Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D

НазваниеSamuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D
Размер9.12 Mb.
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   139
Q:iellen, p. 350) this law was ex 

tended to the Rhine provinces and Westphalia. At the same time it was forbidden that clergymen should demand from engaged couples of mixed confession a promise about the religious training of their future children. These laws, which af­fected Protestants as well as Roman Catholics, were, however, evaded by Catholic clergymen who, to be sure, did not demand the aforesaid promise, but, if it was not voluntarily given, re­fused to perform the ceremony. The complaints which the government received caused it to enter upon negotiations with the archbishop of Cologne (Count Spiegel), and the bishops of Trevea (Joseph von Hommer), Paderboru (Friedrich von Ledebur), and Munster (Caspar von Droste), who showed an obliging spirit but declared that they could take no steps without the permission of the pope. With the consent of the government they therefore applied to Rome. The result of the negotiations carried on there between the Prussian Ambassa­dor Bunsen and Cardinal Capellari was a brief of Pius VIII. dated Mar. 25, 1830 (Mirbt, Quetlen, pp. 350 353), in which the regulation of Benedict XIV. was extended to the four bishoprics above mentioned, and mixed marriages which had not been performed in the presence of a Catholic priest were recognized as valid; but on the real point in controversy, i.e., the promise about the education of the children, no decision was reached. As this brief, moreover, ordered that Catholic women should be warned against entering upon mixed marriages, and that Catholic priests should be forbidden to give the ecclesiastical benediction to such mar­riages, the Prussian government was not satisfied with the result. It attempted further direct ne­gotiations with the bishops, and an agreement was closed in Berlin on June 19, 1834, between Bunsen and Count Spiegel, in accordance with which the brief of Pius VIII. should be trans­mitted to all priests; at the same time there was contemplated a similar set of directions for the general vicariates, concerning the practical treat­ment of mixed marriages. This instruction (Mirbt, Quellen, pp.
355 356) provided that all which had not expressly been prohibited in the brief should be held to be permitted, that the promise to edu­cate the children in the religion of the one or the other of the parents should not be insisted on in practise, and that a mixed marriage should be entered upon in the usual solemn form; that is, by benediction, whereas the mere assistentia passiva of the clergyman was limited to special and excep­tional cases. This agreement, to which the other bishops consented, was weak in that it had been reached without any cooperation by the Curia, and it had, moreover, merely the value of a per­sonal arrangement; that is, it would be called in question as soon as one of these bishops died. The case arose the very next year; Count Spiegel passed away Aug. 2, 1835.

It was in fulfilment of an express wish of the Prussian government that Droste Vischering be­came Spiegel's successor. It was expected that his mature age, his piety, and his inclination to­ward charitable work would hold his hierarchal tend­encies in equilibrium, and it was hoped to produce

a~a _Q1 oheriaB


a favorable sentiment among the Catholic nobility by the appointment of one of its. members. Before

the election Droste Viachering was 3. Arch  confidentially asked whether as bishop bishop of he would maintain the agreement of Cologne.
June, 1834, and would be willing to apply this in a conciliatory way; and not until he expressly assured the government of this in a letter (Mirbt, Quellen, p. 356) did the cathedral chapter receive the communication that the king desired his election. At first he held to the agreement; but in a few months his views underwent a complete transformation. The news of the government's arrangement with Spiegel had penetrated to Rome in spite of all secrecy and had caused the Curia to make energetic protests, which the Prussian ambassador unsuccessfully sought to refute by means of a denial of the agreement, more bold than skilful. Moreover, at that very time Ultramontanism began to enter the Rhine prov­inces by way of Belgium and at once employed its skill in arousing dissatisfaction. Droste Vischer­ing now all at once began to maintain that he had not known of the agreement of 1834 when he made his promise, and that he had given his consent because the minister assured him that it was in harmony with the brief of Pius VI II. The increas­ing complaints about the procedure of the arch­bishop at last compelled the minister, Von Alten­stein (q.v.), to interfere. The president of the administration at Diisseldorf, Count Stolberg, ap­peared in Cologne in company with Bunsen, to treat personally with Droate Vischering; but the conferences led to no understanding; the arch­bishop refused absolutely to acknowledge the ar­rangement of 1834 and declared that he wished to follow it only in so far as it was in accord with the brief.

