EN
The estate of the Roman Catholic clergy in the Russian Empire of the 19th century was a social structure characterized by a peculiar social mobility of its representatives. The said mobility was conditioned by the tradition of the Church and regulated by the legislation of the state. The goal of this research is to analyse the social mobility related possibilities for the representatives of the Roman Catholic clergy and factors influential of such mobility in the period from the end of the January Uprising (1863–1864) to the early 20th century. The research covers the dioceses of Vilnius and Samogitia (Telšiai). It has been ascertained that the attitude of the secular authorities towards the Catholic Church and its clergymen, which showed through during the January Uprising, had an effect on the situation of the clergy. Already before the Uprising the social mobility of the clergy was regulated not only by the church, but also by secular authorities. After the Uprising, the government sought to take over control of the factual formation of the class and social mobility of its representatives. Local authorities implemented the said tasks by means of administrative orders. The latter either partially echoed the laws or delegated the function of control to the highest administrative power. Certain changes in the policy pursued by the secular authorities and measures regulating the social mobility of the clergy may be detected in the period before the beginning of the 20th century, however, both – the local and the central government retained their attitude towards the control of the social mobility. Notwithstanding, the trend of democratization of the Roman Catholic clergy, which gained prominence in the second half of the 19th century and became obvious in the last decades of the century, cannot be directly associated with the deliberate policy pursued by the government. The government placed little credit in the lower classes and did not encourage their representatives to become clergymen. However, a constant increase in the numbers of townspeople and peasants rather than noblemen entering the class of the clergy was observed. The former viewed the option as a possibility to ascend to a higher social status, tax immunity and exemption from military service. We lack contextual research of the religious culture of the society, however, it can be stated that a decrease in the calling for priesthood in the social environment of the traditional elite – the nobility – was observed. Due to the hierarchical structure of the Church there were different social groups inside the clergy and changes in the status of clergymen. Pursuant to the teaching of the Church, assignment of a clergyman to a place of service is a part of the bishop’s pastoral activities and expression of his concern with proper care of the needs of the congregation. Secular authorities also had aspirations to control the social mobility of clergymen and their career opportunities. Already in the first half of the 19th century, following the abolishment of the right of patronage, the state took over the rights of the patrons of Catholic and Greek Catholic Church, whereas the rights of the bishop were not extended. The bishop could assign a clergyman to a position in a parish or another benefice only after agreeing his candidacy with the governorate’s administration and conducting the reliability screening. After the Uprising, the Governor General himself became involved in the bureaucratic control. In the openings stages of the research we made an assumption that the analysis of the social mobility of the clergy and the recording/nonrecording of its dynamics allows a more thorough assessment of modernization processes in a society as well as the status of the clergy in this process and supplements the picture pertaining to the functioning of the clergy in the society after the January Uprising. The increasing social mobility is an indicator of the formation of the modern society, though it is only one among multiple other parameters characterizing the said process. Possibilities for the social mobility of the Roman Catholic clergy in the Russian Empire after the January Uprising could not support the assumption regarding the formation of the modern society. Gregory L. Freeze claims that Russia’s national educational and social policy encouraged social mobility2 which is obvious in the reforms of the 1860s aimed at eroding the seclusion of the Orthodox clergy. However, the government’s attitude towards the Roman Catholic clergy was based more on political rather than social categories, it perceived the peculiarity of the formation of this class and thus did not incite its social mobility, focusing on the social bearing of its members and striving to control it instead.