Search

Autor u radu obrađuje ulogu apostolskog delegata Pierrea Bastiena oko uvođenja, odnosno neuvođenja kongrue za katolički kler u Bosni i Hercegovini. Congrua (prikladno uzdržavanje svećenika) bio je jedan od »kamena spoticanja« u odnosima između nadbiskupa Stadlera i dijecezanskog klera s jedne strane i franjevaca i biskupa iz njihova reda s druge strane. Kako se pitanje nije moglo riješiti međusobnim dogovorom, Sveta Stolica je rješenje tog pitanja pridržala sebi. Ulogu istražitelja povjerila je apostolskom delegatu Pierreu Bastienu, koji se pitanjem kongrue bavio od 1911. do 1914. godine. U radu su obrađena Bastienova izvješća i prijedlozi, prijedlog austrougarskih vlasti i Bastienove objekcije, odluka Svete Stolice o tom pitanju i reakcije klera na tu odluku., The author investigates the role of apostolic delegate Pierre Bastien in introducing or not introducing congruent for the Catholic clergy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Congruity (orderly maintenance of priests) was one of the “stumbling blocks” in the relations between Archbishop Stadler and the diocesan clergy, but at the same time this issue also provoked conflicts between the Franciscans and the bishops of their order. Since this matter could not be resolved amicably, the Holy See reserved the resolution to this issue for itself. Thus, Pope entrusted the role of investigator in this matter to the apostolic delegate Pierre Bastien, who dealt with the issue of congruence in the period from 1911 to 1914. The article deals not only with Bastien’s reports and his proposals / solutions, but also discusses the proposal of the Austro-Hungarian authorities and Bastien’s objections to this matter, and finally the decision of the Holy See on this issue, as well ass the reactions of the clergy to the decision of the Holy See.

Riječ je o autobiografiji austrijskoga isusovca Antona Puntigama (1959.-1926.), koji je 27 godina proveo u Travniku i Sarajevu radeći kao profesor i odgojitelj u sjemeništu te kao svestrani pastoralni djelatnik s mladima. Puntigam je bio jedan od prvih članova isusovačkoga reda koji su na poziv prvoga vrhbosanskoga nadbiskupa dr. Josipa Stadlera bili poslani od provincijala Austrijske provincije Družbe Isusove da pripomognu u izgradnji i učvršćenju novouspostavljene vrhbosanske crkvene uprave (1881.). On je, među ostalim, utro put procesu za proglašenje blaženim Petra Barbarića, koji se u Travniku osobito štuje. Osim toga, Puntigam je 1900. organizirao nacionalnu proslavu posvete hrvatske mladeži Srcu Isusovu, a potom malo kasnije i posvetu Begrešnoj (1904.). Odjeci tih događaja doslovno odzvanjaju i danas u crkvenim pjesmama koje Hrvati tako rado pjevaju, a to su: Do nebesa nek se ori i Zdravo djevo. Premda je napisana kao autobiografija, knjiga sadrži elemente povijesnoga svjedočanstva, etnografske radoznalosti i literarno uobličenih uvida u društvene odnose, političke ideje i psihologiju aktera.

U radu se obrađuje nastojanje vrhbosanskoga nadbiskupa Josipa Stadlera oko uvođenja i uređenja kongrue (prikladnog uzdržavanja svećenika) u Vrhbosanskoj nadbiskupiji, odnosno Bosni i Hercegovini u vremenu od 1882. do 1910. po uzoru na ostale zemlje Monarhije, tj. uz dogovor s državnim vlastima. U prvom poglavlju obrađeni su Stadlerovi pokušaji oko uvođenja kongrue od 1882. do 1901. U drugom poglavlju obrađeni su pokušaji rješenja ovoga pitanja u sklopu rješavanja tzv. "katoličke autonomije". U trećem poglavlju opisan je pokušaj rješenja u dogovoru sa Zemaljskom vladom te u četvrtom pokušaj rješenja preko Svete Stolice. Usprkos svim Stadlerovim pokušajima, koji su trajali gotovo neprestano, u različitom intenzitetu, kongrua na kraju nije uvedena zbog protivljenja franjevaca koji su procijenili da bi njezinim uvođenjem više izgubili nego dobili., The paper deals with Archbishop Stadler's efforts regarding the introduction and regulation of congrua (adequate support for priests), first in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vrhbosna (and Banja Luka till 1884) and later in the entire Ecclesiastical Province of Vrhbosna in the period from 1882 to 1910 following the example of other Monarchy countries, i.e. in the agreement with the state authorities. The first chapter deals with Stadler's attempts to introduce congrua from 1882 to 1901. Throughout this period, he tried to solve the problem in agreement with the Bosnian Franciscans, who almost exclusively, especially at the beginning, comprised the pastoral clergy of the mentioned Dioceses, as well as with the suffragan bishops. He had acceptable support from the bishop, but the problem was not solved because Bosnian Franciscans were not interested for its solving. The second chapter deals with the attempts to solve this issue in the framework of addressing the so called "Catholic autonomy". They lasted from 1905 to 1909. Joint minister of finances, I. Burián was at his disposal then, as well as the agreement of the suffragan bishops, but he did not have the consent of the Franciscan Province of Bosnia administration that requested "parity" in relation to bishops regarding making decisions for introduction and distribution of congrua. As that was contrary to canon law for Stadler, it was unacceptable for Bishop Marković. Stadler then suggested to the government a draft of the congrua arrangement that was very close to the Franciscan attitude, but since the government did not accept the entire autonomy project, they also did not accept the proposal of the congrua arrangement. In June 1909 Stadler had a new proposal for the government regarding the congrua arrangement. He had a consent of Bishop Marković, but not of Bishop Buconjić and Bosnian Franciscans. At that moment it was clear why Franciscans were rejecting congrua. They thought that their incomes would be decreased with the introduction of congrua, which could endanger the existence of their monasteries and educational institutes. The third chapter deals with Stadler's attempt to make the agreement with the Land Government regarding the congrua introduction. When it was seen that the congrua could not be introduced for all the clergy due to oppositions of the Franciscans and Bishop Buconjić, the Government, who thought this issue should be solved, suggested Stadler to limit introduction of congrua only on secular clergy. Although Stadler made some steps in that sense (sent to the government reports of diocesan parishes as the confirmation that the faithful wanted congrua instead of parish-priest fees) conditions set by the government or ministries from Vienna were not eventually acceptable for Stadler. Namely, the minister required that the lay faithful, who should be taxed, have a decisive role in the congrua arrangement, as it was the case with the Serbian Orthodox and Muslims. According to Stadler that was against canonical norms. The fourth and the last chapter deals with Stadler's efforts to make pressures on Franciscans through the Holy See and that they ask for the introduction of congrua. The Holy See estimated that this issue caused division among the clergy in Bosnia and Herzegovina and decided to examine it before making final decision. He entrusted the issue to Apostolic Delegate P. Bastien, whom he sent to Sarajevo at the end of 1910.