There now arose a second contest with the gov­ernment over its procedure against the supporters of Georg Hermes (q.v.). When Droete Vischer ing entered upon his office the works of this theo­logian had already been condemned by Gregory XVI. (Mirbt, Quellen, pp. 357 358). Although the brief in question had not been laid before the Prussian government and therefore had not re­ceived the royal pldcel, the government never­theless respected the verdict of the pope, and

endeavored to forestall possible difii­;. The culties by having the professorapf the

University Roman Catholic faculties notified of Bonn. that it expected that they would avoid everything which might be con­trary to the pope's decision. That did not satisfy the archbishop, however, and, since the theological faculty of Bonn was the chief supporter of this tendency, he took measures against this educa­tional institution. He began by exercising against the publications of its professors a criticism and censorship which was beyond his competence. He, moreover, sent a circular to the priests of the city of Bonn who heard confession, ordering them to use their influence so that no one should react the writings of Hermes and that no student should attend lectures disseminating such ideas. He allowed himself to use expressions which threw

suspicion on the professors of theology at Bonn, and he cast doubt upon their orthodoxy. When they offered to prove their soundness he rejected their proposals and he refused to substantiate his charges, but did not withdraw them. The dormi­tory (Konvikt),
which was partly supported by the city, suffered so much from the archbishop's in­terference that sixty of the seventy inmates left the house; he himself caused the priests' seminary in Cologne to be closed. Finally he went so far as to lay eighteen propositions before the newly consecrated priests for signature, containing among other things the promise to appeal from the deci­sions of the archbishop to nobody except to the pope. This was a direct attack on the right of the State to take cognizance of appeals concern­ing the misuse of ecclesiastical power. The above mentioned mission of Count Stolberg was intended to change the mind of the archbishop on this sub­ject also, and an understanding was actually reached in this controversy; but it was not of practical significance, since the negotiations about the more important matter of mixed marriages were a failure.

The government recognized the necessity of de­cisive action. On receipt of the news that the archbishop was exciting the population of Cologne, there was held in Berlin a council of ministers under the presidency of the king, and on Nov. 20, 1837, Archbishop Droste Vischering was ar­rested and taken to the fortification of Minden.

The impression of this event was ex 

g. Droste  traordinary. On Dec. 10 Gregory Vischering's XVI. pronounced a fulminant allocu 

Downfall. tion in the presence of the cardinals,

in which he took the side of the de­posed archbishop without waiting for reports from Berlin, and declared that the freedom of the Church was violated, the episcopal dignity derided, the rights of the Church trodden under foot. Bunsen, the Prussian ambassador at the Curia, had to be recalled. The Prussian government tried to jus­tify its procedure in the eyes of the public by means of a memorial, and when an answer to this was published in Rome it endeavored to refute it by a second account of the condition of things. The government was also supported by the cathe­dral chapter of Cologne in so far forth that the latter declared itself ready to continue to conduct affairs; and it succeeded in keeping in check the nobility and clergy who took delight in being in the opposition; at the same time it showed a per­sonal courtesy to the archbishop by permitting him to retire to his ancestral castle of Darfeld. But it was not successful in quieting the excited Catholic Population. Whether it would have had the power to maintain the position which it had taken is hard to say; but, as a matter of fast, after King Frederick William IV. succeeded Frederick William III. in 1840 the government at once changed its course and began a retreat which must be designated as the utter defeat of the State. Although Droste Vischering was not allowed to return to Cologne Bishop Von Geissel from Speyer undertaking to administer the archdiocese as co­adjutor with the right of succession, he neverthe 



