholic Faculty of Theology as Rectors of the University of Zagreb (Zagreb: Katolički bogoslovni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2020), 105–116; see also: Tomislav Mrkonjić, “Ivan Bujanović, prinosi za životopis teologa Ivana Bujanovića (1852–1927)”, Bogoslovska smotra 51, no. 1 (1981): 66–87. 3 Cf. Ivan Bujanović, Eshatologija, to jest posljednje stvari po nauku Katoličke crkve (Zagreb: Tisak dioničke tiskare, 1894) (hereinafter: Eshatologija). 4 Cf. Ivan Bujanović, Sveti sakramenti po nauku Katoličke crkve, I. svezak: Sakramenti u opće, krst, potvrda, euharistia (Zagreb: Tisak dioničke tiskare, 1895); II. svezak: Pokora, posljednje pomazanje, sv. Red i ženidba (Zagreb: Tisak dioničke tiskare, 1898). 5 Cf. Ivan Bujanović, Kristologija i soteriologija ili nauk Katoličke crkve o Utjelovljenom Sinu Božjem i Djelu Otkupljenja (Osijek: Prva hrvatska dionička tiskara, 1922) (hereinafter: Kristologija). 6 Cf. Ivan Bujanović, Mariologija, to jest nauk Katoličke crkve o Blaženoj Djevici Mariji Materi Božjoj (Zagreb: Kr. sveučilišna knjižara Fr. Suppan, 1899). (hereinafter: Mariologija); in this monograph, see also: Ana Biočić, Iva Mršić Felbar; “Ivan Bujanović (1852–1927)—profesor Bogoslovnog fakulteta, rektor Sveučilišta u Zagrebu i autor prvog mariološkog priručnika na hrvatskom jeziku”, Bogoslovska smotra 86, no. 2 (2016): 379–406, 379–406, esp. 393–403. See also the review from the time of publication of the monograph: Alojzije Vincetić, “Mariologija”, Glasnik biskupija bosanske i srijemske 27, no. 20 (1899): 165–168. 7 See esp. forewords in Bujanović, Eshatologija and Bujanović, Kristologija.

146

M ar ija P ehar

value of these contents, given it is not easy to express difficult theological, and closely related metaphysical questions in an accessible language while preserving all the depth of their truthfulness. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that with a valuable attempt to successfully popularize theology, these monographs are dominated by scientific thoroughness, exhaustiveness, purity, and precision of presenting scientific evidence and arguments, honesty in referencing and quoting sources. In his writing, Bujanović demonstrates how well he knows the theological sources and teachings of the great church teachers, and the works of the theologians of his time as well.8 It is important to point out that these mono­ graphs are not “mere communications of the results of someone else’s theological research, but a complete, unique, systematic, scientifically observed presentation of all scientific results of the addressed issues”9, as S. Bakšić (later the professor of Dogmatic Theology at the same faculty) writes in his review of Bujanović’s Christology and Soteriology. Bujanović applies a positive historical method, which was usual at that time when writing similar theological contents, and accordingly he searches for the foundation of dogmatic contents in the sources of revelation, the Scripture, and tradition. He also applies a speculative neo-scholastic method, i.e., argumentative and logical reflection, and the illumination of the content in the purpose of thorough cognition. In addition to an exhaustive treatment of dogmatic content, in terms of its grounding in the Bible, and proving its inner truth, Bujanović introduces readers to its historical and dogmatic development while pointing to its connection with the liturgy and pastoral relevance and applicability.10 Moreover, Bujanović’s style is adorned with the beauty and purity of language, harmony, and clarity of thought, the dynamism of speaking. Everything that we have thus far stated applies to Bujanović’s Mariologija [Mariology]. It was written after 17 years of professorial work; thus it can be considered his mature work, and the fruit of serious scientific theological research and reflection. It is clear from the schedule of publishing dogmatic 8 He knew well the Scripture, liturgy and patrology, as well as the theological classics such as Augustine, Tomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, Duns Scotus and he was well-versed in overall Christology and Soteriology. 9 Stjepan Bakšić, “Ivan Bujanović, Kristologija i Soteriologija ili nauk katoličke Crkve o Utjelovljenom Sinu Božjem i djelu Otkupljenja”, Bogoslovska smotra 11, no. 1 (1923): 111–113, here 110. (T/N: all the original quotes are in Croatian, here they are translated to English by the translator of the article.) 10 The extent to which Bujanović cares about the applicability of dogmatic contents in pastoral practice, especially in liturgy and homiletics, is seen in the second part, the so-called Appendix, in his Mariology (Mariologija), in which he writes in more detail about the feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Cf. Bujanović, Mariologija, 103–178.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

147

monographs that Bujanović wrote Mariology prior to Christology and soteriology, which by the nature and internal structure of dogmatic treatises should precede Mariology. He himself is aware of this fact because in the Preface he points out at the very beginning that the time of Mariology’s publication does not arise from the internal system of dogmatic treatises, but he publishes it as a solemn scripture motivated by a personal and more emotional inclination to worship the Mother of God. Nevertheless, the content of Mariology reveals that, simultaneously with the writing of Mariological content, Bujanović intensively dealt with the Christological-soteriological content, which he correctly takes as the dogmatic foundation of Mariology. The incentive for the publication of Mariology is described on the first dedication page of the monograph, where he says that he published the monograph “with great praise and deep humility as a small work of his heart” and “to the glory and praise of the Throne of Wisdom, and Helper of Christians, on the occasion of the 25th Royal Croatian Francis Joseph I University, and the 25th anniversary of his mission.”11 It is obvious from the above stated that Bujanović was scientifically inclined to Mariological themes and that this personal inclination to Marian worship is solemnly confessed in the Preface to this monograph. Such a penchant for Marian spirituality can be understood from the fact that it was an integral and emphasized part of the priestly formation at the time, but also Catholic spirituality in general, mostly in Croatian regions where Marian spirituality had been emphasized for centuries as a fundamental part of not only Catholic but national identity as well.12 Nevertheless, we shall see that this personal inclina­ tion to Marian worship of Bujanović does not overshadow or diminish scientific sobriety in the research approach, reflection, and exposition of Mariology as a theological discipline. Besides the above-mentioned monograph on the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, Bujanović additionally presented the MariologicalMarian theme in the later and more mature years of his professorial work in several important articles published in Katolički list. They were published mainly on the occasion of Marian feasts or some specific Marian devotions, such as the May devotions. Thus, Bujanović first wrote about the theme of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, on the occasion of the Feast of the Assumption in 1913, when he presented the theological content and pastoral meaning of this content of faith in as many as four sequels.13 The second 11 Bujanović, Mariologija, a dedication page that comes right after the title page. 12 Cf. Željko Mardešić, Rascjep u svetome (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2007), 768. 13 Cf. Ivan Bujanović, “Blažena Djevica Marija. Dogmatičko razmatranje prigodom svetkovine Uzeća Gospinog u nebo (Velika Gospa)”, Katolički list 64, no. 33

148

M ar ija P ehar

topic is Mary’s purification, which he dealt with on the occasion of the Feast of the Candlemas.14 In the same year, 1914, it was time for the fundamental Mariological theme of Mary as a Mother of God, which he addressed in three sequels on the occasion of May devotions.15 In Katolički list, he mostly dealt with the topic of the Annunciation, which he explored on the occasion of the Feast of the Annunciation, for the first time in 1914 in two sequels16, and two years later, in 1916, in three sequels.17 Although these are articles that were written for a wider and not exclusively scientific readership, and their primary goal was to mediate only Mariological foundations, and much more their pastoral relevance, Bujanović called them dogmatic, and in them really brought significant, in places very broadly presented scientific theological content, and only then in that content did he discover useful pastoral potential. Therefore, when we discuss Bujanović’s Mariology in this paper, in addition to the aforementioned Mariological monograph, we certainly include the valuable content of these articles.

Bujanović’s Mariology in the Historical and Dogmatic Context The time in which Bujanović lived and in which he, as a theologian and a scientist created, was the time that we call the Marian century in Mariology. This was the period from 1850 to 1950, the period between the proclamation of two newer Marian dogmas, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the dogma of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, in fact, a time that was strongly marked in the entire Catholic Church by a new blooming of Marian worship.18 In theological sense, it was a significant strengthening of (1913): 385–387; 64, no. 34 (1913): 399–401; 64, no. 35 (1913): 410–413; 64, no. 36 (1913): 421–422 (hereinafter: Blažena Djevica Marija). 14 Cf. Ivan Bujanović, “Svetkovina Očišćenja Bl. Dj. Marije ili Svijetlog Marinja. Razmatranje o svečanom dogođaju”, Katolički list 65, no. 5 (1914): 53–55 (hereinafter: Svetkovina Očišćenja). 15 Cf. Ivan Bujanović, “Uzrok naše radosti. Razmatranje u čast Svibanjske Kraljice”, Katolički list 65, no. 20 (1914): 233–234; 65, no. 21 (1914): 245–247; 65, no. 22 (1914): 255–257 (hereinafter: Uzrok naše radosti). 16 Cf. Ivan Bujanović, “Zdravo Marijo milosti puna! Dogmatičko razmatranje pri­ godom svetkovine Blagovijesti”, Katolički list 65, no. 11 (1914): 125–127; 65, no. 12 (1914): 137–139 (hereinafter: Zdravo Marijo milosti puna). 17 Cf. Ivan Bujanović, “Anđeo Gospodnji navijesti Mariji i ona zače od Duha svetoga. Na Blagovijest dogmatičko razmatranje”, Katolički list 67, no. 12 (1916): 131–132; 67, no. 13 (1916): 143–145; 67, no. 14 (1916): 155–158 (hereinafter: Anđeo Gospodnji navijesti Mariji). 18 Cf. Remigius Bäumer, “Neuzeit”, in Remigius Bäumer, Leo Scheffczyk, ed., Marienlexikon vol. 4 (St. Ottilien: EOS Editions, 1992), 606–607.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

149

the so-called christotypists, those who in Mariology drew an overly strong link between Christ and Mary, placing Mary completely at the side of her Son, and copying in some way on her almost all the theological content relating to Christ. Along with Christ, the Lord, the Saviour, the mediator of salvation between God and men, Mary was increasingly perceived as a lady-madam, co-redeemer, intercessor, and advocate. Bujanović was no exception. In fact, he built his entire Mariology on this extraordinary closeness of the mother with the Son, Mary with Christ, while trying to keep the correct theological argumentation of such a believing attitude on an enviable level.

The Inseparability of Mary from Christ Bujanović is a child of his time, both in the theological-Mariological and in the venerable Marian sense. His Christian and priestly personality is deeply marked by a strong Marian veneration, which in his time was rooted in the extraordinary glorification of the person of Mary and a kind of exaggeration in statements about her exaltation. Nevertheless, although in his theology he starts from such worship, and it is his immediate cause and inner need, he knows how to distinguish between faith and science, theology, and worship. Therefore, he invests all his skill and effort to deepen the believer’s belief with his scientific sobriety and unquestionable scholarship, by giving it an appropriate theological foundation. Unlike the widespread modern veneration and glorification of Mary, according to which Mary is exalted very close to Christ himself, he as a theologian is aware at all times that the personalities of Christ and Mary by the nature of things cannot be put on the same level. This clear theological postulate will guide him in his overall work. Immediately in the Introduction to his Mariology, it is precisely by Mary’s closeness to Christ, and therefore by the exalted place near Christ that belongs to Mary, that he justifies the inclusion of Mariology in dogmatics in general. No one will be surprised or object to the fact that Mary is discussed in a dogmatic scripture, if one remembers and has in mind that She is most closely connected with Jesus Christ, God-man, the Saviour of the world. If in decisions and deeds of God’s providence the first and foremost work is: Jesus, so Mary is also with him.19

He writes similarly in his discussion of May devotions, published in Katolički list: “In the history of the sinful but redeemed human race, Emmanuel can no longer be separated from the Virgin, nor can Jesus be separated from 19 Bujanović, Mariologija, 1.

150

M ar ija P ehar

Mary.”20 Bujanović argues this exceptional connection with the teaching of the Church, the infallible teacher, and points out that it is based on Mary’s divine motherhood. The Church and the Church Fathers interpret “that Mary is most closely united with Jesus Christ; that Mary cannot and must not be separated from Jesusʼ, and the reason for this is that she is ʻthe true and natural mother of the Son of God.ʼ”21 Bujanović is really on the theologically correct path when he sees the foundation of Mariology in Christology, in the connection of Mary with Jesus Christ. His admiration for Mary, in keeping with the times in which he lives, takes on hyperbolic expressions in places, but he always keeps them within the proper framework of scientific theological knowledge. He asserts that from the unique union of Mary with Christ, that is, from the dignity of divine motherhood, from Jesus to Mary pass “names, attributes, excellences, privileges, glory, and worship”22, but he clearly sepa­ rates them from each other where the difference in the nature of Christ and Mary requires so. Jesus is our king: Mary is also our queen. Jesus is our Lord: we also call Mary our Lady. Jesus is our advocate and mediator: we also invoke Mary in our needs as our advocate and mediator. Jesus is our hope, our life, our refuge, our help, and consolation: and Mary is all this to us: our hope, our life, our sweetness—vita, dulcedo et spes nostra—refuge, consolation, our help. […] Jesus by nature could not sin: Mary by grace also could not sin. Jesus is without any kind, original or personal sin: so is Mary without any stain of sin. Jesus, the Beginner of Grace: Mary, the Mother of God’s Grace, mater divinae gratiae. Jesus, the Father of mercy, pater misericordiae: Mary is also the Mother of mercy, mater misericordiae. Jesus as well as Mary: a virgin. Jesus was also incorruptible in the grave: Mary was also saved from defilement after death. On the third day after his death, Jesus rose from the grave: Mary was also raised from the dead. Jesus ascended to Heaven with body and soul: and Mary assumed to Heaven. Jesus sits at the right hand of his heavenly Father: Mary in heavenly glory beside her divine Son.23

Following the understandings of his time, Bujanović claims that all the exaltation of Mary, all the honour and dignity that the religious understanding gives her, stem from her connection with Jesus Christ, and this connection is first and foremost the natural connection of the mother with the Son, i.e., 20 Bujanović, Uzrok naše radosti, no. 20, 233. 21 Bujanović, Mariologija, 1. Here, the term natural must not be understood in the sense that Bujanović is of the opinion that Mary would give birth to a divine nature, which he explains well in his presentation of the dogma of the Mother of God. We can understand him more in terms of emphasizing Mary’s true motherhood. 22 Ibid., 2. 23 Ibid.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

151

Mary’s divine motherhood, that is, “the dignity of her motherhood of God, from which all her excellences and privileges emanate.”24 Marian worship rests on the same connection. Since Mary, as the Mother of God, is closely and inextricably linked with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is also Her Son, with the Redeemer of the human race, the religious worship of Mary, therefore, cannot be separated from the worship of the Redeemer of the world.25

Bujanović, thus, holds that his theological task, that is, what “the logical and theological order requires”26, is to demonstrates the truth about the Mother of God in the first place of his Mariological thinking.

Mary the Mother of God—Christological Dogma as the Foundation of Mariology Although he derives all of Mary’s, sometimes exaggerated, exaltation from the dogma of the Mother of God 27, Bujanović is fully aware that this is pri­ marily a Christological dogma, that is, a question of faith in the incarnation of the Son of God, and he primarily treats it in this way. Moreover, it can be said that the mystery of the incarnation, the mysterium incarnationis, is the foundation of Bujanović’s entire Mariology. With arguments from the Holy Scriptures (Lk. 1,32–35; 1,43; Gal. 4,4; Rom. 1,2–3; 9,5) Bujanović demonstrates that Mary is the true mother of Jesus and that Jesus is already attested in the Scriptures as the true Son of God. Historically and dogmatically, he describes the dispute between the Patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius, and the early Church, which ended at the Ephesian Council in 432 with the proclamation of the solemn name of the Mother of God (ϑεοτόκος) for Mary. He then goes on to argue that Nestorius’ false teaching stems from his misunderstanding of the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God. Bujanović cites Nestorius’ teaching which says that “the mystery of the Incarnation is that the Son of God, the second person of the Most Holy Trinity, in time united with the man Jesus Christ born in Nazareth by Joseph and Mary”28, thus Nestorius thought that “the Son of God was united with Jesus as a man only in a moral way.”29 According 24 Bujanović, Blažena Djevica Marija, no. 33, 385. 25 Ibid., no. 34, 400. 26 Bujanović, Mariologija, 3. 27 Cf. Heinrich Denzinger, Peter Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, definicija i izjava o vjeri i ćudoređu (Đakovo: Verbum, 2002), no. 252. 28 Ibid., 4. 29 Ibid., 5.

152

M ar ija P ehar

to the same teaching, Mary could not give birth to God, because the divine nature is eternal, and could not be born in time, from which Nestorius concludes that Mary cannot be called the Mother of God, but most of all the Mother of Christ.30 Contrary to this erroneous teaching of Nestorius, Bujanović explains the Church teaching on the hypostatic union of God and human nature in Jesus Christ, which refutes Nestorius’ teaching. He starts from the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, from which we know that the second divine person, the Son of God, the Word, was conceived and born of Mary. Therefore, “the object of conception and birth is not nature, but always only a person”, Bujanović states, so the dignity of motherhood should be determined by the dignity of the person who is born. The person who was born, on the other hand, is only a person of God, because there is no human person in Christ. Therefore, Mary’s motherhood is only God’s, i.e., Mary is the Mother of God alone. And if she was ever called the mother of Jesus, a man, she would be called so only because Jesus was also a real man, because he had a true human nature, not because she gave birth to a human person who had never existed.31

Consequently, we can and should call Mary the Mother of God, because she truly gave birth to the true God. This does not teach that she gave birth 30 Bujanović writes again about Nestorius’ teaching and his problem with the name of the Mother of God in: Bujanović, Uzrok naše radosti, no. 20, 234. 31 Bujanović, Mariologija, 7. In a 1914 May deliberation Bujanović delivers a speech on the same subject: ʻThe human person of Jesus never existed—therefore Mary could not even have given birth to a man. Because the body and soul of man have always existed in the Son of God, Mary could only have given birth to a God’s person—God, and that is why she is the Mother of God.ʼ Bujanović, Uzrok naše radosti, no. 21, 245. Here the statement that the body and soul of man have always existed in the Son of God is slightly problematic, but it follows from the context that the term always should be understood from the moment of conception. It is much more interesting that in the same article, immediately after this theological statement on hypostatic union, Bujanović makes a broader explication and dogmatic truth, and connects its understanding in the time of scholasticism with Aristotle’s natural philosophy, which was then the scientific foundation, and then presents a modern understanding of the embryological connection of soul and body, and accordingly a modern theological interpretation of dogmatic content. Since the old embryological rule has been abandoned, Bujanović maintains that it is no longer necessary to interpret hypostatic union by miraculously finished body as it seemed in scholasticism. In line with new scientific knowledge, ʻthe stronger and better human nature of Christ is saved and confirmed, because his body is not exempt from the general natural rule of development.ʼ Ibid., 245–246. With this, Bujanović as a scientific theologian in the search for truth in the contemplation of dogmatic contents, confirms the need to be in agreement with the achievements of other sciences.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

153

to the divine nature of the second person of the Trinity. By presenting the Catholic doctrine clearly and precisely, Bujanović thinks logically and theologically correctly: For Mary to be the true Mother of God, she needs not to give birth to the nature of God, but it is enough for the nature of man to be hypostatically united at the moment of conception with the Son of God, with God. The nature of man at the time of conception had existed in the person of God, for thereby the object of conception and birth i.e., that which was conceived and born is: the Son of God, the true God. For the body, which Mary bore at the time of its conception, in the womb of Mary, was united with the divine nature of the Son of God, that is why that human body at the time of conception became the body of the Son of God, the body of the true God. If therefore, Mary gave birth to the body of the true God, then she truly is the Mother of God.32

The same is repeated, in slightly different words, by Bujanović in his mature theological years, in several of his Mariological articles in Katolički list. Thus, in his reflection on the feast of the Assumption, writing about Mary’s divine motherhood, he reiterates the dogmatic Doctrine of the Incarnation emphasizing that “the Son of God became man by taking from Mary the nature of man, and by giving to it (human nature, AN) God’s personality, which never for a moment had its natural personalities.”33 In a discussion on the occasion of May devotions, he returns to the connection between Mary’s divine motherhood and hypostatic union, emphasizing that the conception of Jesus in Mary’s arms must not be separated from the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God. The human nature of Jesus was not first conceived and then united with the Son of God, but both conception and unification took place at the same time.34

Bujanović speaks more precisely here of three events that took place “and were prepared at the same time: the conception of the human body in the womb of the Virgin, the creation of the human soul, which flowed into the body, and the union of the Son of God with him.”35 With a good understanding of the inner connection of theological truths, Bujanović concludes that the statement about the Mother of God (ϑεοτόκος) is actually an expression that conveys the Catholic Doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God, i.e., “the shortest belief in the mystery of the incarnation in general.”36 Therefore, as a sign of correct Catholic 32 Bujanović, Mariologija, 8. 33 Bujanović, Blažena Djevica Marija, no. 33, 385. 34 Bujanović, Uzrok naše radosti, no. 21, 245. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid., no. 20, 233.

154

M ar ija P ehar

Christology, by dogmatic importance, it is equal to the expression of identity (ὁμούσιος) which expresses the doctrine of the same divine essence of the Son and the Father. Obviously, Bujanović is aware that true, logically consistent, and theologically balanced Mariology can only be built on the foundations of Christology. Subsequently, his exposition and argumentation of Mary’s divine motherhood are fundamentally reduced to the explanation and correct argumentation of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ. He emphasizes that Mary has conceived in the womb the body of man, which at the time of conception was united into one whole (substantialiter) with the soul, and both, the soul and the body, at the same time united into one whole with the Son of God, the true God, and therefore what was born of Mary, namely, that whole, one hypostasis, one person, was: the Son of God, the true God.37

Finally, at the end of the exposition of Mary’s motherhood in his monograph, Bujanović offers (although only as a very short note) a significant trinitarian explication of this mystery. In it, from the perspective of theology today, Bujanović’s discourse on Mary’s relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit may seem problematic, which, due to the incarnation of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, would be like a natural kinship according to Bujanović. In the theological sense, this is a very short and theologically limited speculation, but in the context of that time, it is still valuable because of the very fact of opening the relationship between Mariology and Trinitarian theology, relatively positioning Mariology within the broader framework of Dogmatics. Bujanović points out that God the Father and Mary are connected by one and the same Son, whom each of them has by a different nature. And this same Son connects Mary with the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit has always been “coming out of God” in him, and the same Son was conceived in time “in the womb of Mary by human nature by the special purposeful influence of the Holy Spirit.”38 In this context, and because of this connection of Mary with the person of the Holy Spirit, Bujanović also mentions the practice of addressing Mary as the fiancée of the Holy Spirit, but here he is theologically considerate and restrained while referring to Peter Damiani’s sermon, he warns that the name should not be understood “in the ordinary rather than in the more excellent purposeful meaning.”39 The connection between the mystery of the incarnation and the mystery of God’s Trinity, and then of course Mary’s connection with the 37 Bujanović, Mariologija, 8. 38 Ibid.,12. 39 Ibid.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

155

Most Holy Trinity, is explained by Bujanović much more widely 17 years later in Katolički list, in the previously mentioned Mariological discussion on the Feast of the Annunciation. Intending to shed light on the role of the Holy Spirit in the Incarnation of the Son of God, he briefly outlines here, surprisingly for a Mariological article, but theologically very useful, essential elements of Trinitarian theology: God’s external action (opera ad extra) common to all three divine persons, common divine nature, trinity relations, hypostatic properties, markers, attributions. He clearly indicates and interprets: “The conception of Jesus Christ is a common work of all three persons, but it is still appropriated to that person of God who has a significant hypostatic quality: love.”40 He cared about emphasizing theologically precisely and groundedly that Jesus did not “receive his life from the Holy Spirit through conception and birth”41, but that he received his human nature from Him through the act of creation. Therefore, Bujanović highlights that Mary is “the true Mother of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is not his father. Christ, by his human conception and birth, has no father, but by his eternal origin, he has God the Father in Heavens.”42 Clearly, the dogma of the Mother of God is a fundamental starting point for all Mariology for Bujanović. From this dogma, that is, from its Christological foundation, he proceeds to derive all other Mariological truths, in fact, the whole discourse on Mary. There is first of all Mary’s virginity, her immaculate conception, and her assumption into Heaven, and then the specific discourse on Mary’s intercession.

Mary, the Virgin Mother The title, taken from Bujanović’s Mariology, indicates that the theme of Mary’s virginity is most closely connected with the theme of her divine motherhood. For Bujanović, the Incarnation and the Virgin Conception are two inseparable mysteries, that is, the mystery of Mary’s virginity is based upon the mystery of the Incarnation. “Mary gave birth to a godly man by the purposeful influence of the Holy Spirit, and for this reason, although she truly gave birth to a son, she remained a true, pure virgin.”43 Theologically pre­ cisely and clearly, Bujanović expounds the doctrine and faith of the Church, according to which Mary was a virgin before conception (conceived a son a virgin), in childbirth (gave birth a virgin), and after the birth of her son 40 Bujanović, Anđeo Gospodnji navijesti Mariji, no. 13, 144. 41 Ibid., no. 14, 155. 42 Ibid. 43 Bujanović, Mariologija, 12.

156

M ar ija P ehar

(always remained a virgin), or in one word: perpetual Virgin, semper Virgo, ἀειπαρϑένος. Virginity before conception and virginity in childbirth are in explicit connection with the mystery of the Incarnation, while for virginity after childbirth Bujanović says that it simply goes to the glory of Mary.44 Similarly to the Incarnation, this is a mystery which by its very nature is completely inaccessible to human reason, Bujanović, with all the theological logic in his exposition, is very dignified and full of religious respect for the mystery he explains. The true godly motherhood and the perpetual Virginity of Mary are two secrets of the Christian faith, which human reason can never unravel.45 In his exposition of virginity before birth (virginitas ante partum), which is theologically the most important aspect of this dogma, along with the supernatural action of the Holy Spirit, which he argues was “completely internal, so it could be done”46, Bujanović cares deeply to preserve the real, true motherhood of Mary, i.e., to emphasize “that the very embryo in Mary’s womb developed and was carried as per natural laws”, which, according to the belief and theological opinion of the time, would mean for him that “from the pure blood of Mary in her womb the holiest body of Jesus was conceived.”47 Bujanović strongly opposes those theological opinions which, in an effort to preserve the conception of Mary from any human action, interpret it only as a spiritual reality, and thus destroy or question the true notion of the mystery of the Incarnation. He therefore emphasizes: the field of true conception must not be transferred from the lap to the heart, for the notion of true motherhood is also opposed to this, and the true notion of the mystery of the Incarnation is corrupted, which could thus dissipate in the sense of Dokets.48

Fearing to distort the notion of Mary’s real motherhood, and thus of course the real Incarnation of Jesus, Bujanović indicates that Mary is truly a Virgin because she conceived her son without a husband, but the miracle of God’s omnipotence is “only an active conception which was executed by the creation of the human nature of Christ by the Holy Spirit”, while Mary’s passive conception took place in line with the natural law “according to which conception develops in all mothers.”49 He attributes to the same miracle of the 44 Cf. Ibid., 14. 45 Cf. Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid., 15. 48 Bujanović, Svetkovina Očišćenja, no. 5, 53. 49 Bujanović, Anđeo Gospodnji navijesti Mariji, no. 14, 156.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

157

Holy Spirit the activity in the womb of Mary, where the Holy Spirit “arranged the mother’s lap in such a way that the body of Jesus could develop and grow without injuring the mother’s lap.”50 In addition, Bujanović, in keeping with the theology of his time, explains the painless pregnancy of Mary and her painless birth, as well as the inviolability of her virginity in the birth itself, by the bliss of Jesus’ body, that is, by his possession of the properties of a transformed body.51 Both of these aspects of the dogma of virginity, virginity before conception, and virginity in childbirth, are attributed by Bujanović to the miracle of the Holy Spirit, and are aligned with the neo-scholastic method, supporting his teaching with arguments from the Holy Scriptures and theological teachings of the Church Fathers.52 Bujanović, like many theological writers of his time, views Mary’s virginity as a sublime virtue, and as a great admirer of this mystery of Mary, he is sometimes not alien to certain exaggerations. They can be noticed, for example, when he writes about Mary’s decision, that is, about her solemn vow of eternal virginity. At the same time, which is unusual for his theological opus, he even reaches for legends, at least stating exactly what kind of source they are. Therefore, although he is aware that “hard proof of its truth cannot be derived”53 from a legend, in this case, he maintains that there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. Moreover, he tries to substantiate his belief in Mary’s vow of eternal virginity with arguments from the Scripture54, although bibli­ cal science certainly could not agree with the validity and justification of his arguments at the time.55 Despite this glorification of Mary’s dignity and sublimity in the vow of eternal virginity, Bujanović places the dogma of the Virgin Mary very soberly and theologically correctly in the Christological context. Mary was a Virgin because she was to become the Mother of God. From the dignity of the mystery of the divine motherhood derives the dignity of the mystery of virginity. “Here God-man, and there Mother Virgin, are necessary consequences of the secret of incarnation. From the former comes the latter.”56 The same

50 Ibid. 51 Cf. Bujanović, Mariologija, 15–16; Cf. Bujanović, Anđeo Gospodnji navijesti Mariji, no. 14, 156. 52 Cf. Bujanović, Mariologija, 14–24. 53 Bujanović, Anđeo Gospodnji navijesti Mariji, no. 14, 157. 54 Cf. Ibid., 158. 55 Cf. Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John Reumann, Maria im Neuen Testament, Eine ökumenische Untersuchung (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981), 97. 56 Bujanović, Blažena Djevica Marija, no. 33, 385.

