USA > New Jersey > The Catholic Church in New Jersey > Part 44
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62
Following in the footsteps of his predecessors, the diocesan seminary was the object of Bishop Wigger's solicitude. In August, 1882, he writes to his flock through his priests that
the educating of young men and the training of them for the sublime state and onerous duties of the priesthood should enlist the warmest sympathy of every true and sincere Catholic. Great and sublime is the dignity of the priesthood! Those who are called to that holy state are required by our blessed Lord to work for the eternal salvation of souls. Their duty is not merely to labor for themselves, to endeavor to work out the salvation of their own soul. No! More than this is required of the priest of God. He is bound to labor for the souls of others, to endeavor to gain them to Christ, to lead them to Heaven. ... Is it not clear and evident from this that those who are instrumental in enabling young men to become priests are doing a work which is highly pleasing to God?
The question of the new bishop's appointment of a vicar-gen- eral agitated the hearts of his clergy not a little. Bishop Wigger wrote a letter to the Rev. Januarius de Concilio, a very learned priest and an able theologian, appointing him to the most impor-
1
484
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
tant office in the diocese, that of vicar-general, but coupled with the request that it was not to be made public until the bishop would give him leave The news, however, leaked out, and although none took exception to the ability of the appointee, yet the greater part of the clergy felt that the honor belonged to one who had labored longer in the diocese, and whose nationality had a larger representation in the flock.
The letter was withdrawn, and the diocese remained for a period of years without a vicar-general.
The Catholic Protectory at Denville, while in a healthy finan- cial condition, was found to be too distant from commercial cen- tres to procure work for the manual training of the boys, and required a change not only of location but also of management. The brothers failed dismally, and the sisters were powerless to cope with the difficulties. All this is summed up in Bishop Wigger's letter of March 7th, 1883:
REV. DEAR SIR: Last summer I was fortunate enough to acquire, by purchase, a valuable property of ten acres of land, on which, in addition to smaller buildings, stands a large, elegant mansion, containing twenty-nine rooms. The property is situated in Arlington, on the Passaic River, about two miles from Newark. It was bought at the extremely low price of $16,000. Many per- sons, both lay and clerical, have since gone to see the place and examine the mansion, and all have expressed their unqualified pleasure and their great wonder that it should have been bought at so low a figure. My intention, when making the purchase, was eventually to use it as a Protectory and Industrial School for Boys. The conviction had gradually grown upon me that it was not sufficient to give shelter to homeless or wayward boys, to feed and clothe them, to give them a religious and secular educa- tion; I felt that, if we wished to save them for good, to make them useful citizens in after life, we should, whilst they are under our care, teach them some trade or profession which would enable them, after leaving the Institution, to earn for themselves an honest livelihood. It was for this reason that I considered it right and prudent to purchase the property at Arlington, and I can truthfully add that all to whom I have spoken about the matter have approved of my action.
My next step, after buying the place, was to endeavor to find some competent person to assume the direction of the Institution. I am happy to state that I found such a person in the Rev. J. J. Curran, formerly rector of St. Mary's Church, Paterson. I knew him to be competent to fulfil the duties of the position, and, to my delight, I also found him willing to undertake the work, by no means pleasant or easy, but calculated to effect much temporal and spiritual good. He resigned his parish February 10th and
485
IN NEW JERSEY
assumed the duties of Director of the Catholic Protectory and Sacred Heart Industrial School, at Arlington. Since then he has labored diligently to prepare the place for the reception of the boys, and in the course of this week he will be able to take about ten from Denville and bring them to the new institution. The work of instructing them in some useful trade will at once be commenced.
As the Sacred Heart Union was established for the purpose of aiding the Protectory, its direction was also given into the hands of the Rev. J J. Curran. The former Director, the Rev. J. A. Sheppard, who has recently been promoted to the parish of Dover, has, by his able management and the zealous cooperation of the clergy and laity of the diocese, accomplished a great deal during the last three years.
From time to time the different bishops of the diocese had reason to complain of the lack of interest in the diocesan semi- nary, and the inadequate support which was doled out to it in the seminary collections.
Various schemes were devised and were temporarily success- ful, but ultimately abandoned. The burden was unequally borne, some parishes contributing more and others less than their quota. Therefore, in August, 1885, Bishop Wigger determined to do away with the collections for the seminary, and to substitute a tax.
