The reforms of Catholic Church's property relationships in the light of the Josephinian legislation in Galicia

Bibliogr. w przypisach. Streszcz. w jęz. ang. s. 135. Strona wydawcy: https://www.wuj.pl

The reforms relating to the Church’s property were an important component of Joseph H’s entire reform program, the ecclesiastical property being formative of the material support of the Church, and determinative also of the separate status of the clergy. In Galicia these reforms were chaotically carried out. They could most frequently be boiled down to three groups: 1) the reforms imposing taxes on the Galician clergy, 2) amendments affecting legal transactions whose objects were real estates, 3) reforms relating to the iura stolae charges. These reforms were preceded by the introducing of precisions into the Church’s inventories, producing the lists of so called alienated estates and assessing the value of the latter. Despite the impetus with which the reforms were started their effects were but small. This was due to the errors, misfeasance or mere waste for which the secular agencies were responsible. The intensity of reforms fell upon the period between 1782 and 1787. This was the period during which the action of dissolving monasteries and convents reached its climax. In the present paper the reforms are discussed in detail both from the point of view of the law as well as from the perspective of their practical implementation. The discussion is illustrated by examples. The author arrives at a conclusion that the reforms were a blow aimed at the clergy as a separate estate. But in fact the clergy’s authority paradoxically grew as a result of them. Yet, indeed, due to the new system of taxation, the clergy ceased to be viewed as a separate estate. The reformers tended toward more reasonable expenditures spent upon the Church and toward balancing the Church’s incomes. This was not however the concern about the situation of the Church but rather an attempt at potential future seizure of the Church’s incomes, that was formative of the reformers’ intentions. Joseph II has doubtless the credit of the fact that these reforms were vital and have sometimes survived until our time.