158

M ar ija P ehar

Christological foundation and Christological purpose is also visible in the interpretation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary Right at the beginning of the exposition of this dogma, Bujanović refers to the papal constitution57 which proclaimed the dogma only 45 years before his writing (1854) and then begins with an analysis of its text. The central content is the special grace of God, by which Mary is saved “from every stain of the original sin, and by the merits of Jesus Christ the Saviour of the human race.”58 Emphasizing God’s action, Bujanović explains that Mary, by human nature, like all of Adam’s descendants, would have inherited his sin if God had not, by special grace, exempted her from that general law. He, therefore, theologically correctly puts the primary emphasis on the grace of God, directed to emphasize enough the much-needed difference in the sinlessness of Christ, and the sinlessness of Mary. Mary “was like all others redeemed from original sin at the cost of the blood of Jesus. Jesus Christ is hers, as well as all other people’s, redeemer, saviour.”59 Although this is an exceptional privilege for Mary, the price of Mary’s redemption is no less than the price of the redemption of other people, moreover, it is higher because the manner of redemption is more excellent. Specifically, due to the merits of Christ, she was not delivered like all other people but was saved from sin from the first moment of her conception. Emphasizing the excellence and exceptionality of Mary’s conception in relation to all other people, Bujanović, therefore, theologically clearly warns that such excellence must not be separated from the price of universal salvation through Christ, and furthermore the exceptionality of her conception must not be equated with exceptionality of Christ’s conception and birth. Mary, like all humans, was conceived ordinarily and regularly, through communion, which after the first sin bears the mark of sin. This also distinguishes Mary from Jesus Christ, who was the only one to enter the human race in a strange purposeful way, without a husband, with the participation of the Holy Spirit of a pure Virgin.60

57 It was the bulla Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX. Cf. Denzinger, Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, no. 2800–2804. 58 Bujanović, Mariologija, 35. 59 Ibid., 36. 60 Ibid., 37.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

159

As in other dogmatic statements, Bujanović usually starts from the arguments of the Revelation. He openly admits that direct confirmation of this teaching cannot be found in the Holy Scripture, but in his opinion in this case “evidence should not be sought in individual words or expressions, but in the content and meaning of whole sayings, in the way Mary is spoken of, or in the types who no doubt portray her.”61 Bujanović does just that by quoting sources such as Gen. 3:15, and the whole context of that place, then the Song of Songs, then Psa. 45: 5–6, and especially Lk 1:42, and Luke’s expression full of grace by which the angel addresses Mary.62 After all, for Bujanović, the theologically positive argument is the fact that “nowhere in the Holy Scripture is anything that would oppose, or refute Mary’s excellence, which is in question.”63 In addition to these biblical arguments, he cites several apostolic fathers and famous theologians who, sometimes without explicit mention of the Immaculate Conception, claimed that Mary was without sin, and placed her by Christ’s side in His work of redemption.64 An additional argument for Bujanović is the long-standing liturgical celebration of this Marian mystery, as well as the historical and dogmatic presentation of numerous interventions of the Church scholars in favour of this teaching, and the faith of the Church. He pays special attention to the medieval theological dispute over the content and meaning of this content of faith, bringing, and precisely explaining various theological arguments, and in his presentation agreeing with Duns Scotus’s argument, which was eventually taken into final dogmatic expression.65 Bujanović in particular insists on Augustine’s explanation of Mary’s sinlessness, which derives, like all Mary’s excellence, from the dignity of her divine motherhood, that is, from the sublime honour of Jesus’ divine sonhood. “The fullness of grace is closely bound and necessarily proceeds from the motherhood of God.”66 The fact, therefore, that Mary is saved from orig­ inal sin, but also from every other sin, is “her special privilege, speciale privilegium” simply because it befits “that God preserves his Mother from every original, and personal sin.”67 Thus, the whole argumentation again targets Christological or soteriological reasons. Mary received from God a special grace, and by that grace, the holiness of nature, for it was dignified that 61 Ibid., 39. 62 Ibid., 38–43. 63 Ibid., 43. 64 Ibid., 43–51. 65 Ibid., 59–68. 66 Bujanović, Zdravo Marijo milosti puna, no. 11, 126. 67 Bujanović, Mariologija, 69.

160

M ar ija P ehar

she mediates pure human nature to Christ for his work of redemption. We were redeemed by death on the cross, by the true God and the true man, and “it was the nature of man, in which Christ suffered on the cross and redeemed us, that Mary gave to Christ clean from every stain.”68 Finally, Bujanović also briefly presents this Christological-soteriological argument of the Immaculate Conception as that which is worthy of the Mother of God at in the Trinitarian-theological manner: (…) it is by no means fitting for Mary to have a body defiled by sin: it is not fitting for God the Father, who ordained that his Son should take the body from the body of Mary; nor does it befit God the Son, who sacrificed the body taken from the Virgin on the cross for sins; nor does it befit God the Holy Spirit, who made the body of God-man from the blood of Mary.69

With the privilege of exemption from original sin, Bujanović explains in great detail how Mary was exempt and free from every sinful lust, and from every, even the smallest personal sin during her life. He rationally concludes that because of this absolution from sin she could not avoid the consequences of original sin, such as pain, death, and other sufferings, from which Christ himself was not spared. He, as “the Son of God, God-man, voluntarily took upon himself all these consequences of sin, so it was right that his mother should not be exempt from these consequences.”70 Because she is completely pure from all sin, and because she has consecrated grace in her soul, because she “received from God all the abundance of grace (plenitudo summae abundantiae)”71, Mary is completely holy, that is, her holiness surpasses all God’s creatures, angels, and people. This holiness, which emanates from the Grace of sinlessness, like that grace is appropriate to her dignity of divine motherhood. Yet, as much as she is greater than holiness, and the most excellent creatures of God, so much is her holiness and the grace from which it arises lower than the holiness and dignity of Christ. As Mary is immeasurably inferior in dignity to the dignity of God-man, and far, (relatively) immeasurably transcends angels and men, so her grace lags behind in the holiness of Christ but is (relatively) immeasurably greater than the holiness of all creatures.72

68 Ibid., 70. 69 Ibid., 71. 70 Ibid., 73. 71 Bujanović, Zdravo Marijo milosti puna, no. 11, 127. 72 Ibid., 126.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

161

Thus, even at the height of his admiration for Mary, Bujanović remains theologically reasonable, and he does not neglect to state that even in so much holiness, Mary is by no means equal to Christ, God-man, and Saviour, but her holiness only points to him. “Whatever there is and whatever is in Mary, everything comes from Christ as the source of grace”, and the light of grace that shines on her “is not hers, but Christ’s.”73 He emphasizes this true Christological measure in the exposition of Mariology throughout all the years of his work, not only because of the theological principle of sapere ad sobrietatum [to think soberly] which he follows and recommends to others but also because of the dignity of Mary’s worship, for which he is convinced that exaggerations can only harm it. Reflecting precisely on the immeasurable measure of the grace bestowed on Mary, and her personal holiness, he writes: “The dignity of the Motherhood of God is so sublime that there is no need for false evidence or dubious praises.”74 In the context of all the above, it is interesting at the end of the overall dogmatic exposition to observe how Bujanović theologically expounds the religious doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, the only one not formally uttered as a dogmatic doctrine of the Church.

The Assumption of Mary into Heaven The Church belief that Mary was taken up to Heaven in body and soul was proclaimed a dogma as late as 1950, after Bujanović’s life.75 Nevertheless, for centuries this teaching has been held in the Catholic Church to be the true content of faith, and it is precisely this faith of God’s people that has been the impetus for the aforementioned formal dogmatic position. Moreover, in the time after the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, there was increasing pressure on the pope to proclaim the dogma of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven.76 Thus, Bujanović’s time can be considered a time 73 Bujanović, Mariologija, 82. 74 Bujanović, Zdravo Marijo milosti puna, no. 12, 137. 75 The dogma was announced by the apostolic constitution of Pope Pius XII Munificentissimus Deus, cf. Denzinger, Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, no. 3900–3904. 76 Among other things, Bujanović mentions that the bishops “at the last Vatican General Council” (of course, referring to the First Vatican Council, because there was no other at that time) asked that Mary’s Assumption be declared “as a religious article”, Bujanović, Mariologija, 88. Furthermore in Katolički list from 1913, he mentions the petition of “204 bishops of the Vatican Council in 1870, who implored that the Assumption of Mary be declared an article of the Catholic faith”. It is clear to him, however, that such dogmatic truth requires true hard, theological reasons, which, he is aware, have yet to be found. He uses Duns Scotus’s principle in his expositions of this

162

M ar ija P ehar

of emphasized veneration of the Assumption of Mary, and it is to be expected that such Marian veneration was accompanied at the same time by more intense attempts to characterize this mystery with appropriate theological considerations. In the work of Bujanović, however, we do not find any unexpected theological intensity or specific emphasis on contemplation or exposition of the content of this mystery, although we encounter an expectedly positive attitude towards this belief. It is clear to him, and he explicitly states that this is not yet a dogmatically formalized article of faith, but he still adds that it would be “insolent for anyone to refute this truth.”77 It is also clear to him that this is content of faith that has no direct basis in the Holy Scripture, but Bujanović, therefore, relies heavily first on the Church tradition, and then on theological authorities, whom he undoubtedly knows very well. The complete dogmatic evidence for the faith of the Church in the Assumption of Mary we have, however, in the apostolic tradition, which at least since the sixth century, by a continuous bond, has always clearly and explicitly confirmed that the glorious privilege of Mary was believed in the universal church. It is a proof that this faith has its roots in apostolic times. Because, as a rule, which was already set by Tertullian, what the universal church agrees with was not brought into the Church by innovation but came from the apostles by tradition.78

He begins the explanation of Mary’s Assumption to Heaven with a compelling reflection on her death. Interestingly, the direct speech about Mary’s death in the later text of the official proclamation of the dogma was cleverly avoided,79 but at his time it is a theologically very interesting topic. Bujanović cites different opinions about the dilemma of whether Mary really died but agrees with the general opinion that prevailed in the theology of the time

mystery: “potuit, decuit, ergo dedit. If it was appropriate, that is, almost necessary for God not to allow his Mother’s body to rot in the earth—and that is what God really did.” Bujanović, Blažena Djevica Marija, no. 35, 412. It is interesting that already in the next sequel of the same article, i.e., in the next issue of Katolički list, Bujanović says about the truth of Mary’s Assumption that “it is fixed in such hard evidence that Vatican parliamentary Fathers could in good conscience ask Holy Father, the pope, to proclaim it a dogma of the Catholic faith, and adds that there should be no doubt that the time is not far when the Church will even this shining precious stone weave into the wreath with which God crowned the Mother of his Son Jesus Christ.” Ibid., no. 36, 422. 77 Bujanović, Mariologija, 85. 78 Bujanović, Blažena Djevica Marija, no. 35, 412. 79 The text of the dogma only says that the Blessed Virgin Mary “having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory”, Denzinger, Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, no. 3903.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

163

that Mary had to die a natural death that is simply a natural consequence of the decay of the human body. Because if, Bujanović claims, death is taken, as it should be, as a necessary natural consequence of the perishable body of man, and only by the special grace of God did the first man receive the gift of immortality, it is easy to understand that Mary, although with no original sin, was subject to the natural law of death …80

Namely, in his article in Katolički list, Bujanović explains that all supernatural gifts given to Adam, including the gift of original immortality, are permanently lost for man after the sin, except for the gift of holiness that he needs for salvation, which is returned by redemption. Thus, mortality has remained the permanent determination of human nature, the determination of all men, including Mary. Although Mary was exempt from the original, and free from all other sins, and death for her could not be a punishment for sin, as it is with all other people, because of the legality of human nature, from which Jesus Christ himself was not exempt, she still had to die. Here again with Bujanović we notice the argument of appropriateness, which was often used and common in Mariology at the time. “When her Son, God-man, did not want to exempt himself from the law of death, it is not appropriate to believe that Mary was exempt from it.”81 That is, “when Mary is to be like her Son in all things, she must not be separated from her Son in the law of death.”82 Finally, Bujanović emphasizes that there is nothing shameful or humiliating in Mary’s natural death for her divine motherly dignity, precisely because it is pure natural law.83 Bujanović asserts that Mary’s natural death shows that Mary needed redemption because she had a mortal body, but also that Jesus, who was given human nature through her, was a real man.84 Again, therefore, the Christological argument in Mariology. Although she died as per the natural law of human nature, Bujanović points out that Mary, by God’s grace, is even in death far above other people. Here, too, she is accompanied by the gifted privilege that God did not allow her virgin body to be “destroyed by the natural law of death”, but God made 80 Ibid., no. 34, 401. 81 Bujanović, Mariologija, 85. 82 Bujanović, Blažena Djevica Marija, no. 34, 401. 83 When he thinks about the way Mary died, Bujanović cites the arguments of the Church Fathers and theologians, according to which Mary did not die a martyr’s death like her Son, or from some illness, or old age, because her death was not a punishment for her sins. Rather, she died “of burning and excessive seraphic love, and a living desire for heaven.” Ibid., no. 35, 411. In the same place Bujanović also discusses the time and place of Mary’s death. 84 Cf. Bujanović, Mariologija, 85.

164

M ar ija P ehar

her body “rise from the grave before the general resurrection, unite with its soul, and enter the pride of heaven.”85 In Bujanović’s view, the resurrection of her body is exactly the proof of her death, because someone who did not die cannot be resurrected. And her resurrection, as much as it makes her Christlike, is also what makes her most different from him because of her human nature. In other words, “while Jesus rose with his own strength and power, and entered into eternal bliss, Mary both rose from the dead and assumed to heaven as a creature, by the omnipotence of God.”86 Interpreting the termi­ nology used to express this mystery, with an emphasis on grammatical passive or active, Bujanović further clarifies the difference between Jesus and Mary, between his divine and her human nature. Everything about Mary, including the resurrection of her body, is the work of God’s grace. Mary is said “to have been taken or assumed, unlike Jesus, for whom it is said: he ascended into heaven.”87 This terminological difference will be retained by the later official text of the dogma.88 In agreement with the overall dignity of Mary, which is a consequence of God-given privileges, and Mary’s co-operation with God’s plan, Bujanović concludes about the manner and content of worship shown to her in the Church, and about her exceptional mediation between God and people.

Worship of Mary It has already been pointed out that in Bujanović’s time the veneration of Mary was extremely strong in Catholic countries, to the extent that it became almost a fundamental mark of confessional and, in some Catholic countries, even national identity. The basis of such worship at that time is the idea of Mary’s universal mediation between God and men (Mediatrix), which stems 85 Bujanović, Blažena Djevica Marija, no. 34, 401. 86 Ibid., no. 35, 411. 87 Ibid. When we read Bujanović’s reflections on the Assumption of Mary from our perspective, we notice that they lack a more prominent eschatological explication on Christian anthropology, which is referred to in the dogma of the proclamation of this doctrine. Specifically, the Assumption of Mary was viewed there as an anticipation of the universal resurrection of the body, which, by the grace of God, is an open possibility for every human being. Mary is usually portrayed as an open possibility to every believer, who is awaited by the same grace that has already gloriously manifested itself in Mary. Therefore, the dogma of the assumption is expressed to the joy and happiness of the whole Church, and this joy is not only due to Christ’s expressed affection for Mary, but certainly hope and consolation to the traveling Church which, by looking at the glorified Mary, has its own goal before its eyes more clearly. Cf. Denzinger, Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, no. 3903. 88 Denzinger, Hünermann, Zbirka sažetaka vjerovanja, no. 3903.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

165

from the fullness of Mary’s grace from God, i.e., from the dignity of her divine motherhood, and her participation in the Saviour’s work of the Son. Because of her intimate connection with the Son, Mary was considered a mediator of grace in the sense that she conveys the prayers of the Church directly to her Son and intercedes before him those who are praying to her. As the doctrine of Mary’s intercession became increasingly important in the theology and scholarly documents of Bujanović’s time89, it is not surprising that it greatly occupied his theological interest, that is, we can say that Bujanović considered this content to be the fundamental definition of Marian worship. In his Mariology, Bujanović immediately after the theological interpretation of the dogmatic doctrine of Mary’s divine motherhood and virginity, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the Church doctrine of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, exposes a very positive religious attitude, and equally strong theological arguments about Mary’s intercession. He rightly observes that the fundamental theological problem here is the comparison between Christ’s intercession for us before Heavenly Father, as witnessed by the Scripture, and Mary’s intercession as experienced by the Church. He aims to emphasize this difference. Therefore, he calls Jesus’ intercession The First Intercession, and Mary’s intercession The Second, which arises from, and is based on the former. For while Jesus Christ is our first mediator with God, before whom we have not and cannot have any other, Mary is our mediator after Jesus and through Jesus, from whom she received all her strength and value, thus, Jesus Christ is her mediator also …90

However, immediately in the next sentence of his reasoning he further corrects and complements, and states that “if we want to speak correctly, Jesus Christ is the only mediator of God and men, and there is no other, by whom people could be reconciled with God and be saved.” 91 On the other hand, this Christ’s only true intercession, which cannot be compared with anything, does not make superfluous the intercession of Mary, which does not diminish Christ’s intercession “but rather raises it still higher, for it certainly multiplies the glory of Christ, and exalts the immeasurable value of his intercession.”92 89 For example, the encyclical letter Jucunda semper, by Pope Leo XIII from 1894 (ASS 27, 177–184), and his other encyclical letters. The encyclical letter Ad diem illum, by Pope Pius X from 1904 (ASS 36, 449–462). Pope Benedict XV confirmed several times the same doctrine of Mary’s intercession, and also introduced Mass and a breviary in honour of Blessed Virgin Mary Mediatrix of all graces. 90 Bujanović, Mariologija, 89. 91 Ibid., 89–90. 92 Ibid., 90.

166

M ar ija P ehar

Such a clear position on Jesus’ only intercession will be expressed later in the Second Vatican Council in Chapter VIII of the dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, in the context of the correct interpretation of Mary’s intercession which must in no way be placed on the same level, but only refer to the unique intercession of Christ.93 Thus, Bujanović can rightly be considered a predecessor of the conciliar Mariological thought with an attitude such as this. Christ is the mediator, explains Bujanović, because he is the Redeemer, and Mary is the mediator because she contributed to that redemption, first through the incarnation, then through the upbringing of the Son, thus nurturing and preparing his sacrifice, and finally because by uniting with him in love, suffering, and death she participated in his redemptive work. Theology of that time-based Mary’s title of mediator on this participation in Christ’s redemptive work, moreover as the theologically more contested title of coredeemer (Coredemptrix).94 Bujanović consciously and theologically prudently does not use the title of co-redeemer, and he also does not stop at the usual arguments of Mary’s intercession. In the explanation of this title, he goes a step further than the theology of his time, and as an additional argument in favour of Mary’s intercession, he expresses the exemplary nature of her life as a pedagogical element by which this salvation becomes accessible to people, and therefore also mediates. Mary is the mediator between God and men, because she teaches people the faith, and thus leads them to salvation. “As the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God was completed in Mary, so was through Mary faith in her proclaimed.” 95 She does this by the example of her life. “Mary is a teacher of all people throughout her life. Her whole life is a pure mirror, and a model for everyone, she is a model, light, and our life.” 96 Finally, Bujanović is of the opinion that Mary is a mediator because of her deep solidarity and motherly empathy with people whom she advocates with her powerful prayer before God, and by doing so delivers them from sin and all calamities. She is “the Mother of God, so she can ask her Son everything; and our Mother wants to help us.”97 Thus, “not only during her life on earth but also after death in eternal bliss, Mary performs the service of mediation 93 Cf. The Second Vatican Council, Lumen gentium, The dogmatic constitution about Church (21-XI-1964) no. 61, 63, in Documents (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 72008) (hereinafter: LG). 94 Cf. Josef Finkenzller, “Miterlöserin (Corredemptrix)”, in Marienlexikon vol. 4, ed. Remigius Bäumer, and Leo Scheffczyk (St. Ottilien: EOS Editions, 1992), 484–486. 95 Bujanović, Mariologija, 93. 96 Ibid., 94. 97 Ibid., 96.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

167

through her powerful intercession.”98 It is obvious then, that the divine motherhood is also the foundation of this Mary’s privilege for Bujanović, and Mary uses it to fulfil God’s plan of salvation with people through Christ, for the full life of those whose mother she is by grace. To that extent, the action of the Son and the Mother is the unique work of God’s salvation of men, and a prayer to Mary, or her intercession is not in disagreement or contradiction with a prayer to Christ, the only true mediator of our salvation. Our trust in her mediation relies on it and comes from there. This does not diminish the value of the merits of Christ, nor does it offend the dignity of God, because when we turn to Mary, we pray her to support us with her intercession, and recommend us to the Son.99

Despite the exceptional connection between Mother and Son, Mary and Christ, Bujanović distinguishes well and points out in several places that precisely because of the clear distinction between Mary’s human nature and Christ’s divinity, a clear distinction should be made between worshiping Christ and worshiping Mary. Mary is the true mother of God, filled with the fullness of God’s grace, therefore exalted above all other creatures of God, angels, and men. “The Blessed Virgin Mary occupies a special place in mankind for her participation in the mystery of the incarnation, and redemption of the human race.”100 Therefore, the worship more supreme than the worship of any other saint belongs to her. “In the Church, this worship, which is expressed to Mary, the Mother of God, is called hyperdulical, cultus hyperduliae, as opposed to the worship, which is expressed to the saints, which is called dulical, cultus duliae.”101 However, cultus latriae does belong to Mary by no means, hence adoration belongs to God only. “Adoration goes to uncreated immeasurable holiness; worship goes to created holiness. We adore only God, for he alone is immeasurable holiness. We (religiously) worship angels and saints for their 98 Bujanović, Uzrok naše radosti, no. 22, 256. Citing in the same place Bernardine of Siena, according to whom ʻevery grace given to men goes in three ways: from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to usʼ, Bujanović admits that in this argument Mary’s intercession, based on the dignity of her divine motherhood, is somehow more a matter of logic taken from natural human life than a true theological conclusion. ʻEven if this doctrine cannot be cemented by hard, certain theological evidence, it is still a natural consequence, which springs from the dignity of Mary’s divine motherhood.ʼ 99 Bujanović, Mariologija, 98. 100 Bujanović, Zdravo Marijo milosti puna, no. 12, 138. 101 Bujanović, Mariologija, 99; Cf. also Bujanović, Zdravo Marijo milosti puna, no. 12, 139.

168

M ar ija P ehar

God-given holiness.”102 Along with all other creatures of God, Mary is also only a creature of God, but a creature who surpasses others in holiness and dignity. Although many solemn titles given to her (“lawyer, advocate, our life, our hope, and our sweetness”103) cannot always be theologically justified, Bujanović emphasizes that due to Mary’s exceptional holiness and dignity they can still be understood, not only in religious enthusiasm but also in art. Yet he is aware that excessive exaggerations to the true veneration of the Mother of God can do more harm than good, and thus, by their irrationality, actually distance people from the ultimate goal of both Mary’s intercession and the faithful’s prayer for her plea. It is easy to forgive the Church orators when in praising Mary’s intercession, a name and title escape their mouths, which cannot be dogmatically justified. But let them also follow the rules: sapere ad sobrietatem. The Mother of God does not need false praise.104

Although Bujanović is much more restrained here in his critique of exaggeration in expressing Mary’s praise, than the Second Vatican Council will be, with its Mariology, we can also recognize here the theological prudence that the conciliar Mariology will exude.105

Conclusion Overall, Bujanović’s time did not have the significant power of systematic theological reflection on Mariology. The words that mark this time can be summarized in the famous slogan De Maria numquam satis [never enough about Mary], but this emphasis on quantity often went to the detriment of scientific and theological quality, so that Mariological themes were (such as divine motherhood, virginity, Immaculate Conception, Mary’s intercession, spiritual motherhood, co-redemption) unfortunately reflected more through spirituality and piety than they were touched at this time by more serious philosophical, exegetical, or dogmatic cognitions and reflections.106 In that sense, we can say that Bujanović, theologically speaking, is still ahead of his time. The greatest contribution of his Mariology can be considered in terms of the arguments from the work of patristic theology, Church scholars (the 102 Bujanović, Blažena Djevica Marija, no. 33, 386. 103 Ibid., 387. 104 Bujanović, Uzrok naše radosti, no. 22, 256. 105 Cf. LG, no. 67. 106 Cf. Wolfgang Beinert, Heute von Maria reden?, Kleine Einführung in die Mariologie (Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1973), 49–51.

