Monsignor Martin Grichting holds a doctorate and habilitation in canon law. He was the vicar general of the Swiss Diocese of Chur from 2009 until 2019.
(LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. was not founded by Catholics, nor was it founded for them. On the contrary, Catholics were viewed with suspicion for a long time.
This was because “Catholic” rulers in Europe had been among the forces that had forced the American Founding Fathers – Baptists, Puritans, Presbyterians – to emigrate. In addition, due to the initial dependence on the mother country, England, Anglican state churches existed. It was not until the independence of the U.S. in the 18th century that the process of “disestablishment,” the abolition of state churches, began.
However, the separation of church and state that still characterizes the United States today did not mean that Catholics were free to practice their faith. When they wanted to start building churches, they found that state law did not provide for legal entities that corresponded to the hierarchical understanding of the church. Catholics therefore had to choose the democratically influenced trustee system in order to be able to purchase land and manage financial resources. The “congregation” – parishes were not yet referred to as such due to the missionary nature of the Church – thus gained the right to elect trustees who then administered the Church’s real estate and assets based on secular law and independently of the bishop and parish priest.
This gave impetus to church construction and the expansion of the parish network. However, the system fueled conflicts throughout the country that have gone down in Church history as “trusteeism.”
Lay people acted as masters of their priests according to the motto: “No taxation without representation” or, to put it less elegantly: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” They hired and fired them independently of the bishop. Disreputable priests who sought their fortune in the New World settled there against the will of the bishops. At the time, the issue was not one of “progressive” versus “conservative,” but rather, in addition to human failings, primarily one of nationalism. Irish trustees refused to hire a French-speaking priest who had fled the revolution simply because they did not understand him.
Germans and Alsatians tried to preserve their national identity in the New World by founding national parishes and attempting to exclude fellow believers who spoke other languages. The Portuguese wanted to democratize the European state church. For they intended to exercise the “privileges” over the church usurped by the Catholic monarchs in Europe democratically with the help of the trustee system, vis-à-vis the bishops and priests themselves.
In the early 19th century, this resulted in divisions that severely disrupted the life of the Church. The most famous schism was named after the priest William Hogan. He allied himself with the local trustees against the bishop in Philadelphia’s St. Mary’s Parish Church, which also served as a cathedral. When the bishop excommunicated Hogan, the trustees placed the bishop’s insignia outside the door of “their” church: the bishop no longer had a cathedral.
The Apostolic See was initially overwhelmed by the phenomenon of democracy in the Church and made inappropriate decisions. It was not until the Archbishop of Baltimore, Ambrose Maréchal, traveled to Rome in 1821 that clarification began. He pointed out that the first bishop of the United States, John Carroll, had promoted the trustee system because he saw its advantages. At the end of his life, however, he regretted having allowed it because it threatened to destroy the Church from within. According to Maréchal, the system had to be fundamentally changed. Otherwise, the discipline and unity of the Church could not be maintained.
In response, Pope Pius VII addressed the faithful in the United States in 1822 with his letter “Non sine magno.” What he stated has a magisterial character and is therefore still relevant today: Did they not know, the Pope asked the trustees, that the Holy Spirit had appointed the bishops to lead the Church of God? It was well known that it was not the flock that led the shepherd, but the shepherd who led the flock.
With regard to Church property, thep noted that the excessive and unrestrained right that the trustees claimed for themselves, even independently of the bishops, was causing problems not only in Philadelphia but also in other provinces. If this right were not restricted by a moderating regulation, it would be a constant source of abuse and discord. The trustees must bear in mind that the goods sacrificed for the service of God, for the Church, and for the maintenance of its ministers passed into the power of the Church. And therefore, “just as the bishops are those who preside over the Church by divine order, so too can they not be excluded from the care, disposal, and vigilance of its goods.”
Another new development, unprecedented in the Church, was that the trustees had assumed the right to appoint priests who did not have valid powers of authority, or to dismiss priests. If things were to come to this in the Church, it would no longer be the bishops who presided over the Church, but the laity. The shepherd would be subject to his flock. And the laity would dare to usurp the authority that had been conferred on the bishops by divine order.
Supported by this backing from Rome, the bishops of the United States developed a lively synodal activity. Between 1829 and 1891, no fewer than 34 diocesan and provincial synods and plenary councils took place. After consulting with their clergy and experienced lay people, the bishops laid down in the synodal decrees the basic principles of how Church property should be classified under secular law and what the role of the laity should be in accordance with the nature of the Church. With the help of a correctly understood synodality, democracy in the Church was thus largely eradicated.
Trusteeism ultimately led the bishops of an entire country to recognize the need to stand together and act in unity. In doing so, they lived out the collegiality that was later emphasized by the Second Vatican Council. As much as schisms and the associated excommunications of trustees and suspensions of priests were also part of this dramatic development, it gave the Church in the U.S. a robust character in the 19th century, despite the great national diversity of its faithful, which continues to have an impact today.
Undoubtedly, other factors were also important. For example, due to the aforementioned European “inherited guilt,” Catholics remained a suspect member of American society for a long time. External pressure promoted internal unity. It was not until the second half of the 20th century that the social situation improved. One indication of this is that in 1961, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic president of the United States. And the first American Pope was even longer in coming.
The synodal – and fearless – work of the American bishops also bore fruit in the sense that many states introduced the legal entity of the “corporation aggregate,” as already known in the state of New York in 1863. As a result, the diocesan bishop, the vicar general, and the pastor had ex officio seats on every board of trustees of a congregation, the governing body.
These three were flanked by two trustees elected by the faithful. This made the “pastor” – the term “parish priest” was not used in the mission Church at that time – the person authorized to dispose of Church assets, as he always had three votes. This enabled him to use the parish’s funds and Church property in accordance with Church guidelines. He could also no longer be fired simply for being faithful to the teachings of the Church. But he was now synodally integrated into the congregation. However, the congregation was no longer able to act as an independent counterweight.
In 1911, the Congregation of the Council – now known as the Dicastery for the Clergy – finally published a ranking of which property regime was to be preferred. The so-called “corporation sole,” which made the bishop the sole disposer of all the assets of the diocese, including parishes, was deemed inferior to the “corporation aggregate.” Even back then, the preference was neither monarchy nor democracy, but synodality. The “corporation aggregate” ultimately even served as the model for the parish finance council as it is known in current canon law (cf. CIC, c. 537 and c. 1280).
The traumas of trusteeism have not been forgotten to this day. The Archbishop of Philadelphia, John Krol, warned against this at the Second Vatican Council. And in St. Louis, Missouri, in the early years of the 21st century, believers at St. Stanislaus Kostka Church rebelled against their bishop with the help of the trustee system still in use there. Ultimately, like their predecessors in the 19th century, they went into schism along with their priest.
The volcano of trusteeism has not yet completely died down. At least we can assume that Pope Leo XIV, given his background and knowledge of American Church history, is sensitive to the difference between synodality and democracy in the Church, even if the latter sometimes comes in the sheep’s clothing of synodality.
