Suchergebnisse

Zwischen 1750 und 1790 versuchten Maria Theresia und Joseph II. das religiöse Leben des Habsburger Landes von der traditionellen barocken Frömmigkeit in einen reformierten Katholizismus zu transformieren. Der vorliegende Beitrag untersucht die Reaktionen der Bevölkerung auf diese administrativ eingeleitete Kirchenreform und ihre ideologischen Elemente. Als Datenbasis zur Erfassung der Volksfrömmigkeit dienen Testamente. Die Interpretation der multivariaten Analyse zeigt, daß es zwischen 1770 und 1790 zu hoch signifikanten religösen Einstellungsänderungen gekommen ist. Der Mentalitätswandel wird nicht einfach aus dem Prozeß der Säkularisierung bzw. dem 'Absinken' des aufgeklärten Bewußtseins der Eliten in die Massen erklärt, sondern als autonomer Prozeß der 'Debarockisierung' des einst führenden Landes der Gegenreformation. (pmb)

Autor u kratkim crtama daje pregled razvitka umjetnosti medalje na području priobalne Hrvatske od 15. st. do druge austrijske dominacije. Materijal je grupi ran u sljedeće skupine: Istra, Mletačka Dalmacija, Dubrovnik, Napoleonovo doba, Prva austrijska vlast, svetačke medaljice. Sam katalog sadrži 52 komada medalja, poznatih bilo iz zbirki, bilo iz stručne literature. ; Among the older Istrian medals there is one of Francesco Biondi, a Florentine monk, bishop of Capodistria (Justinopolis, Kopar), made in 1448. Other Istrian medals of interest are a rough cast-bronze one from 1693, made for a corporate body for the distribution of hay in Pula and a small cast bronze medal, made in Rome on the occasion of the renewal of St. Euphemia's church in Rovinj in 1756. Of course, there is also a modest medal presented by the Poreč community to the last Venetian podesta in 1797. Speaking of Dalmatian medals, one ought to mention two of the great names of the Renaissance, who excelled in the art of the medal: Paolo de Ragusa and Francesco Laurana. Several famous Dalmatians who lived abroad in the 16th c. were depicted on medals: Jacobus Banisius, Francesco Niconizio and Antonio Veranzio. One of the earliest Dalmatian medals is the one made in 1600 for the Procuratori dell' Area di S. Simeone in Zadar. There is also a medal struck on the occasion of the liberation of Castelnuovo (Hercegnovi) in 1687. The Scuola Dalmata in Venice also hat its own small silver medals depicting S. George and S. Tripone. The numerous Dalmatian magistrates' medals from the 17th and 18th c. are usually of little artistic value, having been made by local gold or silversmiths, according to the wishes of the local nobility, who wanted to honour a departing provveditore generale or conte (various provveditori generali of Dalmatia and Albania, podesta of Poreč, counts of Korčula, Split, Šibenik and Zadar, provveditori of Imotski, Makarska and Sinj). Speaking about medals of the ancient Republic of Dubrovnik one ought to mention that only trace left there by Paolo de Ragusio are the delicate copper follari. Matteo de' Pasti made a medal of Timoteo Maffei, the archbishop of Ragusa. Three 16th c. Ragusan patricians: Giovanni Nale-Nalješković, Domenico Ragnina and Luca Cerva-Crijević were depicted on medals. A medal by St. Urbain was dedicated to Giorgio Baglivi, a Ragusan surgeon. The first medal was struck in Dubrovnik on the occasion of the reconstruction of St. Blaise's church in 1707. In 1771 the relics of St. Stephen King of Hungary were presented by the Ragusan Senate to Emperor Joseph Il. and Empress Maria Theresia; the event was marked by a medal. The other two remarkable medals of Dubrovnik were the one to commemorate the death of the rector Orsat Gozze Gučetić, 1798; Gioacchino Hamerani's 1803 Luigi Alvise Mozzi medal. Napoleon Bonaparte's Marshal Marmont dissolved the government of the reverend and feeble Republic of Ragusa on January 31. 1808. Napoleon's massive numismatic propaganda was very well organized. An entire team of artists worked for Napoleon in Paris, but there were also many medallists elsewhere producing medals, in order to celebrate his victories, thus for instance the 1806 medal commemorating the conquests of Dalmatia, of Istria, and of Illyricum. Several of the Dalmatian Napoleonic medals have not been attributed to any of the known medallists, thus for instance the rare Zaratine Lycaeum medal from 1809. A more rudely made medal was presented by the inhabitants of Sinj to Pierre Bouillerot, a French surgeon, in 1811 . During the first Austrian rule, in 1801 a decoration by I. N. Wirt was distributed, with the bust of Emperor Franc is II. on the obverse and the inscription DALMATAE BEN EMERENTI/ 1801 on the reverse . One of the earliest Austrian medals struck for Dalmatia was the Zara tine medal of 1804 by Luigi Ferrari, which commemorated the Dalmatian nobility paying respect to Emperor Franc is II. (1792- 1806-1 835), represented by Count Peter von Goess, Governor of Dalmatia between 1802 and 1805. One should not forget the most popular of all medals: the saints' medals and tokens, which were struck, cast or engraved in very large quantities and were cheap and therefore accessible to the masses of pilgrims. The most popular were those of Madonna of Trsat, made chiefly after 1715, when the Madonna was solemnly crowned .