Scientific and Theological Contribution in Context

169

pope and Council), and the theology of Christian classics. Bujanović knows all these sources extremely well and uses them abundantly so that the presentation of the historical and dogmatic development of Mariology represents a significant, if not the most significant part of his explanations. He uses works by contemporary authors in his argument to a lesser extent, but he shows that he undoubtedly knows them as well. At a time when theology was still being presented in Latin at most European universities, including Croatia, and when theological works were just beginning to be created in our country in accordance with the needs of domestic university course literature, not only systematic exposition of certain dogmatic treatises was extremely important, but at least a fragmentary mediation of the content of paternal, classical, and contemporary European theology in the Croatian language. Bujanović hence shows a strong sensitivity to national identity within the university space but enables the spread and popularization of scientific theological thought beyond university circles. Apart from the historical-dogmatic part of Mariology, which is mainly based on classical theological works, Bujanović’s Mariology is theologically interesting and valuable due to its internal connection with other dogmatic treatises, to the extent that in many places by presenting Mariology he delves into a systematic exposition of Christology, soteriology, Trinitarian theology, or somewhat less theology of grace and eschatology. His excellent knowledge of all dogmatic treatises and their interconnectedness, permeability, and conditioning is revealed here. Thus, Bujanović’s Mariological thought, both due to the already outlined nature of Mariology as a connecting dogmatic treatise, and because of Bujanović’s specific approach to this discipline, can really be seen as a reflection of his complete theological opus, which is exceptionally valuable. In Bujanović’s case, it is in a true sense dogmatics in miniature, at least if we consider its Christological and soteriological, i.e., trinitarian foundations. Of course, from the perspective of the post-conciliar understanding today and positioning of Mariology in the context of the whole dogmatics, this theology lacks a more pronounced ecclesial and anthropological aspect, for which it was still too early in Bujanović’s time, because this will be more significantly affirmed only after the Second Vatican Council, but these aspects can also be hinted at in some places. Through Mariological thought, which both temporally and substantively marks his overall scientific and professorial work, Bujanović does not hide his religious inclination and highlighted Marian worship, but it is not an obstacle for him, but rather a stimulus to the seriousness of the theological approach. In all his Mariological texts he very carefully avoids elements of sensationalism, superficiality, excessive emotionality. Through pastoral sensitivity, he

170

M ar ija P ehar

respects and understands the worship of the faithful and encourages it to a good extent, and with conviction, but through careful analysis, he manages to distinguish and separate the level of scientific thought from the level of religious emotion. He is aware that Mariology, which would not deal with the spirituality and apostolate of the Church, would lack responsibility towards the concrete people of God who live in such spirituality, and whom theology must serve with respect. On the other hand, it is precisely as a theologian that he is aware that Marian spirituality must be a constitutive element of the whole Christian life. It is precisely the role of scientific Mariology to offer a doctrinal justification of that Marian spirituality which fits into the unique worship of Christ. Therefore, very measured in expression, he always retains serious dogmatic explanations, arguing from the Scriptures, teachings, and rational reasoning, guarding in his writing against both emotionality that would be a purpose in itself, and moral explications and lessons. Although it is more than obvious that Bujanović was then a member of a very widespread line of Christotypists in Catholic theology, that is, those who were exaggeratedly putting Mary side by side to Christ himself and applied to her (at least in a limited sense) some of Christ’s titles and privileges, he is very prudent and theologically justified as he avoids the then widespread title of Co-Redeemer (Coredemptrix) for Mary in his entire opus. He calls Mary the Mediator, moreover, he builds the entire Marian part of his Mariology on that title. Nevertheless, he also correctly and argumentatively places this title on Christological-soteriological foundations, that is, he builds it on Mary’s faith in Christ, the only Saviour, and on her co-operation with his redemptive work. He thereby displays the style of theological discourse sensitive to spiritual dimensions, i.e., intelligence imbued with affectivity, but no less serious theological knowledge, and the perseverance and consistency of scientific methodology. His religious worldview, which is indisputable, and which cannot be circumvented, never stands in opposition to the scientific method. His theology is in the true sense a faith that seeks understanding (fides querens intellectum). Within the worldview, of true Marian worship, he tries and manages to properly research, systematically argue, illuminate from various aspects, and hence correctly understand, and then rationally and logically present the topic he deals with, through questions of “why” and “how”. Consequently, in a broader scientific context, he confirms that the worldview is not an obstacle, but rather a direction of a scientific perspective in which an appropriate scientific methodology attempts to perceive and know the reality objectively, logically, and honestly.

8  Father Agostino Gemelli, Founder of the Catholic University of Milan: Faith, Science, and Education Simonetta Polenghi Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Milan, Italy [email protected] Abstract: Franciscan friar Agostino Gemelli (1878–1959) was one of the leading figures on the Catholic, political, and intellectual scene of his time. He was a physician, a renowned psychologist, and in 1921 the founder of the Catholic University in Milan. Coming from an anti-clerical family, in 1902 he graduated in medicine from Pavia, as a brilliant student of the Nobel Prize laureate Camillo Golgi. After converting to Catholicism, he directed his research and practice in physiology and neurology increasingly towards a psychological application, in this way attributing experimental value to it. He specialized in Germany. He held St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy in high esteem and opposed both the neo-idealist theories and those of positivism, as well as relativism. Gemelli strongly advocated the need to restore an ʻorganic cultureʼ, exemplified by medieval civilization, which opposed fragmented and materialistic knowledge. The culture promoted by Gemelli had its roots in the union between faith and scientific research, which are closely linked in Aquinas’ philosophy. In 1921, inspired by the University of Louvain, Gemelli succeeded in implementing his greatest project: the foundation of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, the first university founded by Catholics in Italy, of which Gemelli was appointed rector. If his opposition to communism was strong and clear, his relationship with fascism was rather ambiguous and is still a matter of debate. However, he managed to keep the Catholic University free and to educate a generation of young Catholics who contributed to rebuilding Italian democracy following the Second World War. Conservative in his attitudes towards women, he nonetheless trusted Armida Barelli, who supported women’s higher education. Keywords: Agostino Gemelli, Catholic University, Italy, faith and science, history of university, Catholic education.

172

Simonetta Polenghi

Introduction Agostino Gemelli (1878–1959), whose birth name was Edoardo, was an Italian Franciscan friar, physician, and famous psychologist. His name is closely associated with the establishment of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan. We will examine his position with respect to the cultural trends of his age, his firm orthodoxy, his refusal of modernism, relativism, and materialism, but also his faith in science and in empirical research. Retracing his biography, we will identify the roots of his spirituality and his attitude towards the modern world. We will see how he managed to link religious faith and trust in science in his founding of the first Catholic university in Italy, a university whose mission was to welcome students, including women, from every region of Italy to educate them as devoted Christians and competent professionals.

Young Gemelli: Scientific Training and Religious Conversion Agostino Gemelli, whose birth name was Edoardo, was born into an agnostic and anti-clerical family (his father was a freemason)1 on January 18, 1878 in Milan. Having completed his primary schooling, he studied at the prestigious Milanese high school, the Parini, where he met Ludovico Necchi, who was destined to become his close friend and colleague, as well as his co-founder of the Catholic University. In 1896 Gemelli enrolled at the Faculty of Medicine 1 On Gemelli’s life see: Pio Bondioli, Il P. Agostino Gemelli: profilo, con un ritratto, un autografo e un’appendice bibliografica (Milano: Società Editoriale Lombarda, 1926); Leonardo Ancona, et al., Padre Gemelli psicologo (Milano: ita e Pensiero, 1960); Eugenio Medea, “Edoardo Agostino Gemelli (1878–1959)”, Arch Psicol Neurol Psichiatr 27, no. 2 (1966): 98–105; Giorgio Rumi, “Padre Gemelli e l’Università Cattolica”, Storia contemporanea 2, no. 4 (1971): 875–903; Giorgio Cosmacini, Gemelli (Milano: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Rizzoli, 1985); Nicola Raponi, “Gemelli Agostino”, in: Dizionario biografico degli italiani vol. 53 (Roma, 2000), 26–36, see also open access: https://www.trecc​a ni.it/encic​lope​d ia/agost​ino-gemel​l i_ (Diz​iona​r io-Bio​graf​i co) (Accessed 9. 2. 2022); Maria Bocci, Agostino Gemelli, rettore e francescano: Chiesa, regime, democrazia (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2003); Maria Bocci, ed., Storia dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, vol. VI Agostino Gemelli e il suo tempo (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2010); Aldo Carera, “Gemelli Agostino”, in Dizionario Biografico dell’Educazione 1800–2000 vol. I, ed. Giorgio Chiosso, and Roberto Sani (Milano: Bibliografica, 2013), 628–629, also open access: http://dbe.editri​cebi​blio​ graf​i ca.it/dbe/ricer​che.html (Accessed 9. 2. 2022); Ilaria Montanari, Agostino Gemelli psicologo. Una ricostruzione storiografica (Milano: EDUCatt, 2017). For a complete bibliography of Gemelli, see Edoarda Preto, ed., Bibliografia di Padre Agostino Gemelli (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1981).

Father Agostino Gemelli: Faith, Science and Education

173

at the University of Pavia. Two years later, he was able to obtain a place at the prestigious Ghislieri College. Before obtaining his degree, however, he was expelled from the College for repeated insubordination—he could not tolerate the strict discipline. At the time, he had no religious faith, but was involved with the Socialist Party and took part in political demonstrations. In this environment, which was imbued with a culture of positivism, he became a student of Camillo Golgi, the 1906 Nobel Prize for Medicine laureate, who directed him towards histological and physiopathological research. His political initiative, however, was soon set aside, and in 1900 he did not even renew his membership of the Socialist Party, since he openly supported Golgi (who was a positivist and opposed to the Church, although conservative) against socialist attacks. Gemelli then focused his attention on his university studies, in 1902 defending his degree thesis on the anatomy and embryology of the pituitary gland, written under the supervision of Golgi. He was awarded the highest grade and the Polli prize, consisting of a Harnack microscope; part of his thesis was also published, and he was guaranteed the position of assistant to Golgi at his university laboratory. Gemelli’s friend Necchi, a staunch Catholic, was also a student of medicine at Pavia and introduced Edoardo to his circle of Catholic university students, with whom Gemelli held fierce debates. The following November, Gemelli started his year of military service as a private, serving as a doctor at the Military Hospital in Milan. This was the context—in contact with many seminarians and priests and with the suffering of wounded soldiers, as well as subject to the influence of his friend Necchi—that was the background to his religious conversion. In particular, he was struck by one specific episode. He was in charge of the unit treating infectious diseases. One day a semi-illiterate soldier, terminally ill with tuberculosis, covered in sores and prostrate with exhaustion from retching, asked Gemelli to kiss him as his mother would have done, before his death. Gemelli fought against his initial disgust, telling himself: “You are a coward. What would Jesus Christ, who died for mankind, do?” and so he embraced and kissed the poor dying soldier and then assisted the priest who gave him communion. Gemelli did not know the words to accompany the priest in his prayers, but he realized that “practising medicine is a priesthood, too.”2 Having recognised his vocation, in 1903 he decided to withdraw to the Franciscan monastery in Rezzato, in the province of Brescia. He chose his name in honour of St. Augustine, considering the troubled life and historical 2 Agostino Gemelli, “Perché i cattolici italiani aspirano ad avere una Facoltà di medicina”, Vita e Pensiero 41, no. 1 (1958): 11–12.

174

Simonetta Polenghi

period of the saint. Although his family was firmly against his decision, Gemelli continued with conviction, being ordained to the priesthood, and becoming a member of the Franciscan order in 1908. Canon law did not permit him to practice his medical profession, therefore he turned to psychology. In 1907 he went to Leuven, where he met Désiré Mercier who, following Pope Leo XIII’s clear instruction to follow St. Thomas’ philosophy, had set up a higher institute of philosophy, where he promoted the learning of Aquinas’ gnoseology, together with modern philosophical thoughts, biological sciences, and experimental psychology, in order to research human judgments and cognitive acts, in response to Kant’s criticism. Mercier influenced Gemelli who, in 1909, set up Rivista di Filosofia neo-scolastica [Journal of Neo-scholastic philosophy] modelling it on Revue néo-scholastique de philosophie established in Leuven. Helped by his friend Ludovico Necchi, Gemelli’s intention was to revitalize Catholic culture not so much to combat Kantism, but the ideology of positivism. It is worth stressing that already at this stage, in addition to Thomism, Franciscan philosophy, particularly that of Duns Scotus, featured prominently in Gemelli’s view and in that of his journal collaborators.3 In 1907 Gemelli met Giuseppe Toniolo (1845–1918, beatified 2012), a sociologist and professor of economics at Pisa University. Following Pope Leo XIII’s social doctrine, Toniolo was opposed to capitalism and socialism, and in favour of a society where social, cultural, and economic agents co-operate for the common good. Toniolo and Gemelli became friends and Toniolo inspired him with the idea of establishing a Catholic university.4 However, 1907 was also the year of the encyclical Pascendi. Gemelli had initially fluctuated between modernist temptations and orthodoxy. He stood firmly by the Vatican, but since he never shied away from confronting modernity, his attitude remained open towards those who were critical (in 1933, for instance, he refused to impose the anti-modernist oath on professors at the Catholic University5). By 1906, young Gemelli already clearly recognised the religious and theological conflicts of the time and identified their causes in the incapacity of religion, through want of a critical method, to answer the questions that science, philosophy, and historiography posed. The rise of various ideas about reform on the one hand, and the rejection of any possibility of renewal on the other, risked sinking the Church. His solution, that he implemented with the creation of the Catholic University in Milan, was 3 Luciano Pazzaglia, “Il carteggio Gemelli-Gentile nel contesto dei rapporti tra Università Cattolica e idealismo”, Annali di storia dell’educazione 19 (2012): 119–121. 4 Domenico Sorrentino, L’economista di Dio: Giuseppe Toniolo (Roma: AVE, 2001). 5 Bocci, Agostino Gemelli rettore e francescano, 356–361; Cosmacini, Gemelli, 85–99.

Father Agostino Gemelli: Faith, Science and Education

175

to link orthodoxy with freedom of research and scientific method, as we shall see.

Science, Internationalization and the “Medievalist” Programme After giving up his medical profession, which as previously stated was incompatible with priesthood, Gemelli directed his research and practice in physiology and neurology increasingly towards a psychological application, in this way attributing experimental value to it. With the consent of his superiors, he obtained a teaching post in histology and then decided to refine his scientific training alongside the most important scholars of the time, both in Italy and abroad. In 1910 he went again to the Catholic University Leuven to meet Mercier, who had become cardinal, and to conduct research at the laboratory of psychology. During his many trips through Europe, he spent periods of time in Munich, where he knew the neo-Thomist politician von Hertling; in Bonn, where he visited the physiology laboratory of Max Verworn and Moritz Nussbaum’s general biology laboratory; and in Frankfurt, where he attended lessons on the nervous system by Ludwig Edinger. From 1911 he dedicated himself to further study of psychology, first alongside Friedrich Kiesow at his laboratory in Turin and then with Oswald Külpe and Emil Kräpelin in Munich. In December 1913 Gemelli passed the examination for an academic teaching post (Privatdozent) in experimental psychology, which he taught at the ʻAccademia scientifico-letterariaʼ [Faculty of Arts and Sciences] in Milan, at the University of Turin, and then at the Catholic University in Milan.6 During the First World War, Gemelli was drafted as a medical captain and carried out research on the airmen and soldiers who had been psychologically traumatised by the tragedies of the conflict. In 1914 he founded the cultural journal Vita e Pensiero, with the support and contribution of his faithful friend Ludovico Necchi and Don Francesco Olgiati, with whom he had previously started Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica in 1909. In the very first edition of Vita e Pensiero, Gemelli presented his ʻmedievalistʼ cultural programme.7 It referred to the need to restore an ʻorganic cultureʼ, exemplified by medieval 6 Montanari, Agostino Gemelli psicologo, 23–26. 7 Agostino Gemelli, “Medioevalismo”, Vita e Pensiero 1 (1914): 1–24. See also: Cesare Mozzarelli, “La storia”, in Various Authors, L’Università Cattolica a 75 anni dalla fondazione. Riflessioni sul passato e prospettive per il futuro. Atti del 65° corso di aggiornamento culturale dell’Università Cattolica, Milano, 30 gennaio—1° febbraio 1997 (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1998), 203–227; Maria Bocci, “Gemelli, cultura e antropologia per un nuovo italiano”, in Identità italiana e cattolicesimo. Una prospettiva storica,

176

Simonetta Polenghi

civilization, as opposed to knowledge that was fragmented and materialistic. He opposed not only the neo-idealist theories and those of positivism, but also those of relativism. His idea was to recover the Christian philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, although reconsidering it in light of the contingencies of the period.8 The hoped-for goal did not equate to an impossible return to the Middle Ages, but with making the Catholic Church the soul of Italian society. The culture promoted by Gemelli had its roots in the union between faith and scientific research, a combination particularly dear to the Franciscan and solidly represented by his own life and his neo-Thomism. In the 1930s, he continued to reiterate: As, and it is worthwhile repeating it aloud, we are pastists, medievalists, intransigent regarding the eternal truth of religion and the perenniality of AristotelianThomist metaphysics; but we recognize, on the other hand, that in the centuries closer to us results have been reached in two fields—that of experimental science and that of history—which represent decisive and new conquests of modern thought.9

By attributing value to the progress contributed by science and history, he appreciated the contribution of modern culture, or the “concreteness of vision which ancient thought was lacking, wholly absorbed in the abstract contemplation of knowledge and of life.”10 Thus, Gemelli did not demonise modernity, but hoped for an encounter between the contemporary perspective and that of Catholicism.11 He believed that Catholicism had to face the modern world accepting the tools of modernity, and not avoid a confrontation. His programme was “Medieval in the substance, very modern in the ed. Cesare Mozzarelli (Roma: Carocci, 2003), 407–80; Maria Bocci, “Gemelli, medievalismo e modernità. Un progetto per l’Italia”, in Storia dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, vol. VI Agostino Gemelli e il suo tempo, ed. Maria Bocci (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2010), 29–66; Maria Bocci, “Francescanesimo e medievalismo: padre Agostino Gemelli”, in San Francesco d’Italia. Santità e identità nazionale, ed. Tommaso Caliò, and Roberto Rusconi (Roma: Viella, 2011), 207–55. 8 Agostino Gemelli, “Adattamento e assimilazione. Gli obbietivi [sic] del movimento neo-scolastico”, Civitas 5, no. 2 (1924): 23–25. 9 Agostino Gemelli, Idee e battaglie per la coltura Cattolica (Milano: Soc. Ed. “Vita e. Pensiero”, 1932), XII–XIII. 10 Ibid. On the Franciscan’s thought on the relationship between science and faith, cf. Bondioli, Il P. Agostino Gemelli: profilo, 37–59; Cosmacini, Gemelli, 100–107; Massimo Bucciantini, “Scienza e fede in Agostino Gemelli”, in Storia dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, vol. VI Agostino Gemelli e il suo tempo, ed. Maria Bocci, (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2010), 67–84. 11 Bocci, “Gemelli, medievalismo e modernità”, 44.

Father Agostino Gemelli: Faith, Science and Education

177

form”, that is to say, a Catholic society, unified in faith, not fragmented in its culture, but that used modern tools and methods.12 As early as 1907 he had written that “conflict does not exist between science and Faith, but between some scientists and Faith.”13 In 1920, the Franciscan, who had already obtained wide popularity within and beyond Italy, met Capuchin friar Pio di Pietrelcina, who was later canonized. The appearance of the stigmata on the friar’s body was at the time at the centre of lively discussions both in Catholic and secular circles. Gemelli spoke out strongly against Padre Pio, believing that his wounds were evident signs of self- harm caused by a psychopathic condition. His authoritative opinion contributed to the opening of an enquiry by the Holy Office into Padre Pio. This episode, which contained controversial aspects, refers back however, once again, to Gemelli’s constant commitment to confronting scientific data and his detachment from a dogmatic adherence to religious fact.14

Experimental Science and Psychology Gemelli believed that psychology should use the methods of natural sciences, particularly biology, developing research based on empirical and measurable processes. Questions of biology and psychology, which embraced “toute manifestation extérieure ou intérieure de ce qu’on appelle vie psychique” [any external or internal manifestation of what is called psychic life], coexisted in perfect harmony, just as they did in the personality of Father Gemelli.15 Viewing psychology as an experimental science that had its roots in the investigative methodologies of biology, Gemelli encouraged research that was inseparably linked to data checking, the accuracy of operations, and the objectivity of results. In this approach, psychology and biology were not merged; on the contrary there was a strong focus on the construction of psychology as an autonomous science.16 In this sense, Gemelli maintained the recogni­ tion of psychology as a subject that should not be linked to philosophy, as 12 Gemelli, “Medioevalismo”, 10. 13 Agostino Gemelli, “Per il progresso degli studi scientifici fra i cattolici italiani”, Studium. Rivista universitaria 2, no. 6 (1907): 336. 14 Cf. Sergio Luzzatto, Padre Pio. Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2010), 44–64; Francesco Castelli, Padre Pio e il Sant’Uffizio (1918– 1939) (Roma: Studium, 2011), 49–68, 128, 129, 189–94. Castelli attempts to diminish the role played by Gemelli. 15 Adolph Manoil, Le psychologie expérimentale en Italie. Ècole de Milan (Paris: F. Alcan, 1938), VI. 16 Cf. Agostino Gemelli, Nuovi orizzonti della psicologia sperimentale (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 21924).

178

Simonetta Polenghi

had been the case until then in Italy, but that should be developed in its own specificities and placed in the context of other experimental sciences. In 1921 the Franciscan founded and directed a laboratory of experimental psychology in the newly established Catholic University in Milan, describing it as “the best endowed in Italy from the point of view of scientific and bibliographical material.”17 Having become one of the main cultural centres of the national psychological movement, it clearly reflected the professional profile as well as the personality of Gemelli.18 In those years and even after the death of its instigator, the laboratory promoted advanced research in the fields of perception, personnel selection, school and vocational guidance, developmental and comparative psychology, and character and personality studies. Periodically, it hosted study meetings and discussions between the Franciscan—accompanied by scholars of international importance—and his collaborators, who in the decades that followed were to form a qualified generation of researchers and professionals that included the greatest representatives of Italian psychology.19 Over the years, the laboratory also accepted many young graduates from all over Europe, as well as from China, Japan, and the United States of America.20 The fact that the biology laboratory had been merged into the laboratory of psychology of the Catholic University should not come as a surprise. The aim was to support the students of the Faculty of Philosophy who approached the course in psychology, lacking, according to Gemelli, fundamental understanding of the structure and functioning of the nervous system and, in general, elementary knowledge of general biology. The Franciscan wondered how it was possible to offer: psychology exercises [to] students who [had] never seen a preparation for a microscope, who [had] never witnessed the most elementary experiments in physiology [. . .It was] therefore necessary to require that a student, to attend 17 Agostino Gemelli, “La Psicologia nell’Università Cattolica di Milano”, Rivista di psi­ cologia normale e patologica 28, no. 3 (1933): 286. 18 For further details on the Laboratory, see at least the book published in honour of Father Gemelli, Contributi del dipartimento di psicologia 1 (1986): 1–60; Manoil, Le psychologie expérimentale en Italie; Giorgio Zunini, Psicologia. Scuole di Psicologia moderna (Brescia: Morcelliana, 31955), 259–264; Enrico Molinari, Percorsi di ricerca in Giovanni Peri. Dal Laboratorio di Agostino Gemelli alla psicologia cognitiva e della salute (Milano: F. Angeli, 1999), 137–165. 19 Lucia Isabella Esposito, Valentina Fenaroli, and Susanna Vanetti, eds., Padre Agostino Gemelli e il Laboratorio di Psicologia. Le testimonianze dei protagonisti (Milano: V&P, 2009). 20 Cf. Agostino Gemelli, Autobiography vol. IV (Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University Press, 1952), 102–103.

Father Agostino Gemelli: Faith, Science and Education

179

the course and exercises in psychology, also attend a course of biology suitable to his culture and his needs.21

This came from the consideration that psychological factors are conditioned “par la prise en considération de toutes les corrélatives physiques ou physiologiques et aussi de l’ambiance sociale” [by taking into consideration all the physical or physiological correlates and the social atmosphere].22 Only by combining knowledge of the psyche with biological and medical knowledge could the study of psychology acquire a solidly scientific character. The Franciscan’s collaborators in the department were mainly, like their leader, doctors, or biologists. Gemelli was convinced that university medical studies simplified the academic pathway of anyone wishing to study psychology, as they enabled the development of a “biological mentality” that was useful in orienting psychological understanding.23 The inseparable reference to objective data reinforced the scientific status of the subject of psychology. This concept fostered by Gemelli had its roots in Wilhelm Wundt’s highly significant work in experimentation. With the adjective ʻexperimentalʼ, Father Gemelli aligned himself with Wundt 24 whose thinking was cir­ culated in Italy by Kiesow: with the establishment of Wundt’s laboratory in Leipzig, experimental psychology had started to demonstrate the connection between theoretical hypotheses in mathematical terms and empirical practice, indicating a psychology which, loosed from any bond with metaphysical and philosophical concepts, restored the ʻphysiology of the soulʼ through its own methods and directions. The task of the psychologist, therefore, was to “describe, classify, analyze, and observe the uniformity of coexistence and succession of the psychic phenomena and the corresponding somatic phenomena.”25

21 Agostino Gemelli, “L’insegnamento della psicologia nell’Università Cattolica del S. Cuore”, Contributi del Laboratorio di Psicologia e Biologia serie I (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1925), 15. 22 Manoil, Le psychologie expérimentale en Italie, 10. 23 Agostino Gemelli, “La professione dello psicologo nel mondo moderno”, Contributi dell’Istituto di Psicologia serie XXI (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1958), 17. 24 This is what Gemelli said referring to the years of his initial training: ʻAt that time all I knew of experimental psychology was the teaching of Wilhelm Wundt, and I had been impressed by his statement: There is no psychic fact without a corresponding organic factʼ. Gemelli, Autobiography, 98. On Wundt’s work, see: Robert W. Rieber, and David K. Robinson, eds., Wilhelm Wundt in History: The Making of a Scientific Psychology (New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers, 2001). 25 Gemelli, Nuovi orizzonti della psicologia sperimentale, 34–35.

180

Simonetta Polenghi

However, far from wanting to encourage a psychology of a positivist or biological nature, which was based on a denial of the value of introspection and tended to abuse experimentation, Gemelli proposed integrating the scientific investigation of psychic phenomena with philosophical learning about the different aspects of the human soul.26 This approach was related to the neo-Thomist philosophy that formed the fundamental theoretical framework for Gemelli’s thought, even in terms of his conception of psychology. He suggested an integration between scientific and philosophical stances. If psychology “should […] concentrate on physiology, behaviour, and a limited conception of mind”, the role of philosophy was to explore the nature of the soul.27 For Gemelli, the individual was primarily but not exclusively, biological data. Therefore, the research methodologies whose objective was to study human activities, including psychology, could not disregard its biological dimension. As a person’s interior life represented a fundamental element in their formation, it could no more be excluded from the study of that person than their physiological aspects. Consequently, the quest for a union between biological science and the consideration of the individual in its totality were implied in the activities of the laboratory, while still framing the scientific and experimental data within the wider framework of subjectivity.28 In view of this, throughout his career Gemelli used different research methods, ranging from those of clinical psychology to projective tests, from introspection to behaviour analysis, with the aim of reaching an understanding of individuals in all their dimensions.29 Due to the attention also paid to the interior life, thus not conceivable as a mere biological function, the Franciscan defined his psychological approach as ʻanthropologicalʼ.30 The laboratory at the Catholic University, which became a point of reference for psychological research in Italy and also abroad, won fame and credibility to equal Gemelli’s own reputation: he was defined as the “fully-comprehensive psychologist” for his diversified and countless studies 26 Ibid., 6. 27 Renato Foschi, Marco Innamorati, Ruggero Taradel, ʻ“A Disease of Our Time”: The Catholic Church’s Condemnation and Absolution of Psychoanalysis (1924–1975)”, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 54 (2018): 88. For a general overview of Neo-Thomistic psychology between the end of the nineteenth century and mid-twentieth century, cf. Robert Kugelmann, Psychology and Catholicism: Contested Boundaries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), esp. 66–118. 28 Nino Dazzi, “Il contributo di Gemelli allo sviluppo della psicologia scientifica in Italia”, Contributi del dipartimento di psicologia 1 (1986): 38. 29 Cf. Ibid., 62–63. 30 Cf. Montanari, Agostino Gemelli psicologo, 62–65.

