Brooksiana; or, The controversy between Senator Brooks and Archbishop Hughes, growing out of the recently enacted church property bill

Front matter

CORNELL

UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY

Introduction

Few questioHS of a comparatively local character have arisen in modern times to which circumstances have so much attracted public attention as the question of the late Church Property Bill, passed in the Legislature of New York, and the incidents antecedent to or growing out of its enactments. The writer would not have the slightest doubt as to the accuracy of public sentiment if the question were thoroughly understood. He has unbounded confidence in the justice and fairness which characterize the judgment of the American people in regard to any matter, the true merits of which haVe been brought under their notice. No doubt that under the impulse of generous feelings, they are sometimes liable to be led away by appearances. We have seen that in more than one instance political adventurers from other countries have succeeded in imposing upon them, and betraying them into proceedings far from credSable to their calmer judgments. But such delusions have been of very brief and transitory duration. The sober second thought soon replaces the sentiment of impulse and rectifies its errors. It will be so in regard to the question now under consideration. The American people, the living embodiment and practical administrator of the great and noble principles which are inscribed in our free constitutions, will never allow those sacred principles to be perverted or trampled under foot to gratify the spurious patriotism of a clique wio are attempting to infuse religious strife into the very arteries of civil freedom, of social happiness and national strength.

This being now as it has ever been the deliberate judgment of the writer in regard to the character of the American people, he has deemed it but a respectful duty to them to furnish in this introduction such explanation of the true grounds of the question involved in the late act of the Legislature of New York, as will enable them to form their own just conclusions, according to the merit and evidence of the case submitted.

It has been the supreme and sovereign will of the American people from the period of their independence, that all religious denominations residing withiil their borders should enjoy the same eqjiality of rights and privileges under the Constitution and laws of the country. And although several of the States continued for many years to retain enactments preventing Catholics from the ftdl enjoyment of these equal privileges, still the great predominant sentiment of the country indueed those States one after another to abolish such enactments, so that at the present day they disgrace the statute book of no commonwealth in the whole Union, except that of New Hampshire, In this great principle of religious equality among the various denominations composing the powerful free empire of the American people, it was never intended that the State should prescribe for any denomination a code of discipline which should embarrass its members in carrying out the principles of their faith. It never was intended that the rules which might harmonize with the faith of one denomination, should be imposed unsolicited upon another whose religious belief was of an entirely different character. On the contrary, the principle hitherto adopted and universally acted upon, if we except the Church Property Bill as it is commonly called, has been that each denomination should either use a general enactment, such as the law of 1784 in this State, or solicit at the hands of

INTEODUCTION. 6

the Legislature sucli special enactment as might enable them, consistently with the requirements of the Constitution, to manage the external affairs of their communion as a religious body according to their respective symbols of faith.

II

The venerable Archbishop Carroll, who himself took part in the revolution by which American independence was won, wished to assimilate as far as possible the outward administration of Catholic Church property in a way that would harmonize with the democratic principles on which the new government was founded. With this view he authorized and instituted the system of lay trustees in Catholic congregations. Regarded a priori^ no system could appear to be less objectionable, or more likely, both to secure advantages to those congregations, and at the same time to recommend the Catholic religion to the liberal consideration of the Protestant sentiment of the country. • It would, he thought, relieve the priest from the necessity and painfulness of having to appeal from the altar on questions connected with money, touching either the means of his own support, repairs of the church, or other measures essential to the welfare of his congregation. It would at the same time secure the property by the protection of law for the perpetual uses to which it had been set apart and consecrated. It would be a bond of union between the priest and the people. It would be a shield to protect the minister of the altar, from the very suspicion of being a money-seeker, and at the same tittle a means to provide for Lis decent maintenance. All these were no doubt the considerations which moved the venerable and patriotic Archbishop to adopt and recommend the system of lay trustees. On paper and in theory that system was entirely unobjectionable. It was well calculated to gain the confidence of a mind so generous and so liberal as that of the first Archbishop of Baltimore. But in practice it became the bitter chalice of his old age. It led to violent strifes in Charleston and in Norfolk. It led to riots and bloodshed in Baltimore and Philadelphia. Archbishop Carroll, when there were but two churches in the city of Baltimore, was doomed to witness the congregation of one of them assembling at the house of Divine worship on Sunday with loaded muskets in their hands. He was doomed even during his own administration to see an excommunicated priest inaugurated by lay trustees in another church in Philadelphia ; and to undergo a legal prosecution at the hands of lay trustees, in the Civil Court, for a simple act of Episcopal jurisdiction. It is impossible to tell what would have been the consequence of that prosecjition had it not been for the high character which the good prelate had sustained, and for the high estimation in which he was held by the whole community of Philadelphia, Protestant as well as Catholic. After his death, similar results of lay-trusteeship followed in the church of St. Mary in Philadelphia. Whoever will turn to the_ press of that city in the years 1821, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, will see melancholy evidence of its workings in social strifes, religious enmities, schism, lawsuits, fearful riots and bloodshed.

