by Fabian Parmisano, OP

CHAPTER 5 : BROTHERS IN CONFLICT

One of the reporters from the San Francisco Call made a telling comment on the last of Alemany's farewell addresses -- at the Pontifical Mass offered by Archbishop Riordan. At the end of the Mass, Alemany spoke to the congregation at large and then turned to several hundred children waiting to be confirmed by him. The reporter wrote: "As the Archbishop concluded his eloquent address, he was overcome with emotion... and the audience was moved deeply by the words which seemed to them as authoritative as though they had fallen from the lips of a prophet of old." Content more than form, but authority -- the authority of holiness? -- more than either. At least at the end of a long and devoted ministry this seems to have been the characteristic of the bishop-friar's preaching that most moved people to listen and to hear. Apparently his words matched his Christ-centered life and issued from it.

All of his Dominican fidelity to prayer, his cultivation and promotion of the intellectual life, and his unflagging ministry of word and work, as well as the habit he wore throughout the whole of his episcopacy, kept before the public the image of St. Dominic, such that if that public had any knowledge of and respect for the Dominican Order it would have been, by and large, because of this friar-bishop. People could not forget that their bishop was also Dominican, mainly because he himself could not forget it. So after 35 years of episcopal rule in California he was remembered as having been Dominican from beginning to end. In one eulogy of him we read:

Choosing deliberately a life of poverty and obedience at his entrance into the Order of St. Dominic, he was removed from that obedience and poverty by the express command of the Sovereign Pontiff, and ordered to live as a ruler of the Church in a distant land... Beyond what was needed for the simple necessaries of life, he has not drawn a single dollar from the revenues of the Archdiocese in exchange for his long labor, and now that he returns to seek an asylum of his chosen Order in his old age, he does so in poverty as perfect as when he first took its Habit as a religious...

This appeared in the San Francisco Monitor. About the same time, on the other side of the continent, in the New York Freeman's Journal, Alemany was also remembered as a Dominican first, last, and in-between:

His Order, which he loved so well, now opens its arms for theson weary with the cares of the Shepherd and the weight of a mitre... He came to San Francisco a poor Dominican friar and he left the episcopacy as he entered it... He turns himself toward Rome penniless, to seek for admission to a convent of his Order. It was a moving and pathetic spectacle, strange and unusual in an age of materialism.

What then of Vilarrasa's complaints, his side of the story? We have seen something of his difficulty with Alemany when back in 1849 the latter was up for provincial in the Eastern Province. Then it was a question of Alemany's missionary activity all but nullifying his religious conventual life. In the west, this was no longer the problem, of course: Alemany as bishop was independent of religious life and whatever observances it demanded. Vilarrasa was well content to have it so. The problem now was that the archbishop was interfering actively with the religious life of others, unintentionally, perhaps, but really and destructively, at least as Vilarrasa and his brother Dominicans saw it. Further, Alemany was denying the right of the Dominicans, as also the Jesuits, to own churches that were parishes. All parish churches, he claimed, belonged to the diocese which meant that the bishop alone had rights to the properties thereof. This simply increased his potential for manipulating the many parochial religious in the diocese.

Part of the interference came by way of the heavy work-load the archbishop was placing upon the Dominicans, causing them to neglect their specifically religious obligations. The correspondence in this area of the conflict is large and extends from 1867 to 1883,  the final year of Alemany's rule. On February 8, 1867, Vilarrasa wrote to his Master General, Fr. Jandel, that "the Archbishop is not favorable to religious Orders -- indeed, he does what is possible to impede their endeavors... I write you these things as I feel that you should be informed concerning them." Ten years later the same grievance is voiced, this time to Fr. Giuseppe Sanvito, Vicar General of the Order, in a long letter dated June 15, 1876. In it Vilarrasa accuses Alemany of making impossible demands on the friars considering their numerical limitations, and of trying several times to insinuate himself, dominatively, in their councils which, being himself a Dominican, "he should know that no Bishop should intrude."

On August 18 of this same year Vilarrasa again wrote to Sanvito detailing some of his grievances, one of which was that Alemany was demanding that the few friars at St. Dominic's officiate at almost all the funerals at Calvary Cemetery, relatively near to their church, without compensation and with disastrous results to their Dominican religious observance. Vilarrasa's summary rhetorical question: "How can the Friars observe their rule of choir, etc., with these obligations thrust upon them by one who, above all, should know how serious these same obligations are?"