Father Agostino Gemelli: Faith, Science and Education

181

on the subject31 and “a pillar of Italian general psychology, strictly founded on experimentation.”32 However, he also played a significant role in the devel­ opment of applied psychology, as he was attentive to psychological questions at a concrete level in the various areas in which he was involved, including education33 and the education of the disabled children.34

Philosophy, Spirituality, and Action To better understand Gemelli’s Weltanschauung, his idea of the relationship between science and faith, his vision of a Catholic university, we have to consider his spirituality. As mentioned above, he followed neo-scholastic philosophy. He adhered strongly to Aquinas’ philosophy and theology, which provided strong theoretical arguments to combat neo-idealism, positivism, nihilism, materialism, and relativism and which Pope Leo XIII had indicated as the best theory to express the Christian concept of the world in his encyclical Aeterni Patris. Aquinas’ theory also enabled a resolution of the supposed contrast between faith and reason. Aristotle’s and St. Thomas’ ontology demonstrated both the rationality and finality of nature. But Gemelli, belonging to the Franciscan order, also followed the Franciscan philosophy of Duns Scotus and St. Bonaventure, and particularly liked St. Bonaventure’s theology—even if neo-Thomism gradually prevailed within Rivista di Filosofia neo-scolastica and at the Catholic University.35 In some key aspects of his way of life, Gemelli followed St. Francis: adopting simplicity and poverty; seeing Christ as the centre of society and of the universe; viewing nature as a gift from God; seeing culture and knowledge as a service to others. In 1932 Gemelli wrote an important book on Franciscanism, which was translated into various languages, in which he highlighted how Franciscan spirituality is centred around Christ but is also anthropocentric. The path towards God is described according to St. 31 Sadi Marhaba, Lineamenti della psicologia italiana 1870–1945 (Firenze: Giunti, 2 2003), 38. 32 Marcello Cesa-Bianchi, “Ricordo di un allievo”, in Storia dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, vol. VI Agostino Gemelli e il suo tempo, ed. Maria Bocci (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2010), 224–225. 33 Raponi, “Gemelli Agostino”. 34 Anna Debè, Simonetta Polenghi, “Agostino Gemelli (1878–1959) and Mental Disability: Science, Faith, and Education in the View of an Italian Scientist and Friar”, Paedagogica Historica 55, no. 3 (2019): 1–22. 35 On Gemelli’s Franciscan spirit see Nicola Raponi, “Il francescanesimo alle origini e nei primi decenni dell’Università Cattolica”, in Le radici francescane dell’Università Cattolica, ed. Ernesto Preziosi (Milano: EDUCatt, 2003), 65–96.

182

Simonetta Polenghi

Bonaventure’s three step itinerary of the mind towards God.36 A significant characteristic of spiritual Franciscanism is activity. Action is an element of the modern world, but St. Francis valued action in a religious way. Gemelli stressed how, for Francis, acting and praying came to coincide, so that praying and acting became two parts of the same elevation to God. In fact, the aim of action is the apostolate, that is to say, changing the world. The aim is God’s kingdom. A Franciscan spirit, Gemelli wrote, “does not endure the world he is living in, but he prays, acts, suffers and fights so much, that he changes and re-makes it.”37 This action of transforming society will enable the reign of Christ. To achieve this aim, in 1918 Gemelli founded the Secular Institute of Missionaries of the Kingship of Christ. The female branch followed in 1919, set up by Gemelli and Armida Barelli (beatified in 2022) who had been a member of the secular Franciscan order since 1910 and would be president of the National Girls’ Youth of Azione Cattolica (1918–48). Both institutes belonged to the Third Franciscan order. Vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience were declared by lay men and women. The missionaries worked with Gemelli in founding the Catholic University, which opened in 1921. In 1926 Gemelli and Barelli set up the Opera della regalità di Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo. It is worth noting that the Vatican did not recognize religious vows for seculars until 1947, when Pius XII granted them recognition, using precisely Gemelli’s arguments. The Missionaries for the Kingship of Christ and the secular members of Azione Cattolica had to serve ʻthe Kingʼ to fight the evils invading society. It was only seculars who could really reach those who would not otherwise ask the Church for help, in workshops and factories, in offices, and in families. The love of Christ and their neighbour would allow the miles Christi to spread Christian values in society, reforming it and realizing the reign of Christ in this world. Even if Jesus’ reign clearly does not belong in this world, being a spiritual reign, Gemelli and his group also expressed the temporal value of this reign. Freedom, love of one’s neighbour and justice should be at the basis of a Christian society, purged of materialism. Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus was closely connected with this project.38 Thus, the strong plea for a new ʻmedievalismʼ meant the realization of a society imbued 36 Agostino Gemelli, Il francescanesimo (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 19791/1932). 37 Ibid., 520–521. 38 On the Missionaries for the Kingship of Christ see: Maria Bocci, Oltre lo Stato liberale. Ipotesi su politica e società nel dibattito cattolico fra fascismo e democrazia (Roma: Bulzoni, 1999), 118–128. On the devotion to the Sacred Heart, see: Fulvio De Giorgi, “Forme spirituali, forme simboliche, forme politiche. La devozione al S.Cuore”, Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia 48 (1994): 365–459.

Father Agostino Gemelli: Faith, Science and Education

183

with Christian values. Clearly such a state could not coincide with a fascist totalitarian state, but rather was inspired by the social doctrine of Leo XIII and by the philosophy of Aquinas.39 As one can see, asceticism and pragmatism imbued Gemelli’s spirituality.

The Foundation of the Catholic University in Milan In order to understand the origin of the Catholic University, one should remember the historical context. Following the creation of the Italian state (1861) and particularly after the conquest of Rome (1870), the Italian state and the Church came into sharp conflict. The Liberal governments of the last two decades of the nineteenth century had implemented a policy of secularization. Positivism and freemasonry were dominant in the culture of the time, provoking a neo-idealist reaction in the first decades of the twentieth century. School policy was heavily influenced by this cultural and political climate. The teaching of religion disappeared from schools. Only state schools and universities were recognized by the state. Pope Pius IX refused to recognize the legitimacy of the state, enclosed himself in the Vatican, excommunicated King Victor Emmanuel II, and in 1874 forbade Catholics from taking any part in political elections (a ban that was removed only in 1919). Conservative Catholics asked for a Catholic university, refusing to send their sons to learn in an anti-Christian environment. However, besides the Liberals, there was another enemy: the socialist and materialist culture of the time. In 1892 the Socialist Party, which was firmly anti-clerical, was founded. However, in the twentieth century the opposition and tensions between the state and Catholics gradually diminished. On the one hand, both the Liberals and Catholics feared socialist (and later communist) political forces; on the other hand, during the First World War Catholics loyally took part in the conflicts and after the war the Liberal-run state descended into crisis. In 1919, Catholics set up the Italian Popular Party, led by Don Luigi Sturzo, with the permission of Pope Benedict XV. As previously stated, Gemelli’s role during the war was as a medical captain. He also wore a uniform when back in Milan, demonstrating his patriotic feelings. Realizing Toniolo’s idea, in 1921 Gemelli, with a few friends including Armida Barelli, managed to establish in Milan the Catholic University, which Barelli wanted dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Gemelli stressed that the university was not born “in angry opposition to the state” but rather to compete loyally with the

39 Bocci, Oltre lo Stato liberale, 181.

184

Simonetta Polenghi

state universities.40 Gemelli, who held the position of rector until his death in 1959, was inspired by Henry Newman and conceived the university as a place of free scientific research and of education and faith. When it opened, the Catholic University, located in the very heart of Milan, had few students, and consisted of two Faculties of Philosophy and Social Sciences. The professors belonged to Gemelli and Toniolo’s original circle of collaborators: those of Rivista di Filosofia neo-scolastica and of the social studies inspired by Leo XIII’s doctrine. Later, the university managed to incorporate the old monastery with two cloisters designed by Bramante in 1497, situated next to the church of St. Ambrose. The large statue of Christ as King, the first of its kind in Italy, was installed over the main entrance of the building. Initially, the university was private and received no recognition from the state, meaning that its degrees held no legal value. Nevertheless, in 1923 neo-idealist philosopher Giovanni Gentile, Minister of Education in Mussolini’s first government, issued decrees that changed the Italian school and university system. Eventually private universities did receive state recognition, provided they followed the state laws and curriculum and appointed professors through a state competition. In this way, Gentile, who knew Gemelli, allowed state recognition of private universities’ and schools’ degrees and titles. Both Gentile and Gemelli believed in the benefit of competition between academic institutions and indeed, since Milan came to have two private universities, the Bocconi, which contained a faculty of Economics, and the Catholic, this prompted Gentile to favour the creation of the city’s State University in 1924. Having secured validity for its university titles, Gemelli restructured and widened the courses, establishing Faculties of Arts, Jurisprudence, Social and Economic Sciences, and Pedagogy. In 1954 a Faculty of Agriculture was launched in Piacenza, and in 1958–61 a Faculty of Medicine was finally established in Rome: Gemelli thus realized his dream of a Catholic Faculty of Medicine shortly before his death. The Franciscan rector believed in free competition with state universities on a scientific basis and he wanted his university to become a model for scientific Catholic institutions. According to the by-laws, the aims of the university were to promote study and to prepare young people for scientific 40 Nicola Raponi, “Le origini e la preparazione. L’idea e il progetto di Università cattol­ ica tra Ottoento e Novecento”, in Various Authors, L’Università Cattolica a 75 anni dalla fondazione. Riflessioni sul passato e prospettive per il futuro. Atti del 65° corso di aggiornamento culturale dell’Università Cattolica, Milano, 30 gennaio—1° febbraio 1997 (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1998), 26.

Father Agostino Gemelli: Faith, Science and Education

185

research, public office, and the professions with sufficient scientific instruction and a Catholic moral education. Thus, while professors were to carry out their research in freedom and in debate with other academic colleagues, they also had to place their research and teaching at the service of humanity, in the Christian spirit. Indeed, in 1925 Gemelli stated that: “The professor has to be above all an educator, an educator of consciences, an inspirer of souls.”41 Giulio Salvadori, professor of Italian literature and an expert on St. Francis, affirmed at the opening of his course in 1923 that the aim of the professor was to “teach freedom, justice, peace, fraternal love, charity.”42 Gemelli believed that the Catholic University could make a substantial contribution to the creation of a Christian society by educating a cultural élite of young people with a strong professional formation and a deep faith. The university, which was bound to the Church by its founding institute, named after Toniolo, was financially supported in its first decades by funds freely donated by Catholics from all over Italy, due to the tireless efforts of the university’s treasurer Armida Barelli, and the national female section of Azione Cattolica which she led. Indeed, Gemelli intended his university to belong to all Italian Catholics, not only to Milanese. In 1934 he founded three colleges, a male one named Augustinianum, and one for young priests, named Ludovicianum.43 The admission criteria were family poverty, academic excellence, and faith, testified by involvement in Azione Cattolica. Barelli requested the same opportunity for young women. In spite of the doubts of those who saw no need for a women’s college, on account of lack of money and because educating a male élite was seen as a priority, Barelli succeeded in convincing Gemelli, who recognized the great help provided by the young women of Azione Cattolica. Barelli once again managed to raise the funds and in 1936 a female collage dedicated to Holy Mary, Marianum, was established. Whereas Augustinianum educated future politicians, professors, and professionals, in its first few decades Marianum mainly educated future female teachers, with 41 Relazione del Rettore Magnifico P. Agostino Gemelli O.F.M. Letta per la solenne inaugurazione degli studi il 24 gennaio 1926, in: Alberto Cova, ed., Storia dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, vol. I Le fonti. I discorsi di inizio anno da agostino Gemelli a Adriano Bausola 1921/22–1997/98 (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2007), 60. 42 Giulio Salvadori, “Il valore educativo delle discipline letterarie”, Annuario della Università cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Anno accademico 1923/24 (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1924), 32. 43 Mario Grandi, “Un’esperienza formativa d’élite. I collegi Augustininanum e Ludovicianum nel loro primo ciclo storico (1934–1971)”, in Aldo Carera, ed., Storia dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, vol. IV Per una comunità educante. La formazione e la didattica (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2010), 209–263.

186

Simonetta Polenghi

students of pedagogy and arts. In the 1960s, the number of female students in other courses gradually increased. The colleges were cultural centres, with their own cultural, religious and leisure programmes. Marianum played an important role in the emancipation of two generations of young women, who were educated in a spirit of asceticism way and with active charitable commitments, but also with a deeply embedded cultural programme, that included traveling abroad, going to the theatre, and organizing internal debates. Living in a city like Milan was in itself a great tool of emancipation. Female students aspired to becoming good mothers, who could balance intellectual work of some kind with the upbringing of their children. However, on closer scrutiny, it may be observed that Marianum’s contribution to female emancipation was far from insignificant, in that it gave hundreds of young women from provincial backgrounds the opportunity to grow intellectually, culturally, and spiritually.44

Rector Gemelli Between Fascism and Democracy Gemelli was well known for his authoritarian character (his nickname was ʻRector Terrorʼ). He was clearly anti-communist and many of his public speeches contained words of praise for Mussolini. He also produced some antisemitic statements, that, even if founded on theological rather than racial grounds— Gemelli rejected racial theories—were certainly very poorly expressed. For all these reasons, the Franciscan has been described as “naturaliter fascist.”45 On the other hand, in 1960 Catholic politician Piero Malvestiti, who had been arrested in 1934 and sentenced to prison for anti- Fascist activity, wrote that his friend Gemelli had helped him and that “none of us can even imagine Gemelli, whose old origins were socialist, as pro-Fascist.”46 Historiography has been divided on Gemelli’s commitment to fascism. Maria Bocci’s reconstruction47, solidly founded on archival sources, has 44 Simonetta Polenghi, “Il collegio femminile Marianum dalle origini alla contestazione (1936–1970)”, in Aldo Carera, ed., Storia dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, vol. IV Per una comunità educante. La formazione e la didattica (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2010), 265–338; Simonetta Polenghi, “The Protests of ‘68 in the Marianum Women’s College of the Catholic University of Milan. Emancipation and Gender Differences”, in Jahrbuch für Historische Bildungsforschung, vol. 24 Schwerpunkt: Generationenund Geschlechterverhältnisse in der Kritik: 1968 Revisited, ed. Meike Sophia Baader, and Rita Casale (Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt, 2018), 120–142. 45 Bocci, Agostino Gemelli, rettore e francescano, 41. 46 Malvestiti’s letter is quoted by Bocci, Oltre lo Stato liberale, 86. 47 Bocci, Agostino Gemelli, rettore e francescano. See also Giorgio Rumi, “Padre Gemelli e l’Università cattolica tra storia e storiografia”, L’Università Cattolica a 75 anni dalla

Father Agostino Gemelli: Faith, Science and Education

187

demonstrated that the Rector had to compromise with formal concessions and acknowledgments, in order to protect the very existence of the Catholic University, which risked closure (Article 112 of Giovanni Gentile’s decree allowed the suppression of free universities whose teachings “were not substantially informed by respect for the institutions and principles that govern the social order of the State.”48). Indeed, Gemelli was watched by the Fascist secret police. The public declaration of the desire to educate tomorrow’s ruling class alarmed the regime. Few professors enrolled in the National Federation of Fascist Professors and, with the Catholic University being private, Gemelli succeeded in maintaining some space for freedom, such as in his refusal to introduce the Roman salute and to add the Fascist year to official documents (except those destined for ministries). In fact, there were tensions with the state both before the Lateran Treaty and after 1939. In between, Gemelli made a public recognition of the Fascist state, in order to protect the university and to keep a certain internal freedom of teaching, but his programme contrasted with the idealistic and Fascist idea of a totalitarian state. Under the German puppet state, the so-called Republic of Salò (1943–45), the Catholic University did not award any degrees, thus avoiding recognizing the legitimacy of the Italian Social Republic. The university became a centre of anti-Fascist resistance. Some laureates and professors, like the politician and future rector Giuseppe Lazzati, were arrested and interned in Nazi concentration camps. Some fled to Switzerland; others, such as Giuseppe Dossetti, joined the Resistance. Indeed, Gemelli’s project proved its success when the democratic Republic of Italy was created in 1946. Men with degrees from the Catholic University had a strong presence in leading positions: there were 13 in the Constituent Assembly, and many in the new Christian Democratic Party, with ministers such as the professor of economics, Amintore Fanfani. Many others also occupied top roles in the administration, in economic institutions, in trade unions, and in schools and universities.49

fondazione. Riflessioni sul passato e prospettive per il futuro. Atti del 65° corso di aggiornamento culturale dell’Università Cattolica, Milano, 30 gennaio—1° febbraio 1997 (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1998), 49–58. 48 Nicola Raponi, “Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore”, in Storia delle univer­ sità in Italia vol III, ed. Gian Paolo Brizzi, Piero del Negro, and Andrea Romano (Messina: Sicania, 2007), 438–439. 49 Ibid., 439–440.

188

Simonetta Polenghi

Conclusion Father Gemelli is a very interesting figure, who had a strong and charismatic personality. He lived a humble and ascetic private life, in true Franciscan spirit, but had a strong character and fought with all his force to build a Christian society. He did so using the tools of modernity, above all science. He saw no conflict between faith and science and firmly anchored psychology in biology and empirical evidence. All his work was characterized by science and religion operating in harmony: the experimental method in itself was not in opposition to religion. The theology and philosophy of Aquinas and the Franciscans allowed him to have an optimistic view of nature and mankind and to consider nature as a rational product of God’s creation. Gemelli was a Franciscan friar but, at the same time, he was a rector, a psychologist, and a man of science, who never forgot his initial positivistic education with Golgi in Pavia but managed to insert both a Franciscan spirituality and a scientific approach into an Aristotelian-Thomist view. He believed in science and technology but feared the contemporary world’s lack of morality. University was born in medieval times, with the freedom to teach and to learn (Lehr—und Lernfreiheit). Modern science was born with the scholastic medieval freedom of debate before the Renaissance. Consequently, the Church needed to take control of science again, “considering it inseparable from herself.”50 His entire life was dedicated to scientific research and to the education of the younger generations. His research was characterized by internationalization: he was in contact with many European intellectuals and scientists, and prompted his best students to specialize abroad, giving them scholarships and grants, despite the economic difficulties his university faced in its first decades.51 Gemelli was one of the most prolific journal authors on psychological topics in the early twentieth century and the most prolific in the 1930s, when, because of his cultural power, he managed to protect Italian psychology from the attacks of the neo-idealistic culture.52 As both his friends and his enemies noted, it was more usual to find him in his laboratory than in the chapel.53 50 Massimo Bucciantini, “Scienza e fede in Agostino Gemelli”, in Storia dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, vol. VI Agostino Gemelli e il suo tempo, ed. Maria Bocci (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2010), 76–77. 51 Bocci, Oltre lo Stato liberale, 177. 52 Cf. Christopher D. Green, “Publish and Perish: Psychology’s Most Prolific Authors Are Not Always the Ones we Remember”, American Journal of Psychology 130, no. 1 (2017): 105–119; Marhaba, Lineamenti della psicologia italiana, 38–39. 53 Bocci, Oltre lo Stato liberale, 181.

Father Agostino Gemelli: Faith, Science and Education

189

Yet the object of his teaching was not only scientific method and the results of the latest research: ethics and Christian values and faith also had to be learnt within the walls of his university. Educating educators—that is to say, spreading morality and Christian education in society—this was also the professors’ aim. In 1926 he stated that a professor should not just teach his discipline but had to remember that a student was “a soul to prepare for life, a conscience to educate.” The Catholic University not only instructs, but it also educates.54 Perhaps the place where Gemelli’s conception of the close link between science and faith, research and education are to be seen most clearly, is in the foundation of the Faculty of Medicine in Rome: his dream since the very beginning of the Catholic University, but probably since his conversion in 1903. We remembered the episode of his kiss for the infectious, dying soldier. Gemelli recalled it, saying that he then understood that “practising medicine is a priesthood, too.” A Catholic Faculty of Medicine should educate future doctors to see “in the sick person a miserable brother to help”, not only by curing their body, but also by caring about their soul and practising medicine as a missionary. In this way, the sick will see in the physician the good Samaritan, who gives them hope and love. And with their practice of cure and care, the Christian doctor shall testify to the world the good accomplished by religion, not just by science.55

54 Relazione del Rettore Magnifico P. Agostino Gemelli O.F.M. Letta per la solenne inau­ gurazione degli studi il 24 gennaio (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1926), 58. 55 Gemelli quoted by Bocci, Oltre lo Stato liberale, 185–186, but see 184–190.

9  The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs in Transylvania on the Eve of the First World War: On The Institutional and Scholarly Impact of Augustin Bunea A lex andru Simon Romanian Academy Centre for Transylvanian Studies Cluj—Napoca, Romania [email protected] Abstract: Ever since the days of Pope Pius II (1458–1464), Transylvania was another of “God’s Playgrounds.” This peculiar “status”, that may have well predated the Union of Florence (1439), left its mark on education and on scholarship, especially after the Reformation(s) set in, ultimately leading also to the Union of Alba Iulia (1697) between the local Romanian hiearchs and Rome. Through the latter union, (part of) the Romanians of Transylvania entered union with Rome. The nationalist nineteenth century was consequently confronted with an additional dilemma: “one nation, but at least two churches.” This was true both in the case of the Hungarians and in that of the Romanians. This dilemma survived two World Wars and the Fall of Communism. In spite of various ecumenical attempts (that often meant in fact only pitting Orthodoxs and Catholics versus Protestants, Orthodoxs and Protestants versus Catholics or, in case ethnic superiority was at play, Catholics and Protestants versus Orthodoxs), the educational university system and the scholarship thus enabled mirrored these divisions. A brief overview of the career of the Greek-Catholic priest and professor Augustin Bunea (1857–1909), member of both the Romanian Academy (Academia Română) and of the Hungarian Historical Society (Magyar Történelmi Társulat), as again Bucharest as well as Budapest—ostensibly— considered the majority of the Romanian Orthodoxs in Austria-Hungary “easier” to politically deal with. Keywords: Augustin Bunea, Romanian Greek-Catholic Church, Austria-Hungary, Church Union, national movements In the loving memory of Kemal

192

A lex andru Simon

Introduction Ever since the days of Pope Pius II (1458–1464),1 Transylvania was another of “God’s Playgrounds.”2 This peculiar “status”, that may have well predated3 the Union of Florence (1439),4 left its mark on education and on scholar­ ship, especially after the Reformation(s) set in5, ultimately leading also to the Union of Alba Iulia (1697) between the local Romanian hiearchs and Rome.6 Through the latter union, (part of) the Romanians of Transylvania entered into union with Rome.7 The nationalist nineteenth century was con­ sequently confronted with an additional dilemma: “one nation, but at least two churches.” This was true both in the case of the Hungarians and in that of the Romanians.8 This dilemma survived two World Wars and the Fall of Communism.9 In spite of various ecumenical attempts (that often meant in fact only pitting Orthodox and Catholics versus Protestants, Orthodox and Protestants versus Catholics or, in case ethnic superiority was at play, Catholics and Protestants versus Orthodox),10 the educational university system and the scholarship 1 E.g., Florence A. Gragg, and Leona C. Gabel, eds., The Commentaries of Pius II [V.] Books X-XIII (Northampton, MASS: Department of History of Smith College, 1957), 738–740 (1462). 2 A classic title: Norman Davies, Gods Playground: A History of Poland vol. I–II (Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press, 1981). 3 Friedrich Kunstmann, Studien über Marino Sanudo den Aelteren: mit einem Anhange seiner ungedruckten Briefe (offprint Abhandlungen der Historischen Classe der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 3rd Class, VII, 3) (Munich: s. n., 1855), Appendix (no. II), 71–72 (1330). 4 On this subject (“officially” reopened in the second half of the 1990s): Vasile Alexandru Barbolovici, Conciliul de la Ferrara-Florenţa (1438–1439) (Cluj-Napoca: Academia Roma n ̂ a ,̆ Centrul de Studii Transilvane, 2019). 5 See most recently Levente Nagy, A román reformáció. Egy 16–17. századi magyar-román kulturális és irodalmi transzferjelenség (Budapest: Ráció Kiadó, 2020). 6 From a non-Transylvanian perspective: Radu Nedici, Formarea identității confe­ sionale greco-catolice în Transilvania veacului al XVIII-lea: Biserică și comunitate (Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București, 2013). 7 In relation to the focus of this presentation, see also Augustin Bunea, Episcopii Petru Paul Aron și Dionisiu Novacovici (Blaş [Blaj]: Tipografi a Seminariulul Archidiecesan, 1902). 8 On the stands: Liviu Maior, 1848–1849. Români şi unguri în revoluţie (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica ,̆ 1998). 9 E.g., Healing of Memories project in the 2000s, https://www.healin​gofm​emor​ies.ro/. 10 For instance: Mircea-Gheorghe Abrudan, Ortodoxie şi Luteranism în Transilvania între Revoluţia Paşoptistă şi Marea Unire. Evoluţie istorică şi relaţii confesionale (ClujNapoca: Editura Andreian, Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2015).

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

193

thus enabled mirroring these divisions.11 A brief overview of the career of the Greek-Catholic priest and professor Augustin Bunea (1857–1909),12 member of both the Romanian Academy (Academia Română)13 and of the Hungarian Historical Society (Magyar Történelmi Társulat),14 as again Bucharest as well as Budapest ostensibly considered the majority of the Romanian Orthodox in Austria-Hungary “easier” to politically deal with.15

Transylvania Between Vienna, Budapest, and Bucharest Bunea’s ecclesiastical and academic career developed at a crossroad in the history of his native Transylvania, transformed from (autonomous) principality into an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary,16 the equal part­ ner of imperial Vienna through the Ausgleich [the compromise] of 1867.17 The stately individuality of Transylvania, though well rooted in the centuries of Hungarian royal rule,18 was largely an Ottoman product, generated by the second fall of Buda in 1540.19 The realm of Saint Stephen was divided into three: Ottoman (Central) Hungary, 20 Upper Hungary under Habsburg

11 With emphasis on the case of Cluj: Daniel David, ed., Tradiție și Excelență-Școlile aca­ demice/de știință la Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai din Cluj-Napoca (1581–1872–1919–prezent) (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2019), especially 320–348. 12 See also the unpublished synthesis of Fănică Niţă, Augustin Bunea istoricul (PhD thesis, 1 decembrie 1918 University, Alba Iulia, 2010). 13 Pompiliu Teodor, Evoluţia gândirii istoriografice româneşti (Cluj: Editura Dacia, 1970), 318–320. 14 Liviu Maior, “Augustin Bunea—între confesiune şi naţiune”, Tribuna 3, no. 3 (1991): 6. 15 For a rather eloquent perspective from the Interwar period: Ion Rusu Abrudeanu, Păcatele Ardealului faţă de sufletul Vechiului Regat (Bucharest: Vicovia, 1930). 16 László Péter, Hungary’s Long Nineteenth Century: Constitutional and Democratic Traditions (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2012), 213–280, 343–354. 17 Leslie C. Tihany, “The Austro-Hungarian Compromise, 1867–1918: A Half Century of Diagnosis; Fifty Years of Post-Mortem”, Central European History 2, no. 2 (1969): 114–138. 18 See also Natalie Kálnoky, The Szekler Nation and Medieval Hungary: Politics, Law and Identity on the Frontier (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019), 19–25. 19 Ildikó Horn, A hatalom pillérei. A politikai elit az Erdélyi Fejedelemség megszilár­ dulásának korszakában (1556–1588) (Academic PhD Thesis, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 2012), 5, 56–58. 20 Teréz Obroni, “Le royaume des Szapolyai, du royaume de Hongrie orientale a la prin­ cipauté de Transylvanie (1541–1571)”, Histoire, Economie et Société Époques Moderne et Contemporaine 34, no. 3 (2015): 65–77.

