Sposoby karania duchownych. Biskupie więzienie dla kapłanów – studium przypadku Archidiecezji Ołomunieckiej w XIX wieku

Instytucja domu „korekcyjnego” dla duchowieństwa (zwanego również „więzieniami kapłańskimi”) stanowiła szczególną instytucję dla kapłanów, którzy byli winni naruszenia ich obowiązków i sposobów postępowania, ale także dla kapłanów chorych (fizycznie lub psychicznie). Kapłan, który został uznany za zreformowanego (poprawionego), mógł zostać zwolniony z powrotem do służby duszpasterskiej. Kapłani znajdujący się w kleryckich więzieniach nie byli „niebezpiecznymi kryminalistami”, ale raczej przestępcami. Dom „korekcyjny” w Mírov miał własne reguły: instrukcje dla dziekana w mieście Mohelnice (z obowiązkiem wizytacji), dla kapłana Mírova (przełożonego domu korekcyjnego w Mírov), personelu obsługi i dla więzionych kapłanów. Te instrukcje przedstawiają bardzo dobrze przemyślane przepisy. Opierając się na nich, można wyobrazić sobie funkcjonowanie tej instytucji i przedstawić losy więzionych kapłanów (w zależności od zachowanych źródeł archiwalnych).The institution of the house of correction for the clergy (also called “priestly prisons”) represented a special institution for priests who were guilty of violating their duty or manners, but also for priests who were ill (physically or psychologically). The priest who was considered to be reformed (corrected) could be released back into pastoral service. Priests located in clerical prisons were not “dangerous criminals”, but rather offenders. The house of correction in Mírov had its own rules: instructions for the dean of Mohelnice (with the duty of visitation), for the chaplain of Mírov (the superior of the house of correction in Mírov), service staff and for the incarcerated priests, of course. These instructions represented very well thought-out regulations. Based on these, we can also picture the functioning of this institution, and outline the fates of the incarcerated priests (depending upon the preserved archival sources)

Modyfikacja statutów Ołomunieckiej Kapituły Metropolitalnej i nominacja kanoników w związku z Kodeksem Prawa Kanonicznego z 1917 roku

W okresie episkopatu arcybiskupa ołomunieckiego Stojana, rząd czechosłowacki bardzo mocno interweniował w rozwiązywaniu tzw. kwestii Kapituły Ołomunieckiej. Następnie kwestia ta była postrzegana przede wszystkim jako wewnętrzna sprawa Kościoła, a negocjacje odbywały się między arcybiskupem ołomunieckim, Kapitułą a Stolicą Apostolską. Kapituła nie mogła zignorować postanowień nowego Kodeksu Prawa Kanonicznego, ale równocześnie nie chciała zrezygnować z dawnych przywilejów, tym więcej z racji faktu, że kanonicy „przysięgali na dawne statuty”. Z drugiej strony liczba pustych kanonikatów wzrosła i następny arcybiskup ołomuniecki Prečan zdołał osiągnąć nominacje nowych kanoników według Kodeksu. Państwo nie wpływało na powyższe nominacje. Ważną sprawą była przynależność narodowa członków Kapituły. Kwestia nowych statutów Kapituły pozostała nierozwiązana. Wymóg Stolicy Apostolskiej z 1923 r. dotyczący rewizji statutów Kapituły zgodnie z postanowieniami nowego Kodeksu nie został spełniony nawet w ciągu najbliższych 70 lat. Kapituła we współpracy z arcybiskupem przygotowała rewidowane statuty w 1933 r., ale ostatecznie nie zostały one zatwierdzone. Również kolejny arcybiskup Josef Karel Matocha wezwał po II wojnie światowej Kapitułę do przedłożenia statutów do zatwierdzenia, ale Kapituła ponownie prezentowała argument „niewłaściwej pory”. Początek komunistycznego reżimu w 1948 r. utrudnił sytuację w takim stopniu, że Kapituła Ołomuniecka otrzymała nowe zatwierdzone statuty dopiero w 1994 r.During the episcopate of Archbishop Stojan the Czechoslovak government very strongly interfered in the resolution of the so-called question of the Olomouc Chapter. Afterwards the issue was perceived primarily as an internal affair of the Church, and negotiations took place between the Archbishop of Olomouc together with the Chapter and the Holy See. The Chapter could not ignore the provisions of the new Code of Canon Law, but did not want to renounce its existing privileges, also because the canons “had sworn by the old statutes”. On the other hand, the number of vacant canonical posts had increased and Prečan, the archbishop of Olomous, managed to effect the appointment of new canons according to the provisions of the Code. The State did not influence those appointment. The nationality of the Chapter members was an important issue. The issue of new statutes for the Chapter remained unsolved. The requirement of the Holy See from 1923 to review the Statutes in accordance with the new Code was not fulfilled even in the next 70 years. The Chapter, in colaboration with the Archbishop, drafted revised statutes in 1933, but ultimately they were not approved. Also, Archbishop Josef Karel Matocha called the Chapter to submit new statutes for approval after World War II, but yetagain the Chapter argued that the time was “inopportune”. The onset of the Communist regime in 1948 made the situation so difficult that the Olomouc Chapter did not have its new approved Statutes until 1994

