CHAPTER 5
BROTHERS IN CONFLICT
Continued
One of the reporters from the San Francisco Call made a
telling comment on the last of Alemany's farewell addresses -- at the Pontifical Mass
offered by Archbishop Riordan. At the end of the Mass, Alemany spoke to the congregation
at large and then turned to several hundred children waiting to be confirmed by him. The
reporter wrote: "As the Archbishop concluded his eloquent address, he was overcome
with emotion... and the audience was moved deeply by the words which seemed to them as
authoritative as though they had fallen from the lips of a prophet of old." Content
more than form, but authority -- the authority of holiness? -- more than either. At least
at the end of a long and devoted ministry this seems to have been the characteristic of
the bishop-friar's preaching that most moved people to listen and to hear. Apparently his
words matched his Christ-centered life and issued from it.
All of his Dominican fidelity to prayer, his cultivation and
promotion of the intellectual life, and his unflagging ministry of word and work, as well
as the habit he wore throughout the whole of his episcopacy, kept before the public the
image of St. Dominic, such that if that public had any knowledge of and respect for the
Dominican Order it would have been, by and large, because of this friar-bishop. People
could not forget that their bishop was also Dominican, mainly because he himself could not
forget it. So after 35 years of episcopal rule in California he was remembered as having
been Dominican from beginning to end. In one eulogy of him we read:
Choosing deliberately a life of poverty and obedience at his entrance
into the Order of St. Dominic, he was removed from that obedience and poverty by the
express command of the Sovereign Pontiff, and ordered to live as a ruler of the Church in
a distant land... Beyond what was needed for the simple necessaries of life, he has not
drawn a single dollar from the revenues of the Archdiocese in exchange for his long labor,
and now that he returns to seek an asylum of his chosen Order in his old age, he does so
in poverty as perfect as when he first took its Habit as a religious...
This appeared in the San Francisco Monitor. About the same
time, on the other side of the continent, in the New York Freeman's Journal,
Alemany was also remembered as a Dominican first, last, and in-between:
His Order, which he loved so well, now opens its arms for theson
weary with the cares of the Shepherd and the weight of a mitre... He came to San
Francisco a poor Dominican friar and he left the episcopacy as he entered it... He
turns himself toward Rome penniless, to seek for admission to a convent of his
Order. It was a moving and pathetic spectacle, strange and unusual in an age of
materialism.
What then of Vilarrasa's complaints, his side of the story? We have
seen something of his difficulty with Alemany when back in 1849 the latter was up for
provincial in the Eastern Province. Then it was a question of Alemany's missionary
activity all but nullifying his religious conventual life. In the west, this was no longer
the problem, of course: Alemany as bishop was independent of religious life and whatever
observances it demanded. Vilarrasa was well content to have it so. The problem now was
that the archbishop was interfering actively with the religious life of others,
unintentionally, perhaps, but really and destructively, at least as Vilarrasa and his
brother Dominicans saw it. Further, Alemany was denying the right of the Dominicans, as
also the Jesuits, to own churches that were parishes. All parish churches, he claimed,
belonged to the diocese which meant that the bishop alone had rights to the properties
thereof. This simply increased his potential for manipulating the many parochial religious
in the diocese.
Part of the interference came by way of the heavy work-load the
archbishop was placing upon the Dominicans, causing them to neglect their specifically
religious obligations. The correspondence in this area of the conflict is large and
extends from 1867 to 1883, the final year of Alemany's rule. On February 8, 1867,
Vilarrasa wrote to his Master General, Fr. Jandel, that "the Archbishop is not
favorable to religious Orders -- indeed, he does what is possible to impede their
endeavors... I write you these things as I feel that you should be informed concerning
them." Ten years later the same grievance is voiced, this time to Fr. Giuseppe
Sanvito, Vicar General of the Order, in a long letter dated June 15, 1876. In it Vilarrasa
accuses Alemany of making impossible demands on the friars considering their numerical
limitations, and of trying several times to insinuate himself, dominatively, in their
councils which, being himself a Dominican, "he should know that no Bishop should
intrude."
On August 18 of this same year Vilarrasa again wrote to Sanvito
detailing some of his grievances, one of which was that Alemany was demanding that the few
friars at St. Dominic's officiate at almost all the funerals at Calvary Cemetery,
relatively near to their church, without compensation and with disastrous results to their
Dominican religious observance. Vilarrasa's summary rhetorical question: "How can the
Friars observe their rule of choir, etc., with these obligations thrust upon them by one
who, above all, should know how serious these same obligations are?"
The archbishop's pressures were still being felt two years later for
in October of 1878 we find Vilarrasa now writing to Fr. Raymond Bianchi, the Dominican
Procurator General, voicing his complaints and exasperation. At the same time, October 7,
1878, he wrote directly to Alemany a blunt letter telling him that the friars could not
undertake the permanent care of some Indian missions around Mariposa and in Mono County,
although "Fr. William Demphlin, O.P., can make occasional visits as he does."
And he sadly concludes the letter: "Had I been a prophet, I would never have
consented to come to California -- and I can assure you that many times I have repented of
having done so..." Two months later, December 10, 1878, Vilarrasa again writes
to the Master General that Alemany had found "still other ways to harass the friars
in the proper exercise of their priestly ministry in San Francisco."
Vilarrasa was not the only California Dominican voice raised against
the archbishop. On April 12, 1880, the five councilor fathers of St. Dominic's, San
Francisco -- Benedict McGovern, Bernard Doogan, Anthony Rooney, Thomas O'Neil, and John
Murphy -- eloquently spelled out their grievances to the then Master General, Fr. Joseph
Larroca. They claimed that "no other Bishop in any part of the world is acting so
irrationally with regard to Dominican rights and privileges as is this Dominican
Archbishop here." His actions were "tyrannical in the extreme" and it has
been "frequently an occasion of wonder to us how an Archbishop who is regarded as so
pious by all would dare to spurn, or rather to crush under his feet, rights and privileges
guaranteed to our Order by the Holy See itself! Either ignorance or pride moves him;
indeed, it is possible that he has a false conscience on the matter." Specific
sufferings that the friars had to endure from their "brother" are enumerated, in
detail and with indignation. The co-signers of the letter are careful to note that the
letter is not their project alone. It comes with the blessings and encouragement of their
commissary general: "our most excellent Father Vilarrasa has requested us to write
this letter and thus to enter our protest against what has been happening here with us
these many years." The letter ends with the hope and prayer that Rome would soon
intervene to correct a situation that has resulted in so much harm to religion in general
and the Dominican Order in particular.
Apparently Alemany did not know of this particular letter, but he
would have gathered the gist of it from one he had received directly from Fr. Benedict
McGovern, prior of St. Dominic's, which must have been harsh in the extreme, as we gather
from the reply of a deeply offended archbishop written to Vilarrasa complaining of it.
Alemany's letter must be quoted at length in fairness to him, who thought himself grossly
misunderstood and unappreciated. The gist and tone of McGovern's letter is amply displayed
within it.
I was thinking I had done pretty well, considering my ability and the
circumstances, for the existence, permanency and advancement of the Order in this diocese;
but the Prior takes me to task, as if having inflicted the greatest injury to the Order
and being the main cause of its not prospering. In its boldest and most disrespectful
manner the letter calls me to an account for all my sins committed and omitted which I
will not now enumerate.
My object at present is to state: 1. that I protest against my ever
having had any other intention than that of promoting the good and prosperity of the
Order, as far as means and providence could allow: 2. that whatever I wished
the Dominicans to do, was, I thought, and as I have reason to think yet, within my
authority. I may have been mistaken, and I may not. This shall be examined, and
accordingly remedied or confirmed, or prudently modified as if [sic] I have
the right. But what is altogether wrong, under the color of right, is the insulting
manner in which a bishop is addressed. Suppose I was wrong
in my construction of the Papal Constitution and acted
accordingly; could he not write a respectful letter? And if
not satisfied, could he not refer the case to you? And if he found no remedy could he
not appeal to the General, who could have settled all in a most easy way?...
Decisions of the Holy See seem to me to justify my acts, which he calls, by turns,
unjust, invalid and most tyrannical -- most flagrant and extravagant injustice -- the
treatment inflicted on slaves and even worse than such!
If I have erred in the interpretation given to the Papal
Constitutions, it was an error of the head, not of the heart I hope. Such error he might
and could have had easily corrected by the ordinary process or means pointed out by the
discipline of the Church; but the means adopted by him in his style are not the best to
favor the progress which I have at heart as much as he. Personally I can let him call me
all the hard names he pleases, but as a bishop I believe I must not let this pass.
As such letter dwells on many real or imaginary grievances, I
shall have to refer to it on some other occasion. I repeat, that nothing shall be required
by me, but what after due examination shall be found to be demanded of me by the will of
the Church and the interests of the Order.
Vilarrasa must have been moved by this response, indignant, stern but
also humble and demonstrative of a true love of the Order. One week later, August 24,
1880, he wrote to Alemany that "while I disapprove of the language, Father McGovern
is a good priest and a pious religious and he has great respect for authority: I believe
it was a want of reflection rather than malice that caused him to use that style. I
believe you when you say that you have always desired the good of our Order and done what
you thought prudent for its welfare. In order to avoid any future misunderstandings, if
you have no objections, I will collect the principal points that give dissatisfaction and
we will endeavor to settle them in a most convenient manner and if you prefer it (which I
believe would be more secure) the General may be consulted. But I will not do it unless
you say so..."
Vilarrasa had Fr. McGovern send his letter of apology, but Alemany's
next letter to Vilarrasa indicates that it was not at all what the Archbishop thought
proper. Alemany thanked Vilarrasa for his "kind letter with regard to Father
McGovern," and then added that he did receive a note from the prior of St. Dominic's
"which he intends as an apology, but which is rather a confirmation or justification
of his previous one." Evidently McGovern though more moderate in his language was
still adamant on his principles. Fr. Antoninus Rooney, another of the five co-signers of
the letter to Larocca referred to above, was equally stubborn. On November 29, 1880, after
a long talk with Fr. Aloysius Varsi, S.J., Superior General of the California Jesuits and
president of St. Ignatius College, Rooney wrote to Vilarrasa apprising him of his and
Varsi's agreement that the Dominicans and Jesuits should join forces before Rome in their
mutual cause against Alemany:
He was much pleased at this view of the case, regards it as just to
ourselves and as calculated to give strength in Rome...He says that he has already
directly sent nearly all his complaints to the Holy Father and he assured me that he is
quite certain that the Ordinary has received a letter from the Pope commanding him not to
molest the Jesuits...
In December of 1880 the league was indeed formed, with Vilarrasa
writing the letter, other Dominicans subscribing to it, and Fr. Varsi appending a note
saying "amen" to it all. The letter was addressed to the Pope himself, Leo XIII.
Whether or not it was finally sent is unconfirmed, but a draft of the letter is in the
archives of the Western Dominican Province.[9] Subscribers to it are mentioned and space provided for
them, but no signatures appear. In back of the letter is a paragraph by Fr. Aloysius
Varsi, who here signs himself as "Superior General of the Jesuit missions of
California." Vilarrasa's letter is calm, factual, respectful, but the felt grievance
underlying it is manifest:
The Order of Preachers was founded here some years ago to labor in
strict cooperation with the diocesan authority for the salvation of souls. Sadly, however,
our hope has failed because of the actions of the Most Illustrious Archbishop, who far
from cultivating the Order, has by various means impeded and restrained its progress, nor
has he shown himself favorable toward religious as is desired and counselled by the Holy
See. Hence, led by love of our Order and the advancement of Religion we are forced to
place at the Feet of Your Holiness the principal points of our difficulties in the hope
that Your Holiness as our most beloved Father will graciously provide a proper remedy.
1. The Archbishop frequently orders the Priests of our
convent in the city of San Francisco to celebrate Mass in other churches and
institutions even some miles distant from the Convent. As a result the number of Masses
(which are the principal support of the Convent) in our Church must be reduced and
confessors are forced to neglect the Sacrament of Confession which is frequented by a
large number of the faithful; nor has the slightest compensation ever been made for these
services. We freely and most gladly wish to assist the Archbishop as much as possible, but
it is too hard for us to be forced to perform these works which are detrimental to us and
impede the good of Religion.
2. The Archbishop has appointed Confessors of Nuns without consulting
Superiors, indeed without their knowledge. Not to mention other resulting inconveniences,
such action necessarily diminishes the authority of Superiors and opens the door to
disobedience.
3. The Archbishop has forced the Fathers of the aforesaid Convent to
celebrate all funerals in the city's public cemetery. At first he asked this service of
the CommissaryGeneral, who judged it impossible to comply with. The Archbishop, however,
in no way attending to the letters of the Commissary, immediately under penalty of
suspension of the whole Convent, only three Fathers excepted, ordered the funerals to be
celebrated by the Fathers. In order to avoid scandal, for nearly five years, namely to
this past November, we have subjected ourselves to the Archbishop's prescript, at which
time having intimated to the same our intention of having recourse to the Holy See, we
refused the care of the cemetery. Since burial is one of the rites strictly reserved for
parishes it seems it ought also to be numbered among parochial offices and that regulars
who administer no parish in San Francisco ought not to be burdened with it...
4. For supplying the prescribed number of ministers for the
consecration of Holy Oils on Holy Thursday of the current year, it was ordered that all
priests of Convents except one should go to the Cathedral, thereby impeding the recitation
of the Divine Office in our Church. And this, indeed, without any true necessity, for
there are many secular priests who were absent from the Cathedral while their places were
filled by Jesuits and Dominicans, and so the regular clergy were substituted for the
secular. From which it is evident that the Archbishop takes any and every occasion to
offend and humiliate religious.
5. Our Convent in the city of San Francisco was...
>>>
Partial Endnotes
click endnote number to resume reading
[9].
Cf. Vilarrasa's file, XIII:4. Translation from the Latin is
mine.
|