194

A lex andru Simon

control (largely modern Slovakia)21 and Ottoman shielded Transylvania, with its western parts (the so-called Partium).22 Hungarian and German speaking Transylvania largely joined the Reformation.23 By coercion or by privilege, 24 the local Protestant Hungarian elite attempted, predominantly unsuccessfully25, to convert the Greek rite Romanians in order to achieve political “parliamentary” supremacy in the Principality of Transylvania.26 Following, partially, the lead of the princely Catholic Báthory family,27 the Protestant princes of Transylvania (chiefly Gabriel Bethlen 28 and George I Rákóczi)29 even tried to expand their (“royal”) authority over Wallachia and Moldavia, likewise vassals of the Porte, uniting them to Transylvania in one Dacia (i.e. the name of the Roman province north of the Lower Danube).30 The Reformation also led to unprecedented ethnic tensions,31 highly visible—from a Romanian perspective in, by definition, political or social

21 For instance: Géza Pálffy, “Crisis in the Habsburg Monarchy and Hungary, 1619– 1622: The Hungarian Estates and Gábor Bethlen”, Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 4 (2013): 733–760. 22 Felicia Roşu, Elective Monarchy in Transylvania and Poland-Lithuania, 1569–1587 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 130–140. 23 E.g., Ioan-Aurel Pop, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times: Power and Influence between Vatican and Orthodoxy (Berlin: Frank & Timme, 2021), 194–196. 24 For an overview: Ana Dumitran, Religie ortodoxă. Religie reformată. Ipostaze ale iden­ tităţii religioase a românilor din Transilvania în secolele XVI–XVII (Oradea: Ratio et Revelatio, 20152). 25 The cultural impact on the Wallachians was however non-negligible; chiefly Levente Nagy, Lehetséges küldetés? Hitek és tévhitek a román reformáció körül (Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, 2013), 26–30. 26 From a Catholic Transylvanian (Báthory) perspective, see also Alexandru Simon, “La place chrétienne de la foi des Roumains de Transylvanie en 1574”, Annuario del Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca Umanistica 5–6 (2004, no. 2005): 389–403. 27 See also Ildikó Horn, Báthory András (Budapest: Accent, 2002), 64–68. 28 Mária Pakucs, “Between Faithful Subjects and Pernicious Nations: Greek Merchants in the Principality of Transylvania in the Seventeenth Century”, Hungarian Historical Review 6, no. 1 (2017): 111–137, at 114, 116–119. 29 Endre Haraszti, The Ethnic History of Transylvania (Astor Park, Florida: Danubian Press, 1971), 81–82. 30 Ştefan Andreescu, “Moştenirea politică a lui Mihai Viteazul la mijlocul veacului XVII”, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie şi Arheologie A.D. Xenopol 23 (1986): 143–161. 31 Such ethnic tensions (a “borderline Wallachian paranoia” of the Hungarian or Polish elites included) arose in—Jagiellonian—Hungary only following the deaths of King Matthias and of his son, John Corvinus (Alexandru Simon, “Valahii şi Dieta de la Rákos (1505). Consideraţii asupra sfârşitului epocii huniade”, Apulum 43 (2006): 99–121).

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

195

conflicts,32 for instance when, with Habsburg, and also Ottoman, approval,33 Michael the Brave of Wallachia34 seized power over Transylvania (1599– 1600),35 or when the (Orthodox) peasants from the Western Carpathians (the Apuseni) rose, under Emperor Joseph II’s benevolent eyes,36 against the noble (Hungarian) authorities, shielded by (Saxon) governor Samuel von Brukenthal (1784–1785).37 In the end, the House of Habsburg sanctioned the assassination of Michael,38 as well as the execution of the leaders of the (literate) peasant uprising.39 In the growingly nationalist 1800s, this certainly did not foster Romanian loyalty towards Vienna.40 The fate of the Romanian (counter-) revolutionaries of 1848–1849 (who sided with Vienna because of the Magyar excesses of the new Hungarian power),41 greatly undermined 32 Ioan-Aurel Pop, “Ethnic and Religious Mentalities in Transylvania during the Time of Nicolaus Olahus”, Europa. Balcania-Danubiana-Carpathica 2, no. 2 (1995): 68–75. 33 For an overview: Ovidiu Cristea, Ovidiu Olar, “War and Diplomacy in the Black Sea Region during the Long War (1593–1606)”, in From Pax Mongolica to Pax Ottomanica: War, Religion and Trade in the Northwestern Black Sea Area (14th–16th Century), ed. Ovidiu Cristea, and Liviu Pilat (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 228–248. 34 See in this case also Alfred Vincent, “Byzantium after Byzantium: Two Greek Writers in Seventeenth-century Wallachia”, Byzantina Australiensia 21 (2017): 221–242. 35 Zoltán Péter Bagi, “Giorgio Basta: A Short Summary of a Career”, in “These Were Hard Times for Skanderbeg, But He Had an Ally, the Hungarian Hunyadi”: Episodes in Albanian-Hungarian Historical Contacts, ed. Krisztián Csaplár-Degovics (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Centre for the Humanities, 2019), 35–66, at 41–43. 36 Ileana Bozac, and Teodor Pavel, eds., Cãlãtoria împãratului Iosif al II-lea în Transilvania la 1773/ Die Reise Keisers Josephs II. durch Siebenbürgen im Jahre 1773 vol. I–II (Cluj-Napoca: Institutul Cultural Român, Centrul de Studii Transilvane, 2006–2011). 37 Petre Din, “Guvernatorul Transilvaniei Samuel von Brukenthal şi răscoala condusă de Horea, Cloşca şi Crişan din 1784”, Acta Musei Porolissiensis 30 (2008): 261–269. 38 Tamás Kruppa, Erdély és a Szentszék a Báthoryak korában okmánytár II. 1595–1613 (Rome, Budapest: Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem Egyháztörténeti Kutatócsoportja, 2009), nos. 61–64, 90–93. 39 Nicolae Edroiu, Răsunetul european al răscoalei lui Horea (1784 –1785) (Cluj-­ Napoca: Dacia, 1976). Chiefly over the past two decades, Horea, in particular, was viewed as a Freemason. 40 E.g., Mathias Bernath, Habsburg und die Anfänge der rumänischen Nationsbildung (Leiden: Brill, 1972). This fact best came to light after the failure of the Supplex Libellus Valachorum (1790–1792), sent by the Greek-Catholic-Romanian elite to Joseph II’s successor, Leopold II. 41 Relevant not only for the Interwar period: R.W. Seton-Watson, “IV. Transylvania since 1867”, The Slavonic Review 4 (1925–1926): 101–123; R.W. Seton-Watson, “The Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich of 1867”, The Slavonic and East European Review 19 (1939): 123–140.

196

A lex andru Simon

the ties between the Romanian elites and the Habsburg centre.42 The latter offered no real gratitude or reward to these Romanian revolutionaries.43 Habsburg induced the Church Union with Rome (since 1697),44 pre­ sented, but also perceived as liberation from Protestant pressure,45 conse­ quently lost stature, even though that union led to an unquestionable educational and cultural rise.46 What should have been a coronation of the quite unexpected and rapid Reconquista of Ottoman Hungary and Transylvania (1683–1688/1691)47 had already been turned into a lasting matter of controversy (much in the fashion of the late Union of Florence)48 between the Greek rite (Orthodox) and the Latin rite (Catholic) “hardliners.”49 The union, never in fact favourably viewed by the Hungarian political class (hence, unionist Romanians were not accepted into the “parliamentary” system of the Habsburg Principality of Transylvania),50 had been the

42 See the revised Orthodox and Greek Catholic Romanian perspectives on Avram Iancu (Orthodox pro-Habsburg leader of the Romanian ʻrebelsʼ, who died in 1872 in misery) represented by Iosif Şterca-Şuluţiu, Avram Iancu. Biografie (offprint Transilvania, 28, 5–6) (Sibiu: Tiparul Tipografiei Arhidiecezane, 1897); Silviu Dragomir, Avram Iancu (Bucharest: Pagini din istoria patriae, 19682). 43 This also, largely due to the post-revolutionary rise of Neoabsolutismus, Eva Macho, Alexander Freiherr von Bach. Stationen einer umstrittenen Karriere (Frankfurt-amMain: Lang, 2009) and to the Crimean War (1853–1856) that pushed together Wallachia and Moldavia, at the borders of Habsburg Transylvania, e.g., Paul W. Schroeder, Austria, Great Britain, and the Crimean War: The Destruction of the European Concert (Ithaca New York: Cornell University Press, 1972). 44 For instance: Greta Miron, Biserica greco-catolică din Transilvania. Cler și enoriași (1697–1780) (Cluj–Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2004). 45 E.g., Laura Stanciu, “Trnava—spaţiu formative al elitei române ardelene în secolul al XVIII-lea”, Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica 13, no. 2 (2009): 103–114. 46 Pompiliu Teodor, Sub semnul Luminilor. Samuil Micu (Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitara ̆ Clujeana ,̆ 2000). 47 See therefore also Béla Köpeczi, Magyarország a kereszténység ellensége. A Thököly-­ felkelés az európai közvéleményben (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1976). The Romanians in Maramureş, north of Transylvania, provided some rather intriguing examples of pro-Hungarian and anti-Habsburg resistance, Susana Andea, Avram Andea, Haiducul Pintea şi lumea sa. 1693–1703 (Cluj-Napoca: Supergraph, 2003). 48 Still relevant Deno J. Geanakoplos, “The Council of Florence (1438–9) and the Problem of Union between the Byzantine and Latin Churches”, Church History 24 (1955): 324–346. 49 On these matters, see also: Ovidiu Ghitta, Pânea pruncilor The Infants’Bread. A Post-Tridentine Catechism from the Beginnings of Habsburg Transylvania (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2015). 50 For the Hungarian perspective: Zoltán I. Tóth, Primul secol al naţionalismului româ­ nesc ardelean. 1697–1792 (Bucharest: Pythagora, 2001).

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

197

subject of major revision after the rebellions and the military interventions of the 1750s–1760s (in particular).51 Vienna had also been forced to con­ cede the restoration of an Orthodox Romanian bishopric, under contested Serbian, named Illyrian, patronage.52 This, “in return”, helped bridge—in the growing name of one nation53 —the divisions between Greek Catholics, loyal to Rome, and Orthodox, increasingly loyal to imperial Vienna.54 The Transylvanian Romanian relations became of paramount importance55 after the Danubian Union of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia (1859)56 successfully transformed into the pro-French Kingdom of Romania (1881),57 under German Charles I of Hohnzollern.58

A Priest, and a Historian and His Contemporaries The life of Augustin Bunea (August 4, 1857–November 30, 1909)59 was sig­ nificantly shorter than that of Romanian ecclesiastical historians from his generation, which include for Romanian Transylvanian unity reasons,60 the sig­ nificantly younger Ioan Lupaş (1880–1967),61 Silviu Dragomir (1888–1962),62

51 E.g., Daniel Dumitran, Un timp al reformelor. Biserica Greco-Catolică din Transilvania sub conducerea episcopului Ioan Bob (1782–1830) (Cluj-Napoca: Argonaut, 20072). 52 Nicolae Bocşan, “Illyrian Privileges and the Romanians from the Banat”, Banatica 25, no. 2 (2015): 243–258. 53 Sorin Mitu, National Identity of Romanians in Transylvania (Budapest, New York: Central European University Press, 2001). 54 This Orthodox-Habsburg Romanian rapprochement was also the ʻpersonal offspringʼ of the towering personality of the Aromanian (Vlach) hierarch Andrei Şaguna, who then turned (additionally and less in opposition) to the Hungarian side (see also Robert A. Kann, A History of the Habsburg Empire 1526 –1918 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 403–404). 55 Ioan Bolovan, “Unirea Principatelor şi Alexandru Ioan Cuza în conştiinţa românilor din Transilvania”, in Unirea Principatelor. Momente, fapte, protagonişti, ed. Dumitru Ivănescu (Iaşi: Junimea, 2005), 61–72. 56 For an overview: Paul E. Michelson, Romanian Politics. 1859–1871: From Prince Cuza to Prince Carol (Portland: Center for Romanian Studies, 1998). 57 Ana Maria Vele, Les relations franco-roumaines (1866 –1914) (PhD Thesis, Université de Nantes, Nantes, 2010). 58 See also Lucian Boia, Romania: Borderland of Europe (London: Reaktion Books, 2001), 90–92. 59 For a surprisingly good overview: https://en.wikipe​d ia.org/wiki/Aug ​usti​n _Bu​nea. 60 Fănică Niţă, “Augustin Bunea istoric: preliminarii”, Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica 7 (2003): 329–336, at 330. 61 Ioan Crişan, Ioan Lupaş.1880–1967. Studiu monographic (Sibiu: Armanis, 2013). 62 Sorin Şipoș, Silviu Dragomir, istoric (Oradea: Universităţii din Oradea, 2008)2.

198

A lex andru Simon

Zenovie Pâclişanu (1886–1957).63 On the other hand, Bunea did not witness the First World War (and its treaties)64 and the Second Wirld War (and its trea­ ties)65 nor enter communist prisons,66 from which Greek-Catholic Pâclişanu did not return.67 Their careers were marked by the “professionalization”68 of historical writing in the Romanian community, but were not relieved from religious bias (e.g., Orthodox Dragomir69 still firmly believed, even after his release from prison, that the famous charter issued in 1247 by King Béla IV for the Knights Hospitaller was an elaborate eighteenth century Jesuit forgery70). A native from the Land of Făgăraş, a former Orthodox stronghold,71 including also Făgăraş, the centre of the first diocese united with Rome after 1697,72 Bunea received his education in Philosophy and in Theology in Rome at Propaganda Fide (1877–1882).73 He was ordained priest in 1881, a year before the defence of his Roman PhD in Theology, and then served, under archbishops-metropolites Ioan Vancea (1868–1892)74 and Victor Mihályi 63 See for instance Laura Stanciu, “File din istoriografia română interbelică. Misionarismul politic al demnitarului Zenovie Pâclișanu”, Petru Maior şi prietenii 3 (2020): 157–178. 64 In comparison: Jonathan M. Nielson, “The Scholar as Diplomat: American Historians at the Paris Peace Conference 1919”, The International History Review 14, no. 2 (1992): 228–251. 65 See likewise in comparison Ignác Romsics, “The Paris Peace Treaty of 1947”, Hungarian Studies 17, no. 1 (2003): 57–64. 66 Şerban Papacostea, “Captive Clio: Romanian Historiography under Communist Rule”, European History Quarterly 26, no. 2 (1996): 181–208. 67 E.g., Iacob Mârza, “Istoricul Zenovie Pâclişanu”, Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica 13 (2009): 161–170, at 168–169. 68 E.g., Alexandru Zub, Istorie şi istorici în România interbelică (Iaşi: Junimea, 1989). 69 Istoria dezrobirii religioase a Românilor din Ardeal în secolul al XVIII-lea, I (Sibiu: Dacia, 1920). 70 Ioan-Aurel Pop, Sorin Şipoş, Silviu Dragomir şi dosarul Diplomei Cavalerilor Ioaniţi (Cluj-Napoca: Academia Română, Centrul de Studii Transilvane, 2009). 71 Remus Cîmpeanu, Biserica Română Unită între istorie şi istoriografie (Cluj-­ Napoca: Presa Univ. Clujeana, 2003), 66, 382–383. 72 With focus on the consequences of the new seat: Ciprian Ghişa, Episcopia Greco-­ Catolică de Făgăraş în timpul păstoririi lui Ioan Lemeni, 1832–1850 vol. I (ClujNapoca: Argonaut, 2008), 28–32. 73 E.g., Mirela Popa-Andrei, Diana Covaci, “The Romanian Greek-Catholic Ecclesiastical Elite in Transylvania: 1853–1918. Intellectual and Professional Pathways”, in Recruitment and Promotion among the Romanian Greek-Catholic Ecclesiastical Elite in Transylvania (1853–1918). A Collection of Studies, ed. Mirela Popa-Andrei, Diana Covaci, Mihaela Bedecean, Aurelia Dan, and Iosif Marin Balog (Cluj-Napoca: Mega Publishing House, 2014), 15–108, at 81–83. 74 Ion Cârja, ed., Ioan Vancea. Restituiri (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2009).

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

199

de Apşa (1892–1918),75 in the higher administration of the Greek-Catholic Archbishopric and Metropolitanate of Transylvania (id est of Făgăraş and Alba Iulia).76 After the Austrian-Hungarian Ausgleich of 1867, through which the Principality of Transylvania was dissolved into the Hungarian Kingdom,77 the “mixed” archbishopric, a rank granted by Pope Pius IX in 1853, under Bishop Alexandru Şterca-Şuluţiu,78 had come under heavy, his­ toriographic too, Orthodox fire.79 Fuelled by the decision of the Romanians from Transylvania (but not from Banat)80 to protest—almost irrespective of Christian confession—against the Ausgleich by boycotting the parliament in Budapest (until 1905),81 the fire had been laid in 1864, when Andrei Şaguna, loyal to Vienna,82 had managed to elevate the Orthodox bishopric, seated in Sibiu, to the rank of Metropolitanate of Transylvania.83 Even though he was no trained historian and was more a journalist than a scholar,84 Bunea devoted much of his energy to this inter-Romanian feud, 75 See also Cecilia Cârja, Biserică şi politică. Înfiinţarea Episcopiei de Hajdudorogh (1912) (Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2012). 76 E.g., Mirela Popa-Andrei, gen. ed., Canonici, profesori şi vicari foranei din Biserica Română Unită (1853–1918). Dicţionar (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Mega, 2013), 117–123. He was also canon custodian of the Metropolitan Chapter in Blaj. 77 James P. Niessen, Battling Bishops: Religion and Politics in Transylvania on the Eve of the Ausgleich (PhD Thesis, Indiana University) vol. I–II (Bloomington, IN, 1989). 78 Ioana-Mihaela Bonda, Mitropolia Română Unită în timpul păstoririi lui Alexandru Şterca Şuluţiu (1853–1867) (Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2008). 79 The reasons for these attacks seem to have been (at least) “internal Orthodox” due to the succession of Andrei Şaguna, disputed between Miron Românul and Nicolae Popea (the latter, since 1877, corresponding and then full, in 1899, member of the Romanian Academy), even after the former won. The latter however authored in 1870: Vechea Mitropolie ortodoxă română a Transilvaniei. Suprimarea şi restaurarea ei [The Old Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate of Transylvania. Its Suppression and Restoration] (Sibiu: Tipografia S. Filtsch, 1870). 80 For instance: Nicolae Iorga, Istoria românilor din Ardeal şi Ungaria, II. De la miş­ carea lui Horea până astăzi (Bucharest: s. n., 19151), 247. The publication date is more than telling. 81 Vlad Popovici, “Elita politică românească din Transilvania (1864–1881). O perspec­ tivă alternativă”, Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica 14 (2010): 213–227. 82 Mihai Săsăujan, “Note de jurnal ale episcopului Andrei Şaguna—Viena (15 octom­ brie 1850–2 iulie 1851)”, in In memoriam mitropolitul Andrei Şaguna. 1873–2003, ed. Nicolae Bocşan, Ioan-Vasile Leb, and Mircea Păcurariu (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Renaşterea, 2003), 97–122. 83 Mircea Păcurariu, Mitropolitul Andrei Şaguna. 200 de ani de la naştere (=Conferinţele Bibliotecii ASTRA, 9/2008) (Sibiu: Biblioteca Judeţeană ASTR A, 2008), 13, 22. 84 Already in gymnasium, Bunea, together with colleague Andrei Bârseanu, published Conversaţiuni. Jurnal literar [Conversations. Literary Journal] (1875). He then went on to publish in Transilvania and Tribuna [The Tribune] (both from Sibiu) or Gazeta

200

A lex andru Simon

yet only some two decades after his return from Rome (1900–1902–1904).85 He intertwined his polemic works with studies on the autonomy and on the status of the (Greek-Catholic) Church, his earlier object of interest.86 Bunea’s stand was shaped by the necessary Kaisertreu attitude that was revived by the Magyarization policy of the Hungarian administration of the kingdom after the 1848–1849 Revolution.87 This attitude was outlined already in the mono­ graph devoted by Bunea to bishop Inochentie Micu-Klein (1692–1768),88 who had been exiled by Empress Maria-Theresia because he had challenged the established political order of Transylvania.89 Additionally, the Habsburgs, in control furthermore since 177490 over Bukovina, a part of Moldavia, had been no strangers to the Romanians (i.e. to Transilvaniei [The Transylvanian Gazette] (Braşov). In 1890, he was among the founders of Unirea [The Union], in Blaj (Niţă, “Augustin Bunea istoric”, 330–331). 85 See Augustin Bunea, “Istorie scurtă a Bisericii Române Unită cu Roma”, Șematismul veneratului cler al Arhidiecezei Metropolitane Greco-Catolice Române de Alba-Iulia și Făgăraș pre anul Domnului 1900 de la Sfânta Unire 200 (Blaş [Blaj]: Tipografia Seminariului greco-catolicu, 1900) 3–63; Vechile episcopii româneşti a Vadului, Geoagiului, Silvașului și Bĕlgradului [The Old Romanian Bishoprics of Vad, Geoagiu, Silvaş and Bălgrad (i.e., Alba Iulia)] (Blaş [Blaj]: Tipografia Seminariului Archidiecesan, 1902); Ierarchia românilor din Ardeal și Ungaria [The Hierarchy of the Romanians from Transylvania and Hungary] (Blaş [Blaj]: Tipografia Seminariului Archidiecesan, 1904). 86 E.g., Cestiuni din dreptul și istoria Bisericii Românești Unite [Issues from the Law and the History of the Romanian Church] vol. I–II (Blaş [Blaj]: Tipografia Seminariului, 1890–1893); Episcopii Petru Paul Aron şi Dionisiu Novacovici sau Istoria românilor transilvăneni de la 1751 până la 1764: cu 250 documente române, magiare, latine, francese, italiane şi germane, publicate în întregime, ori în extras [The History of the Transylvanian Romanians from 1751 to 1764 (i.e., again a misleading title)] (Blaş [Blaj]: Tipografia Seminariului Archidiecesan, 1902); Discursuri. Autonomia bisericească. Diverse [Speeches. Church Autonomy. Miscellanea] (Blaş [Blaj]: Tipografia Seminariului Archidiecesan, 1903). 87 This ultimately led to the constitution of the non-Hungarian ʻBelvedere circleʼ around Archduke Franz-Ferdinand. One of the manifestos of this group was Aurel C. Popovici’s Die Vereinigten Staaten von Gross-Österreich: politische Studien, Leipzig, 1906, which had been preceded by his Die rumänische Frage in Siebenbürgen und Ungarn (Vienna, 1892), published more than a decade earlier (Alexandru Simon, “Statele unite ale Austriei Mari. O analiză pe marginea proiectului lui Aurel C. Popovici”, Caiete de Antropologie Istorică 3, no. 1 (2004): 223–238). 88 Din istoria românilor. Episcopul Ioan Inocenţiu Klein. 1728–1751 [From the History of the Romanians. Bishop John Innocent Klein. 1728–1751] (Blaş [Blaj]: Tipografia Seminariului Archidiecesan, 1900). 89 Francisc Pall, Inochentie Micu-Klein. Exilul la Roma, 1745–1768 vol. I–II (Cluj-­ Napoca: Centrul de Studii Transilvane, Fundaţia Culturală Română, 1997). 90 See also Keith Hitchins, The Romanians 1774–1866 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 225–226.

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

201

the Wallachians) since the (Late) Middle Ages, in Transylvania too, well before the Union of Alba Iulia.91 Bunea’s studies had to factor-in that this aspect for the Church Union had certainly been92 a corner-stone of the Habsburg expansion in the East,93 far beyond the borders of divided Transylvania.94

Modern Conflicts and Loyalties, and Their Medieval “Counterparts” The Revolution of 1848–1849 was marked in Transylvania by the Hungarian siege of Vienna95 and by the support rendered to the House of Habsburg by the Transylvanian Romanians.96 At the very end of the revolution, Friedrich Firnhaber (1818–1859), later a member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (1853),97 published a series of documents from the Haus-, Hof- und Staats-­ archiv in Vienna on the Hungarian succession crisis following the death of Matthias Corvinus (1490),98 the conqueror of Vienna (1485).99 The crisis was concluded at the Peace of Bratislava (1491), through which the Habsburgs were (re)installed as de iure co-kings of Hungary.100 Amongst the sources edited by Firnhaber was the proclamation issued, on August 11, 1490, from

91 A reference from Bunea’s days: Ignatz Aurelius Fessler, Die Geschichte der Ungarn und ihrer Landsassen, vol. III. Die Zeit der Ko ̈nige von Matthias I. bis Maximilian, 1457–1576 (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1873–1874), 5, 18–19. 92 See also Paul Shore, Jesuits and the Politics of Religious Pluralism in Eighteenth Century Transylvania: Culture, Politics, and Religion, 1693–1773 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). 93 For the impact of this expansion: Larry Wolff, The Idea of Galicia. History and Fantasy in Habsburg Political Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010). 94 Miklós Bánffy, The Transylvanian Trilogy vol. I–III (London: Everyman’s Library, 2010). After 1918, Count Bánffy Unsuccessfully Advocated a Personal Royal Union between Romania and Hungary. 95 Gunther E. Rothenberg, “Jelačić, the Croatian Military Border, and the Intervention against Hungary in 1848”, Austrian History Yearbook 1 (1965): 45–68. 96 Oliver-Jens Schmitt, România în 100 de ani: bilanţul unui veac de istorie (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2018), 56–57. 97 https://de.wik​isou​rce.org/wiki/BLK%C3%96:Firnha​ber,_Fr​iedr​ich (~ the entry in the Almanach der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 11 (1861): 127). 98 “Beiträge zur Geschichte Ungarns unter der Regierung der Könige Wladislaus II. und Ludwig II. (1490–1526)”, Archiv für Kunde Österreichischer Geschichtsquellen 2, no. 2 (1849): 375–552. 99 Susanne Wolf, Die Doppelregierung Kaiser Friedrich III. und König Maximilians (1486 –1493) (Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau Cologne, 2005), 151–152. 100 Tibor Neumann, “Békekötés Pozsonyban—országgyűlés Budán. A Jagelló–Habsburg kapcsolatok egy fejezete (1490–1492) (I–II)”, Századok 154, no. 3 (2010): 335–372; 155, no. 3 (2011): 293–347.