The archbishop's pressures were still being felt two years later for in October of 1878 we find Vilarrasa now writing to Fr. Raymond Bianchi, the Dominican Procurator General, voicing his complaints and exasperation. At the same time, October 7, 1878, he wrote directly to Alemany a blunt letter telling him that the friars could not undertake the permanent care of some Indian missions around Mariposa and in Mono County, although "Fr. William Demphlin, O.P., can make occasional visits as he does." And he sadly concludes the letter: "Had I been a prophet, I would never have consented to come to California -- and I can assure you that many times I have repented of having done so..."  Two months later, December 10, 1878, Vilarrasa again writes to the Master General that Alemany had found "still other ways to harass the friars in the proper exercise of their priestly ministry in San Francisco."

Vilarrasa was not the only California Dominican voice raised against the archbishop. On April 12, 1880, the five councilor fathers of St. Dominic's, San Francisco -- Benedict McGovern, Bernard Doogan, Anthony Rooney, Thomas O'Neil, and John Murphy -- eloquently spelled out their grievances to the then Master General, Fr. Joseph Larroca. They claimed that "no other Bishop in any part of the world is acting so irrationally with regard to Dominican rights and privileges as is this Dominican Archbishop here." His actions were "tyrannical in the extreme" and it has been "frequently an occasion of wonder to us how an Archbishop who is regarded as so pious by all would dare to spurn, or rather to crush under his feet, rights and privileges guaranteed to our Order by the Holy See itself! Either ignorance or pride moves him; indeed, it is possible that he has a false conscience on the matter." Specific sufferings that the friars had to endure from their "brother" are enumerated, in detail and with indignation. The co-signers of the letter are careful to note that the letter is not their project alone. It comes with the blessings and encouragement of their commissary general: "our most excellent Father Vilarrasa has requested us to write this letter and thus to enter our protest against what has been happening here with us these many years." The letter ends with the hope and prayer that Rome would soon intervene to correct a situation that has resulted in so much harm to religion in general and the Dominican Order in particular.

Apparently Alemany did not know of this particular letter, but he would have gathered the gist of it from one he had received directly from Fr. Benedict McGovern, prior of St. Dominic's, which must have been harsh in the extreme, as we gather from the reply of a deeply offended archbishop written to Vilarrasa complaining of it. Alemany's letter must be quoted at length in fairness to him, who thought himself grossly misunderstood and unappreciated. The gist and tone of McGovern's letter is amply displayed within it.

I was thinking I had done pretty well, considering my ability and the circumstances, for the existence, permanency and advancement of the Order in this diocese; but the Prior takes me to task, as if having inflicted the greatest injury to the Order and being the main cause of its not prospering. In its boldest and most disrespectful manner the letter calls me to an account for all my sins committed and omitted which I will not now enumerate.

My object at present is to state: 1. that I protest against my ever having had any other intention than that of promoting the good and prosperity of the Order, as far as means and providence could allow: 2. that whatever I wished the Dominicans to do, was, I thought, and as I have reason to think yet, within my authority. I may have been mistaken, and I may not. This shall be examined, and accordingly remedied or confirmed, or prudently modified as if [sic] I have the right. But what is altogether wrong, under the color of right, is the insulting manner in which a bishop is addressed.       Suppose I was wrong in my construction of the Papal      Constitution and acted accordingly; could he not write a       respectful letter? And if not satisfied, could he not refer the case to you? And if he found no remedy could he not appeal to the General, who could have settled all in a most easy way?... Decisions of the Holy See seem to me to justify my acts, which he calls, by turns, unjust, invalid and most tyrannical -- most flagrant and extravagant injustice -- the treatment inflicted on slaves and even worse than such!

If I have erred in the interpretation given to the Papal Constitutions, it was an error of the head, not of the heart I hope. Such error he might and could have had easily corrected by the ordinary process or means pointed out by the discipline of the Church; but the means adopted by him in his style are not the best to favor the progress which I have at heart as much as he. Personally I can let him call me all the hard names he pleases, but as a bishop I believe I must not let this pass.

As such letter dwells on many real or imaginary grievances, I shall have to refer to it on some other occasion. I repeat, that nothing shall be required by me, but what after due examination shall be found to be demanded of me by the will of the Church and the interests of the Order.

Vilarrasa must have been moved by this response, indignant, stern but also humble and demonstrative of a true love of the Order. One week later, August 24, 1880, he wrote to Alemany that "while I disapprove of the language, Father McGovern is a good priest and a pious religious and he has great respect for authority: I believe it was a want of reflection rather than malice that caused him to use that style. I believe you when you say that you have always desired the good of our Order and done what you thought prudent for its welfare. In order to avoid any future misunderstandings, if you have no objections, I will collect the principal points that give dissatisfaction and we will endeavor to settle them in a most convenient manner and if you prefer it (which I believe would be more secure) the General may be consulted. But I will not do it unless you say so..."