After much reflection I have concluded that it would be much better to raise funds for the diocesan seminary by taxa- tion than by the annual collections, taken up heretofore . . I consider this a better and a fairer method than the one hitherto followed in this diocese. Many churches formerly contributed more than their just share, whilst a considerable number did not at all give what was reasonably expected of them
At the fall conference the Rev. William P. Salt was declared vicar-general, an appointment which met with universal approval
In the month of September, 1886, Bishop Wigger started to make the decennial visit to the Tomb of the Apostles, Saints Peter and Paul, which is required of every bishop in the United States, and he was presented with a purse by his clergy. On his return the clergy w -re summoned to the Fifth Synod, in the Cathedral, November 17th, 1886, of which two sessions were held, and the legislation enacted by the III. Plenary Council of Baltimore pro- claimed and applied. The salary of pastors was fixed at $ 1,000, and of assistants at $600, and where the stole offerings failed to meet the household expenses it was hereafter permitted to take the deficit from the Christmas collection. The Rev. William
486
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
McNulty was appointed rural dean of Passaic County, and the Rev. Joseph M. Flynn, of Morris and Sussex counties
Stringent regulations were made with regard to funerals, and among others that of prohibiting eulogies to be delivered over the remains of the laity.
This was enforced vigorously, although at times, as in the case of John Gilmary Shea, it was felt that an exception should be made; but the bishop refused to recede from his position. A firm adherent of the Catholic parish school, Bishop Wigger strove to better prevailing conditions, by requiring the examination of teachers, and appointing inspectors to visit the school and examine the children He likewise declared that absolution should be re- fused both to the parents and children, when the latter attended the public schools without his permission.
A very grave question which had its origin in the West arose which was fraught with serious complications and bitter strife, and almost threatened a schism. A document, the "State of the German Question in the United States,' written by the Rev. P. M. Abbelen, a priest of the Milwaukee diocese, and approved by Archbishop Heiss, was submitted to the congregation of the Propaganda. The entire hierarchy almost without exception arose to refute the charges made in this declaration, and protest after protest went to Rome to block the remedies asked for the alleged grievances. Counter relations were written, and the discussion continued until the climax was reached in 1891, when the field cleared and the era of peace again dawned upon a distracted and widely divided church.
Notwithstanding the legislation by which the Baltimore Coun- cil gave a certain number of the diocesan clergy a preferential declaration of their choice with regard to the future head of the See, when the diocese became vacant there existed a certain amount of dissatisfaction, since it was thought that the time had come when the Church in the United States, numerically consid ered, deserved to put aside its swaddling clothes, and the clergy invested with the rights and prerogatives enjoyed by parish priests in countries where canon law prevails A more or less arbitrary exercise of power on the part of bishops toward their priests accen tuated the contention, which led to the publication of the " Canon ical Status of Priests in the United States," by the Rev Richard L. Burtsell, D.D., and to a brochure on the same topic by the Rev. Patrick Corrigan. Father Corrigan's views were printed while he was on a visit abroad in Italy, and again when on his re-
487
IN NEW JERSEY
turn to his parish in Hoboken. This led to considerable friction between the priest and his Ordinary, which resulted in Father Corrigan's suspension.
The letter of suspension written by Bishop Wigger explains fully the reasons that led him to take this extreme measure
Rev. Patrick Corrigan,
Rector of St. Mary's Church, Hoboken, N. J.
REV. DEAR SIR: In June, 1883, without our permission or knowledge, you published a pamphlet entitled " Episcopal Nomi- nations." For good and valid reasons, given to you in our letter of June 28th, 1883, we suppressed the pamphlet. Subsequently, in our letter to you dated July 18th, 1883, having heard a report to the effect that the pamphlet was to be republished, we wrote to you warning you that, as you owned the copyright and could forbid its republication by others, we would hold you responsible for its republication. We then directed you "to see Mr. Sulli- van " (your publisher) "or write to him at once, warning him of the consequences in case he were to carry out his plan of having the pamphlet republished by another firm." You replied July 20th, 1883, by saying: "I do not think that my seeing or writing to Mr. Sullivan can strengthen the legal control which the copy- right gives me over the work." In the same letter you asked us to allow you "to publish the pamphlet with such changes as you may think necessary." We replied July 23d, 1883, saying : "With regard to your proposition of leaving out the school question and then republishing the pamphlet, I have to observe that there are many other objectionable things in it. If you procure The Sun- day Mercury of July 15th, you will find what sort of interpretation is put on your remarks in the course of the work."