202

A lex andru Simon

Graz,101 by Maximilian I of Habsburg, the “King of the Romans.”102 The son of Emperor Frederick III demanded from the Transylvanian Estates that they accept Stephen III the Great of Moldavia as their governor in Maximilian’s name.103 The source was then republished by Endre Veress104 in June 1914.105 The most important document on this Transylvanian issue was however omitted by Firnhaber.106 This was the letter sent by Stephen III to Frederick III on July 25, 1490.107 The voivode re-acknowledged the emperor as his suzerain as the rightful king of Hungary and asked him to support John, Matthias illegitimate son and heir, as (co-) king of Hungary.108 Stephen called for the partition of the realms of Matthias as already agreed by the late king with the Habsburgs, chiefly with Maximilian.109 The agreement was brought back to attention by Joseph von Zahn during renewed K.u.k. turbulences (1880).110 This was seemingly common Viennese practice in relation to growingly independent Hungary as revealed also by the Habsburg sponsored Ludwig Pastor, the leading authority on the medieval Papacy.111

101 Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Vienna (HHStA), Reichshofkanzlei (R.H.K.), Maximiliana, Karton 1. 1477–1492, fasc. 6. 1490, f. 9 v 102 Manfred Hollegger, “Im Osten nichts Neues? Kernräume der Politik Maximilians I.”, in Das Wiener Fürstentreffen von 1515. Beiträge zur Geschichte der HabsburgischJagiellonischen Doppelvermählung, ed. Bogusław Dybaś, and István Tringli (Budapest: Institute of History, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2019), 125–148, 143–144. 103 Alexandru Simon, “The Dying Crusade: The Hungarian Royal Elections of 1490 as Moldavian Prequel to the Polish Crusade of 1497”, Transylvanian Review 18, suppl. 2 (2009 [2010]): 391–410. 104 Mircea Popa, Andrei Veress: un biograf maghiar, prieten al românilor (Vulcan: Realitatea Românească, 2006). 105 Acta et epistolae relationum Transylvaniae Hungariaeque cum Moldavie et Valachia (=Fontes Rerum Transylvaniacrum, IV, VI), I. 1468–1540 (Budapest: Soc. Athenaeum Typ., 1914), no. 39, 42–43. 106 Kryzstof Baczkowski, Walka o Węgry w latach 1490–1492: z dziejów rywalizacji habsbursko-jagiellońskiej w basenie środkowego Dunaju (Krakow, 1993 [1995]: Nakł. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego), 59–64. 107 HHStA, R.H.K., Fridericiana, Karton 7. 1488–1490, fasc. 8–2. 1490, f. 88r. 108 Alexandru Simon, “The Hungarian Means of the Relations between the Habsburgs and Moldavia at the End of the 15th Century”, Annuario del Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca Umanistica 8 (2006): 259–296. 109 For an overview: András Kubinyi, Matthias Rex (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008), 145–160. 110 J[oseph]. von Zahn, “Über ein Admonter Formelbuch des 15. Jahrhunderts”, Beiträge zur Kunde Steiermärkischer Geschichtsquellen 17 (1880): 33–80, 73–74. 111 Alfred A. Strand, “Ludwig von Pastor”, Neue Deutsche Biographie 20 (2001): 94.

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

203

In 1904, Ludwig von Pastor published a collection of charters and reports pertaining to the history of the popes in the 1400s.112 It included Pius II’ acknowledgment of Matthias, the Hungarian (anti-Habsburg moreover) national medieval symbol,113 as King of Hungary and Dacia (that is the “inclusive” designation used for the lands around Transylvania).114 According to the pope, Matthias himself had taken on that dual title (March 11, 1462).115 Until very recently, these sources left little or no marks in Hungarian or in (Transylvanian) Romanian historiography.116 Part of the explanation derives from the fate of the Transylvanian archives.117 Since the 1860s (the latest), records were eliminated from city and county archives, whether they were old royal (Angevine) charters (e.g. in this ecclesiastical118 case, deeds concerning the royal Hungarian Wallachian estate of Feleac entrusted to the royal city of Cluj119) or “everyday writs” (for instance, likewise in this eccle­ siastical, as well as political120 case, documents on the administration of the Transylvanian estates of the voivodes of Moldavia, granted to them by King Matthias Corvinus and confirmed by his Jagiellonian successors121).

112 Acta inedita historiam pontificium romanorum praesertim saec. XV, XVI, XVII illustrantia, I. 1376 –1464, Freiburg-in-Breisgau, 1904 2, no. 125, 150–162. Deemed one of the most comprehensive documents on Pius II’s Italian policies by Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and Levant (1204 –1571), II. The Fifteenth Century (Philadelphia: Amer Philosophical Society, 1978), 206, note 24. 113 Vilmos Fraknói, “König Matthias Corvinus und der deutsche Kaiserthron”, Ungarische Rundschau für Historische und Soziale Wissenschaften 4 (1915): 1–27. 114 Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan, Codices, Z 219 Sup., no. 9328. 115 Ioan-Aurel Pop, “Matthias Corvinus, Re de Ungaria, de Dacia etc., in 1462”, Transylvanian Review 20/suppl. 1 (2020): 41–52. 116 E.g., Ioan-Aurel Pop, Alexandru Simon, “The Hunyadis and Dacia: From the Fall of Constantinople to the Peace of Wiener-Neustadt”, Banatica 30, no. 2 (2020): 35–57. 117 Ioan Drăgan, “Contribuţii la istoria celor mai vechi arhive româneşti din Transilvania”, in Vocaţia istoriei. Prinos profesorului Şerban Papacostea, ed. Ovidiu Cristea, and Gheorghe Lazăr (Brăila: Muzeul Brăilei, Editura Istros, 2008), 481–504. 118 Ioan-Aurel Pop, Alexandru Simon, “Possessio regie maiestatis Felek vocata: oraşul “de ţară” al românilor şi iobagilor din Regatul Ungariei”, in Povestiri despre Cluj vol. V, ed. Tudor Sălăgean (Cluj-Napoca: Vechiul Cluj, 2019), 11–28. 119 András W. Kovács, “The Participation of the Medieval Transylvanian Counties in Tax Collection”, Hungarian Historical Review 7, no. 4 (2018): 671–693, at 685. 120 Ioan-Aurel Pop, Alexandru Simon, Re de Dacia: un proiect de la sfârşitul Evului Mediu (Cluj-Napoca: Scoala Ardeleana, 2018), 104–105. The situation has been unchanged since Ioan Bogdan published Documentele lui Ştefan cel Mare vol. I–II (Bucharest: Atelierele Grafice Socec & Company, Societate Anonima, 1913). 121 Marius Diaconescu, “Contribuţii la datarea donaţiei Ciceului şi Cetăţii de Baltă lui Ştefan cel Mare”, Analele Putnei 9, no. 1 (2013): 91–112.

204

A lex andru Simon

Great harm had already been inflicted upon these archives during the Revolution of 1848–1849, when Timotei Cipariu, the counter-candidate of Ioan Vancea, Bunea’s protector,122 in the election for metropolite in 1868,123 managed to salvage little to nothing from the records in the archive of the Greek-Catholic Church in Blaj.124 Intriguingly, the records, “lost and found” in part (on which Cipariu later focused),125 concerned Moldavia and its eccle­ siastical authority over Transylvania or, at least the local areas.126 The latter curiosity is increased by the Viennese survival (“hidden” or just “misplaced” between Illyrian records)127 of a substantial part (yet only from the 1600s onwards) of the lost archive of the Greek-Catholic Church of Transylvania.128 This archival signature clearly marks historiographic limits and limitations valid, unfortunately, from the 1800s to the twenty-first century.129 Quite unsurprisingly hence, numerous medieval and early modern Slavonic records preserved in Transylvania,130 in Saxon Braşov above-all,131 122 Augustin Bunea, Metropolitul Dr. Ioan Vancea de Buteasa. Schiţă biografică (Blaş [Blaj]: s.n., 1890). 123 Elie Dăianu, Timotei Cipariu (Bucharest: “Bucovina” I. E. Torout i̧ u, 1937); Ştefan Manciulea, Timotei Cipariu şi Academia Română (Blaj: Tipografia Seminarului, 1941). 124 Acte şi fragmente latine romanesci pentru istoria beserecei romane mai ales unite (Blaj: Tiparul Seminarului diecesanu, 1855), XIV. 125 [ʻDocumente despre Feleacʼ], Archivu pentru Filologia si Istoria 30 (1869): 777–783. 126 Ioan-Aurel Pop, Daniela Marcu Istrate, Tudor Sălăgean, Alexandru Simon, “De ver­ tice montis”: Feleacul, Clujul şi Transilvania în Evul Mediu (Cluj-Napoca: Academia Română, Centrul de Studii Transilvane, 2017), 84–85. 127 An ironic location in fact, of which, nevertheless, Ioan Lupaş should have been aware, Documente istorice transilvane vol. I 1599–1699 (Cluj: Tipografia “Cartea Roma n ̂ easca ” ̆ , 1940), 12–15. 128 Arcadie M. Bodale, “Câteva documente privitoare la istoria bisericească şi la etnogra­ fia românească din Transilvania şi Bucovina păstrate la arhivele din Viena (1675– 1785)”, Anuarul Muzeului Etnografic al Moldovei 12 (2012): 357–408. 129 This is valid beyond national and language barriers, as recently revealed by Ambrus Miskolczy’s A román középkor időszerű kérdései. Régi-új viták és közelítések (Budapest: Magyarságkutató Intézet, 2021). 130 E.g., for Sibiu: Silviu Dragomir, Documente nouă privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Sibiul în secolii XV şi XVI (offprint Anuarul Institutului de Istorie Naţională, 4) (Cluj: Cartea Romaneasca, 1927); Petre P. Panaitescu, Documente slavo-române din Sibiu. 1470 –1653 (Bucharest: Imprimeria Naţională, 1938). 131 Medieval Wallachian documents from Braşov had already been bought by Prince Dimitrie A. Sturdza in Wiesbaden in the 1880s (cf. his Dare de seamă despre colecţiunea de documente istorice române aflate la Wiesbaden (offprint Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice, 2nd series, 8) (Bucharest: Tipografia Carol Göbl, 1888), 3–5).

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

205

were first edited in the Bulgarian historiography in 1896132 (at the time of the Hungarian Millennium)133 and only later (1902–1905)134 by Romanian historians, foremost by Ioan Bogdan,135 brother-in-law of Nicolae Iorga from Braşov, “the rising star” of Romanian intelligentsia at the turn of the nineteenth century.136 Bogdan calendared and then lost137 a letter sent by Daniel, metropolite of Severin and Transylvania, to the authorities of Braşov.138 It was the only known late—medieval message addressed by a Romanian hierarch from within Transylvania to secular authorities in Transylvania.139 The

132 Ljubomir Miletić, “Дако-ромънитѣ и тѣхната славянска писменость. Часть II. Нови влахо-български грамоти отъ Брашовъ”, Сборникъ за Народни Умотворения 13 (1896): 3–152. 133 At that time, the major concern seemed to be Vlad III the Impaller. In rapid succes­ sion: Ioan Bogdan, Vlad Ţepeş şi naraţiunile germane şi ruseştĭ asupra lui. Studiu critic, cu cincĭ portrete (Bucharest: Socecu ,̆ 1896); Vilmos Fraknói, “Miklós modrusi püspök élete, munkája és könyvtára”, Magyar Könyvszemle 5 (1897): 1–23; Bram Stocker, Dracula (London: Archibald Constable and Company, 1897). 134 Ioan Bogdan, Documente şi regeste privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Rumîneşti cu Braşovul şi Ungaria în secolul XV şi XVI (Bucharest: Atelierul Grafic I. V. Socecu, 1902); Ioan Bogdan, Documente privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul şi cu Ţara Ungurească în secolele XV şi XVI, I. 1413–1508 (Bucharest: Institutul de Arte Grafice “Carol Gobl”, 1905); Stoica Nicolaescu, Documente slavo-române cu privire la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti şi Moldovei cu Ardealul în secolele XV şi XV (Bucharest: Litotip. L. Motza t̆ zeanu, 1905); Grigore G. Tocilescu, 534 documente istorice slavo-române din Ţara Românească şi Moldova privitoare la legăturile cu Ardealul 1346–1603 (Bucharest: Cartea Românească, 1931) [Vienna, 1905]. 135 Radu Mârza, The History of the Romanian Slavic Studies: From the Beginnings to the First World War (Cluj-Napoca: Romanian Academy, Center for Transylvanian Studies, 2008), 269–278. 136 See, in this context, Nicolae Iorga, Opinions pérnicieuses d’un mauvais patriote (Bucharest: Imprimerie de l’Inde ṕ endance Roumaine, 1900). 137 Documente şi regeste … (1902), no. 27, 308. Bogdan then omitted the document from his Documente privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti … (1905). 138 Daniel (Daniil) asked the “mayor” of Braşov, Petru Urs (i.e., Peter Bear), and the city council to fine with 3 ducats each Greek rite Christian, from under their secular authority, that lived outside the law. Tellingly, Bogdan equated Petru Urs with Peter Hirscher (1577–1578) and thus dated the letter to the late 1570s (a letter which he then never published in full). In German, urs (bear) is Bär, while Hirsch stands for deer. Bogdan had studied in Vienna, before pursuing his Slavic training in St. Petersburg and Krakow. 139 In comparison, the only other documents from the archives of Braşov calendared by Bogdan that were issued by hierarchs belonged to the metropolites of Wallachia, from the 1480s onwards (Documente şi regeste, nos. 24–26, 306–307).

206

A lex andru Simon

message became known only five years after attention had been drawn in Millennial Hungary to the issue of Greek-Catholics prior to Mohács.140 The loss in itself would have been normal141 had it not been for some details: 1. Daniel was the name of the Archbishop of Severin, recorded in the recently bulit Saint Paraskeva Church in Feleac, in 1488.142 The later lost sources had been published by Cipariu in 1869.143 2. In 1498,144 Moldavian treasurer Isaac, Stephen III’s left hand,145 made a generous symbolic dona­ tion to the Metropolitanate “in Feleac.”146 Known by 1881,147 the donation was lost prior to 1934.148 3. The Greek Catholic “Transylvanian School” (Şcoala Ardeleană in Romanian) had emphasized that the Metropolitanate

140 “Menyhert Érduhelyi, Magyarországi görög Katholikusok a Mohács vész elött”, Katolikus Szemele 11 (1897): 28–56. The study was largely ignored in Romania (but not by Bunea) for a century, until, under “special circumstances”, attention was drawn do it. 141 E.g., Petru Caraman, “Cum nu trebuie editate vechile manuscrise slavo-române (I-II)”, Revista de Istorie Socială 1 (1996): 563–591; 2–3 (1997–1998): 479–506. 142 See also Victor Popa, “Consideraţiuni critice cu privire la Mitropolia Transilvaniei în secolul al XV-lea şi al XVI-lea şi a raporturilor ei cu Moldova”, Mitropolia Banatului 8, no. 7–9 (1958): 387–436. 143 For an overview: Alexandru Simon, Feleacul (1367–1587) (Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitara ̆ Clujeana ,̆ 2004), 97–104. 144 For the context (as it was known in the 1880s), e.g., Fessler, Geschichte, 263–265. 145 Maria-Magdalena Székely, “Isac, vistiernicul lui Ştefan cel Mare”, in Vocaţia isto­ riei, ed. Ovidiu Cristea, and Gheorghe Lazăr (Muzeul Brăilei, Editura Istros, 2008), 567–604. 146 Noteworthy, under Stephen III, the Moldavian boyars were not allowed to make religious donations outside the proper lands of their master. Cf. already Maria Crăciun, “Semnificaţiile ctitoririi în Moldova. O istorie socială a religiei”, in Naţional şi universal în istoria românilor. istoria românilor. Studii oferite profesorului Şerban Papacostea cu ocazia împlinirii a 70 de ani, ed. Ovidiu Cristea, and Gheorghe Lazăr (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 1997), 137–174. 147 Analele Academiei Române. Partea administrativă şi desbaterile 2nd series/3 (1880– 1881), 41 (fascinated however with Oltenia, Bogdan Petriceicu Haşdeu, who first drew attention to the donation, thought that Isaac was a lord from Oltenia, not from Moldavia). 148 In 1905, due to the efforts of Elie Dăianu, the Greek-Catholic protopos (arch-­ priest) of Cluj, the donation was sent by the Greek-Catholic parish priest of Feleac, Gavril Pop, to Sibiu, to the national exhibition of the Transylvanian Romanians (Analele Asociaţiunii pentru Literatura Română şi Cultura Poporului Român 6, no. 11–12 (1905): 275). Afterwards, the only trace of the donation is the photo published by Nicolae Iorga in the 1930s (in his Les arts mineurs en Roumanie vol. I (Bucharest: Edition De L’Imprimerie De L’Etat, 1934), fig. 27).

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

207

of Severin149 was the canonical basis, by transfer150, for the creation of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania in the 1400s.151 Within a century after it was voiced,152 the idea was disavowed by Greek-Catholics, but also by sev­ eral Orthodox Romanians south of the mountains,153 due to the Romanian Transylvanian ecclesiastical evolutions in the 1850s–1860s.154 It was in this context that Augustin Bunea turned to the Late Middle Ages.

Visions of—Nationally (?)—Desired Ecclesiastical Past From the very beginning, Bunea’s works, in this case in particular Vechile episcopii românesci (1902) and Ierarchia românilor din Ardeal și Ungaria (1904), were well-received in the Kingdom of Romania,155 chiefly by the

149 Located at the Hungarian border between the proper (modern) Banat and Oltenia (i.e., Western Wallachia), Severin initially had political (Hungarian and then even Wallachian) and ecclesiastical (Greek rite) authority over both autonomous regions. 150 E.g., Petru Maior, Istoria Bisericii Românilor vol. I (Bucharest: Editura Viitorul Roma n ̂ esc, 1995) [first printed in 1813]), 96–97; Samuil Micu, Istoria românilor (Bucharest: Editura Viitorul Roma n ̂ esc, 1995) [first partially printed in 1805], 110–111. 151 For a recent attempt at combining influences: Ana Dumitran, “The Chronology of the Murals in the Râmeț Monastic Church (Alba County, Romania) Based on a Reevaluation of the Dating of the Narthex Inscription”, Museikon 4 (2020): 109–162. 152 According to an inscription discovered at the time of the Ausgleich in Ribiţa, by 1410, the Land of Haţeg (the Transylvanian cradle of the Hunyadis) was already under the authority of the Metroplite of Severin; Ödön Nemes, “A ribicei templom 1404bol”, Hazánk s a Külföld 4, no. 4 (1868): 63–64; cf. Adrian Andrei Rusu, “Biserica românească de la Ribiţa (judeţul Hunedoara)”, Revista Monumentelor Istorice 60, no. 1 (1991): 3–9, at 7, who committed himself to the removal of any such evidence: eg. Adrian Andrei Rusu, Ioan de Hunedora şi românii din vremea sa (ClujNapoca: Editura Presa Universitară, 1999), 89–106. 153 Ilarion Puşcariu, Mitropolia românilor ortodocşi din Ungaria şi Transilvania vol. I (Sibiu: Tiparul Tipografiei Archidiecesane, 1899). 154 For the bibliography of the subject: Pop, Marcu Istrate, Sălăgean, Simon, “De vertice montis”, 118–120 (see mainly I[oan]. Boroş, “Relaţiunile eclesiastice ale Românilor din Ungaria şi Transilvania în vécul al XV-lea (I–XII)”, Unirea 7, no. 15 (1897): 113– 115; 7, no. 18, 137–139; 7, no. 21, 169–171; 7, no. 24, 193–195; 7, no. 28, 226–227; 7, no. 33, 257–259; 7, no. 35, 273–276; 7, no. 36, 281–284; 7, no. 38, 297–299; 7, no. 40, 313–315; 7, no. 43, 337–338; 7, no. 44, 345–348). 155 However far less in Transylvania, certainly neither in the Orthodox ʻhalf ʼ of it, nor, noteworthy, in the Greek-Catholic ʻhalf ʼ of the former principality, e.g. Teodor V. Păcăţian, Istoriografi vechi-istoriografi noi. Studiu critic în chestia vechei mitropolii ortodoxe române (Sibiu: Tiparul Tipografiei Archidiecesane, 1904), 117–129; Vasile Mangra, Ierarhia şi Mitropolia bisericei române din Transilvania şi Ungaria

208

A lex andru Simon

so-called (New) “Critic School”156, also because the Greek-Catholic profes­ sor from Blaj successfully rebutted Orthodox misconstructions.157 Following in Bunea’s (and Bogdan’s) footsteps, Iorga himself turned to the ecclesiastical history of the Transylvanian Romanians (1905).158 It was in fact a return, for he had already devoted a booklet to the Romanian churches from Transylvania in 1902,159 coinciding with Bunea’s first study on the Middle Ages.160 The common stand (minus a few nuances)161 of Bunea and Iorga led to an attack on both of them by the, at that time, outspoken anti-Magyar Orthodox Bishop of Arad, Vasile Mangra (1908),162 (also) a full-member of the Romanian Academy a year later in 1909 (at basically the time of Bunea’s death)163 (Sibiu: Tiparul Tipografiei Arhidiecezane, 1908), 125–127; for an overview: Cornel Sigmirean, “Istoricul Teodor V. Păcăţian”, Banatica 12, no. 2 (1993): 243–261). 156 See also Lucian Nastasă Kovács, Generaţie şi schimbare în istoriografia română (sfârşitul secolului XIX şi inceputul secolului XX) (Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 1999), 75–76. 157 Some of these exaggerations (some outright forgeries) survived Bunea’s critique. One of them is particularly revealing. In 1479, King Matthias Corvinus entrusted the Greek rite Christians in Eastern Hungary, chiefly in the Maramureş, to the reverendi Iovanychik metropolitani Nandor Albenis, that is to the Metroplite of Belgrade, Ioan Mihály de Apşa, Diplome maramureşene din secolele XIV şi XV (Sighet: Maramureş, 1900), no. 313, 536. Nandor Albenis was equated with the village Nandru in the Haţeg area, Mircea Păcurariu, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române vol. I (Bucharest: Editura Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 19912), 295–296. 158 Ştefan cel Mare, Mihai Viteazul şi Mitropolia Ardealului, in: Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice 2nd series/27 (1904–1905), 1–4. 159 Sate şi preoţi din Ardeal [Villages and Priests from Transylvania] (Bucharest: Caro ̈ l Gobl, 1902). Iorga too authored a ʻblunderʼ of the magnitude of Nandru = Nandor Albenis. He identified Makarios, Bishop of Halich (episcopus gallicensis), who had taken refuge in Hungary in 1458 (because of the counter-reaction to the Florentine union), with a bishop (a vladika) seated in the village of Galaţi, in the parts of Bistriţa, even though Bunea, as noted by Iorga too, had clearly stated that Makarios was Bishop of Halich (Sate şi preoţi, 319; Ştefan cel Mare, 3). 160 This coincidence was, partially, noted much later by Zenovie Pâclişanu, in his “În jurul ierarchiei românilor ardeleni în secolul XV”, Revista Istorică Română 13, no. 2 (1943): 10. 161 E.g., Bunea, Vechile episcopii româneşti, 3–4; Bunea, Ierarchia românilor, 168–171; Iorga, Sate şi preoţi, 314–315; Iorga, Ştefan cel Mare, 4–5. The differences revolved chiefly around the identity of Archbishop of Transylvania from 1494 (discussed below). 162 Marius Eppel, Un mitropolit și epoca sa. Vasile Mangra (1850 –1918) (Cluj-­ Napoca: Presa Universitara ̆ Clujeana ,̆ 2006). 163 Pavel Vesa, Clerici cărturari arădeni de altădată (Arad: Editura Gutenberg Univers, 2008), 196–200. Alike Bunea Mangra was not a historian by education, but a theologian.

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

209

In fall of 1916, together with the Orthodox Romanian bishops of Hungary, Mangra, recently elected metropolite of Transylvania, threw the anathema on the Romanians which had crossed the Carpathians into Transylvania,164 using against the Romanian invaders the medieval memory of Radu Negru (Radu the Black), the mythical founder of Wallachia, and of Stephen the Great.165 Scholarship had been weaponized, a predictable out­ come in fact since the studies of Bunea and Iorga (1902–1905) had coincided with the decision of the Romanian National Party from Hungary (formed in 1881166) to enter—through regular elections—the Hungarian parliament and actively oppose Budapest’s growing Magyarization policy.167 Unsurprisingly, such Romanian matters “were put to scholarly sleep” in the Interwar Grand Romania.168 Considering the very composite nature of the Romanian elites in these still mainly feudal parts169, from offspring of freed serfs, largely indebted to Church support for their rise,170 to various noblemen (created by the Protestant princes and by the Habsburg princes),171 a focus on the actual medieval data is recommendable, although it is most tempting to draw links between the fiftheenth and the nineteenth centuries172 and, consequently neglect the ʻmaster-resetʼ triggered by the Reformation(s) throughout the 164 Telegraful Român 64, no. 85 (1916). 165 For its historiographical impact: Adrian Ioniţă, Beatrice Kelemen, Alexandru Simon, AL WA: prinţul negru al Vlahiei şi vremurile sale (Cluj-Napoca: Academia Română, Centrul de Studii Transilvane, 2017), 179–183. 166 That year, the two National Romanian Parties from Banat and Transylvania (created in 1869) united into one single structure. See Bujor Surdu, “Conferinta de constituire a Partidului National Român din Ungaria (1881)”, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie şi Arheologie din Cluj 11 (1968): 307–325. 167 Stelian Mândruţ, Mis ̦carea nat ̦ionala ̆ s ̦i activitatea parlamentara ̆ a depu­ tat ̦ilor Partidului Nat ̦ional Roma ̂n din Transilvania i ̂ntre anii 1905–1910 (Oradea: “Fundat i̦ a Culturala ̆ Cele Trei Cris ̦uri”, 1995). 168 Pâclişanu’s cited study (1943) was posterior to the Arbitrage (Diktat) of Vienna (1940), led by Berlin and Rome, which had granted North-Western Transylvania to Budapest. 169 See also Victor Karady, “Educated Elites in Pre-Socialist Hungary (1867–1948): Issues, Approaches, Sources and Some Preliminary Results of an Overall Survey”, Historical Social Research 33, no. 2 (2008): 154–173. 170 Ladislau Gyémánt, Mişcarea naţionala a românilor din Transilvania între anii 1790 şi 1848 (Bucharest: Ed. S ̧t. s i̧ Enciclopedica ,̆ 1986). 171 With focus on pre-Ausgleich Transylvania: Simion Retegan, Reconstrucţia politică a Transilvaniei în anii 1861–1863 (Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2003). 172 See Teodor V. Păcăţian, Cartea de aur sau luptele politice-naţionale ale românilor de sub coroana ungară vol. V (Sibiu: Tipografia Arhidiecezana ,̆ 1909).

210

A lex andru Simon

sixteenth–eighteenth centuries.173 Since the 1390s because of the ententes between Sigismund of Luxemburg, Manuel II Palaiologous and Mircea I the Elder of Wallachia,174 the Greek rite authority over Transylvania was divided between the stavropighia of Peri, in Maramureş,175 and the Metropolitanates of Ungrovlachia (i.e. Eastern Wallachia) and of Severin (i.e. Western Wallachia) in the south.176 No real hierarch was seated in Transylvania, until, in the 1700s177, a royal charter, issued at the bequest of future cardinal Thomas Bakócz, bishop of Eger,178 was found and edited. The stavropighia of Peri was placed under the authority of the “archbishop in Transylvania” (1494).179 Bunea and Iorga did their outmost to equate that archbishop either with the metropolite of Wallachia or with the Latin rite bishop of Transylvania (in Alba Iulia).180 Eventually, although he had to admit that the cathedral of the Bishopric of Vad (a Greek-Catholic village since the eighteenth century) had been erected only after 1500,181 Iorga 173 The old medieval Romanian (Wallachian) nobility of Transylvania (in general from the eastern parts of the Kingdom of Hungary), was largely extinct and / or had become Hungarian, chiefly following the spread of the Protestant Reformation. For an overview: Ioan Drăgan, Nobilimea românească din Transilvania. 1440–1514, (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 2000). 174 Şerban Papacostea, “Byzance et la création de la Métropole de Moldavie”, Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines 2 (1991): 133–150. 175 Radu Popa, Ţara Maramureşului în veacul al XIV-lea (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 19972), 236. 176 Ion I. Nistor, “Legăturile cu Ohrida şi Exarhatul Plaiurilor”, Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice 3rd series/27 (1945): 18–20. 177 Bunea, Ierarchia românilor, 165. The first editors were Ignác Batthyányi, the Roman-­ Catholic Bishop of Transylvania, and Petru Maior. 178 On his political career in the 1490s, see also Ioan-Aurel Pop, Alexandru Simon, “Partes Transilvane intrabunt et te de tota terra tua disperdent: Maximilian I de Habsburg către Ştefan cel Mare după Codrii Cosminului (I–II)”, Transilvania 5, no. 1 (2021): 21–42; 5, no. 2, 60–78. 179 Diplome maramureşene, no. 348, 600–601. 180 Bunea, Vechile episcopii româneşti, 3–4; Bunea, Ierarchia românilor, 168–171; Iorga, Sate şi preoţi, 314–315; Iorga, “Ştefan cel Mare”, 4–5. Any controversy was settled through the publication by Pâclişanu of the photocopy of the original charter (În jurul ierarchiei, p. 11; confirmed by Marius Diaconescu in his Editarea diplomelor maramureşene—realizări şi perspective, in: Revista de Arhivistică 3 (1997): 28–29). 181 He based his statement on an unnamed […] “famous Hungarian archaeologist, who was there” […] in Vad (Iorga, “Ştefan cel Mare”, 4). The archaeological excavations conducted by Radu Heitel and Mariana Beldie-Dumitrache in the cathedral in Vad in the 1970s, have revealed that the church can be dated at the earliest to the 1520s, to the rule of Stephen IV the Younger (1517–1527) (Pop, Marcu Istrate, Sălăgean, Simon, “De vertice montis”, 113).

