Joseph II

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

(1741-90).

German Emperor (reigned 1765-90), of the House of Hapsburg-Lorraine, son and successor ofMaria Theresa and Francis I.

Development of character

Of his mother's sixteen children he was the most difficult to manage, and her attempts to frighten him by threats of the spirit-world only laid the foundations of his religious scepticism. A soldier-tutor employed in vain the severity of a martinet; aJesuit instructed him in religion, Latin, mathematics, and militaryscience, but the pedantic nature of the training deprived him of all disposition for religion and earnest studies; another tutor, who wrote fifteen large volumes for the prince's instruction in history, destroyed all his respect for the historical characters of the past. Flatterers, and even the tutor himself, stimulated the extravagant imperiousness of the crown-prince, while Martini (professor ofnatural law) found in him an eager student of physiocracy--adoctrine which affected profoundly Joseph's mind, firing him with an enthusiasm for current views, the "rights of man", and the welfare of the people. French "enlightenment" also influenced him, especially in thepersons of Voltaire and his royal adept, Frederick the Great. Joseph viewed with jealous discontent theintellectual superiority of theProtestant North ofGermany, then first dominant over theCatholic South: he also reflected with chafing impatience on Frederick's victories and talent for government, and thence conceived a definite aim in life. But when he ascended the throne, his plans failed utterly.

As ruler

After 1765 Joseph acted as emperor and co-regent with his mother, but administered only the business routine and the military affairs of the empire. Finally, resenting the manner in which his hands were tied by his prudent parent, he took to travel inItaly,France, and the Crown Lands. Twice he met Frederick the Great, and in 1780 Catherine II ofRussia. In the same Year his mother,Empress Maria Theresa, died, and Joseph was free.

In the Empire

Joseph applied himself with the best intentions, among other matters, to the reform of imperialjurisprudence. But difficulties from within and without checked his fiery enthusiasm. Although a Liberal and an imperialist, whenever the interests of the Hapsburgs were in question, he allowed the imperial power to be lessened after the fashion of other German princes. Ecclesiastical politics also played a considerable rõle in the empire. Joseph tried to secure Germanecclesiastical preferments for Austrian princes, urged obsolete imperial privileges, e.g. the so-calledPanisbriefe, to provide for the support of his lay adherents in imperialmonasteries. By cutting off the Austrian territory of such greatmetropolitan sees as Salzburg and Passau, he severed the last tie which unitedAustria with the empire. Though not in itself conflicting with German interests, his scheme of exchanging the AustrianNetherlands for the neighbouringBavaria on the occasion of the impending change of dynasty, led to theBavarian War of Succession. In 1785Prussia opposed the revival of this scheme by forming the "League of Princes". Joseph now endeavoured to expand his dominions in the north and east, and to makeAustria dominant in CentralEurope. He obtained a considerable increase of territory in the First Partition ofPoland (1773), and concluded a defensive alliance withRussia, which led to great schemes for a larger gain of territory in the east. In the Austro-Russianwar against theTurks (1788), however, though Joseph's army took Belgrade, Catherine obtained all the fruits of the campaign.

In Austria

In home affairs, Joseph sought to weld the fundamentally differing peoples of the Austrian State-Germans,Slavs,Hungarians,Belgians, Italians-into one compact nation. So he began to level and centralize great and small things in every direction and in the greatest haste.Frederick II said of Joseph: "He takes the second step before the first." Joseph's predecessor had not been heedless of the new tendencies. She had set the machine of state running in a modern groove. In church affairs she had resorted to strict measures to regulate disorders, but Joseph saw in these only "half measures and inconsistencies", and, in the glow of conviction, "desired by hot-house methods to bring his mother's incipient reforms to maturity" (Krones). He united the administration of all the provinces in the central council atVienna, of which be himself was the head, while he abolished their diets or paralysed them by the provincial executive authorities. Though a professed enemy of every irregularity, he often undertook to decide matters belonging to the central government atVienna. German became the official language in all the countries subject to his rule; the courts ofjustice were independent and impartial to noble and peasant. Serfdom and the right of the landed nobles to punish their tenants ceased; the codification of the civil and criminallaws begun in 1753, was furthered, and thedeath penalty was abolished. In hisEhepatent Joseph created the Austrian marriage law; he subjected the nobility andclergy to state taxation, and opened up new sources of revenue; he abolished the censorship and permitted freedom of speech, a measure which loosed a flood of pamphlets of the most pernicious kind, especially inecclesiastical polemics.