Subsequently you came to see us personally, again asking the same permission. We replied, saying that if all the objectionable things in the pamphlet were eliminated there would be very little left to publish. Some time after this interview, having again heard that the pamphlet was to be republished, we wrote you another letter, dated May 17th, 1884, calling your attention to the report, warning you of the consequences in case you had the pamphlet republished.
We thus clearly showed you our strong and decided opposition to the republication in whole or in part of your first pamphlet. In utter disregard, however, of these our warnings, and publicly and notoriously despising our episcopal authority, you, in May, 1884, substantially republished it, and made comments on and additions to it of very objectionable character. That you publicly and notoriously despised our episcopal authority is clear from what you yourself say on page 10 of your second pamphlet, entitled " What the Catholic Church Most Needs in the United States." There you say: "I do not, however, complain of the suppression
488
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
of the work, for it is strictly within the letter of the law. I have even submitted to things in connection with the suppression which no law required of me, in the hope of being allowed to pub- lish it with whatever eliminations the bishop or his censors might suggest. This request, however, which might have resulted in a clear vindication of my orthodoxy by the pamphlet itself, was not granted." Again, on page 12 of the same pamphlet, you say: "I offered more than once, though without a shadow of success, to purchase non-interference on his" (the bishop's) "part by the elimination of everything to which he or his censors might ob- ject." The above passages clearly show that you publish to the world that you have repeatedly endeavored to obtain our permis- sion to republish at least a portion of your first pamphlet, but failed in every attempt Still you publish large portions of it, thus notoriously defying our episcopal authority. Nay, more, on pages 5 and 12 you publicly deny our authority in this matter and comment on our action in a manner to bring odium and contempt on our authority, by stating that that action was "calculated to excite alarm in the minds of those who are most anxious for the future of the Church in America." In your second and third pamphlets there are also several other propositions derogatory to the respect due to the authorities at Rome and to episcopal authority. Among them may be indicated those contained on pages 47 and 48 of your second pamphlet, where you state that Rome is afraid to take independent action "with regard to the nominating of bishops or any other very important measure"; and further on you insinuate that the bishops may be coerced by the clergy and laity, inasmuch as "they depend upon the volun- tary offerings of the people and the personal efforts of the priests, whose zeal may increase or diminish those offerings at will." You also erroneously teach that priests, as priests, have a right derived from "divine concession " and from the normal law of the Church "to a voice in the election of their bishops."
In your third pamphlet, which you also published without ask- ing our permission to do so, and, in fact, without our knowledge, in October, 1884, you make some remarkable statements, going so far as to say that "Rome raised her authoritative voice, and not only sustained the person who commenced the discussion, but praised him for his sacerdotal zeal "; that "a most distinguished theologian and doctor of the Church, who represented me in my appeal to the Propaganda against the action of Bishop Wigger regarding my pamphlet, has informed me by letter, dated Rome, June 29th, 1884, that His Eminence, Cardinal Jacobini" (you should have said His Grace, Archbishop Jacobini), "Secretary of the Propaganda, has given permission to circulate my pamphlet in English or in Italian, even in the very city of Rome." A little further on you state: "I claim no personal triumph, but I cannot help rejoicing that my conduct has the approval of Rome. Roma locuta est, causa finita est."
Although we had good reason to doubt the truth of the asser-
489
IN NEW JERSEY
tion that the pamphlet had the approval of Rome, still our great respect and veneration for the authorities at Rome induced us, before taking any decisive steps against you, to first write to His Eminence, Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect of the Propaganda, giving him a full account of our action with regard to the suppression of your first pamphlet, telling him of your own disregard of our authority, at the same time asking whether or not His Grace, Archbishop Jacobini, had approved your first pamphlet. The answer soon came, and in it His Eminence, after acknowledging the receipt of your two first pamphlets, which I had sent him, ex- presses his displeasure that "this priest shows himself so regard- less of the authority of his bishop, and that, in spite of the pro- hibition of his own superior, he dares to publish works from which certainly no good can be expected." He also says that, "as to the assertion of Rev. Corrigan that Monsignor Jacobini has ap- proved his first pamphlet, I am free to declare that such assertion is entirely unfounded and false." He adds: "So far was Mon- signor Jacobini from approving the pamphlet in any manner, that he has never had time to read it."