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

211

stated that the archbishop from 1494 must have been the bishop of Vad, a bishopric established, according to him too,182 by Stephen III on the estates granted to the ruler of Moldavia by Matthias Corvinus and confirmed by Wladislaw II Jagiello (a bishop of Vad was nevertheless first recorded in the 1530s during the post-Mohács conflicts for Hungarian royal succession).183 All the evidence (1480s–1530s) on the hierarchs, of Severin moreover,184 in the royal estate of Feleac (a Greek-Catholic village since the 1700s, like Vad) were disregarded.185 The same applied to the ties between Feleac and Moldavia (Iorga slightly changed his tone after the outbreak of the First World War).186

182 For on overview of historiography on these questions, see the otherwise frequently biased Orthodox studies of Ştefan Lupşa, “Biserica ortodoxă româna din Ardeal şi Ungaria în veacul XV (în veacul lui Iancu de Hunedoara) (I-III)”, Mitropolia Ardealului 1, no. 3–4 (1956): 268–277; 2, no. 3–4 (1957): 219–229; 3, no. 1–2 (1958): 71–86; Ştefan Lupşa, “Mitropolia Ardealului în veacul XVI”, Mitropolia Ardealului 5, no. 7–8 (1960): 573–598. 183 Ioan-Aurel Pop, “Ierarhia bisericească a românilor din ţinuturile bistriţene în secolele XIV-XVI”, in Mircea Gelu Buta, ed., Petru Rareş şi bistriţenii (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2016), 13–24. 184 According to Iorga in 1902 (Sate şi preoţi, 320), Severin was probably inserted later (which, following the convenient loss of the evidence, cannot be determined). Due to his abovementioned Galaţi=Halich “incident”, as well as because of his general mediated documentary accuracy, e.g., in this case the Venetian documents published under Iorga’s name; see Alexandru Simon, “Să nu ucizi o pasăre cântătoare: soarta unui fortissimus rei Christiane athleta în ochii Veneţiei”, in Pe urmele trecutului. Profesorului Nicolae Edroiu la 70 de ani, ed. Ioan-Aurel Pop, Suzana Andea, and Alexandru Simon (Cluj-Napoca: Centrul de Studii Transilvane, 2009), 159–169, we sincerely doubt that Severin was added to Daniel’s title. 185 Noteworthy, until the forced “reunification” of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church with the Romanian Orthodox Church (1948), Feleac, we must re-emphasize a Greek-Catholic village until then, was not really taken into account until the cited studies of Ştefan Lupşa (1956–1960) and Victor Popa (1958). This is also a further indicator for the depth of the inner divide of the Transylvanian Romanians (regardless of education). 186 Georgeta Penelea, ed. Istoria românilor din Ardeal şi Ungaria (Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1989) [first printed in two volumes in 1915], 94. After Bunea’s death (1909) and the outbreak of the Frist World War (1914), Iorga realized that the relation between Isaac and Feleac was quite ʻvaluableʼ. He had completely omitted that relation from his Istoria bisericii româneşti şi a vieţii religioase a românilor (Vălenii de Munte: Tipografia “Neamul Românesc”, 19081), 99. Iorga returned to his usual stand towards the ecclesiastical history of Transylvania after 1918–1920, with the notable exception of the photograph of Isaac’s donation (Les arts mineurs en Roumanie, I, fig. 27).

212

A lex andru Simon

Additionally, several sources were ʻoverlookedʼ in that framework. Two of them are more than relevant for East-West relations:187 1. In 1436, Pope Eugenius IV entrusted the Greek rite Christians in Transylvania and eastern Hungary to the Metroplite of Moldavia, Gregory, who had accepted Papal authority prior to the Council of Florence.188 2. In 1476, under Sixtus IV, Stephen III of Moldavia became the Greek rite “athlete” of the Papacy.189 The “special relations” between King Matthias and Stephen were wellknown in the nineteenth century.190 Only the dating of Matthias’ donation of the Transylvanian estates to Stephen varied between the 1470s and the 1480s.191 It would have been logical to assume and to accept that Stephen, listed by Ignácz Acsády as one of the richest landowners in Hungary (1894),192 187 In order to prevent real scholarly analysis, the data was “drowned into details” after 1989. Emilian Popescu, “Compléments et rectifications à l’histoire de l’eglise de Moldavie dans la première moitié du XVe siècle”, in Emilian Popescu, Christianitas Daco-Romana. Florilegium Studiorum (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1994), 455–477; Dan Ioan Mureşan, “Teoctist I şi ungerea domnească a lui Ştefan cel Mare”, in Românii în Europa medievală (între Orientul bizantin şi Occidentul latin). Studii în onoarea profesorului Victor Spinei, ed. Ionel Cândea, and Dumitru Ţeicu (Brăila: Istros, 2008), 303–416. 188 Georgio Fedalto, ed., Acta Eugenii PP IV (1431–1447) (=Fontes, III, 15) (Rome: Pontificia Commissio Codici iuris canonici orientalis recognoscendo, 1990), no. 421, 229–230. The source, known also to Iorga, who attempted to minimize its importance (e.g., Gregory would have been but a pseudo-archbishop), did not receive proper until rather recently. See Ioan-Aurel Pop, “Tradiţia istorică a Arhiepiscopiei Vadului, Feleacului şi Clujului”, in Eparhia Vadului, Feleacului şi Clujului la 90 de ani (1921–2011), ed. Ştefan Iloaie, and Bogdan Ivanov (ClujNapoca: Editura Renaşterea, 2012), 35–51, 38–39. 189 E.g., Augustin Theiner, Vetera monumenta historica Hungarica sacram illustran­ tia, II. Ab Innocentio PP. VI. usque ad Clementem PP. VII. 1352–1526 (Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1859), no. 636, 453–454. 190 E.g., (with reference to the Transylvanian revenues of Stephen III) Johann-­ Christian von Engel, Geschichte des Ugrischen Reichs und seiner Nebenländer vol. I (Halle: Gebauer, 1797), 149. 191 At present, it is certain that Matthias first promised an estate to Stephen in 1482. See Cristian Luca, Alexandru Simon, “Documentary Perspectives on Matthias Corvinus and Stephen the Great”, Transylvanian Review 17, no. 3 (2008): 85–112, 88. It is questionable however, whether or not Stephen actually took possession of his Transylvanian estates prior to Matthias’ death in 1490 (Diaconescu, “Contribuţii la datarea donaţiei”, passim). 192 Régi magyar birtokviszonyok 1494 –1598 (=Értekezések a Történelmi Tudományok Köréből, 16, 3) (Budapest: Kiadja A Magyar tud. akade m ́ ia, 1894), 24, 32, 38. In Transylvania, Stephen III was the third richest feudal, after the Bishop of Transylvania, Ladislas Geréb (1476–1501), the paternal cousin of Matthias, and John Corvinus, the son of Matthias.

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

213

had not had only a political influence over Transylvania, but also an ecclesiastical.193 Besides, Bartholomew Drágffy, the father of Stephen’s daughterin-law,194 was voivode of Transylvania, since 1493.195 Bartholomew’s ances­­ tors had founded Peri Monastery (protected also by John Corvinus in the 1490s)196. This course of reasoning however would have implied not only looking into the relations between Stephen and the Habsburgs, co-kings of Hungary,197 but also reviewing the “Wallachian” both domestic and foreign policies of Matthias, the symbol of the Hungarian nation in Bunea’s and Iorga’s days.198 Thus, Bunea deemed it necessary to cite in favour of Matthias “antiRomanian policy”199 a charter published by a famous forger József Kemény.200 According to the 1484 charter (a proven fake), 201 Matthias officially stated

193 Additionally, Iorga too already knew, Petru of Cristian (near Saxon Sibiu), was Stephen III’s diplomat, the Latin rite bishop of Moldavia and Geréb’s vicar between 1476 and 1486, e.g., Alexandru Simon, Pământurile crucii: românii şi cruciada târzie (Cluj-Napoca: Academia Română. Centrul de Studii Transilvane, 2012), 205. 194 Marius Diaconescu, “Peţitorii nepoatei lui Ştefan cel Mare în 1517. Despre căsătoria lui Alexandru cu fiica lui Bartolomeu Drágfi”, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie A.D. Xenopol 49 (2012): 55–70. In the summer of 1489 (as was known however only from June 1914 onwards), Alexander (†1496), the designated heir of Stephen, wed the daughter (Mary?) of Bartholomew (Acta et epistolae, I, no. 37, 41–42). 195 Tibor Neumann, “Drágfi Bertalan politikai szerepe II. Ulászló király idején”, in A Szilágyság és a Wesselényi család (14 –17. század), ed. Géza Hegyi, and András W. Kovács (Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület, 2012), 213–236. 196 An aspect “overlooked” by both Bunea, Iorga, as well as by most Romanian historians. 197 Apparently, the first one to draw attention to these relations was Ilie Minea a native Transylvanian educated in Budapest, who had become university professor in Iaşi), but more than a decade after the First World War, in his “Ştefan cel Mare şi împăratul Maximilian I”, Cercetări Istorice 5–7 (1929–1931), 354–355, but without mentioning Maximilian’s proclamation published by Firnhaber in 1849 and reprinted by Veress in 1914. 198 E.g., Melinda Mitu, Sorin Mitu, Ungurii despre români. Naşterea unei identităţi etnice (Iaşi: Polirom, 2014), 100–102. 199 Bunea, Ierachia românilor, 131. 200 Martyn Rady, “The Forgeries of Baron József Kemény”, The Slavonic and East European Review 71, no. 1 (1993): 102–125. 201 Francisc Pall, “Despre două documente false ale lui Ioan de Hunedoara şi al lui Matia Corvin (din anii 1448 şi 1459)”, in Emlékkönyv Kelemen Lajos születésének nyolcvanadik évfordulójára, ed. András Bodor, Béla Cselényi, Elemér Janscó, Zsigmond Jakó, and Attila T. Szabo (Bukarest: Tudományos Könyvkiadó, 1957), 509, note 5. Cf. also Konrad G. Gündisch, ed., Urkundenburch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, VII. 1474 –1486 (Bukarest: Franz Michaelis, 1991), Appendix (false documents), 484 (German), 486 (Romanian).

214

A lex andru Simon

that the Wallachians “were neither called, nor born for freedom.”202 Such “words” derailed future research and, after 1989, pushed the Romanian reassessment of the Hunyadi family down a very slippery and often erroneous path.203 In comparison, in the 1890s, Hungarian historians had no trouble in proudly (e.g. Vimos Fraknói)204 admitting that Matthias threatened Sixtus IV (1480) with the Orthodox schism 205 if the pope failed to respect the king’s Hungarian ecclesiastical power (i.e. patronage).206 In Romania, Zenovie Pâclişanu was apparently the first one to draw attention to this issue, but he did so in the middle of the Seocnd World War207 Admittedly, personal rivalries shape historical writings in the case of the Romanians, although not exclusively.208 This may have well been the case with Bunea and Ioan Mihályi de Apşa, the brother of Greek-Catholic metropolite Victor Mihályi de Apşa.209 In 1900, Ioan Mihályi de Apşa published an impressive collection of documents on the history of the Wallachians in Maramureş, in the fourteenth–fiftheenth centuries.210 Some sources are worth recalling: 202 Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki, Documente privitoare la istoria românilor, II–2. 1451–1510, Nicolae Densuşianu (ed.), (Bucharest: I.V. Socecu, 1891), no. 256, 285 ([…] “Olaci nec ad libertatem vocati, nec ad libertatem nati” […]). “Adding insult to injury”, Bunea then claimed that Matthias had taken greater care of the Serbians than of the Romanians (Ierachia românilor, 131–132), alike in the later Orthodox Illyrian case of Serbians versus Romanians. 203 For an overview, see Ioan-Aurel Pop, Hunedoreştii: o familie europeană (Cluj-­ Napoca: Editura Şcoala Ardeleană, 2020). 204 Mathias Corvinus, König von Ungarn 1458–1490 (Freiburg-in-Breisgau: Herder, 1892), 284. 205 Imre Kelcz, Epistolae Matthiae Corvini Regis Hungariae ad pontifices, imperatores, reges, principes, aliosque viros illustres (Kosice: Typis academicis Societatis Jesu, 1743), pars IV, no. 27, 55–56. 206 Gabriel AdriányI, “Die Kirchenpolitik des Matthias Corvinus”, Ungarn-Jahrbuch 10 (1979): 59–69. 207 More precisely (given also the publication date), towards its end: Ungaria şi acţi­ unea catolică în Orient, in: Revista Istorică Română 14, no. 1–2 (1944): 92. The first among the Orthodox scholars to record this was apparently Ştefan Lupşa in the late 1950s. 208 An extremly vivid, voluntarily vivid, account was offered by Lucian Nastasă Kovács, ʻSuveraniiʼ universităţilor româneşti. Mecanisme de selecţie şi promovare an elitei intelectuale, I. Facultăţile de Filosofie şi Litere (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Limes, 2007). 209 For his career (a trained lawyer), see the entry in Mihai Marina, Vasile Bologa, Maramureşeni. Portrete şi medalioane (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dragos ̦ Voda ,̆ 1997), 144–157. 210 Aurel Răduţiu, “Diplome maramureşene. Consideraţii la o sută de ani de la editare”, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie George Bariţiu 40 (2001): 351–360.

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

215

1. Deeds confirming the attention paid by King Matthias to these Wallachians from the north;211 2. Matthias’ decision to extend the authority of Ioanichie, the Metroplite of Belgrade, over them (1479);212 3. The royal charter issued by Wladislaw II Jagiello that placed the stavropighia of Peri under the power of the “Archbishop in Transylvania” (1494);213 4. The intervention of the duke of Croatia, John Corvinus, in support of Peri (1498), threatened once again by the Bishop of Munkács (Munkacevo), 214 whose fraudulent existence had been accepted by John’s late father in 1488,215 the year when, under Archbishop Daniel, the church in Feleac was first recorded.216 Under the 211 E.g., Diplome maramureşene, nos. 239–245, 407–420 (1458; after Matthias’ elec­ tion as king); nos. 261–266, 445–458 (1462–1463; during the king’s prolonged Transylvanian stay and after his return to Buda). Roughly 80% of the nearly 110 documents, dated between the early 1458 and the spring of 1490, published by Mihályi were issued by Matthias (nos. 239–347, 407–600). 212 Diplome maramureşene, no. 313, 536. Ioanichie was even deemed to have been the ʻconvertedʼ John from Caffa, from the days of John Capestran and John Hunyadi (Iulian Mihai Damian, “Iancu de Hunedoara, Ioan de Capestrano şi Biserica transilvană de rit răsăritean: noi mărturii despre mitropolitul Ioan de Caffa”, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie A.D. Xenopol 43–44 (2006–2007 [2008], 12–13). 213 Diplome maramureşene, no. 352, 606–607. As indicated earlier, by Bunea too (Ierarchia românilor, 165), one of the eighteenth century Roman-Catholic copies of the charter mistakenly read archiepiscopo vero de Transalpina [i.e., of Wallachia] instead of archiepiscopo vero de Transylvania, as written in the original. Obviously, in the 1700s the existence of such an unnamed archbishop in Transylvania in the 1490s seemed impossible and the wording was deemed an error that had to be amended by the copist. 214 Diplome maramureşene, no. 360, 624; Vasile Rus, “Il monastero di Peri et Giovanni Corvino di Hunyad alla fine del Quattrocento”, Transylvanian Review 19, suppl. 3 (2010): 101–109. The date of the royal charter issued in favour of Peri against Munkács, following John’s intervention, was 29 November 1498. Isaac’s donation for Feleac was dated December 1498 (only the month was recorded). Additionally, the chancellor of Moldavia, John Tăutu, Stephen III’s right hand, made a donation to Peri at approximately the same time (Carmen Ghica, “Vel Logofătul Ioan Tăutu. Cea mai veche minatură a unui dregător”, Studii şi Cercetări de Istoria Artei 15, no. 1 (1968): 114–117). 215 Popa, Ţara Maramureşului, 236; Rus, “Il monastero di Peri”, 106–108. A forged charter issued by Ruthenian duke Theodore Koriatović, in the days of Louis I of Anjou (1360), was placed at the foundations of the Bishopric of Munkács. The issue resurfaced in the times of the post-Tridentine Church union, Ovidiu Ghitta, “O veche dispută bisericească şi semnificaţiile sale”, in Viaţă privată, mentalităţi colectiveşi imaginar social în Transilvania, ed. Sorin Mitu, and Florin Gogâltan (OradeaCluj-Napoca: Asociat i̦ a Istoricilor din Transilvania s i̦ Banat, Muzeul Ța r̆ ii Cris ̦urilor, 1995–1996), 211–224. 216 The simultaneous rises of Feleac (Wallachian) and Munkács (Ruthenian) in 1488 were probably connected to Matthias” efforts to secure John Corvinus’ monarchic

216

A lex andru Simon

circumstances,217 it is understandable (1) why, even after the Peace Trianon (1920), the foundation of the Orthodox bishopric “of Vad, Feleac and Cluj”, was particularly difficult (1922)218 and (2) why its elevation to the rank of archbishopric (1973) and then metropolitanate was most unwelcome for more than a few people(2006).219

Crowing Revolutions in a Reformed Ecumenical Society Carefully prepared in the 1980s,220 at the height of “National-­ Communism” in Romania (this made outside of the box endeavours look succession, which, as was known since 1880 when the Hunyadi-Habsburg negotiations of autumn 1488 were published (Zahn, “Über ein Admonter Formelbuch”, no. 6, 73–74), also had a “worst case scenario” (so-to-say): the Trianon style partition of the Hungarian realm. 217 Moreover, it must be emphasized that: 1. The close relations between Duke John Corvinus and Stephen III (who both died in rapid succession in the second half of 1504) were known in the late 1800s because of Gusztáv Wenzel’s publication (1869–1877) of the ʻHungarian passagesʼ in Marino Sanudo’s Venetian Diaries, Suzana Miljan, Alexandru Simon, “Înnobilarea veneţiană a lui Ioan Corvin (1497)”, Corviniana 14 (2021): 59–64. The remainder of the charters collected by Ioan Mihályi de Apşa was published only with great difficulty after more than a century, Ioan-Aurel Pop, gen. ed., Diplome maramureşene din secolele XVI–XVIII, provenite din colecţia lui Ioan Mihalyi de Apşa (Cluj-Napoca: Academia Roma n ̂ a ,̆ 20122). 218 Alexandru Moraru, Istoricul Eparhiei Ortodoxe Române a Vadului, Feleacului și Clujului (1921–2021). Compendiu (Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană & Editura Renaşterea, 2021); Iustin Tira, and Cornel Coprean, eds., Centenarul Eparhiei Vadului, Feleacului şi Clujului (Cluj-Napoca: Renaşterea, 2021). 219 Ioan Chirilă, ed., Structura etnică și confesională a Transilvaniei medievale (sec. IX– XIV) (Cluj-Napoca: Renas ̧terea, 2007). The title of the volume intended to reinforce the historical justification for the the new metropolitanate (2006) is eloquent: “The Ethnic and Confessional Structure of Medieval Transylvania (nineth–fourteenth Centuries)”. The volume however went well into the twenty-first century. One of the reasons for this situation is the fact that official justification for the foundation of the metropolitanate stated that the ecclesiastical seat in Feleac had been pro-Roman (which apparently was more acceptable in Bucharest, than in Transylvania). 220 E.g., Maria Crăciun, “Incursiuni în istoriografia Reformei”, Studia Universitatis Babeş Bolyai. Historia 26, no. 2 (1981): 20–26; Maria Crăciun, “Istoriografia iluministă română şi Reforma”, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie A.D. Xenopol 21 (1984): 229–238; Maria Crăciun, “P.P. Panaitescu despre influenţa reformei în cultura românească”, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie A.D. Xenopol 24, no. 2 (1987): 307– 314; Adrian Andrei Rusu, “Un formular al cancelariei regale, din vremea lui Iancu de Hunedoara, pentru nobilii români din Transilvania”, Acta Musei Napocensis 20 (1983): 155–171; Adrian Andrei Rusu, “Giovanni di Hunedoara e Cristoforo Garatone”, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie A.D. Xenopol 24, no. 2 (1987): 17–27; Ovidiu Ghitta, “Un colaborator al lui Mihai Viteazul: episcopul Serghie”, Anuarul

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

217

progressive221), the studies on the Church Union(s) and Reformation(s) gained momentul after 1989.222 Accidentally, they peaked at the time of the eventually failed both Hungarian and Romanian partitions of the Babeş-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca, in 1998–1999223 and 2006– Institutului de Istorie şi Arheologie Cluj Napoca 27 (1985–1986), 375–383; Ovidiu Ghitta, “Din problematica morală la începutul secolului al XVIII-lea (cazuri din Maramureş şi Sătmar)”, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie şi Arheologie Cluj Napoca 28 (1987–1988), 467–475. This historiographical succession would deserve a separate and independent scholarly analysis. 221 These endeavours were hosted primarly in the Yearbook of the “A.D. Xenopol” Institute of History and Archaeology in Iaşi (again of the Romanian Academy after 1989). In the 1970s, the institute had passed from under the authority of the Romanian Academy (i.e., of the Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania) under that of the Academy of Social and Political Sciences of the Socialist Republic of Romania (in this framework, see in particular the studies of Ştefan Sorin Gorovei, Lucian Nastasă or Gheorghe Onişoru). After 1989, and especially since 1998, Iaşi also became the centre for “Romanian imperial studies”. See studies collected in Ştefan Sorin Gorovei, and Maria-Magdalena Székely, eds., De potestate (Iaşi: Editura Universităţii “Al.I. Cuza”, 2007), in particular those of Ştefan Sorin Gorovei, Dumitru Năstase, Petre Ş. Năsturel and Maria-Magdalena Székely). The “Romanian imperial concept” was advocated chiefly after the Second Balkan War (1912–1913) as a stately alternative to the “conquest of Transylvania” (see for instance Petre Valeriu Năsturel, Nova Plantatio și Regii României, moștenitori ai împăratului Bizanțului (offprint Revista de Istorie, Arheologie şi Folclor 15) (Bucharest, 1914). 222 For a synopsis of these researches, see the websites of two institutes of the Babeş-­ Bolyai University: the Institute of Central European Studies (http://hiphi.ubbc​luj. ro/isce/), established in 1990 by the Faculty of History and Philosophy, and the “Nicolae Bocşan” Institute of Ecclesiastical History (http://hist​eccl​esia​r um.instit​ ute.ubbc​luj.ro/), established in 2005 by the rectorate. In comparison, in 1990, the Babeş-Bolyai University and its Faculty of History and Philosophy had refused to restore the Centre for Transylvanian Studies of the Second World War University of Cluj, exiled in Sibiu. The idea had been vetoed at the level of the leadership of the University in 1987, Ioan-Aurel Pop, “La o aniversare”, in Centrul de Studii Transilvane. 1991–2001, ed. Maria Ghitta, and Vasile Sălăjan (Cluj-Napoca: Centrul de Studii. Transilvane, 2001), 14; Nicolae Edroiu, “Dimensiunile unei instituţii ştiinţifice”, in Centrul de Studii Transilvane. 1991–2001, ed. Maria Ghitta, and Vasile Sălăjan (Cluj-Napoca: Centrul de Studii. Transilvane, 2001), 36, note 2. The centre was restablished under the auspices of the Romanian Cultural Foundation (1991– 2007) and then under the Romanian Academy (2007–). 223 Adrian Andrei Rusu, Biserici şi ctitori din Ţara Haţegului până la 1700 (Satu Mare: Ed. Muzeului Sătmărean, 1997); Rusu, Ioan de Hunedoara; Marius Diaconescu, ed., Nobilimea românească din Transilvania (Satu Mare: Ed. Muzeului Satmarean, 2007); Marius Diaconsecu, “Les implications confessionnelles du Concile de Florence en Hongrie”, Mediævalia Transilvanica 1, no. 1–2 (1997): 29–62; Maria Crăciun, and Ovidiu Ghitta, eds., Church and Society in Central and Eastern Europe (ClujNapoca: European Studies Foundation Publishing House, 1998); Dan Mureşan,

218

A lex andru Simon

2007224. In their turn, these coincided with the Kosovo War (1998–1999)225 and with Romania’s accession into the European Union (2007).226 Such coin­ cidences are not a surprise, considering the pre-history of these Transylvanian studies that are largely synonimus with the scholarly career of Augustin Bunea prior to the First World War that entrenched the division lines (poorly obliviated in Interwar Romania).227 Bunea’s preoponent, Vasile Mangra, died in mysterious circumstances in October 1918.228 He was succeeded by the Bishop of Caransebeş Miron Cristea, co-signatory of the anathema of autumn 1916, 229 future patriarch, as well as prime-minister of Romania.230 On December 1, 1918, in Alba Iulia 231 “Isihasmul şi prima etapă a rezistenţei la deciziile conciliului florentin în Moldova (1442–1447)”, Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai, Historia 44, no. 1–2 (1999): 3–57. 224 Marius Diaconescu, “Gândirea politică a lui Ştefan Jósika, cancelarul principe­ lui Sigismund Báthory. Paternitatea unei idei politice: unirea Transilvaniei cu Ţara Românească şi Moldova”, Acta Transylvanica 1 (2004 [2006]): 17–42; Adrian Andrei Rusu, ed., Secolul al XIII-lea pe meleagurile locuite de către români (ClujNapoca: Editura Mega, 2006); Adrian Andrei Rusu, Péter-Levente Szőcs, “Mănăstirea Peri. Contribuţii arheologice”, in Relaţii româno-ucrainene. Istorie şi contemporaneitate, ed. Viorel Ciubotă, Toader Nicoară, Mikola Vegheş, and Liuba Horvat (Cluj-Napoca, Satu Mare: Ed. Muzeului Sa t̆ maa r̆ ean, 2007), 95–107; Dan Mureşan, “Girolamo Lando, titulaire du Patriarcat de Constantinople (1474–1497), et son rôle dans la politique orientale du Saint-Siège”, Annuario dell’ Istituto romeno di Cultura e Ricerca Umanistica 8 (2006): 153–258. 225 See, in Sima Ćirković’s words, the Pál Engel († 2001) story of 1998 behind Ćirković’s “O jednoj srpsko-ugarskoj alijansi”, Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 44, no. 2 (2007): 411–421, a study published almost a decade later. 226 In relation to Petre V. Năsturel’s cited study (1914), see also: Le Patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople aux XIVe-XVIe siècles: rupture et continuité (Paris: Centre d’e t́ udes byzantines, ne ́o-helle ń iques et sud-est europe ́ennes, E ́cole des hautes e t́ udes en sciences sociales, 2007). 227 See also: Mircea Alexandru Birţ, and Tudor Sălăgean, eds., Francmasoni si patrioti. Francmasoneria, idealul national si realizarea Marii Uniri (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Școala Ardeleană, 2020). 228 Marius Eppel, “Ultimele zile ale vieţii Mitropolitului Vasile Mangra”, Studia Universitatis Babeş Bolyai. Theologia Orthodoxa 48, no. 1 (2003): 274–280. 229 For instance: Biserica şi Şcoala 60, no. 35 (1916): 1; 42, no. 3 (2018): 3. 230 A pro-Cristea stand: Adrian Adreţ, and Ioan Bolovan, eds., Biserică şi naţiune la românii din Banat şi Transilvania. Episcopul Elie Miron Cristea şi Marea Unire (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Mega, 2018). 231 See a most telling article (Google: episcop, iuliu hossu, adevarul, oliver jens schmitt): https://adeva​r ul.ro/cult​u ra/isto​r ie/ser​ial-genera​t ia-marii-uniri-episodul-​​ 10-iuliu-hossu-epis​cop-sena​tor-deti​nut-poli​t ic-inter​v iu-oli​ver-jens-schm​itt-isto​r ic-​ profe​s or-viena-uni​rea-s-a-facut-repeze​a la-1_5​a ffa​4bdd​f 520​22f7​5264​4b5/index.​ html

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

219

Miron Cristea wanted to read the proclamation of union with Romania, but was prevented from doing so,232 The proclamation was thus read by Iuliu Hossu, the Greek-Catholic Bishop of Cluj-Gherla.233 The Romanian histo­ riography of the Middle Ages was built on such recent modern debris. The “expiration date” of medieval oral memory was placed at 150 years.234 In a largely illiterate society (the Romanian one at the beginning of the twentieth century),235 in the early 1900s, that meant the mid-1700s, or (to be more precise) the Orthodox “counter-reformation” in Transylvania that annulled the “Greek-Catholic monopoly” over the Romanians.236 Even later (in a more edu­ cated time), that lower limit of memory seemed to be the main target of historiographic interest (e.g., for the 1930s, that was the uprising of 1784–1785, or for later generations that were either the revolution of 1848–1849 or the Ausgleich of 1867237). This feature (each perception is unique) made history a very personal and committed (even vowed) experience, as was visible in the days of Bunea, Iorga, Mangra or Păcăţian.238 Twisting memory was common even below that 150 years limit (especially if a paramount event “disconnected” the interval 239), as had been eloquently made clear by the case of King Matthias.240 The Hunyadi monarch evolved

232 See also: Daniel Alic, Eparhia Caransebeşului în perioada păstoririi episcopului Miron Cristea. 1910 –1918 (Cluj-Napoca: Universitară Clujeană, 2013), 357–361. 233 On him: Ovidiu Bozgan, “Iuliu Hossu: final de biografie”, Studia Universitatis Babeş Bolyai. Theologia Catholica, 49, no. 1 (2004): 269–292, Appendix, 286–287. 234 George Duby, Evul Mediu masculin (Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 1992), 230. 235 For an overview: Pieter H. van der Plank, “Effects of Habsburg Educational Policies measured by Census Statistics”, Jezikoslovlje 13, no. 2 (2012): 373–393. 236 See for instance the interwar synthesis of Robert Seton-Watson, A History of the Romanians (London-Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934), 181–182. 237 We recall some of the series edited by the George Bariţiu Institute of History (Cluj-­ Napoca) of the Romanian Academy: Documente privind Revoluția de la 1848–1849 în Țările Române, C. Transilvania (1977–); Izvoarele Răscoalei lui Horea (1784) (1982– ), Mișcarea națională a românilor din Transilvania între 1849–1918. Documente (1996–). 238 From a Hungarian perspective: Ignács Romsics, and Béla K. Királyi, eds., Geopolitics in the Danube Region: Hungarian Reconciliation Efforts, 1848–1998 (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999). 239 Such as the spread of the Reformation (1530s–1568), such as the battle of Mohács and its aftermath (1526–1541). For an overview: A Divided Hungary in Europe: Excanges, Networks and Repreentations, 1541–1699 vol. I–III (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014). 240 For instance: István Lukács, “King Matthias Corvinus in the Collective Memory of the Slovenian Nation”, Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 55 (2010): 371–379.

