Romos katalikų dvasininkų tarnybos prasižengimų samprata ir praktika Šiaurės vakarų krašte (po 1863-1864 m. sukilimo - iki XX a. pradžios)

Direct Link:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Romos katalikų dvasininkų tarnybos prasižengimų samprata ir praktika Šiaurės vakarų krašte (po 1863-1864 m. sukilimo - iki XX a. pradžios)
Alternative Title:
Concept and practice of official misconduct by the Roman Catholic clergy in the Northwest Region (from the end of the january Uprising to the early 20th century)
In the Journal:
Lietuvos istorijos metraštis [Yearbook of Lithuanian History]. 2021, 2021/1, p. 59-82
19 amžius; 20 amžius; Telšiai; Vilnius. Vilniaus kraštas (Vilnius region); Lietuva (Lithuania); Rusija (Россия; Russia; Russia; Rossija; Rusijos Federacija; Rossijskaja Federacija); Bažnyčios istorija / Church history; Bažnyčios istorija / Church history.
Summary / Abstract:

LTStraipsnyje analizuojama, kokia Romos katalikų dvasininkų tarnybos prasižengimų samprata funkcionavo pasaulietinės valdžios sferoje vadinamajame Šiaurės vakarų krašte (jam priklausiusiose Vilniaus ir Žemaičių (Telšių) vyskupijose) dešimtmečiais po 1863–1864 m. sukilimo ir iki XX a. pradžios. Nagrinėjama katalikų dvasininkų luomo teisinė situacija ir bausmių dvasininkams skyrimo praktika, besiformavusi po 1863–1864 m. sukilimo. Detaliau aptariant bausmes dvasininkams už tarnybos prasižengimus siekiama parodyti ne tik pasaulietinės valdžios požiūrį į dvasininkų luomą, bet ir dvasininkų socialinę laikyseną anuometinėje visuomenėje, požiūrį į savo luomo pareigas. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Romos Katalikų Bažnyčia; Dvasininkai; Rusijos imperija (Russian Empire); Vyskupijos; Nusižengimai; Bausmės; 19 amžius; 20 amžius; Offenses; Penalties; Roman Catholic Church; Clergy; Dioceses; 19th century; 20th century.

ENThis article analyses the concept of official misconduct by the Roman Catholic clergy in the sphere of the civil authorities in the so-called Northwest Region (which comprised the dioceses of Vilnius and Samogitia [Telšiai]) in the decades from the Uprising of 1863–1864 to the beginning of the 20th century. It also dwells on the legal situation of Catholic clergymen and the practice of their punishment that developed after the Uprising of 1863–1864. The inquiry into official misconduct by clergymen was aimed at characterising the government’s policy towards the Roman Catholic clergy, and its understanding of what and how members of the Roman Catholic clergy had to behave as part of their duties. The way official misconduct was punished suggests not only the civil authorities’ attitude towards the clergy, but also the clergymen’s social standing in the society of those times and the attitude towards their duties. The functions of the clergyman were set forth in a number of legal acts of the Empire, and quite a few of them also defined sanctions for misconduct. They could be imposed by both the civil and the Church authorities. The Uprising of 1863–1864 had a strong impact (in the sense of strengthening control and repressions) on the attitude of the civil authorities towards the Catholic Church, and therefore its clergy. It was accused of disloyalty to the empire, and was even considered as its enemy. Consequently, the civil authorities discerned inappropriate behaviour in the behaviour of the Roman Catholic clergy, and therefore imposed sanctions. During and after the uprising, in addition to the legal norms regulating the conduct of the clergy that were already in place, special measures introduced as part of the state of emergency were applied to clergymen, thus framing the procedure and practice of administrative penalties.The punishment included, but was not limited to, coming before a court. There were also administrative penalties, such as fines, transfers to another place of service, suspension, cloistering and exile. These punishments remained in force until 1905. By viewing the clergymen’s behaviour as political, the civil government sought to control and punish actions that were part of their direct duties but from the point of view of the authorities implied disloyalty to the Empire. The civil authorities were eager to control as many aspects of the clergymen’s service as possible, whereas governors and governors-general recorded and penalised instances of clerical misconduct that were not provided for in circulars from central or local government regulating the imposition of administrative penalties. The approach towards clergymen’s official misconduct and the punishment for it was subject to judgement, with clear preconditions for the interpretation and the subjective estimation of both the offence and the offender. An analysis of the practice of punishment revealed that it was modified as the governors-general of Vilnius changed. This indicates the lack of a common strategy between the central and the local authorities, and gaps in the assessment of the service of the Roman Catholic clergy. [From the publication]

0202-3342; 2538-6549
Related Publications:
2022-06-17 11:07:15
Views: 19    Downloads: 6