U ovom drugom radu o izboru biskupâ u Hercegovini u doba austro-ugarske vladavine (1878. - 1918.), koji na neki način nastavlja tematiku, koja je obrađena u prvom prilogu,1 prikazuje se vrlo napeta i otporna borba oko izbora drugoga biskupa u Hercegovini u doba austro-ugarske vladavine, fra Alojzija Mišića. Poslije kratkoga prikaza povijesno-pravnoga konteksta Katoličke Crkve u Hercegovini u doba austro-ugarske vladavine prelazi se u prvom poglavlju ponajprije na traženje biskupa cum iure successionis (pomoćnoga biskupa s pravom nasljedstva, tj. koadjutora), starom i onemoćalom biskupu Buconjiću u Mostaru. Zainteresirane strane, koje uzimaju dijela u ovom vrlo napetom natjecanju jesu: Zemaljska vlada u Sarajevu, Zajedničko ministarstvo financija u Beču, nadbiskup Josip Stadler kao vrhbosanski metropolit, biskup Buconjić u Mostaru, provincijal Bosne Srebrene, fra Alojzije Mišić i provincijal Hercegovačke franjevačke provincije, fra Luka Begić te Sveta Stolica u Rimu (Vatikan). Ovo natjecanje, koje poprima oblike međusobne borbe, uključujući, s poneke strane i omalovažavanje protivnika po BiH, Beču i Rimu, traje od kraja siječnja do početka prosinca 1910. Kako Sveta Stolica u Rimu nije bila uvjerena o prikladnosti jedinoga kandidata, kojega je protežirala Zemaljska vlada u Sarajevu, provincijala Mišića, stvar je mirovala do smrti biskupa Buconjića 8. prosinca 1910. Poslije smrti biskupa Buconjića, prelazi se u drugo poluvrijeme međusobnoga natjecanja, koje je obrađeno u trećem poglavlju, u kojemu se pojavljuju osim starih i novi akteri i kandidati. Prije svega nastupa nadbiskup Stadler kao metropolit i imenuje privremene upravitelje in spiritualibus (u duhovnim stvarima) i in materialibus (u materijalnim dobrima) biskupije Mostarsko-duvanjske. Time je bilo osigurano minimalno funkcioniranje biskupijâ. Nakon toga on je poslao svoju listu kandidata kako Zemaljskoj vladi, tako i Svetoj Stolici. Stadlerova lista kandidata nije mogla proći kod Vlade, jer je nadbiskup Stadler već godinama javno kritizirao Vladu i njezine postupke prema njemu, njegovim institucijama, svećenicima i Katoličkoj Crkvi u BiH uopće. U Rimu su Stadlerovi kandidati nailazili djelomično na razumijevanje i simpatiju, posebno pomoćni biskup dr. Ivan Šarić. No, Zemaljska je vlada i dalje samouvjereno stajala iza svoga kandidata, bosanskoga provincijala Mišića, ne samo kao prikladna čovjeka Crkve, nego i kao čovjeka, subjekta njezina povjerenja i kućnoga prijatelja Vladinih službenika, s kojim se rado savjetovala. Stoga Vlada argumentira smiješnim i neobjektivnim prigovorima kada se radi o kandidatima koji joj nisu po volji ili su prava konkurencija za Mišića. Tako među kandidatima, koje je Rim snažno podupirao i koje je biskup Buconjić bio predložio, bio je i fra Frano Lulić iz Makarske. Njega je Vlada kao Dalmatinca prikazala neprikladnim, jer ne će razumjeti mentalitet puka u Hercegovini, čovjeka koji je bio rođen tri puta bliže Hercegovini nego provincijal Mišić. Tako se manifestira Vladina politika kao merum absurdum in se! Novost u ustajale pregovore unosi, iz političkih i osobnih uvjerenja, predsjednik Bosansko-hercegovačkoga sabora, dr. Nikola Mandić, koji nije bio dovoljno uvjeren u prikladnost provincijala Mišića te je tražio imenovanje jednoga od hercegovačkih franjevaca, ideja koju je čak bilo prihvatilo i Ministarstvo u Beču. Premda je Vlada u Sarajevu pokušala ne zamjeriti se Ministarstvu u Beču i djelomično prihvatiti njegove prijedloge, ostala je i dalje duboko uvjerena u ispravnost svoga stajališta: provincijal Mišić je jedini prikladan kandidat. Kao što je Zemaljska vlada bila uvjerena da je Mišić bio jedini prikladan kandidat za biskupa u Mostaru, tako je istovremeno i Sveta Stolica, sve do početka veljače 1912., postojano držala provincijala Mišića posve neprikladnim za biskupa u Mostaru. Kada se pronio glas da je kandidat Lulić teško obolio, i kada je spor oko biskupskoga imenovanja u Mostaru mogao dovesti do političke napetosti između Beča i Svete Stolice, Državno tajništvo Svete Stolice i sam papa Pio X. odlučili su, početkom veljače 1912., prihvatiti kandidaturu fra Alojzija Mišića i utrti mu put za biskupsko imenovanje u Mostaru. Ovo se istraživanje temelji na arhivskim vrelima. Nejasnoću, ponekada i pravu proturječnost o imenima kandidata, tijeku pregovora te donekle premalo pohvalne riječi o hercegovačkim franjevcima donosi Chronika biskupije i osobni Životopis, pisani post factum od biskupa Mišića, sačuvani u Arhivu Biskupskoga ordinarijata u Mostaru., In this second paper on the election of the bishops in Herzegovina at the time of Austro-Hungarian rule (1878-1918), which in some ways follows the topic discussed in the first paper, shows