Wo ld o Bohemian P ies s
Lukáš Faso a, Jiří Hanuš, Tomáš W.Pa líček e al., P ies s’ Iden i ies in he Czech Lands
(1820–1938), P ague: nakl. lido é no iny 2017, 318 pp.
The hema ic monog aph, whose esea ch heme and me hods o p ocessing a e ep-
esen ed by Lukáš Faso a, Jiří Hanuš and Tomáš W.Pa líček, can be included in o-
day’s ela i ely nume ous publica ions on secula iza ion p ocesses in mode n imes.1
The Roman Ca holic Chu ch, which had he mos membe s in he Czech Lands, had o
come o e ms wi h his end, as i s leade s in he pe iod o he Habsbu g Mona chy
we e la gely mani es ed as uly ac i e ad oca es o allegiance o he uling dynas y.
In his con ex , i is app ecia ed ha , in he indi idual pape s, his ac is espec ed as
one o he alue amewo ks o con i ming, blu ing, inding, loca ing and, i neces-
sa y, e-ques ioning he p ies s’ iden i ies a he chosen ime. Howe e , i is clea ha
some o he au ho s ake in o accoun he ac ha he eme gence o he independen
Czechoslo akia in 1918 was a eal e olu ion, as i we e, in he posi ion o he Roman
Ca holic Chu ch in socie y. Indeed, in he selec ion o he cle gymen ha is discussed
he e his ac is no emphasised enough as a u ning poin .
The publica ion con ains ou een biog aphical s udies on Ca holic chu chmen,
among whose au ho s we ind h ee his o ians and only one o he au ho s was o -
dained as adeacon. The e o e, he e is no Ca holic p ies ep esen ed as an au ho .
Among he selec ed pe sonali ies, he e a e only h ee membe s o Ge man na ion-
ali y: p o incial Redemp o is p ies And eas Hame le, Apologis Amb os Opi z
and “ ebelling” ecclesias ical his o ian Edua d Win e . We do no ind in i p ies s
who had le he Ca holic Chu ch be o e he Fi s Wo ld Wa (F an išek Losko , Jose
S ozil, Ladisla Knu e) in consequence o he an i-mode nis ic campaign o he Ro-
man Ca holic hie a chy, o a e 1918 (Bohumil Zah adník-B odský, his b o he , P e-
mons a ensian Bohdan/Isido Zah adník, Ka el Fa ský, Ma ěj Pa lík/Go azd). The
o ganize s o his esea ch ini ia i e wan ed abo e all o c ea e acollec ion o bio-
g aphies o Ca holic p ies s who emained ai h ul o hei eligious belie s al hough
some o hem had some di icul ies wi h his. The biog aphical s udies on hese ac-
o s a e s uc u ed acco ding o common c i e ia, so ha i is possible o compa e
he mo i a ions and a i udes wi h which hey compensa ed o he secula iza ion o
socie y and o he o ms o mode nism. In his ega d, he ocus is on hei own powe
posi ion, and he issue o hei unde s anding hei mission as being an exclusi e
1 See e. g. Tomáš Pe áček, Výklad bible době (an i-)mode nis ické k ize. Ži o adílo Vin-
cen a Zaple ala OP. P aha 2006 (published in F ench ansla ion, oo); Pa el Ma ek, Češ-
í křesťanš í sociálo é. Příspě ek kp oblema ice p og amo ých ao ganizačních zákla-
dů českého poli ického ka olicismu le ech 1894–1938, Olomouc 2011; Ma in Schulze
Wessel, De ömisch-ka holische und ussisch-o hodoxe Kle us als T äge eligiösen
Wandels in den böhmischen Lände n und in Russland 1848–1922, München 2011; S ani-
sla Balík— Lukáš Faso a— Jiří Hanuš— Ma ek Vlha, Český an ikle ikalismus. Zd oje,
éma a apodoba českého an ikle ikalismu le ech 1848–1938, P aha 2015.
Jiří Š ai
76 WISOHIM/ESHP 28
media o o hei ai h ul encoun e ing God, and he wo ld o he “Supe na u al”
(p.13).2 I also conce ns hei iden i ies as a esul o igh ing agains opponen s,
sou ces o mobiliza ion and mo i a ion o ac , and inally, he emphasis is on he ole
o he p ies ’s iden i y in ela ion o expec a ions o “ hose” o he s.
The g ea es bene i om hus concei ed his o ical analyses can be seen in he
di ision o hei p o agonis s in o indi idual g oups acco ding o he common o ma-
i e expe iences o hei gene a ion: 1.P e-Ma ch, which was o ced o cope wi h he
a e ma h o he F ench wa s in he o m o es o a ion endencies in he Aus ian
s a e, and s i ing a he ime o i s pas o al du ies o he es o a ion o ela ions be-
ween he cle gy and he lay people (e.g. Vale ián Ji sík, Bishop o České Budějo ice,
and he specialis in eaching he Sc ip u e Jan Zá ka). 2.The gene a ion o he ime
o he e olu iona y uphea als in he yea s 1848–1849, whose hopes we e dashed by
he 1855 Conco da ( o example, pa io ic coun y p ies Beneš Me od Kulda, he
sha p- ongued polemicis always ai h ul o he Chu ch An onín Lenz, and he popu-
la missiona y And eas Hame le). 3.The gene a ion which had o ace he social con-
sequences o he unila e al ab oga ion o he Conco da (1870) and he subsequen
Libe al Chu ch Re o m (1874). The Roman Ca holic Chu ch was hen spli be ween
espec o he e i al o i s ac i i ies a e he Fi s Va ican Council (1869–1870) and
“doub s abou he co ec ness [o his— NB. J.Š .] Conse a i e pa h” (p.219, whe e
he Ch is ian-social ac i is Amb os Opi z is men ioned, as well as he Czech coun y
p eache Ka el Habe sbe ge , and he Vice- ec o o he Czech College in Rome, he
Sla ic-minded F an išek Zaple al. 4.The gene a ion hi he ha des by he “c isis o
mode ni y, eaching he highes deg ee o plu ali y” and a he same ime espond-
ing di e en ly o he s imuli coming om he Czech and Ge man na ional socie y
(ci .219, whe e i s ep esen a i es a e named as he A chdeacon o many yea s s and-
ing in P ague-Smícho Jan Pauly, and amous Ca holic poe Jakub Deml). 5.The gen-
e a ion o he pos -wa e i al o Ca holicism iewing wi h some emba assmen he
a ini y o he Chu ch owa ds he new Czechoslo ak s a e. I was pa icula ly di -
icul o he Chu ch o ind adeg ee o ecclesias ical mode ni y ha would be mo e
gene ally accep able (Mode nis Emanuel Masák, Ca holic poli ician and ideologis
o he Es a es s a e Bohumil S ašek, and ex-communica ed p ies Edua d Win e ).