Ecclesiastical policy

Its development

Joseph was the father of Josephinism, which is nothing else than the highest development of the craving common among secular princes after an episcopal and territorial church. Its beginnings can be traced inAustria to the thirteenth century, and it became clearly marked in the sixteenth, especially so far as the administration ofchurch property was concerned. It was fostered in the second half of the eighteenth century by the spread ofFebronian andJansenistideas, based on Gallican principles. These notions were by no means new to wide circles of GermanCatholics or at the court ofVienna.Prince Kaunitz, the chancellor of state, who directed Austrian politics for forty years from 1753, was a personal friend of Voltaire, and thus azealous champion of Gallicanism. TheJansenist, Van Swieten (court-physician toMaria Theresa), was president of the imperial commission oneducation. At theuniversity, "enlightenment" had powerful advocates in Martini, Sonnenfels, and Riegger, and it was there that Joseph'sidea of a national state church received its legal basis. According tonatural law, the chief object of a state ought to be the greatest possiblehappiness of its subjects. The chief obstacles, neglect ofduty and lack of mutual goodwill inindividuals, religion alone can remove by its appeals toconscience. Hence the State recognizes religion as the principal factor ineducation: "TheChurch is a department of police, which must serve the aims of the State until such time as the enlightenment of the people permit of its relief by the secular police" (Sonnenfels). The canonist Riegger derived the supremacy of the State over theChurch from the theory of an original compact (pactum unionis), in virtue of which the Government exercises in the name of allindividuals a certainecclesiastical jurisdiction, theJura circa sacra. Another canonist (Gmeiner) formulated the following theory: Any canonical legislation that conflicts with the interests of the State is opposed tonatural law, and therefore to the will of Christ; consequently theChurch has noright to enact suchlaws nor can the State accept them.Kaunitz reduced these principles to practice: "The supremacy of the State over theChurch extends to all ecclesiastical laws and practices devised and established solely by man, and whatever else theChurch owes to the consent and sanction of thesecular power. Consequently, the State must always have the power to limit, alter, or annul its former concessions, whenever reasons of state, abuses, or altered circumstances demand it." Joseph raised these propositions to principles of government, and treatedecclesiastical institutions as public departments of the State.Maria Theresa has been incorrectly represented as favouring Josephinism. Most of the measures that presaged Josephinism in the latter part of her reign had not her approval. Joseph's entire policy was the embodiment of hisidea of a centralized empire developing from within and in which all public affairs, political and ecelesiastico-political, were treated as an indivisible whole. His reforms, a medley of financial, social reformatory, and ecclesiastico-reformatoryideas, have no solid foundation.

The reforms

Bishoprics,religious orders, andbenefices were limited by the Austrian boundary Non-Austrianbishops were excluded, which simplified the often very confused overlapping ofdiocesan authorities. The announcement ofpapal, in fact of allecclesiastical, decrees, was made dependent on imperial approval (see PLACET); decisions on impediments to marriage were referred to thebishops; the communication of thebishops withRome, and of thereligious orders with their generals in foreign countries, was forbidden, partly from considerations of political economy. In 1783, while atRome, Joseph personally threatened that he would establish an independent state-church; he abolished all exemptions from episcopal authority and by anobligatoryoath brought thebishops into dependence on the State. The acceptance ofpapal titles and attendance at the German College inRome were forbidden, and a German College was established at Pavia in opposition to the Roman institution. The Edict of Toleration of 1781 granted to alldenominations the free exercise of their religion and civilrights; at the same time a series of petty regulations concerning Divine service prescribed the number of the candles, the length and style of the sermons, theprayers, andhymns. All superfluous altars and all gorgeous vestments and images were to be removed; various passages in theBreviary were to have paper pasted over them; dogmatic questions were excluded from thepulpit, from which, on the other hand, all government proclamations were to be announced. "Our Brother the Sacristan", as Frederick the Great named Joseph, sincerely believed that in doing this he was creating a purified Divine service, and never heeded the discontent of his people and the sneers of non-Catholics.