Vilarrasa had Fr. McGovern send his letter of apology, but Alemany's next letter to Vilarrasa indicates that it was not at all what the Archbishop thought proper. Alemany thanked Vilarrasa for his "kind letter with regard to Father McGovern," and then added that he did receive a note from the prior of St. Dominic's "which he intends as an apology, but which is rather a confirmation or justification of his previous one." Evidently McGovern though more moderate in his language was still adamant on his principles. Fr. Antoninus Rooney, another of the five co-signers of the letter to Larocca referred to above, was equally stubborn. On November 29, 1880, after a long talk with Fr. Aloysius Varsi, S.J., Superior General of the California Jesuits and president of St. Ignatius College, Rooney wrote to Vilarrasa apprising him of his and Varsi's agreement that the Dominicans and Jesuits should join forces before Rome in their mutual cause against Alemany:

He was much pleased at this view of the case, regards it as just to ourselves and as calculated to give strength in Rome...He says that he has already directly sent nearly all his complaints to the Holy Father and he assured me that he is quite certain that the Ordinary has received a letter from the Pope commanding him not to molest the Jesuits...

In December of 1880 the league was indeed formed, with Vilarrasa writing the letter, other Dominicans subscribing to it, and Fr. Varsi appending a note saying "amen" to it all. The letter was addressed to the Pope himself, Leo XIII. Whether or not it was finally sent is unconfirmed, but a draft of the letter is in the archives of the Western Dominican Province.[ix] Subscribers to it are mentioned and space provided for them, but no signatures appear. In back of the letter is a paragraph by Fr. Aloysius Varsi, who here signs himself as "Superior General of the Jesuit missions of California." Vilarrasa's letter is calm, factual, respectful, but the felt grievance underlying it is manifest:

The Order of Preachers was founded here some years ago to labor in strict cooperation with the diocesan authority for the salvation of souls. Sadly, however, our hope has failed because of the actions of the Most Illustrious Archbishop, who far from cultivating the Order, has by various means impeded and restrained its progress, nor has he shown himself favorable toward religious as is desired and counselled by the Holy See. Hence, led by love of our Order and the advancement of Religion we are forced to place at the Feet of Your Holiness the principal points of our difficulties in the hope that Your Holiness as our most beloved Father will graciously provide a proper remedy.

1. The Archbishop frequently orders the Priests of our convent in the city of San Francisco to celebrate Mass in other churches and institutions even some miles distant from the Convent. As a result the number of Masses (which are the principal support of the Convent) in our Church must be reduced and confessors are forced to neglect the Sacrament of Confession which is frequented by a large number of the faithful; nor has the slightest compensation ever been made for these services. We freely and most gladly wish to assist the Archbishop as much as possible, but it is too hard for us to be forced to perform these works which are detrimental to us and impede the good of Religion.

2. The Archbishop has appointed Confessors of Nuns without consulting Superiors, indeed without their knowledge. Not to mention other resulting inconveniences, such action necessarily diminishes the authority of Superiors and opens the door to disobedience.

3. The Archbishop has forced the Fathers of the aforesaid Convent to celebrate all funerals in the city's public cemetery. At first he asked this service of the CommissaryGeneral, who judged it impossible to comply with. The Archbishop, however, in no way attending to the letters of the Commissary, immediately under penalty of suspension of the whole Convent, only three Fathers excepted, ordered the funerals to be celebrated by the Fathers. In order to avoid scandal, for nearly five years, namely to this past November, we have subjected ourselves to the Archbishop's prescript, at which time having intimated to the same our intention of having recourse to the Holy See, we refused the care of the cemetery. Since burial is one of the rites strictly reserved for parishes it seems it ought also to be numbered among parochial offices and that regulars who administer no parish in San Francisco ought not to be burdened with it...

4. For supplying the prescribed number of ministers for the consecration of Holy Oils on Holy Thursday of the current year, it was ordered that all priests of Convents except one should go to the Cathedral, thereby impeding the recitation of the Divine Office in our Church. And this, indeed, without any true necessity, for there are many secular priests who were absent from the Cathedral while their places were filled by Jesuits and Dominicans, and so the regular clergy were substituted for the secular. From which it is evident that the Archbishop takes any and every occasion to offend and humiliate religious.

5. Our Convent in the city of San Francisco was... >>>

[ Purchase Mission West ]