Now, after calmly and maturely reflecting on your conduct, which His Eminence, Cardinal Simeoni, calls reprehensible-on your bold and public and notorious defiance of our episcopal authority, repeatedly republishing considerable portions of your first pamphlet, although we had repeatedly refused you permis- sion to do so, and finding that impunity only makes you the bolder and the more defiant, we hereby suspend you ab ordine et officio for twenty-one days, the suspension to begin to-day and at once, and we command you to write out within these twenty-one days a statement to the effect that His Grace, Archbishop Jacobini, Sec- retary of the Propaganda, has not approved your first pamphlet, and that the Propaganda has not entertained your appeal against our action with regard to the suppression of your first pamphlet. We reserve to ourselves the right to make whatever use we think proper of that statement.
Given at Seton Hall College, South Orange, this 10th day of March, A.D. 1885.
WINAND MICHAEL WIGGER, Bishop of Newark.
In October, 1888, to comply with the decree of the III. Plen- ary Council of Baltimore, Bishop Wigger declared the pastors of St. John's and St. Michael's, Newark, St. Mary's and St. Joseph's, Jersey City, St. Patrick's, Elizabeth, and the Assumption, Morris- town, permanent rectors, a privilege which makes them irremova- ble, and carries with it the right, together with the consultors, to declare their choice in the selection of three names when the diocese becomes vacant.
The incessant labor which Bishop Wigger exercised in the
490
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
administration of the diocese, involving a tremendous strain upon a naturally delicate constitution, began to tell on his health.
He allowed no official to share his responsibilities or lighten his labor. He did not seem capable of giving a refusal when asked to exercise his episcopal office. In the early morning he would administer confirmation in one church, in the afternoon in another, miles away, and, at night, still in another distant mission, return- ing to his college home thoroughly beaten out and exhausted. In the morning, however, he was up with the earliest, never failing to celebrate Mass for the seminarians at the exact appointed hour, and to resume the daily grind of receiving visitors and answering personally all his numerous correspondents. The first American pilgrimage to the Holy Land was organized, and Bishop Wigger determined to avail himself of it to recruit his health and gratify a long-entertained desire to visit the places sanctified by the foot- steps and sufferings of Jesus Christ. During the voyage he was stricken with pneumonia, and almost expired on the journey. On his arrival in Rome he was taken to St. Bartholemew's Hospital, and later removed to the American College. He rallied, and al- though prevented from fulfilling his heart's yearning to go to Jeru- salem, he visited the home of his parents in Westphalia, and re- turned to his diocese in improved health. After his departure from New York the Administrator of the diocese, the Very Rev. Wil- liam P. Salt, V.G., in view of the centennial anniversary of the inauguration of the first President of the United States, addressed, April 18th, the following letter to the diocese :
On the last day of this month the first centennial of Washing- ton's inauguration will be commemorated. .
I hereby request you to arrange that a Mass of Thanksgiving be celebrated in your church, Tuesday, April 30th, in honor of this memorable occasion.
After the Mass the clergy will please recite with the faithful the subjoined prayer for the authorities, that the Almighty in his infinite mercy may vouchsafe to continue his gracious blessings on our beloved country.
The VI. Synod was held in the month of June, 1890, but nothing of special interest was done.
In this same month Bishop Wigger celebrated the silver jubilee of his priesthood. The clergy presented him with a purse, which was presented by him to the recently opened Leo House for the reception of German immigrants.
In February of 1901 appeared a letter which Peter Paul
491
IN NEW JERSEY
Cahensly wrote to Leo XIII., and which gave great offence to the Catholics in the United States.