220

A lex andru Simon

from a complete Hungarian failure at the time of his death (1490)241 to a (Catholic) hope of the (predominantly Protestant) Hungarians (1570s).242 The same applies for the Wallachian (Romanian) memory of past events from the 1500s to the mid 1350s, from the 1600s to the mid 1450s and so on.243 Whatever one might think or write of Augustin Bunea and of his contemporaries, these facets have to be factored-in before passing any harsh judgments (this, in return, was a rather common feature at least in the late 1800s and in the early 1900s when science was often too close to politics244). From this perspective, the limited “evolution” of historiography after 1989 in comparison to the pre-First World War period is more comprehensible than it is astonishing.245 “Shapes without substance” were, apparently, adopted and implemented, as had happened as early as the second half of the nineteenth century.246 Ecumenism was preached without knowing the actual “ecumenical examples” from the past;247 and the same occurred less than two decades later with studies on “anti-corruption”, deprived of real medieval depth and insight.248 This “type of behaviour” was nevertheless predictable 241 E.g., Ferenc Szakály, “Mecenatismo regio e finanze publiche in Ungheria sotto Matia Corvino”, Rivista di Studi Ungheresi,4 (1989): 19–35. 242 Chiefly because of the work of Gáspár Heltai (i.e., the Saxon Caspar Helth). See Margit Kulcsár, and Péter Kulcsár, eds., Krónika az magyaroknak dolgairól (Budapest: Magyar Helikon, 1981). 243 See a most notorious case of history rewritten (1510s–1650s) in Ovidiu Olar, Ovidiu Cristea, “Giochi di pazienza. Viața Sf. Nifon și istoria Țării Românești: un sfânt și un domn ideal”, in Ţările Române şi Sfântul Munte, ed. Petronel Zahariuc (Iaşi: Doxlogia, 2020), 203–248. 244 Marius Turda, Eugenics and Nation in Early 20th Century Hungary (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). 245 See the above-cited studies of Maria Crăciun, Marius Diaconescu, Ovidiu Ghitta, Dan Ioan Mureşan or Adrian Andrei Rusu. 246 Forme fără fond, the famous words of Titu Maiorescu (1868), of Transylvanian descent, e.g., Constantin Schifirnet, Forme fără fond. Un brand românesc (Bucharest: Editura Comunicare, 2007), 205. 247 With reference to this lengthily subject we recall another “never-ending story”: the case of Dracula. Gabriele Annas, Christof Paulus, Geschichte und Geschichten. Studien zu den Deutschen Berichten über Vlad III. Drăculea (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2020), 236. Voivode Vlad, Matthias’ relative by marriage, executed […] “heiden, juden, cristen, ketzen und walachen” […]. 248 E.g., Cosmin Popa-Gorjanu, ed., Corruption and Anticorruption in Historical Perspective (from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age) (=Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica 20, no. 1) (Alba-Iulia: Editura Mega, 2016), features none of the real major corruption cases in medieval Transylvania, above-all the trans-ethnic case and trial of the ʻmayorʼ of Cluj in 1493. Omitted simultaneously by Mihai-Florin Hasan, “Clujenii, falsurile şi abuzurile. Câteva întâmplări mai puţin fericite din Evul Mediu”, in Povestiri despre Cluj vol. II (Cluj-Napoca: Vechiul Cluj, 2016), 19–26.

The Florentine Union and the Late Medieval Habsburgs

221

given, for instance, the militant nature of historical writing in the early twentieth century and additionally given the conflicting “trends” that had to be reconciled in the “post-imperial”249 survivor state Romania. Under such cir­ cumstances, it would be even tempting to perceive the Bucharest supported 250 downplaying of the medieval Transylvanian role played by Moldavia as an offspring of Bucharest’s agrandissement at the expenses of Iaşi, Moldavia’s new capital, after the “Small Union” of 1859.251 This would however deflect attention from the real Transylvanian issue at hand in this peculiar framework: in the early 1900s, at least in relation to the hailed Middle Ages, “the traitor” of 1916–1918, Vasile Mangra, was more of a “patriot” than Augustin Bunea, the celebrated “apostle” of critical historical writing.252 King Ferdinand’s conduct during the coronation ceremonies in Alba Iulia (1922) is more than indicative for the symbolic importance of the matter:253 Ferdinand refused to be crowned by “survivor” Miron Cristea and crowned himself (with the crown he had received from the Speaker of the Senate of Romania),254 and then crowned his wife, Queen Mary.255 The mural paintings commissioned for these ceremonies, largely boycotted by the Romanian Greek-Catholic elite of Transylvania (due to Bucharest’s ostensible “colonial conduct”)256 complete (completed, for they were later on

249 Oliver-Jens Schmitt, Balcanii în secolul XX. O istorie postimperială (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2021), 37, 54. 250 Regarding the Bunea-Iorga entente, we note that Iorga was born in Moldavian Botoşani, studied at the University of Iaşi (the first Romanian university “outside” Bukovina and Transylvania) and received his position as professor at the University of Bucharest. 251 E.g., Mihai Chiper, Valahii ne-au înşelat. Chestiunea compensaţiilor Iaşului în acţi­ unea politică moldovenească după unire (1862–1874) (I–II), Archiva Moldaviae 10 (2018): 111–174; 11 (2019): 143–184. 252 Not that –“God forbid!”—Mangra mentioned any of the many sources (listed earlier) eluded by Bunea. In fact, it was a clash between two (confessional) perceptions of loyalty. 253 Eugen Wolbe, Ferdinand I, Întemeietorul României Mari (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2004), 191–194. 254 By turning to the Macedonian Mihail Pherekyde (Romanian National Liberal Party), as “parliamentary patriarch”, Ferdinand signalled that he was a constitutional monarch. 255 Constantin I. Stan, Ferdinand I Întregitorul (1914 –1927) (Bucharest: Editura Paideia, 20203), 414–417. 256 See also: Ioan Scurtu, Istoria românilor în timpul celor patru regi (1866–1947) II, Ferdinand I. (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica, 20042), 116–117. Iorga attended the coronation, but only “under protest”.

222

A lex andru Simon

erased) the historical stage.257 In the so-called “Union Hall” (Sala Unirii) in Alba Iulia,258 the leaders of the uprising of 1784–1785 (Horea, Cloşca and Crişan) and of the Revolution of 1848–1849 (Avram Iancu) were depicted to the right, while on the left stood the images of John Hunyadi, Matthias Corvinus and of the Greek-Catholic scholar Petru Maior.259 This was by no means260 the historical narrative deviced earlier by Augustin Bunea and by Nicolae Iorga.261 Nonetheless, in Romania, this narrative has prevailed after 1989 as well.

257 Ion Berciu, Alexandru Popa, Horia Ursu, Cetatea Alba Iulia (Bucharest: Meridiane, 1968), 50. 258 Cornel Tatai Baltă, “Cel de al treilea ansamblu mural din Sala Unirii de la Alba Iulia”, Sargetia 9 (2018): 323–328, 323. Matthias was removed most likely in 1968. 259 Petru Maior (in his Istoria Bisericii) had professed quite the very opposite approach to that voiced by Augustin Bunea (chiefly in Ierachia), who was certainly no “supporter” of the Hunyadis. 260 Hence probably also the status enjoyed in Transylvania, after 1989, by their works. 261 Still, it was argued that Nicolae Iorga saved Matthias’ statue in Cluj (erected in 1902) from Romanian distruction.

Brief Author Description

Ana Biočić, Associate Professor at the Chair for Church History, Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Zagreb. She is the Executive Editor of the journal of the Institute of the Church History Croatica Christiana Periodica and a member of the American Catholic Historical Association and the Ecclesiastical History Society. Leader of the project Religion and Science— Priests as University Professors and Rectors (John Templeton Foundation and the Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion). Fields of interest: Church History in the nineteenth century, Catholic priests in politics, education. Iva Mršić Felbar, Assistant Professor at the Institute of Religious Sciences at the Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Zagreb. Her research profile, which includes numerous peer-reviewed articles and an academic monograph, focuses on systematic theology, in particular on Eschatology and Christology. Fields of interest: Political Theology, Christology, Eschatology. Aleš Gabrič, Researcher at the Institute of Contemporary History in Ljubljana. Fields of interest: Slovene Political History, Cultural History, History of Censorship, History of Education. From 2008–2020 President of the National Committee for History at the general Matura Examination, from 2018 President of Slovenska matica. Tihana Luetić, Senior Research Associate at the Department of Historical Sciences of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb. Main fields of research: Croatian social and cultural history of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, mostly topics pertaining to the history of the University of Zagreb.

224

Author Descr iption

Marija Pehar, Full Professor at the Chair for Dogmatic Theology, Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Zagreb. She is a corresponding member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy (PAMI) in Rome and a member of the Croatian Mariological Institute, a scientific institute of the Catholic Faculty of Theology in Zagreb in the field of Mariology. Simonetta Polenghi, is Full Professor of History of Education at the Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan. She is Head of the Department of Education (2010–22). She was President (2017–20) of SIPED (Italian Academic Society for Education). She is a member of the Executive Committee of ISCHE (International Standing Conference for History of Education) (2016–22). Alexandru Simon, B. 1979. Research Professor, Romanian Academy, Centre for Transylvanian Studies. Member of the Global Young Academy (BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin—Leopoldina, Berlin-Halle). Research, with focus on crusades in the late Middle Ages in the archives and libraries in Budapest, Dubrovnik, Genoa, Milan, Munich, Vatican, Vienna or Zagreb. Slavko Slišković, Full Professor and Head of the Chair for Church History at Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Zagreb. Editor-in-chief of the journal of the Institute of the Church History Croatica Christiana Periodica. He is the President of the National Committee for the Comparative History of Christianity (CIHEC) and the Board of Directors of the Society for Croatian History. Fields of interest: Church History, nineteenth and twentieth century. Danijel Tolvajčić, Full Professor at the Chair for Philosophy, Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Zagreb. He is a member of the Croatian Philosophical Society. Fields of interest: Philosophy of Religion, Philosophical Anthropology.

Index

Acsády, Ignácz  212 Alaupović, Tugomir  23 Albert the Great  137 Alexandar I. Karađorđević, King  33, 34, 35, 102 Andrić, Josip  65 Aquinas, Thomas  10, 11, 115, 125, 126, 127, 131, 132, 137, 171, 174, 176, 181, 183, 188 Aristotle  137, 181 Augustine, St  129, 132, 159, 173 Babić, Vladimir  25 Bakócz, Thomas  210 Bakšić, Stjepan  146 Balbo, Cesare  115 Barac, Fran  20, 29, 31–32, 35, 37–39, 41, 90, 97 Barelli, Armida  171, 182, 183, 185 Barić, Stjepan  65 Baron, Gustav  35, 90, 95, 107, 108, 112–113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 Báthory family  194 Bauer, Antun  6, 11, 18, 20, 24, 29, 34, 35, 37–38, 41, 56–57, 59, 90, 93, 97, 99–100, 102, 107, 108, 109, 117–118, 120, 121, 122, 125–141 Bazala, Albert  29, 31–33 Béla IV, King  198 Belaj, Ferdinand  21 Belić, Matija  60 Benedict XV, Pope  183

Bettera, Baro  112 Bethlen, Gabriel  194 Bevk, Vinko  83 Bezić, Živan  140 Binički, Fran  65 Bocci, Maria  186 Bogdan, Ioan  205, 208 Bollé, Herman  95 Bonaventure, St  181, 182 Bresztyenszky, Šandor  21–22 Brooke, John Hedley  5 Budak, Mile  56 Bujanović, Ivan  6, 10, 35–36, 90, 98– 99, 107, 108, 114–115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 143–170 Bunea, Augustin  6, 10, 191, 193, 197– 201, 204, 207–210, 213–214, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222 Burić, Viktor  79 Burke, Edmund  115 Butković, Ivan  47, 65 Cajnkar, Stanko  74, 77, 80, 81, 82–83, 84 Charles I of Hohnzollern  197 Cipariu, Timotei  204, 206 Corvinus, John  202, 213, 215 Corvinus, Matthias, King  201, 202, 203, 211, 213, 222 Coyne, Jerry  131 Cristea, Miron  218–219, 221 Cyril, one of Holy Brothers  10, 94, 95, 98, 103, 106

226 Damiani, Peter  154 Daniel, metropolite of Severin and Transylvania  205, 206, 215 Dawkins, Richard  131 Demetrović, Juraj  33 Deželić, Đuro Stjepan  21 Deželić, Velimir, Jr  56, 65 Dimitrić, Nenad  112 Dočkal, Juraj  36, 90, 107, 108, 116, 118, 120, 121, 122 Dossetti, Giuseppe  187 Drágffy, Bartholomew  213 Dragomir, Silviu  197, 198 Dreper, John William  2 Du Bois–Reymond, Emil  110 Duns Scotus, John  159, 174, 181 Eckert, Rudolf  49, 65 Edinger, Ludwig  175 Euclid, of Alexandria  4 Eugenius IV, Pope  212 Fabijan, Janez  76 Fajdiga, Vilko  83 Fanfani, Amintore  187 Fechner, Gustav  110 Ferdinand I, King  221 Feser, Edward  139 Firnhaber, Friedrich  201, 202 Fonck, Leopold  61 Fraknói, Vimos  214 Francis Joseph I, Emperor  21 Franki, Anton  29, 36, 41, 90, 98, 107, 108, 113, 119, 122 Frederick III, Emperor  202 Frieberg, Dietrich von  4 Galileo, Galilei  3 Gemelli, Agostino 6, 10,  171, 172–189 Gentile, Giovanni  184, 187 Gjorgjić, Stjepan  112 Golgi, Camillo  171, 173, 188 Gregory, Metroplite of Moldavia  212 Grgec, Petar  65 Grivec, Fran  103 Guizot, François  115 Gundulić, Ivan  112

I ndex Habsburg, dynasty  10, 191, 193, 195, 196, 200–202, 209, 213 Häckel, Ernst  52, 110 Haulik, Juraj  113 Heilbron, John Lewis  2 Hondl, Stanko  33 Hossu, Iuli  219 Hume, David  133, 139 Iorga, Nicola  205, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 219, 222 Isaac, Moldavian treasurer  206 Iveković, Franjo  18–19, 89, 90, 107, 108, 110–111, 118, 119, 121, 122 Ivšić, Stjepan  33 Janušić, Jurislav  45, 63 Jesus Christ  118, 140, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 173, 181, 182, 183, 184 the Lord  96, 149, 150 the Saviour  149, 158, 161, 165, 170 Emmanuel  149 John Paul II, Pope  109, 123 John VIII, Pope  94 John XXIII, Pope  84 Joseph II, Emperor  195 Kant, Immanuel  133, 139, 174 Keilbach, Vilim  77 Kemény, József  213 Khuen-Héderváry, Károly  34, 36, 44, 108 Kiesow, Friedrich  175, 179 Knežević, Stevan  98 Kobal, Matej  71 Kocbek, Edvard  75, 76 Koch, Ferdo  32 Kocijančič, Boris  81, 82–83 Košćina, Matej  56 Kovačić, Krešimir  55 Kozak, Ferdo  71, 72 Kraigher, Boris  75 Kralj, Božena  64 Kräpelin, Emil  175 Krek, Janez Ev.  49

227

Index Križevčanin, Marko  90 Kržan, Anton  18, 89, 90, 95, 107, 108, 110, 119, 121, 122 Külpe, Oswald  175 Kumanudi, Kosta  28 Kušej, Rade  104 Lanović, Mihailo  23 Lazzati, Giuseppe  187 Lebedev, Antonin Aleksandrovich  100 Leo XIII, Pope  95, 109, 121, 126, 127, 137, 174, 181, 183, 184 Ludwig, Pastor  202, 203 Lupaş, Ioan  197 Mahnič, Antun  46, 47, 50, 66 Maior, Petru  222 Majcen, Juraj  33 Makanec, Milan  58–59 Malvestiti, Piero  186 Mangra, Vasile  208, 218, 219, 221 Manojlović, Gavro  33, 59, 60 Manuel II Palaiologous, Emperor  210 Maraković, Ljubomir  65 Maria-Theresia, Empress  200 Marjanović, Milan  52 Markulin, Stjepan  47, 50 Mary of Edinburgh, Queen  221 Mary, the Mother of God  147–168, 170, 185 Blessed Virgin  147, 167 our Lady  150 Virgin  149, 150, 153, 155–160 Co–Redeemer (Coredemptrix)  149, 166, 170 Masaryk, Tomáš Garrigue  45, 52, 61 Matoš, Antun Gustav  53, 55 Maurović, Antun  27, 90, 107, 108, 115– 116, 120, 121, 122 Maximilian I of Habsburg, Emperor  202 Mažuranić, Ivan  58 Melik, Anton  74 Mercier, Désiré  174, 175 Methodius, one of Holy Brothers  10, 94–95, 97, 98, 103, 106 Michael the Brave of Wallachia  195 Micu-Klein, Inochentie  200 Mihalović, Hugo  37

Mihalović, Josip  34, 37 Mihályi de Apşa, Ioan  214 Mihályi de Apşa, Victor  198–199, 214 Milas, Nikodim  98 Mircea I the Elder of Wallachia  210 Necchi, Ludovico  172, 173, 174, 175 Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople  151–152 Newman, Henry  184 Nietzsche, Friedrich  52 Novak, Grga  32, 33 Novak, Viktor  32 Nussbaum, Moritz  175 Olgiati, Don Francesco  175 Oresma, Nicola  4 Ottoman, dynasty  13, 97, 193, 194, 195, 196 Păcăţian, Teodor V.  219 Pâclişanu, Zenovie  198, 214 Pašev, Georgi Stoyanov  104 Pašić, Nikola  29 Paul VI, Pope  85 Paulski, Vinko, St  49 Pazman, Josip  35, 37, 41, 90, 92, 103, 105 Peter, Apostle  90, 101 Petranović, Gerasim  98 Petrović, Ivan  100 Pio di Pietrelcina  177 Pius II, Pope  191, 192, 203 Pius IX, Pope  7, 21, 183, 199 Pius X, Pope  61 Pius XII, Pope  84, 182 Pogačnik, Jože  84 Polić, Ladislav  29, 31, 32 Popović, Justin  100 Potrč, Jože  74, 86 Prelog, Milan  32, 33 Pribičević, Svetozar  29, 30, 32 Rački, Franjo  17, 35, 36, 58 Radić, Emilijan  99, 100 Radić, Stjepan  28 Radovanović, Mato  63 Radu Negru (Radu the Black)  209

228 Rákóczi, George I  194 Rauch, Pavle  60 Rogulja, Petar  65 Rožman, Gregorij  84 Ruspini, Ivan Angelo  22, 23, 24, 90, 93, 94, 101, 102, 103 Şaguna, Andrei  199 Salvadori, Giulio  185 Schleiermacher, Friedrich  131 Schneider, Arthur  32, 33 Shanley, Brian  137 Sigismund of Luxemburg, Emperor  210 Sixtus IV, Pope  212, 214 Smirnov, Peter  98 Solovyov, Vladimir Sergeyevich  103 Spinoza, Baruch  25 Stadler, Josip  126 Starčević, Ante  37, 38, 46, 53, 56 Stenmark, Mikael  2 Stephen III the Great of Moldavia  202, 206, 211, 212 Stepinac, Alojzije  75, 79, 84 Şterca-Şuluţiu, Alexandru  199 Strle, Anton  82, 83 Strossmayer, Josip Juraj  1, 17, 19, 35, 36, 104, 113 Sturzo, Don Luigi  183 Suk, Feliks  20, 35, 90, 107, 108, 111– 112, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 Svatopluk, Duke of Bohemia  94 Šolar, Jakob  76 Šulek, Bogoslav  127, 128, 134 Šurmin, Đuro  32, 59, 60 Tertullian, St  162 Tito, Josip Broz  76, 77, 78, 84, 85, 86

I ndex Toniolo, Giuseppe  174, 183, 184, 185 Trifunović, Miloš  32 Trstenjak, Anton  85, 86 Ujčić, Josip  79 Valenčič, Rafko  86 Vancea, Ioan  198, 204 Vannutelli, Serafin  19, 35 Veress, Endre  202 Vernić, Robert  21 Verworn, Max  175 Victor Emmanuel II, King  183 Vimer, Rudolf  37, 90, 107, 108, 117, 120, 121, 122 Vodnik, Branko  32, 33 Volović, Josip  21, 22, 90, 101 Von Brukenthal, Samuel  195 Von Hertling, Georg  175 Von Liebig, Justus  110 Von Zahn, Joseph  202 Vouk, Vale  33 Vovk, Anton  80, 84 Wahrmund, Ludwig  61, 62 White, Andrew Dickson  2 Wladislaw II Jagiello, King  211, 215 Wundt, Wilhelm  127, 128, 179 Zagoda, Franjo  37 Zimmermann, Stjepan  28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 39, 41, 90, 102, 127, 132 Zupančič, Boštjan M.  87 Žanko, Miloš  77 Živković, Andrija  25, 35, 38, 90, 91, 95, 96, 100, 104

South-East European History Mihai​Dragnea,​Series Editor This​series​is​published​in​conjunction​with​the​Balkan​History​Association​(BHA)​ and​comprises​original,​high-quality​disciplinary​and​interdisciplinary​comparative​ study​ of​ South-East​ Europe​ from​ ancient​ to​ contemporary​ times.​ It​ welcomes​ submissions​in​various​formats,​including​monographs,​edited​volumes,​conference​ proceedings,​and​short​form​publications​between​30,000​to​50,000​words​(Peter​Lang​​ Prompts)​on​various​sub-disciplines​of​history—political,​cultural,​military,​economic,​ urban,​literary,​oral,​or​the​history​of​science​communication—art​history,​history​of​ religions​and​archaeology. Editorial​Board:​Dan Dana​(French​National​Centre​for​Scientific​Research),​Valeria Fol​ (Institute​ of​ Balkan​ Studies​ and​ Centre​ of​ Thracology,​ Bulgarian​Academy​ of​​ Sciences),​ Adrian Ioniță​ (Vasile​ Pârvan​ Institute​ of​ Archaeology,​ Romanian​ Academy),​ Zoran Ladić​ (Institute​ for​ Historical​ and​ Social​ Sciences,​ Croatian​ Academy​of​Sciences​and​Arts),​Marco Cassioli​(University​of​Aix-Marseille),​Ivan Biliarsky​ (Institute​ of​ Historical​ Studies,​ Bulgarian​ Academy​ of​ Sciences),​ Alice Isabella Sullivan​ (Tufts​ University),​ Mihai-D. Grigore​ (Leibniz​ Institute​ of​ European​History​in​Mainz),​Colin Heywood​(University​of​Hull),​Gábor Kármán​ (RCH​Institute​of​History,​Budapest),​Nathalie Clayer​(Center​for​Turkish,​Ottoman,​ Balkan,​ and​ Central​ Asian​ Studies,​ Paris),​ Hans-Christian Maner​ (Johannes​ Gutenberg​ University​ Mainz),​ Katrin Boeckh​ (Leibniz​ Institute​ for​ East​ and​​ Southeast​ European​ Studies,​ Regensburg),​ Lavinia Stan​ (St.​ Francis​ Xavier​ University),​and​Irina Livezeanu​(University​of​Pittsburgh). ​ Proposals​should​be​sent​to​the​series​editor: ​ Mihai Dragnea​(University​of​South-Eastern​Norway)​​ [email protected] To​order​books​in​this​series,​please​contact​our​Customer​Service​Department:​ [email protected]​(within​the​U.S.) [email protected]​(outside​the​U.S.) ​ Or​browse​online​by​series​at: ​ https://www.peterl​ang.com/ser​ies/seeh