Droste Visohering Druid

less received from the king in reparation of his honor the declaration that the king had never en­tertained the thought that he had taken a part in machinations of political and revolutionary char­acter. Moreover, the requirements previously made about mixed marriages were allowed to drop, the placet was waived, and in 1841 there was founded in the Prussian Kultusministeriurrt
a spe­cial Roman Catholic department which lasted down to 1871. Droete Viechering spent the rest of his days in Miinater far from public life. In no respect was he an important man, but he possessed great energy and perseverance. Since he aided his Church in winning a great triumph he was praised by G6rres as an Athanasius, but his blus­tering manner reminds one rather of Epiphanies. CARL MIRBT.

BIBLIOaaAPHY: For the life consult: J. von Gorrea, Athana­aiua, Regensburg, 1837 (a Catholic eulogy; of. J. G. Schlemmer, GOrrea in eeinem Athanaaiua ale Vcrtheidaper du Erzbiachofa von Droste zu Viacherinp. Nuremberg, 1838); C. A. Hess, Die beiden Erzbiachnfe, Leipsie, 1839; P. C. Marheineke, Der Erzbiachof C. A. von Droste zu Viachering ale Friedenatifter, Berlin, 1843; F. A. Meth, in Deutachlanda Episcopal in Lebenabildern, Wiirzburh, 1873. On the Cologne controversy, of fundamental im­portance for the relations of the Prussian state to the Catholic Church, consult: G. F. H. R.heiawald, Ailpo­meinea Repertorium fur die theologiache Literatur, vole. zaii. xxxvii., 1838 42 (lists of contemporary literature); C. C. J. von Bunsen, Aua aeinen Briefer, Leipaic, 1868, Eng. transl., London, 1889; E. Friedberg, Grenun zuri­achen Staat and Kirche, Tilbingen, 1872; idem, Grund­lapen der preuaaiachen Kirchenpolitik enter Friedrich 4Vil­helm IV., Leipsie, 1882; H. Schmid, Geachichte der katho­liachen Kirche Deutachlanda, Munich, 1874; H. von Sybel, Klericale Politik im 19. Jahrhurutert, Bonn, 1874; C. Mirbt, Die preuaaiache Geaandtacha/t am Hofe den Papatea, Leipsic, 1899; H. Briick, Geachichte der katholiachen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert, vol. ii., Miinater, 1903.


French moralist and historian; b. at Besanpon

Oct. 31, 1773; d. at Paris Nov. 5, 1850. In 1792

he went to Paris to study law, but on the declara­

tion of war joined the volunteer battalion of Doubs,

and served in the army of the Rhine for the next

three years. Obliged by ill health to abandon his

military, career, he obtained the chair of eloquence

in the military, career, Centrale in his native town. In 1803

he removed to Paris, where for a time he held a

position in the pension office; but after 1814 he

devoted himself exclusively to his favorite pursuit

of literature. In 1824 he became a member of the

French Academy, and in 1838 president of the

Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. At first

an epicurean and a sensualist, be became more re­

ligious as he grew older. His last work was Pen­

sEes sur le Christianisrtxe (Paris, 1844), to which he

added Aveux d'un philosophe Chretien in 1848.

Other works were: De la philosophie morale (Paris,

1823); (Euvres morales (2 vole., 1826); and His­

toire du r~gne de Louis XVI. (3 vole., 1839 42).

1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   139


Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D iconSamuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D

Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D iconSamuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D

Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D iconSamuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D

Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D iconSamuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D

Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D iconSamuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D

Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D iconPolitics Disad – Jackson-Vanik Jackson-Vanik 1nc shell

Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D iconSamuel Saporta, Ph. D

Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D iconGeorge R. Jackson, M. D., Ph. D

Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D iconGeorge R. Jackson, M. D., Ph. D

Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D iconLisa Jackson, Administrator

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2014
обратиться к администрации
Главная страница