a very tense and resistant struggle over the election of the second bishop in Herzegovina, a Franciscan monk and Provincial Alojzije Misic. After a brief overview of the historical-legal context of the Catholic Church in Herzegovina at the time of Austro-Hungarian rule, the first chapter covers the situation of finding a new bishop cum iure successionis, (a coadjutor bishop with the right of succession) to assist the elderly bishop Buconjic in Mostar. The interested parties in a very close competition were: The State Government of Bosnia-Hercegovina in Sarajevo, the Joint Ministry of Finance in Vienna, Archbishop Josip Stadler as the Metropolitan Bishop of Vrhbosna, Bishop Buconjić in Mostar, the Provincial of Bosnian Franciscan Province (Bosna Srebrena) - Fr Alojzije Misic and the Provincial of the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina – Fr. Luka Begić as well as the Holy See in Rome (Vatican). This competition, which turned into a real struggle, including even the disparaging of opponents in BiH, Vienna and Rome, lasted from the end of January to the beginning of December 1910. As the Holy See in Rome was not convinced of the suitability of the only candidate who was supported by the State Government in Sarajevo - Provincial Misic, his appointment was suspended until the Bishop Buconjic's death on December 8, 1910. The Bishop Buconjic's death was followed by the second round of the competition, described in the third chapter of this paper, in which, apart from the old ones, some new actors and candidates took part. First of all, Archbishop Stadler appeared as a metropolitan and appointed temporary administrators in spiritualibus (in spiritual matters) and in materialibus (in the material goods) of the diocese of Mostar-Duvno. This ensured the minimum functioning of dioceses. After that his candidate list the State Government, as well as to the Holy See. Stadler's list of candidates could not be accepted by the Government because he had, for years, publicly criticized the State Government and their actions against him, his institutions, the priests and the Catholic Church in BiH in general. In Rome, Stadler's candidates were looked at with certain understanding and sympathy, especially the auxiliary bishop Dr. Ivan Saric. But the State Government further supported its candidate, the Bosnian Provincial Misic, not only as a suitable man of the Church, but also as a man of their trust, and a house friend of some Government officials. Therefore, the Government offered some ridiculous and non-objective arguments when it came to the candidates who it did not favour or who were not the right competition for Misic. Among the candidates was Fr. Frano Lulic from Makarska, who was strongly supported by Rome and Bishop Buconjic. Being a Croat from Dalmatia, he was presented as inappropriate because he could not understand the mentality of the people in Herzegovina, although he was born in a place three times closer to Herzegovina than the Provincial Misic's birthplace. This is how the Government's policy manifested as merum absurdum in se! Freshness in hard-bargaining talks, based on the political and personal beliefs, was brought by the President of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Parliament, Dr. Nikola Mandic, who was not convinced enough of the suitability of Provincial Misic and demanded the appointment of one of the Herzegovinian Franciscans, an idea accepted even by the Ministry in Vienna. Although the Government of Sarajevo tried not to contradict the Ministry in Vienna and partially accepted its proposals, it remained deeply convinced of the correctness of its position: Provincial Misic was the only suitable candidate. Since the State Government believed that Misic was the only suitable candidate for the bishop in Mostar, at the same time, the Holy See, by the beginning of February 1912, considered Misic as highly unsuitable for this position. With the news that candidate Lulic was seriously ill, and when the dispute over the bishop's appointment in Mostar could lead to political tension between Vienna and the Holy See, the State Secretariat of Holy See and Pope Pius X himself decided to accept Fr. Alojzije Misic's candidacy in early February 1912, thus paving the way for his appointment as Bishop of Mostar. This research is based on archival sources. The ambiguity, sometimes real contradictions with the names of the candidates, the course of negotiations and absence of commendable words about the Franciscan Friars, were found in the Chronicles of the Diocese and the Autobiography, written post factum by Bishop Misic, preserved in the Diocesan Archives of Diocese Mostar-Duvno in Mostar.