To avoid any appearance of partisanship it is judged advisable, in describing this movement, to transcribe the account of it, which was written by Mr. Charles G. Heberman, LL.D., in the Historical Records and Studies, Vol. II., Part II., pp. 307-310:
Mr. Peter Paul Cahensly was a German merchant who, while a resident of Havre, had been impressed with the hardships, im- positions, and moral and religious dangers to which European emi- grants seeking a new home in foreign lands were frequently ex- posed. After a careful study of the entire question he felt sure that much might be done to safeguard these helpless people. He laid his plans before the representatives of the Catholic German laity and clergy and secured their support. The St. Raphael Society, an international association for the protection of Catholic emigrants, was founded and branches established in the principal ports not only of the European continent but of the world. It was to further this commendable work that Mr. Cahensly came to the United States in the year 1883. He visited both the East and the West, striving to interest prelates and laymen in the project. Bishop Wigger, who was ever ready to promote works of charity, consented to take the presidency of a branch of the Raphael Society established in New York shortly before Mr. Cahensly's return to Europe. The new society did not meet with success until several years afterward. Meanwhile a movement was launched among the German Catholics, especially the clergy in the West, which found some support among the Eastern Ger- mans. Its most characteristic symptom was the insistence of many non-English Catholic papers that millions of Catholics had been lost to the Church, and that this loss was due to the indiffer- ence or ignorance or lack of tact of the American episcopate. From these assertions was drawn the inference that the immi- grants who did not speak English must be put into more capable and sympathetic hands; in other words, that "national " bishops should be appointed alongside of the nominal hierarchy of the country to care for the immigrants just mentioned. The move- ment had its strongest advocates in the German-American Catho- lic journals and among the German, Italian, and Canadian-Ameri- can clergy. In Germany itself similar views were expressed in the Catholic press. Naturally the American Episcopate indig- nantly objected to these statements, and men like Dr. J. G. Shea manifestly proved the gross exaggeration of Catholic "leakage." The controversy raged fierce and hot, when, in 1891, Mr. Cahensly presented a memorial to Cardinal Rampolla, in the name of the International St. Raphael Society, repeating these statements of Catholic losses in America, as well as containing suggestions as to appointing representatives of the various immigrating nation- alities as bishops, and other measures at least seeming to suggest
492
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
that some power be exercised on the government of the Church in the United States by transatlantic influences other than the Pope's. The spark had fallen into a mass of explosives; one long and strong protest was raised against these plans and projects now denounced as "Cahenslyism."
In imitation of the annual Catholic Congress held in Germany for many years, which had attracted great attention and notably influenced the course of religious events in that country, since 1885, the German Catholics of the Union had held similar meet- ings in various cities of the United States under the auspices of the Priester-Verein, or Society of German Priests. These assem- blies had hitherto been summoned to Western cities. In 1892 the "commissary " of the Priester-Verein called on Bishop Wig- ger to authorize the meeting at Newark. The permission was given as a matter of course, as it had been given by American bishops in the West in former years. This meeting became the occasion of a lengthy controversy of which the Bishop of Newark was one of the central figures.
The opening of the congress was fixed for Monday, September 26th, 1892. For the evening of Sunday, the 25th of September, the bishop invited some of the leading men of the congress, mostly Western clergymen, to dine with him at Seton Hall Col- lege and to discuss the programme of the proceedings. Among the gentlemen present were the Very Rev. H. Muhlsiepen, of St. Louis, Rev. Dr. P. J. Schroeder of the Catholic University, Rev. George Bornemann, and the president of the congress. Dr. Schroeder had returned from Germany only a day or two before, where he had been the guest of Mr. P. P. Cahensly. He had been deeply impressed with the character, the aims, and the motives of his host. Naturally he was enthusiastic in his praise, and pro- posed that the congress should take a strong stand, defending Mr. Cahensly's honor and honesty, and denouncing those who misinterpreted that gentleman's words and deeds. Bishop Wig- ger listened to the Washington professor's discourse without interrupting him. At its close, in his usual quiet tones, but posi- tively and emphatically, the bishop signified his dissent from Rev. Dr. Schroeder. Without wishing in any manner to cast any slur on the German statesman, he declared he wished to state his entire dissent from the views which had recently been discussed as "Cahenslyism." He disapproved strongly of " national bishops " and of the charges of negligence made against the American episcopate. He added that not a single German-American bishop in the United States sympathized with those views. In reply to some remarks of the Rev. Dr. Schroeder contending that Mr. Cahensly's memorial to Cardinal Rampolla had been misinter- preted, the Bishop of Newark pointedly replied that he had read and studied the memorial both carefully and often, and that he found therein the views ascribed to it by Dr. Schroeder's oppo- nents; indeed, if it did not bear this construction he declared he did not see what it meant. In conclusion, the bishop expressed
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.