The evils which manifested themselves in these churches on a grand scale, were witnessed in a minor degree in almost every congregation throughout the country, under the government of lay trustees. The churches of this city were by no means exempt from them ; and some of our older Catholic inhabitants have witnessed, both in St. Peter'-s and in St. Patrick's, scenes of strife which they deplored, and which they would be ashamed to read in recorded detail.

III

Such was the generjil condition of the Catholic people of the United States in the year 1829, when their Bishops were numerous enough to hold counsel together for the purpose of securing peace, promoting piety, and improving the moral and social condition of their respective flocks. In the fifth decree of this first council the following statute was agreed upon, and rendered applicable to each diocese except that of Charleston.

" Whereas lay trustees have frequently abused the right conceded to them by the State, to the great detriment of religion and scandal of the faithful, we desire earnestly that henceforth no church be erected or consecrated unless the title thereof, whenever it can be done, shall be assigned by a written dfteument to the bishop of the dioeese in which it is to be erected, for the purpose of divine worship, and the benefit of the faithful." In the fourth decree of the third council of Baltimore, held 'in 1837, both the clergy and laity are reminded of the heavy spiritual penalties decreed by the Council of Trent against all persons, whether lay or clerical, perverting from the sacred purpose to which it is appropriated any thing given by the faithful for religious or charitable uses. The fourth statute of the seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore, held in 1849, lays down the rule as follows : —

'■' The fathers have ordained that all churches and other ecclesiastical goods which have accrued from the gifts or offerings of the faithful, and which are to be employed for purposes of charity or religion, shall belong to the ordinary, unless it appeal and is proven in writing, that they have been conceded to some religious order or congregation of priests for their own use."

These are the only laws of discipline regarding church property which I find enacted in the Provincial Councils of Baltimore. This latter statute had reference more particularly to that kind of property which might have been given in a vague and indefinite way ; a'nd which it might happen that the priest, either in good faith or otherwise, might construe, as having been given to himself for his personal use. But in no case has the idea ev<3r been entertained of acquiring wealth or making the Church rich, or creating revenues which even a Bishop or Archbishop might be at liberty to use or abuse at his discretion.

IV

It' is hardly necessary to remind the Protestant reader that Catholics have their own mode of Church government, and that

INTKODUCTION.

when ttey were admitted to equality of privileges, the same as otlier religious denominations,their mode of regulating questions of Church discipline, according to the principlesof their creed, was substantially recognized and guaranteed. This of course should be in harmony with those principles of the constitution and general laws of the Sfate by which its own supreme sovereignty should be maintained, and its right of protection to all its inhabitants in the domain of civil legislation secured. Still, it was never intended that the Catholic idea regarding Church property should, through the operation of civil laws, be made conformable to those of any other denomination of Christians. This would be a contradiction. It would be taking from them by legislation a portion of what had been secured to them by the Constitution and the Bill of Eights.