U radu se obrađuje problematika uređenja dušobrižništva za katolike istočnog obreda, odnosno za grkokatolike u Bosni i Hercegovini u vrijeme Austrougarske Monarhije s naglaskom na ulozi nadbiskupa Stadlera u rješavanju tog problema. Većina grkokatolika u BiH za vrijeme Austrougarske Monarhije bili su doseljenici Rusini iz Galicije. Rad je podijeljen u osam poglavlja u kojima se problematika obrađuje od prvog pokušaja uređenja grkokatoličkog dušobrižništva na razmeđu 19. i 20. stoljeća do njegova konačnog uređenja imenovanjem generalnog vikara za ovdašnje grkokatolike (1910.), odnosno uspostavom Apostolske administrature (1914.) sa svim problemima koji su pratili taj proces. Glavni akteri u rješavanju te problematike bili su nadbiskup Stadler i austrougarska administracija., The author analyzes circumstances and processes regarding the organization of pastoral care for the Greek-Catholic believers in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the times of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Special attention is put on the role of archbishop Stadler regarding finding the solution to this issue. Greek-Catholic Rusyns immigrated to Bosnia and Herzegovina at the end of the nineteenth century. According to the official Austro-Hungarian records in 1910, there were 8000 inhabited in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This article is divided into eight chapters. In the first chapter, the author describes the first attempts to arrange pastoral care for the Greek-Catholics at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and the problem of the jurisdiction over the Greek-Catholics in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The second chapter contains a description of the mission of Andrej Schepyzki, archbishop of Lviv, who in 1902 has visited Greek Catholics in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the author of the third and fourth chapters analyzes the endeavors of archbishop Stadler regarding this issue. Namely, Stadler wanted to establish a Greek-Catholic bishopric, or at least an Apostolic administration in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such a solution demanded cooperation and agreement with the Austro-Hungarian administration. Still, though the Austro-Hungarian administration was not against Stadler’s idea, they objected it because of political and financial reasons. The fifth chapter discusses the question of jurisdiction over the Greek-Catholics in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and this issue was solved by decree of the Holy See, according to which jurisdiction over them was assigned to the local ordinary of the Roman liturgy, and not to the Greek-Catholic bishop in Križevci. In the sixth chapter, the author elaborates the negative reaction of the local Greek-Catholics to the decree of the Holy See, and Stadler’s efforts to adequately solve this problem together with the Austro-Hungarian administration. The Holy See and archbishop of Lviv Scheptyzkyj were adequately involved in these processes and a compromising – but temporary – the solution was achieved when J. Žuka, Rusyn Greek-Catholic priest, was appointed to the position of general vicar of the Roman rite bishop in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Later in 1914, this issue was finally solved by establishing the Apostolic administration in Bosnia and Herzegovina. With this solution problem of priests, who would perform pastoral care, was resolved by bringing more Greek-Catholic priests from Galicia, and this issue is described in the last two chapters of the article.

Katoličku Crkvu u BiH potresali su brojni crkveni, politički i ljudski sukobi od 1908. do 1914. koji su se održavali u već kroničnu sukobu između nadbiskupa Stadlera i bosanskih franjevaca oko raspodjele i odstupanja župa, u osnivanju i podupiranju političkih društava: Hrvatske narodne zajednice (HNZ) te od 1910. i Hrvatske katoličke udruge (HKU). Kao dodatne i logične posljedice pojavit će se i sukobi franjevaca s dijecezanskim klerom i isusovcima. Hrvatska svjetovna inteligencija, koja se pojavljuje početkom 20. stoljeća u BiH i traži svoje prikladno mjesto u bh. društvu između dva već postojeća i suprotstavljena klerikalna pola i interesne sfere, nadbiskupa Stadlera i bh. franjevaca, odlučit će se većinom za franjevačku stranu. Cijeli sukob dobit će oblike kako unutarhrvatskoga tako i unutarkatoličkoga sukoba, koji će u studenom 1910. potaknuti Svetu Stolicu, nakon brojnih prispjelih pritužbi u Rim, na poduzimanje crkveno-pravnih mjera, blaže forme apostolske vizitacije, sa svrhom da utvrdi činjenično stanje, izmiri zavađene strane, zabrani međusobno napadanje i vrijeđanje preko javnoga tiska i anonimnih brošura te uspostavi nužno potrebnu ljudsku, vjersku i političku suradnju. Ovi vjerski, politički i svjetonazorski sukobi u BiH među katolicima Hrvatima, premda nose u sebi, bez sumnje, autohtone bh. obrise, nastale poslije uvođenjem redovite biskupske hijerarhije, istovremeno su manja ili veća varijanta brojnijih i dubljih rascjepa koji su bili prisutni u društvu i u Crkvi ostalih hrvatskih zemalja: Banske Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Istre te susjednih srednjoeuropskih zemalja. Na kraju prvoga dijela ovog opširnijeg istraživanja, autor prilaže 19 dokumenata na talijanskom, latinskom i njemačkom jeziku, koji su prethodili pohodu i koji rasvjetljuju još dublje uzroke, početak i značenje apostolskoga pohoda Katoličkoj Crkvi u BiH. Za vrijeme apostolskoga pohoda nastat će brojni i važni drugi dokumenti na hrvatskom, latinskom, talijanskom, njemačkom i francuskom jeziku, koji će biti uzeti u obzir i po mogućnosti biti objavljeni u drugom dijelu ovog istraživanja. Izvori koji osvjetljuju ovaj važan događaj u Katoličkoj Crkvi u BiH u razdoblju od 1908. do 1914. veoma su brojni i pohranjeni su u tri različita fonda Vatikanskog Apostolskog arhiva. Osim Vatikanskog arhiva važan arhivski materijal čuvaju arhivski fondovi Zajedničkoga ministarstva financija u Beču i Zemaljske vlade u Sarajevu, danas pohranjeni u Arhivu BiH u Sarajevu, fondovi Ministarstva vanjskih poslova u Političkom arhivu Dvorskog i Državnog arhiva u Beču. Arhivski fondovi vjerskih institucija: Vrhbosanske nadbiskupije, Banjolučke i Mostarske biskupije, Franjevačkih provincija u Sarajevu i Mostaru, Družbe Isusove i Družbe sestara Služavki maloga Isusa u Zagrebu, premda bogati po sadržaju nisu, na žalost, još dovoljno prilagođeni standardnim potrebama istraživača., The three-year confrontations, conflicts and struggles in the Catholic Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (1908-1910) bore ecclesiastical, moral, political and ethnic characteristics typical of the Catholic BiH environment. The main actors were the Bosnian Franciscans, Archbishop of Vrhbosna Stadler, a young Croatian lay intelligentsia, gathered in the political organization HNZ, hungry and thirsty for political and social success, and Stadler's organization HKU, also hungry and thirsty for political affirmation. For centuries, the main ecclesiastical, cultural and political factor among Catholics - with the exception of the Diocese of Trebinje - within the borders of today's BiH, which no one should have ignored, were the Franciscans. After the definitive removal of the Dominicans with the help of Pope John XXII of Avignon in 1330, the Franciscans took over de facto pastoral care for Catholics in the Banate of Bosnia, the Kingdom of Bosnia and later in the Bosnian Sandjak, Pashaluq and Vilayet. In 1878, the new occupying state of Austro-Hungary found them in such a role. Through their 600 years of spiritual service, but also spiritual rule, the Franciscans first founded the Bosnian Vicariate (Vicaria Bosnensis) round 1340 and the Bosnian Province (Provincia Bosna Argentina) 1517, which they will in their historical consciousness call in Croatian Redodržava Bosna Srebrena (Orderstate of Bosna Srebrena). They will call their provincial minister an Orderstatesman, following the example of some Orders of Knights in Europe or many other ecclesiastical orders or states with archbishops, bishops and abbots as secular and ecclesiastical princes. Thanks to the Ahd-name of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror in 1463, which was unfortunately rarely respected by both local administrators and the central Ottoman authorities, the Franciscans gained the right to reside, a guarantee of pastoral service and absolute influence on the Catholic faithful in Bosnia. In almost 350 years, the Orderstate of Bosna Srebrena had no real spiritual or secular Catholic competitor, except themselves and their monastic districtisms, and politically conditioned regionalisms. From 1735 the Franciscans were not always happy about coexisting with the Apostolic Vicars. Diocesan priests, Glagolitic, who had had their roots in the mission of the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius, operated in Croatia and Bosnia for centuries before the arrival of the Turks and before the founding and arrival of the Dominicans and Franciscans. They were the first Catholic, Croatian and Bosnian, national and domestic priests, whom the Franciscans upon their arrival mostly ignored, marginalized and finally extinguished at the beginning of the second half of the 19th century. With the arrival of Austro-Hungary and the reorganization of political, administrative and ecclesiastical-religious life, the Franciscans still retained almost all parishes and absolute spiritual control over the Catholic population. In 1881, a regular hierarchy was established. In addition to the already existing Diocese of Trebinje, the dioceses of Mostar-Duvno and Banja Luka and the archdiocese with a metropolitan rank in Sarajevo were established. The Herzegovinian Franciscan Paškal Buconjić immediately took the Mostar episcopal see, and the Bosnian Franciscan Marijan Marković as administrator in Banja Luka, after a three-year temporary solution with Archbishop Stadler. However, the Franciscans did not manage to obtain the highest rank in ruling the Catholic Church in BiH: the metropolitan chair in Vrhbosna. It was occupied by Josip Stadler from Brod on Sava River (Slavonski Brod), whose family from father's side had distant Jewish roots. He was an ardent Croat, Austrophile and monarchist, Jesuit pupil and student, distinguished university professor in Zagreb, a prolific philosophical and theological writer, spiritual leader, charitable worker, great organizer, entrepreneur, builder, financial genius and homo politicus. When he arrived in Sarajevo in January 1882 and took over the Archdiocese, he moved as a tenant to a Muslim, and later to a Jewish house, where he would remain until 1895. In Stadler's time (1882-1918) "Catholic Sarajevo" flourished ecclesiastically, culturally and politically, which, in the history of the city no other religious denomination has experienced before. As great, successful, even unattainable as Stadler was in many fields, not only in Bosnia but throughout the Monarchy, he was at the same time in the eyes of his many opponents a proselyte, a symbol of intolerance, tactlessness, discord, a "suitcase porter" (immigrant), a financial genius (speculator), and a foreigner both in the archdiocese and in BiH society. For many, he was - partly due to jealousy, fear, hatred and ideology, partly due to objective or subjective assessment of his life and work - incompatible with the religious and political reality of BiH. Most Bosnian Franciscans saw and perceived Stadler as a constant challenge, danger and partial insult for the alleged permanent disparagement, attempts to secularize, take over or split their greatest material and spiritual wealth, parishes and believers. The Muslims of BiH, frightened by the constant Serbian propaganda about their impending baptism by Austria, perceived Stadler and the Jesuits ("jezuiti") with fear as representatives of that militant Catholic Austria and always, when there was a quiet conversion, there were strong Muslim reactions and protest. Orthodox Serbs regarded Stadler and his right-wing ideology as a representation of trialism and as a spread of Starčević's and Frank's "political program" of unifying BiH with Croatia. Consequently, Stadler posed a political threat to Greater Serbia's own propaganda and policy of joining BiH to Serbia. For the Provincial Government, Stadler was both an important ally and an uncontrolled opponent. In the last decade of Austro-Hungarian rule, the Provincial Government saw him as an opponent, a real "Störenfried" (troublemaker) of its "artificial", mostly supernational political goals, which were to strengthen civil, religious and national harmony in the spirit of the ruling dual Monarchy. Literally, in the eyes of the Government, Stadler, with his trialist political ideas and immoderate daily press, was a slanderer and opponent of Government policy, an ungrateful and multiple beneficiary of numerous privileges, services, facilities, financial support even in moments of his financial speculation, high annual appanage, which he enjoyed to death. Stadler gained serious opponents in the intellectual Croatian and Catholic ranks of BiH with the emergence of a thin layer of young Croatian intelligentsia, led by lawyer Nikola Mandić, brought up and educated mostly in progressive universities in Zagreb, Graz, Vienna, Prague