The fundamentalidea underlying a state-church is that the State is the administrator of the temporalproperty of the Church. Joseph embodied thisidea in a law merging the funds of all churches,religious houses, and endowments within his territories, into one great fund for the various requirements of public worship, called theReligionsfonds. This fund was the pivot measure around which all other reforms turned. Not onlyecclesiastical property hitherto devoted toparochial uses, not only theproperty which the suppressedreligious houses had devoted toparochial works, butallecclesiastical property--the still remainingreligious houses,chapels, confraternities, andbenefices, and all existing religious endowments whatsoever-was held to be part of the new fund. The suppression of thereligious houses in 1782 affected at first only the contemplative orders. The Religionsfonds, created out of theproperty of themonasteries, gave a new direction to Joseph's monastic policy. In the foreground stood" the wealthy prelacies", which from 1783 were the chief object of his suppressions. The journey ofPius VI toVienna was fruitless, and thelaity reacted but feebly against the suppressions. Of the 915monasteries (762 for men, and 153 forwomen) existing in 1780 in GermanAustria (includingBohemia,Moravia, and Galicia), 388 (280 for men, 108 forwomen) were closed-figures which are often greatly exaggerated. By these suppressions the "religious fund" reached 35,000,000 gulden ($14,000,000). Countless works of art were destroyed or found their way to second-hand dealers or the mint, numberlesslibraries were pitilessly scattered.

The suppression of the tertiaries andhermits brought no increase to the fund, and the suppression of the confraternities (1783) was likewise a financial failure. They were looked upon as sources ofsuperstition and religious fanaticism; half theirproperty was allotted toeducational purposes, the other half was given over, "with all their ecclesiastical privileges, indulgences, and graces", to a new "Single Charitable Association", which possessed the features of both a confraternity and a charitable institution and was intended to end all social distress. But the people had little taste for this "enlightened confraternity". The suppression of the filial churches and chapels-of-ease permitted the creation of newparishes. In carrying out this measure and in the suppression of the confraternities, Joseph's reforms met with the first popular resistance. The endowments for Masses and altars, fororatories, chapels-of-ease, and confraternities, for processions andpilgrimages, and for devotions no longer permitted in the new arrangement of Divine service, all went to the Religionsfonds, which undertook to satisfy the provisions for Masses, wherever the fact of endowment could beproved. Joseph assigned a definite number as pensions for dispossessedmonks and as the stipends ofparochialclergy.Benefices withoutcure of souls,prebends in the larger churches, and allcanonries above a fixed number, belonging to collegiate churches andcathedral chapters, were forfeited to the "religious fund", and the incumbents transferred toparochial positions. A maximum was fixed for the endowment ofbishoprics, the surplus being turned over to the "religious fund, as were also the incomes of livings during their vacancy.

The firstduty of the "religious fund" was to provide for the ex-religious. Their number did not exceed ten thousand. They received a yearly salary of 150 to 200 gulden ($60 to $80), and themonks were transferred toparochial and scholastic work. The state-church reached its fullest expression in theparochial organization. The State undertook to train and remunerate theclergy, to present to livings, and to regulate Divine service. Noparish church was to be over an hour's walk from any parishioner; and a church was to be provided for every 700souls. Themonasteries which still remained bore the main burden of theparochial organization, and their inmates, as well as the ex-monks, were required to pass a state concursus for the pastoral positions, while only in cases of extreme necessity did the "religious fund" furnish the means for the building of churches and rectories, for the care of cemeteries and the equipment of churches. Naturally, the "religious fund" had to pay the costs of placing theclergy under state control, of the generalseminaries and the support of the youngclerics, who thus became wholly dependent on the Government, of the institutes for the practicaleducation of theclergy, which were to be established in everydiocese, and of the support of sick and agedpriests after the incorporation with the "religious fund" of the funds created for superannuatedpriests (Emeritenfonds) and to supply needed support (Defizientenfonds).