It was under these convictions that the present Archbishop of New York enjoined upon the Catholics under his charge the obligation of regarding Church property in the light of their faith. Hence in his pastoral letter, published after the first diocesan synod in 1842, we find the following as the true Catholic idea, according to which Church property is to be jegarded. The document was published at a time when the evil consequences of lay -trusteeship in the city of New York were beginning to manifest themselves.

" Now, ecclesiastical property is that, and all that, which the faithful contribute from religious motives and for religious purposes. It is the Church, the cemetery, and all estate thereto . belonging. It is the pew rents ; — the collections, — and all moneys derived from, or for the benefit of religion. It is the sacred furniture of the house of God. In a word, it is all that exists for ecclesiastical purposes. According to the laws of the Church and the usage of all nations, such property, though it must be protected by human laws, as other material property, yet, being once brought into existence in the form, and for the uses of religion, is considered as if it were the property of God ; which cannot be violated, alienated, or wastefully squandered, without (besides ordinary injusti^je as if it were common

INTEODXJOTION. 9

property), the additional guilt of a kind of sacrilege. It is not considered, in the canon law, either the property of the Bishop, or the property of his clergy, or the property of the people ; but as the property of God, — for the religious uses of them all. Hence, it is the duty of all to preserve it, but to preserve it not with the care which would be sufficient in matters of a secular character, but under a sense of the awful responsibility involved in su<!h administration. In the enactments of the canon law, the highest functionaries of the hierarchy itself were not allowed to undertake their administration, without having first taken an oath that they would administer, preserve, and transmit it, as above described."

This is the same pastoral letter which became a stumblingblock to the trustees of St. Louis' church, Buffalo. In their petition to the legislature they substitute an entire falsehood of their own invention, as the ground of their opposition to episcopal authority. They say that Bishop Hughes attempted to compel them (the trustees) to make over the title of their church to him. The spirit of this false statement was the foundation for the bill enacted in the last session of the Legislature. And when Senator Brooks asserted that among the property conveyed to the Archbishop of New York there were numerous transfers from trustees, there was especial malice blended with the falsehood of his assertions. It was intended by him to be understood, and it was so understood by those who heard or read his speech, that the Archbishop had abused his xjpiseopal authority for the purpose of wresting from the hands of lay trustees the property which the law of the State had authorized them to hold, and administer. But thanks to Almighty God the writer of this has been providentially forearmed, if not forewarned, against such unfounded calumnies as Mr. Brooks has seen fit to invent and publish in the Senate chamber of the State of New York. On pages 11 and 12 of that same pastoral letter, published in 1842, we find the following statement, showing how grossly Mr. Senator Brooks has at once misrepresented the state of facts and the purity of motives. Beferring to the discipline 1* of tlie Catholic Church, as laid down in the Provincial Councils at Baltimore, the Archbishop says :

" One of the first and most explicit decrees of the Provincial Council in Baltimore, directed and enjoined on the Bishops of this province, that they should not, thenceforward, consecrate any church therein, unless the deed had been previously made, in trust, to the Bishop thereof This rule has hitherto been followed strictly by the great majority of the episcopal body ;, and wherever it has been followed, the faithful are exempted from many of the evils to which we have already referred. Religion progresses — the clergy are freed from annoyances — ^their ministry is respected — their influence with the people obtains large and numerous contributions, for the erection or improvement of churches, and the danger of seeing those sold for debt, and given over to profanation, is alike removed from the apprehensions of pastor and people. In proportion to their numbers, the multiplication of churches has been as great among them, as in this diocese, and yet their churches are almost, if not entirely, out of debt.

" Notwithstanding the feelings that must arise from the contrast of their situation with ours, we have, for what appeared weighty reasons, liUherto declined executing the statutes of the decrees of .the Baltimore councils on this subject. In the first place, the system existed here, more, perhaps, than in any other diocese. Secondly, it was intimated that the laws rendered the tenure in trust, of Church property by the ordinary, uncertain, if not insecure. Besides, if it could be avoided, without injury to religion and the ecclesiastical property, we should be glad to see the Bishop freed from the solicitude inseparable from its guardianship. These considerations, which might be much enlarged, have induced us to hope that the present system of lay trustees might be so modified, as to secure some benefit, and exclude many of the evils which have resulted from the irresponsible exercise of its powers.

INTROBTTCTION. 11

About this period tlie bankruptcy of our lay trustees commenced. Churobes, also, began to rise, in which the people did not desire their services. And so earnest was the Bishop in taking precautions against maladministration in the new system, and against the dangers of reproach or even suspicion in regard to their administration by the pastors, that he published the following rules : —

EULES

FOB THE ADMINISTEATION OF CHURCHES WHICH HAVE NO TRUSTEES,

" Inasmuch as the temporal affairs of any church may fall into disorder from the absence of a regular system for the management of the same; and inasmuch as the responsibility, and perhaps the reproach of maladministration would rest upon the clergymaKj it is deemed essential, both for the regulation of the temporal concerns of each congregation, and for the protection of the pastoral character, that certain general rules, as nearly uniform as possible, should be adopted. It is hoped that tho • following simple rules will be found sufficient for the purpose.

" 1st. The income of our churches arises from two sources, viz. : Pew-rents and Sunday collections. The Pastor is required to keep in a book of his own a regular account of the collections taken up on Sundays and Festivals — he is also required to keep a similar regular account of the Pew-rents as paid in by the Collector ; he is required to appoint at least two confidential and pious members of his congregation, competent for such a task, by their own good sense and experience^the one to be Treasurer of Church revenues, the other Secretary, for keeping regular records of such transactions, appertaining to the affairs of the Church, as are to be recorded — both to be his assistants in managing his temporal concerns, and in aiding him with their know-

12 INTRODUOTION.

ledge of affairs and advice in every matter wliieh rec[uires reflection, and is of any importance.

" 2d. All moneys arising from the sources of income already mentioned, shall be deposited in the hands of the Treasurer. The Collector shall make a double report of the sums, receiving credit in his book, as he deposits them with the Treasurer, and entering each transaction, on the book kept' by the Pastor; so that one book shall be exactly correspondent with the other. Neither the Secretary nor Treasui-er shall appropriate or expend any of this money, except by virtue of a written order, from the Pastor in each case, which order shall be the Treasurer's voucher. The Pastor is required, in the expenditure of this income, for which he shall be responsible, to conform strictly to the rules of the Diocese, with regard to the manner, and the amount and limitation of such expenditure.

" Under the head of expenditure, is included the necessary expense of supporting public worship — -the salaries given to persons employed in the Church, or for the congregation — as Organist, Sexton, or Collector. These, the Pastor will regulate with due regard to the propriety of the selection and the circumstances of his Church. Under the same head will come, the amount necessary for the maintenance of the Pastor, and of his Assistant, ■ when there is more than one Clergyman. It is the Bishop's wish, that so far as the fixed sum necessary for the support of the Pastor is concerned, it should be the same in all Churches throughout the Diocese, viz. : Six Hundred Dollars for the Pastor, and Four Hundred Dollars for the Assistant, with the understanding that the Assistant shall bear half the expenses of the house, receiving half the perquisites, and, if he should prefer paying a weekly sum for board, he shall receive one-third of the perquisites.

" In case it happen, that either for the convenience of the congregation, or as a means of living, some clergyman, incapable of rendering other missionary service than that of celebrating Mass, should be engaged, the sum to be allowed shall in no case exceed Three Hundred Dollars. If such Clergyman shall in process of time become capable of performing certain other duties of tbe mission, tliis sum will be . increased, at tbe discretion of the Pastor, witli the knowledge and approbation of the Bishop.

" dd. Wherever there is a parsonage attached to the Church and belonging to the congregation, it shall be for the use of the Pastor and such other Clergymen as may officiate in such Church — in such ^ase, too, at least for the time to come, the congregation should provide the residence of the Clergy with a sufficient and decent supply of furniture, and having once furnished such supply, it is to be kept up ever afterwards as church property, at the expense of the pastor for the time being.