Ano he s ong poin o his publica ion lies in he cul u al and an h opological
app oaches o he chosen subjec , which a e mainly con ained in he inal summa y
o i s in e p e a ion. In his con ex , le us men ion he phenomenon o he p ies ’s
loneliness unde he p essu e o mode n imes, ha o aman ac i e “on he g ound”,
who does no ha e, in ex eme cases, asense o being app ecia ed o his di icul
mission no only by he chu ch hie a chy and his colleagues, bu also by o dina y be-
lie e s o by a ious p ies hood socie ies. Fu he mo e, he e is he ambi alen ole
played by he so-called Romanism, ha is cle gy s udying in he Va ican, which, on
he one hand, ea ned hem special con idence wi h he Papal Cu ia and p edes ined
hem o ake up leading posi ions in he home hie a chy, al hough, on he o he hand,
i s accen on conse a i e alues was no able o slow down he pace o secula isa ion
endencies. To his i is necessa y o add he concep o he nego ia ion o bounda ies
2 Quo a ion ma ks a e bo owed om he o iginal ex .
jIří Š aI 77
be ween he spi i ual p o ession and he social and cul u al en i onmen in which
he p ies is ac i e, which seems o be he key o inding he mos op imal place o
he Chu ch no only in mode n bu also in pos -mode n imes. I is abi o api y ha
in he publica ion unde e iew only in he mos ex eme cases is a ension be ween
he male iden i y and he p ies ’s calling palpable, as was he case wi h Jakub Deml,
and especially wi h Edua d Win e . These a e he con ibu ions om he au ho s Jiří
Hanuš and Mi osla Kunš á .
To sum up, we ha e be o e us an edi o ial ini ia i e whose quali y is abo e a e -
age. I s empo al delimi a ion can be accep ed wi hou c i ical commen . Con ibu-
o y ac o s behind he high quali y o he book a e copious no es, alis o sou ces
and ele an li e a u e, an English summa y, and ade ailed name index. Because
i also eads well, i has achance o a ac no only his o ians and colleagues om
ela ed social sciences, bu also ab oade eading public. The e is awelcome sec-
ion o me ega ding he la e Bolzanis o Sou h Bohemia, he pa io ic p ies Jan
Zá ka. Mi osla No o ný desc ibes in i i idly how his pedagogical opinions p o-
oked con lic s wi h his conse a i e supe io s, wi hou i ha ing anega i e e ec
on his ema kable app ecia ion in he milieu in which he mo ed. The amewo k o
he ini ial assignmen goes beyond he scope, in me hodological e ms, o he essay by
Tomáš W.Pa líček abou Ka el Habe sbe ge . He used mic o-his o ical app oaches
o analyze he con lic s wi h his pa ishione s as a“poo ” ye sho - empe ed pa ish
p ies in he “poo ” illage o Rousíno , loca ed nea Rako ník. Howe e , some o
his gene alized insigh s would equi e mo e sys ema ic e i ica ion o be conside ed
conclusi e. In he con ibu ion he w o e join ly wi h Ma ké a Skořepo á he e is no
sys ema ic explana ion o why Jan Pauly, chai man o he e o mis Ca holic Cle gy
Associa ion, whose mode nizing ac i i y was suspended by he Chu ch hie a chy in
1907, no longe pa icipa ed in i s ac i i ies a e i s es o a ion in he yea s 1918–1920.
The in o ma i e alue o he book ‘P ies s’ Iden i ies in he Czech Lands
(1820–1938)’ and ha o i s analy ical con ibu ion would be undoub edly inc eased
by he conside a ion o aques ionnai e su ey ini ia ed by he end o he yea 1918
by Bohumil Zah adník-B odský, aleading pe sonali y in he adical ac ion “Focal
Poin ” o he Ca holic Cle gy Associa ion in Bohemia and Mo a ia. The emphasis is
placed in he book, in e alia, on acon adic ion be ween he cha isma ic mission o
he cle gyman, ecclesias ical discipline and he male iden i y o he p ies . Mo eo e ,
asys ema ic analysis would be needed o es ablish he ac ha in he enewed ac i i-
ies o his associa ion in ol ed only o asmall ex en he Ge man cle gy. Simila ly,
i would be ad isable o ake in o accoun he endency o “Czechi y” he Ca holic
cle gy, seeing he ac ha a e 1918 he Episcopa e was o med, wi h he excep ion
o Li oměřice and un il 1926 he B no Diocese, om Czech bishops.3
Jiří Š ai
3 Comp. Ma in Schulze Wessel, O.C., p.249.