and Paris, and imbued, no doubt, with the spirit of the then progressive, anti-church, anticlerical and South Slav ideology which circulated throughout the Monarchy, to a large extent in Ban's Croatia. He did not know or did not want to understand their political and national goals in time, he did not try to follow them benevolently and fatherly, occasionally moderate and win them over, because in his unilateral political vision he saw and perceived them as a religious danger and political competition. It is this young intelligentsia, which will find its main political and national stronghold in the Franciscans through the HNZ, that will become not only a statistical, but also a political and moral winner over Stadler and his political creation HKU. The conflict between Stadler and the Croatian intelligentsia was not tactical or opportunistic, as some thought, but political, ideological, cultural and partly ecclesiastical. The Croatian intelligentsia severely accused Stadler of allegedly equating Croats and Catholics, of alienating Croat Catholics in BiH from Muslims and Orthodox Serbs, of being the sole culprit in a long-term and devastating dispute with "beloved" BiH Franciscans, of uncanonical treatment of church property for destructive and anti-national writing of his press and the like. The accusations from the HNZ, thanks to the precision and knowledge of Stadler's former lawyer Mandić, will turn the scale of the Holy See for sending the Apostolic Visitor to the Catholic Church in BiH, in other words, for introducing church monitoring for the person and the "Josip Stadler system". The Apostolic Visitor arrived and investigated the situation in the Catholic Church in BiH, predominantly in the Archdiocese of Vrhbosna. This task required great patience on the Visitor's part, above-average diplomatic skills, and the talent to read between the lines; since each side of the conflicting parties served and defended only "its own truth" and none could boast of objective truthfulness, both morally and politically. The documents attached here were mostly available to the Apostolic Visitor in Italian, Latin or German at the beginning of the Apostolic Visit. During the visit, other important documents appeared in Croatian, Latin, Italian, German and French and today contain extensive original archival material which is stored in three different funds of the Vatican Apostolic Archives. An important archival source for the preparation, opening and course of the Apostolic Visit in the Church of BiH is contained in the archives of the Provincial Government in Sarajevo, the Joint Ministry of Finance in Vienna and Sarajevo, and the Joint Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Political Archives of Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv in Vienna, which are quoted several times in this text. The religious institutions of the Archdiocese of Vrhbosna, the Dioceses of Banja Luka and Mostar, the two Franciscan Provinces, the Jesuits, and the Congregation of sisters Servants of Infant Jesus have not yet made the materials in their archives sufficiently accessible.

Autor u radu obrađuje neke značajnije momente javnog djelovanja vrhbosanskog nadbiskupa Josipa Stadlera tijekom Prvog svjetskog rata kroz tri teme: nadbiskupova reakcija na Sarajevski atentat i početak Prvog svjetskog rata, nadbiskupovo pastoralno-karitativno djelovanje u vrijeme rata te nadbiskupovo zalaganje za opstanak Austro-Ugarske Monarhije i rješenje hrvatskog pitanja unutar Monarhije. Teme su obrađene u kontekstu ratnih događanja. Sarajevski atentat bio je za nadbiskupa Stadlera još jedan od drskih napada Srbije na Austro-Ugarsku Monarhiju i kao takva ga je osudio te je slijedom toga također označio Srbiju kao glavnog krivca za početak rata koji nije, prema njemu, imao za cilj samo otrgnuti neke hrvatske zemlje u koje je on ubrajao i Bosnu i Hercegovinu nego i uništiti katoličanstvo u tim zemljama. Jedna od bitnih nadbiskupovih aktivnosti tijekom rata bila je pomoć ljudima koji su se zbog rata nalazili u raznim nevoljama. Više je puta pozivao svećenstvo i vjernike svoje Nadbiskupije, a i sam je primjerom pokazivao, da se angažiraju u raznim „karitativnim“ akcijama kako bi se nevoljnicima izašlo ususret bez obzira na njihovu vjersku pripadnost. Početkom 1918. bio je optužen u jednim hrvatskim novinama da nije „humanitarac“, nego lihvar jer je namjeravao prodati nešto žita sa svojih imanja i izmiriti neke svoje dugove. Analiza arhivskih dokumenata pokazuje da je bila riječ samo o zlonamjernoj optužbi. Kad se počelo rješavati slavensko pitanje na jugu Monarhije, nadbiskup je izašao sa svojim prijedlogom. Zalagao se za opstanak katoličke Monarhije unutar koje bi postojala hrvatska država čiji bi sastavni dio bila Bosna i Hercegovina., The author analyses some of the important moments in the public life of Archbishop Josip Stadler during the First World War, on three themes: the Archbishop's reaction to the Sarajevo Assassination and the beginning of the First World War, the Archbishop's pastoral-charitable work during the war, and the Archbishop's advocacy for the survival of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and a solution to the Croatian question within the Monarchy. The topics are addressed in the context of war events. Archbishop Stadler viewed the Sarajevo Assassination as an attack on the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and as such he condemned it and subsequently identified Serbia as the main cause of the beginning of the war, which, according to him, was not intended only to destroy a portion of Croat territory, as part of which he counted Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also to destroy Catholicism in these countries. One of the Archbishop's important activities during the war was to help people who were in various types of difficulty as a result of the conflict. He repeatedly appealed to the clergy and to the faithful in his Archdiocese, and by example he showed them how to engage in various charitable actions to help those who had strayed, regardless of their religious affiliation. At the beginning of 1918 he was accused by one of the Croatian newspapers of not being a humanitarian, but rather a usurer because he intended to sell some grain from his estate and settle some of his debts. The analysis of archive documents shows that this accusation was simply malicious. When the Slavic question in the southern part of the Monarchy started, the Archbishop presented his proposal. He was committed to the survival of the Catholic Monarchy within which a Croatian state would exist and Bosnia and Herzegovina would be its integral part.

Autor u radu obrađuje nastanak i razvoj sukoba između nadbiskupa Stadlera i Hrvatske narodne zajednice te misiju ap. delegata Pierrea Bastiena u izmirenju zavađenih strana. Rad je podijeljen u dva dijela. U prvom dijelu obrađuje se nastanak i razvoj sukoba, odnosno događanja od 1908. do kraja 1910., a u drugom dijelu misija delegata Bastiena koja je u ovom pitanju trajala od kraja 1910. do početka 1912. godine. Sukob je nastao zbog uvrštenja, odnosno neuvrštenja katoličkog principa u statute Zajednice. Nadbiskup Stadler je smatrao da Zajednica, ako se želi brinuti oko prosperiteta Hrvata katolika, to mora činiti u skladu s principima katoličke vjere i to jasno istaći u svojim statutima, dok je vodstvo Zajednice smatralo da to nije potrebno. Sukob se zaoštrio nakon aneksije 1908. i najave organiziranja političkog života, odnosno najave izbora i sazivanja parlamenta. Stadler je u to vrijeme pojačao pritisak na vodstvo Zajednice. Bojeći se da bi Zajednica mogla voditi politiku bez suradnje s crkvenim strukturama, ponovo je inzistirao na uvrštenju katoličkog principa u statute zatraživši također od Zajednice da radi u suradnji sa svećenstvom. Kad je Zajednica i to odbila, pokušao je promijeniti vodstvo Zajednice, ali nije uspio. Tijekom tih događanja došlo je do podjele među sve- ćenstvom. Dijecezansko svećenstvo pristalo je uz Stadlera, dok je franjevačko davalo podršku Zajednici. Vidjevši da ništa ne može promijeniti u Zajednici, Stadler je krenuo u osnivanje nove političke organizacije - Hrvatske katoličke udruge. Osnovavši Udrugu, zabranio je pastoralnom svećenstvu svoje biskupije članstvo u Zajednici. Dijecezansko svećenstvo ga je poslušalo, a franjevačko, premda je službeno izašlo iz Zajednice, i dalje je na terenu radilo za Zajednicu. Međusobne optužbe, koje su ponekad prelazile granice pristojnosti i crkvenosti, postale su javne. Kako je problem evidentno postao crkveni, i jedna i druga strana zatražile su intervenciju Svete Stolice koja je u BiH odlučila poslati u misiju izmirenja benediktinca P. Bastiena u službi apostolskog delegata. Delegat je u spomenutoj misiji radio od kraja 1910. do početka 1912. godine. Nakon tri mjeseca boravka u Bosni krajem ožujka 1911. poslao je Svetoj Stolici prvo izvješće o katoličkom razdoru u BiH. Bastienovo izvješće i činjenice koje su se događale, a koje su dovele do sukoba, u mnogočemu se ne slažu. Kao glavnog krivca za sukob označio je nadbiskupa Stadlera premda je dio odgovornosti pripisao i Zajednici i franjevcima. Najprije je sukob pokušao riješiti posredujući u misiji pomirenja i iznalaženju rješenja s crkvenom hijerarhijom. Misija nije urodila plodom. Stavovi nadbiskupa Stadlera i biskupa Markovića koji je bio za Zajednicu ostali su nepromijenjeni. Nakon neuspjeha s crkvenom hijerarhijom okrenuo se vodstvu Zajednice i Udruge. Obje strane su bile raspoložene za ujedinjenje. Glavni problem koji se postavio bilo je opoziv Stadlerove zabrane svećenstvu da čini dio Zajednice. Predstavnici Udruge su predlagali povlačenje opoziva kad dođe do sjedinjenja, a predstavnici Zajednice tražili su opoziv kao uvjet za pregovore. Bastien je inzistirao na uvjetu Zajednice. U vrijeme Bastienova pregovaranja s predstavnicima Zajednice i Udruge u posredovanje oko pomirenja uključila se Stranka prava iz Zagreba. Bastien je zamoljen da ne sudjeluje u pregovorima. Premda nije sudjelovao u pregovorima, i dalje je inzistirao na Stadlerovu opozivu zabrane. Stadler je to vješto izbjegavao sve dok nije došlo do sjedinjenja u siječnju 1912. Nakon sjedinjenja objavio je opoziv., The author deals with the origin and development of the conflict between Archbishop Stadler and the Croatian National Community and the mission of Apostolic Delegate Pierre Bastien in reconciling the estranged parties. The paper is in two parts: the first section deals with the origin and development of the conflict, that is, the events from 1908 to the end of 1910, while the second section deals with the mission of Apostolic Delegate Bastien, which – with reference to this matter – lasted from the end of 1910 to the beginning of 1912. The conflict arose over the inclusion or non-inclusion of Catholic principles in the Community statutes. Archbishop Stadler felt that if the Community wanted to care for the well-being of Croat Catholics, it must do so in accordance with the principles of the Catholic faith and make this clear in its statutes. The leadership of the Community considered this unnecessary. The conflict intensified after the annexation of 1908 and the announcement of the organization of political life, that is, the proclamation of elections and the convening of parliament. In this period, Stadler intensified pressure on the leadership of the Community. Fearing that the Community might pursue a policy without cooperating with church structures, he again insisted on the incorporation of Catholic principles in the statutes, also asking the Community to work in cooperation with the clergy. When the Community refused, he tried – but failed – to change its leadership. During these events, the clergy were divided: the diocesan clergy sided with Stadler, while the Franciscan clergy sided with the Community. Concluding that he would not be able to change things in the Community, Stadler set about founding a new political organization – the Croatian Catholic Association. In founding the Association, he forbade the clergy of his diocese, who worked in the parishes, to become members of the Community. The diocesan clergy obeyed, while the Franciscan clergy, although officially exiting the Community, continued to work for it. Mutual recriminations, which at times went beyond the boundaries of decency and ecclesiastical propriety, became public. As the issue manifestly became a Church problem, both sides requested the intervention of the Holy See, which decided to send Benedictine P. Bastien, as Apostolic Delegate, with the mission of reconciling the two parties. The Apostolic Delegate carried out this mission from late 1910 until early 1912. At the end of March 1911, after a three-month stay in Bosnia, he sent the Holy See his first report on the division among Catholics in BiH. Bastien’s report diverges substantially from the facts that had led to the conflict. He identified Archbishop Stadler as the main culprit in the dispute, though he attributed some responsibility to both the Community and the Franciscans. Bastien tried to resolve the conflict by mediating a reconciliation effort and finding a solution with the hierarchy. This approach did not bear fruit. The views of Archbishop Stadler and Bishop Markovic, who supported the Community, remained unchanged. After failing with the hierarchy, he turned to the leaders of the Community and the Association. Both sides were inclined to come together. The main obstacle was securing the revocation of Stadler’s ban on clergy joining the Community. Representatives of the Association suggested that the ban be rescinded after the proposed merger took place, while Community representatives demanded that the ban be rescinded as a condition for negotiations. Bastien supported the position of the Community. At the same time as Bastien’s negotiations with the representatives of the Community and the Association, the Party of Rights from Zagreb was involved in mediating reconciliation. Bastien was asked not to participate in these negotiations. Although he did not participate, he continued to insist that Stadler rescind the ban. Stadler skillfully sidestepped this until reunification in January 1912, after which he rescinded the ban.

Rad prikazuje Stadlerovu neoskolastičku filozofiju kroz prizmu crkvenih dokumenata tadašnjeg vremena, kroz dvije enciklike Aeterni Patris i Pascendi te motupropij Sacrorum antistitum, tkzv. Antimodernistička prisega. Poseban naglasak na Stadlerovim poslanicima gdje se obračunava sa liberalističkim i modernističkim tumačenjem bilo u vjeri bilo u praksi-o slobodnim zidarima, o poslušnosti Crkvi, protiv racionalističkog tumačenja vjere, antimodernistička prisega, itd.

U radu se analizira utjecaj općeg društveno- političkog stanja u BiH, koje je bilo uspostavljeno nakon austrougarske okupacije 1878. godine, na međusobne odnose Katoličke i Pravoslavne crkve. Srpska politika općenito, vođena željom i programom sjedinjenja svih Srba u jednu neovisnu državu, koja se posvema svjesno prenosila i na crkveno pravoslavno područje, napadala je novi politički ustroj i novonastalu državnu stvarnost u BiH . A jedno od najčešćih područja na koje se obarala ta kritika bilo je školstvo. Ta je kritika inzistirala naročito na upravnim i kulturnim mjerama koje je poduzimala vlast a koje su, prema toj kritici, sprečavale normalan razvitak, tako je tvrdila ta kritika, samo Srbima u BiH kao da uopće nisu postojale jednake, a često čak i strože, mjere koje je ista vlast poduzimala i prema tamošnjim Hrvatima. Srpska i pravoslavna kritika posvema je neutemeljeno napadala prosvjetnu politiku austrougarskih vlasti tvrdeći da Katolička crkva koristi školstvo kao sredstvo za prevođenje pravoslavaca na katoličku vjeru. Na temelju beznačajnog incidenta koji se dogodio u školi Žepču (pronalaska rimskog katekizma kod pravoslavne djece, koji im je poklonio mjesni učitelj) autor posvjedočuje svoju ocjenu o političkoj motiviranosti napada pravoslavnih velikodostojnika na Katoličku crkvu.

U radu je na temelju arhivskih izvora ocijenjen doprinos vrhbosanskog nadbiskupa dr. Josipa Stadlera djelovanju Stranke prava u Bosni i Hercegovini tijekom Prvog svjetskog rata. U Bosni i Hercegovini nije nikada došlo do stvaranja isključivo pravaške stranke, ali su neke od najbitnijih programskih odrednica Stranke prava bile uvrštene u programe bosanskohercegovačkih političkih organizacija – Hrvatske narodne zajednice (1906.) i Hrvatske katoličke udruge (1910.) Stadlerov doprinos promicanju pravaških ideja posvjedočen je dokumentima koji sadrže podatke o njegovoj važnoj ulozi u posredovanju frankovačkih ideja među predstavnicima različitih opcija unutar hrvatske politike u Bosni i Hercegovini, posebice nakon osnutka Kluba Starčevićeve hrvatske čiste stranke prava u Sarajevu 1909. godine, usmjerenog na državnopravne modalitete povezivanja Bosne i Hercegovine s Hrvatskom.

U radu su na temelju arhivskih izvora istraženi važniji momenti vezani uz suradnju nadbiskupa Stadlera i isusovaca po pitanju poboljšanja gospodarskog, kulturnog i vjerskog položaja katolika u Bosni i Hercegovini prije Prvog svjetskog rata.

U radu su istraženi vjerska politika austrougarskih vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini te uzroci kritičkog odnosa prvoga vrhbosanskog nadbiskupa Josipa Stadlera prema osnovnim sastavnicama te politike, na temelju dosadašnjim istraživanjima

U radu je istražena uloga Ive Pilara u nastanku apela nadbiskupa Stadlera papi Benediktu XV. iz 1915. godine, u kojem je nadbiskup Stadler od pape tražio zagovor neutralnosti Italije u europskom sukobu. Stadlerov apel razmotren je u kontekstu napora Svete Stolice usmjerenih prema osiguranju neutralnosti Italije, te djelovanja austrougarske diplomacije s tim u vezi.