Heritage Preservation and Sacred Art After the Second Vatican Council

The Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically contains provisions concerning liturgy but also the preservation of historical monuments and issues of sacred art. There is an urgent question in connection with the development of modern art as to which type of art is suitable for the sacred, liturgical space and which is not. This begs the question as to how to define sacred art. Another problem is raised, however, in connection with the preservation of historic buildings (esp. churches), that being how to reconcile the requirements of church and those of state heritage preservation? Specific questions are presented by disused churches, their sale and subsequent use. There is also the issue of the formation of candidates for the priesthood and priests concerned with preservation of historical monuments and sacred art. The issue will be discussed on the basis of church documents (general and particular) and selected relevant examples. The paper focuses on the Sacrosanctum Concilium 44–46, 122–129 in connection not only with preservation of historic church buildings, but with the issue of sacred art (modern art in the Church, sacred furnishings, the commission for sacred art) and that of unneeded “redundant” churches: the use of church buildings for other/ secular purposes

Liturgical textiles and methods of its presentation

he methodology is directly related to the I. methodology with emphasis on the specifics of the presentation of textiles in listed buildings (eg castle chapels), including the emphasis on their liturgical function. In terms of parameters with secondarily used secular textiles, identification of their original function and inclusion in broader cultural contexts, including the addition of pictorial documentation. And emphasizing the didactic function of the presentation with respect to the visitor. The methodology will also include summary chapters on the history of museum presentation. Other chapters are of a practical nature (light intensity, humidity, various ways of presentation, their specifics, advantages and disadvantages, including direct confrontation with foreign approaches)

ORNAMENTA EPISCOPI. Liturgická roucha olomoucké katedrály

The publication presents the development of the cathedral and especially the preserved parameters in the historical context. The catalog presents the development of liturgical parameters of the largest Moravian collection of liturgical vestments from the 17th century. to the first half of the 20th century, aspects of cultural exchange between the Czech lands and the Central and Western European region are also included (paraments were also ordered, for example, from Rome)

Liturgical Textiles and Preservation of Them

The care of historical liturgical textiles is often not given the attention it deserves. Liturgical textiles represent an important group where historical textiles have been preserved to this day. Three basic areas can be created for the care of historical liturgical textiles: Interest and enlightenment/ education of the public The historical liturgical textile, although no longer fulfilling its function (it is not used in the liturgy), remains an important cultural heritage of the Church. The actual place where it is usually preserved are the sacristies, oratories or parishes, where, however, it does not always have the appropriate conditions. Although according to the requirements of the church and the state monument care it is desirable to protect historical liturgical textiles (although it is not listed as a part of parish property and should be kept in inventory), sometimes it is destroyed (incineration, improper storage, etc.) or even sold. In this case, it should be kept in mind that this is an illegal disposal, in which irreversible losses occur (historically valuable liturgical textiles are destroyed), moreover, in the case of sale not only that the parish property is being defrauded, and the priests are not always able to estimate the true value and textiles are sold below cost and can later be seen on online sales portals at a much higher price. Parish clergy are often overwhelmed and do not see historical liturgical textiles as something important to which they should pay more attention. It should therefore be recalled that the vast majority of it is the property of the parish, etc., which cannot be disposed of arbitrarily, and in addition also consecrated objects that deserve respect. Sacral art, including historical liturgical textiles, is the cultural heritage of the Church that needs to be protected. Art has not only a liturgical function, but also an evangelistic one. When dealing with historical liturgical textiles, it is desirable to contact experts, the relevant diocesan conservation center, specialist workplaces of a museum or monument institute. Inventory and storage Historical textiles should be kept in the inventory of the relevant parish (monastery, etc.) or state institutions in the appropriate forms. Inventory records together with archival documents can help to shed light on the identification, but also the closer identification (material, origin, etc.) of the monument. It is not possible to demand that the conditions of historical textiles in the specialized depositories of various institutions would be ensured in parishes. Unfortunately, there is often not enough space even in specialized diocesan depositories. Especially in the case of "commonly preserved parameters", it is desirable to store them in suitable places where they will not be undesirably damaged (temperature conditions, humidity, dust, insect damage, rodents). Restoration and presentation Restoration must be entrusted to appropriate experts. Historical liturgical textiles, as well as other sacral monuments, prove the cultural richness of the Church, which, however, has an irreplaceable pastoral and evangelistic mission. Particularly unused historical parameters can thus be part of short-term (eg Church Night) or long-term exhibitions. However, it is necessary to pay attention to the suitability of the method of their presentation and to document any loans. It must not be used inappropriately (clothing for the Three Kings collection, theatrical costume, etc.