" No article of church service, such as sacred vessels, vestments, paintings or other things of this kind, for which the congregation shall have contributed, either by direct contribution or through the medium of the Church income, shall belong to the Pastor ; but every such article shall belong to the Church and congregation, for its use and benefit.

" In cases in which there is no parsonage owned by the congregation, for the Pastor's residence, it will be lawful for him to receive $f 00 per annum, additional, for the purpose of defraying house rent ; but it is earnestly recommended that wherever there is a permanent congregation, they, and their Pastor together take measures to erect a suitable dwelling for his residence.

" ith. It is further required, that every six months a strict report of the condition, the income, and the expenditure, regularly audited, shall be forwarded to the Bishop, for the purpose of being recorded in a Registry, to be kept at his house for that purpose. A copy also of such report shall be published and distributed among the congregation, - -

"The circumstances in which some of the Churches in this extended Diocese vary from others, will probably prevent these rules from being equally applied to them all, but it is considered that they are entirely applicable to all the larger congregations, in ' which the Divine service is regularly kept on all Sundays and Festivals. It is hoped also that many congregations of recent origin, and limited resources, will grow up in a short time, by

14 INTRODnOTION.

their prudence in managing their affairs and the increase of their numbers, to the measure of being able to comply with these requirements.

" nJ. JOHN HIIGHES, Archbishop of New Yokk, "New Yokk, Mly, 185S."

First published in 1843, and re-published July, 1^53.

VI

It was by no act of the bishop that the trustee system of New York broke down within a year or two after the publication of this document. All the Catholic churches of this city had been under the management of lay trustees. They were at that period eight in number. Of these five boards of as many churches, namely, St. James's Transfiguration, St. Paul's at Harlem, St. Peter's in Barclay street, and St. John's at the corner of 50th street and Pifth avenue, all became bankrupt, — their last offipial act having been to pass the churches severally either to assignees or to be sold by the sheriff for the benefit of creditors. Two other churches, namely, St. Joseph's and St. Mary's, permitted their trustees to retire from ofiice, and thus saved their property from the fate of the other churches. The church of St. Nicholas, in 2d street, was then under trustees, and has still continued to be administered by them without the slightest hindrance on the part of the bishop. St. Patrick's church has also continued under similar administration. They proposed more than once to resign, but the bishop would not consent to it, inasmuch as their trusts were more important, and as they were disposed at all times to discharge them in a manner conformable to the principles of the Catholic faith, and at the same time in accordance with the law of their charter derived from the State.

Here, then, we have five churches thrown into market to be alienated from Catholic worship, through the unfortunate administration of lay trustees. Were they to be sold as so many insolvent theatres 1 Their trustees had contracted debts in the name of the Catholic community — were their creditors to be cheated out of money which they had loaned in good faith? Were the Catholics to he not only deprived of their altars," but " also to incur the disgrace of non-payment of debts which their trustees had lawfully contracted in their name ? These were th« questions which the bishop, and the clergy, and the people of New York had to decide. It was agreed that the bishop should purchase these churches, and if posjsible preserve them for the sacred purposes to which they had been dedicated. But they were indebted for more than double the amount for which they were sold. And these melancholy legacies of debt thrown upon the bishop and the Catholic people constitute the greater part of the pretended wealth which Senator Brooks ascribed to the bishop. They were indeed entered on the records as the bishop's property, but the acc^uisition, burdened as it was to' an amount more than double its value, instead of making a poor man rich, would be calculated to make a rich man poor.

It would be tiresome to go into a detail of the embarrassments in which the mismanagement of lay trustees had contrived to involve these churches. Let it suffice to state in general that by a determination which does immortal honor to the Catholic community of New York, every claim against them in law and in equity, has been honorably met and discharged or provided for. No man, Catholic or Protestant, Jew or Gentile, is able to say that he was defrauded or that he lost so much as one penny by the insolvency of these churches, at the period of the bankruptcy of their trustees. But it may be instructive as regards both the past and the future, to give a brief history of the workings of the trustee system, as contrasted with the present mode of administration in one of these churches. That of St. Peter's in Barclay street, shall be taken as a sample of the condition of the others.

St. Peter's is the oldest Catholic church in the city. It was for twenty -five years .the only one. Its congregation was the wealthiest until within a recent period. It had always been under the management of lay trustees. When the former St. Peter's

16 INTKODUCTION.

was found too small and it was determined to replace it by a new church, the hoard then existing had the ground free of debt, the materials of the old edifice, ten thousand dollars, it is said, in their treasury, as well as whatever may have been realized from voluntary contributions for the construction of the present church. This, one would suppose to indicate an auBpicious commencement of the work. When the church was completed as it now stands, and a pastoral residence built on ground which they had leased fronj the corporation of Trinity church, the trustees, besides whatever money was in hand at the commencement of the work, found themselves indebted to the amount of $11 6,444 23. They continued their administration of the church from April, 1S37, to May, 184.4, and in this interval, instead of diminishing the debt they increased it by the sum of $18, 500 77, making the whole debt when they became bankrupt and made an assignment of the church for the benefit of creditors, $134,945. When this property was sold at the Exchange it was knocked down at the highest bid, which was $46,000. It was purchased by one of the congregation to be transferred to the bishop. Here then is one of those entries of a property valued at $46,000, but with a moral obligation incumbent on the purchaser to provide for its debts to the amount of $134,945. And this is quoted by Senator Brooks as evidence of the immense wealth of the Archbishop. Another entry which he quotes as evidence of property acquired is the unexpired term of the lease from Trinity Church of the ground on which the pastoral residence of St. Peter's Church is built. The Archbishop had to assume the payment of arrears of ground rent, with interest on the same, to the amount of $2,200. There were but three years of the term of that lease unexpired, and yet Senator Brooks, concealing all this, cites the transfer from the assignees as an evidence of the immense wealth which the Archbishop was gathering into his possession.

It may be matter of surprise that the trustees should have been able to accumulate such an amount of borrowed money on a property which sold in the Exchange for less than one third of its indebtedness. This is to be explained as follo-ws : — Soon after the erection of the church was commenced, the trustees Induced the pastor of the church to proclaim from the pulpit, that. the poor who had money, even in small sums, might with perfect safety give the use of it to the Board of Trustees — that they should allow the same interest that was allowed on deposits in the Savings Banks, — that it would be perfectly safe ; and that, without loss to themselves, the depositors would be aiding the church and promoting religion. When these announcements were made I am quite persuaded that all parties acted in good faith, and had entire confidence in their future ability to return these sums, whenever they should be called for. Accordingly, an indefinite number of certificateSj handsomely engraved, and fortified by -the corporate seal of the Board, were given in due form to the depositors who came to offer their money. In this way they found their treasury replenished and overflowing. Time went' on — they struggled during a period of seven years to pay their interest, but the capital of their debt increased during 'the same time from |116,0Q0 to $135,000. Their charter required that the Bishop of the diocese should be invited to attend their meetings, but no such invitation was ever sent to the present Archbishop. On the "contrary, they regarded him as one having no confidence in their system, — in short, as one opposed to trustees. Neither shall I conceal a fact which it is no pleasure to me to have to record. And it is this, that finding themselves and their church sinking irretrievably, they waited on the Bishop a short time before the assignment, intimated to him their financial condition, but with a gilding of confidence in which he could not participate, desired he would authorize them to increase their mortgage to a sum of $40,000 instead of $19,000, out of which they should pay off the old mortgage, and from the balance discharge certain Other pressing debts. They acknowledged at the same time that the trustee system was by no means the best, and proposed with the greatest simplicity to transfer the whole property ko the Bishop, which he respectfully but absolutely declined. The