The academic reforms ofMaria Theresa (Studienreform) and of Rautenstrauch (Studienplan) in 1776, and the introduction of Riegger's "Manual of Canon Law", paved the way for the creation of the generaltheologicalseminaries. Joseph founded twelve: atVienna, Graz,Prague,Olmütz, Presburg, Pesth,Innsbruck,Freiburg, Lemberg (two for Galicia, Greek and Latin Rites),Louvain, and Pavia. In 1783 all themonasticschools anddiocesan houses of studies were suppressed. The "generalseminaries" were boarding-houses (Konvikte) connected with theuniversities; some of them, however, had their owntheological courses. Five years of study in theseminary were followed by one in thebishop's training-house (Priesterhaus) or in amonastery. The principles of theseminary directors were Liberal, in keeping with therationalistictheology of the State. Sharp opposition arose, especially on the part of theecclesiastical foundations (Stifte) and themonasteries. Thenovices,educated at their expense in the generalseminaries, for the most part lost their monastic vocation. Some of the generalseminaries were badly managed, AtInnsbruck,Pavia, andLouvain, unsuitable directors were appointed; atLouvain the generalseminary was eventually the cause of a civilwar and of the revolt ofBelgium. However, otherseminaries sent forth efficientpastors and learnedtheologians (Freiburg). The fermentation within the ranks of theclergy of southwestGermany andAustria until after the middle of the nineteenth century came from the Liberalideas imbibed at this time.

The accounts of the deplorably depraved conditions in the generalseminaries, which are met with in earlierCatholic literature (Theiner,S. Brunner, Brück, Stöckl) and occasionally repeated even now, are in part exaggerations of faults and blunders that were real enough; to a considerable extent, however, they are based on forgeries "invented for the purpose of stirring up the smouldering flames of theBelgian Revolution. Seminaries like those ofFreiburg andVienna were counted among the worst, though it has been sinceproved that they were among the best. The most appalling abuses were reported of aseminary atRottenburg in the Tyrol, though there was never aseminary in the place. These accusations,true orfalse, but chiefly the exhaustion of the "religious fund", hastened their suppression in 1790. They became, however, the models of the actualtheologicalKonvikte (houses for aspirants to thepriesthood after their classical instruction in a state gymnasium) and the programme of studies laid out by Rautenstrauch is to this day the groundwork of the curriculum in theCatholictheological faculties ofGermany andAustria. The vesting of allecclesiastical property in a single treasury was impossible in practice. In the case of monasticproperty it was capitalized at great loss. The capital of every church and foundation had to be described publicly, converted into national bonds, and invested in the "religious fund". In this way Joseph to a certain extent satisfied his distrust of theecclesiastical administration ofproperty, while the same was placed at the service of the heavily encumbered state treasury. But many of the enterprises formerly conducted by the religious foundations could be no longer carried on owing to the slender returns. Still greater was the damage done to the credit and the resources of entire provinces, for hitherto theecclesiastical institutions (ce.g. the confraternities,chapels and churches in the country districts had been the only moneylenders. Peasants, mechanics, and artisans were now placed at the mercy ofusuriousJews and foreigners, while many were forthwith ruined by the sudden demands made on them. A tax was also levied onchurch property which had escaped complete secularization. From 1788 it was imposed on the still existingreligious orders and on thesecular clergy. This oppressively high income-tax was meant to divert into the coffers of the "religious fund" all revenues of the aforesaid institutions not absolutelynecessary for the support of life.

Historical importance

The Religionsfonds was not the magnanimous act in favour of the religious needs of the people that it is held to have been. Formed by consolidating almost the entireproperty of the Church, it undertook only suchobligations as it was in any case theduty of the State to fulfill, especially after the suppression of institutions which had previously of their own accord relieved the State of a portion of these burdens. Moreover the "religious fund" was from the first diverted to other reforms, e.g. ineducation; in time ofwar it was made to contribute heavy subsidies and suspended almost all its contributions for the religious needs of the people. We can thus easily understand how in the nineteenth century the "religious fund" came to need state-aid, which indeed the State was injustice bound to give in view of the fact that the national bonds, in which the "religious fund" had been chiefly invested, had sunk to one-fifth of their face value. The secularization under Joseph, if less offensive than other well-known secularizations, is nevertheless reprehensible. Joseph undertook his reforms with the best intentions, but left only vague and incomplete semblances of reform. After a reign of ten years and fully aware of his failure, he ended his unhappy and lonely existence (20 February, 1790), leaving even the monarchy itself in peril.Hungary was in a ferment;Belgium had just been lost; other provinces were in a state of violent discontent. But though in general the Josephinist system collapsed, its essential principles remain: the efforts for union among all the lands ofAustria are one result of the system; another is the attitude of the nineteenth-century State towards theChurch.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT