Vyskupo kontrolės laikas: Vilniaus vyskupijos vyskupas ir dvasininkai 1883–1885 m.

LTBaigiantis 1882-iesiems, po kelerius metus trukusių Rusijos ir Apaštalų Sosto derybų, be kita ko, buvo pasiektas susitarimas, skirti vyskupus į laisvas jų vietas. Vilniaus vyskupu paskirtas Mogiliavo arkivyskupinės Romos katalikų dvasinės seminarijos Sankt Peterburge rektorius Mogiliavo katedros kapitulos prelatas Karolis Hrynevickis (Karol Hryniewicki, Hryniewiecki, 1841–1929). Praėjus dvidešimčiai metų nuo Vilniaus vyskupo Adomo Stanislovo Krasinskio (Adam Stanisław Krasiński) ištrėmimo (1863 m. birželio mėnesį) vyskupija vėl turėjo vyskupą ordinarą. Visgi šio vyskupo rezidavimo Vilniuje laikas nebuvo ilgas: jau 1885 m. sausio mėnesį dėl savo ganytojiškos laikysenos, nesuderinamos su lojalaus pavaldinio elgsena, jis buvo iškviestas į Sankt Peterburgą (išvyko sausio 22 d. naktiniu traukiniu, važiavusiu 23.30 val.), o sausio 26 d. paskelbtas imperatoriaus įsakas jį atleisti, ir vyskupas ištremtas į Jaroslavlį. Net ir neilgas vyskupo buvimas vyskupijoje, jo ganytojiška veikla aiškiai veikė dvasininkų luomą ir tikinčiuosius, todėl vyskupo ištrėmimas jau nebeatkūrė buvusios situacijos. Trumpas „Vyskupo laikas“, jo laikysena ir jos pasekmės akino kitų dvasininkų aktyvumą, provokavo tam tikrą jų elgesį vykdant savo tarnystę. Galima teigti, kad XIX a. devintojo dešimtmečio viduryje Katalikų Bažnyčios mokymo, tikėjimo raiškos gynimas tapo akivaizdesnis, skatino konfliktus su rusų nacionalizmu, valdžios politikos planais vadinamajame Šiaurės Vakarų krašte (ŠVK). [Iš teksto, p. 169-170]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Karolis Hryniewieckis; Vilniaus vyskupai; Dvasininkų kontrolė; Karol Hryniewicki; Bishops of Vilnius; Control of priests.

ENThis article analyses the pastoral activities of Karol Hryniewicki, bishop of Vilnius, in 1883‒1885. It reconstructs the bishop’s social milieu and examines the relationship between the bishop and the secular power as a clash of two authorities and two institutions of control. The article also reveals the socio-political attitudes of some members of the clergy and presents their relationship with both the bishop and the state. The analysis shows that the implementation of the bishop’s power and the control over the clergy were significant sources of tension. It should be stressed and kept in mind that, in the post-Tridentine tradition, the clerical service manifested itself in the context of obedience, a theological virtue and a cultural norm inherent in the estate-based society. The autocratic political system of the Russian Empire, which demanded loyalty from its subordinates, only reinforced the norm of obedience. This, however, created additional tensions, because the Empire relied upon the Orthodox Church, which, in the post-Tridentine period, was in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church. The introduction of the dogma of papal infallibility further complicated the relationship between the two Churches. The author concludes that the bishop of Vilnius Karol Hryniewicki, appointed and ordained in 1883, fulfilled his duties defined by Canon Law, and these actions often clashed with the government’s measures, administrative orders and legislation applied to the Catholic Church in the diocese of Vilnius or, more broadly, in the so-called North-Western Region of the Russian Empire. In the bishop’s activities, the government saw an expression of Polish nationalism and, thereby, an obstacle to “depolonise” the Catholic Church in the diocese of Vilnius, whereas the bishop claimed to be defending the teaching of the Catholic Church.The Canon Law allowed the bishop to exercise control over clerical service and to maintain discipline in the diocese. The ecclesiastical penalties imposed by the bishop on the clergymen who were favoured by the government resulted in tensions between the bishop and the secular power. It demonstrated that the bishop did not intend to maintain the status quo in the diocese and therefore the government’s expectations to have a loyal bishop were dashed. In the 1880s, the government was not inclined to fundamentally alter the post-uprising repressive politics towards the Catholic Church in the so-called North-Western Region and its part, the diocese of Vilnius. The governmental authorities became concerned over the bishop’s actions that encouraged social activity among the faithful and the clergy. The visitations of the diocese in the territory of the Grodno government prompted a similarly negative reaction. The bishop demanded ecclesiastical discipline and imposed sanctions not only on the clergy favoured by the government. In fact, he had to hear dozens of cases related to the clerical service and discipline. The bishop responded to the reports of the clergy, the complaints of the parishioners, the appeals of the government. Hryniewicki maintained a network of communication with the faithful and the clergy that extended to a considerable part of the diocese. Hryniewicki’s residence in Vilnius could be assessed as a cultural, political and social phenomenon determined by the overall context and the bishop’s personal traits. [From the publication]

• Teologija / Theology
• Istorija / History