Rolf Schwendter, Liedermacher und Autor, Professor für Devianzforschung an der Gesamthochschule in Kassel, Mitbegründer und Funktionsträger vieler kultureller und sozialpolitischer informeller Gruppen und Initiativen, beschäftigt sich in dem vorliegenden Buch mit einer seiner zahlreichen Aktivitäten: dem Lesetheater (genauer: Erstes Wiener Lesetheater und Zweites Stegreiftheater). Für Schwendter, der die gesellschaftliche Devianz, also abweichendes Normverhalten, definiert, analysiert und dokumentiert (u.a. Theorie der Subkultur, 1971), ist die Aktivität für sein Lesetheater auch ein Teil der Erforschung sozialer Strukturen, zugleich aber auch aktiv-teilnehmendes, lustvoll-künstlerisches Agieren und bisweilen auch Agitieren. Nicht mit lautem Widerstand, Hohn und Aggressivität kämpft Schwendter gegen verlogene Gesellschaftsstrukturen und -inhalte. Seine Auftritte sind geprägt von Ideenreichtum, konzentrierter Beherrschung psychisch-physischer Verfaßtheit, Präsens und Sensibilität aller Sinne und vor allem auch gekennzeichnet durch kollektive kommunikative Begegnungen, die schon im Ausschreiben und Verteilen der einzelnen Rollen eine erstaunlich intuitive Einbeziehung von Persönlichkeitsbildern erkennen lassen. Anlaß für die Entstehung des nunmehr vorliegenden Buches war der 10. Jahrestag der Gründung des Ersten Wiener Lesetheaters und Zweiten Stegreiftheaters im September 1990. Ursprünglich als Jubiläums-Broschüre geplant, die das Lesetheater, das sich zu einer eigenständigen Form künstlerischen Schaffens zu entwickeln begonnen hatte, und seine Aktivisten dokumentieren sollte, stieß Schwendter bei der Materialsammlung auf eine thematische Leerstelle im Hinblick auf deutschsprachige Publikationen zum Lesetheater. Schwendters Lesetheater, gegründet von Manfred Chobot, Brigitte Gutenbrunner, Evelyn Holloway, Ottwald John, Hansjörg Liebscher, Günther Nenning und Rolf Schwendter, sollte daher auch in einem historischen und theaterrelevanten Rahmen diskutiert, die soziokulturellen Aspekte sollten aufgezeigt und andere, zeitgenössische Lesebühnen im deutschsprachigen Raum einbezogen werden. Das Wesen des Lesetheaters sieht Schwendter darin, daß Personen ein Stück vorschlagen, besetzen, ohne zeitintensive Probenarbeit vorbereiten, um es einander in der Gruppe sowie dem erschienenen Publikum vorzulesen. Die Entstehungsgeschichte des Lesetheaters setzt Schwendter zeitlich mit der römischen Kaiserzeit an und nennt als Begründer des Lesetheaters Seneca. Schränkt allerdings ein, "daß Lesedrama nicht umstandslos mit Lesetheater gleichzusetzen ist." Senecas Stücke sollten zwar gelesen, aber der Akt des Lesens selbst, das Verteilen der Rollen sollte nicht einbezogen und öffentlich, vor großem Publikum aufgeführt werden. Allein und daheim sollte das betreffende Theaterstück rezipiert werden. Leseaufführungen und auch Lesedramen sind fast zwei Jahrtausende lang nicht dokumentiert. Vor der Erfindung des Buchdrucks waren Lesen und Schreiben ausgesprochen mühselige und zeitaufwendige Angelegenheiten, die nur einem kleinen gebildeten Personenkreis vorbehalten waren. Erst die Einführung der allgemeinen Schulpflicht unter Maria Theresia verringerte die Zahl der analphabetischen Bevölkerung. Lesetheater fand zunächst nur in spezialisierten Teilkulturen statt: in Klöstern und Lateinschule, wobei die Einübung der griechischen und lateinischen Sprache im Vordergrund stand. Seneca, Plautus und Terenz wurden in den Lateinschulen des Spätmittelalters gelesen. Die pädagogische Zweckbestimmung, das Einüben und Kennenlernen guter Sitten, die Schulung der Deklamationstechnik standen dabei im Vordergrund. Der didaktische Impuls hat sich bis heute erhalten, denkt man etwa an das Lesen eines Theaterstücks mit verteilten Rollen im Deutschunterricht der Mittelschulen. Grenzfälle des Lesetheaters ortet Schwendter in den literarischen Salons, insbesondere im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert, sowie in den adeligen und bürgerlichen Liebhabertheatern. Goethe, Zacharis Werner und Ludwig Tieck lasen für Freunde in einem humanistisch gepflegten Rahmen aus eigenen Stücken vor. Goethe unterschied dabei zwischen einer neutralen Rezitation und einer leidenschaftlichen-rollengemäßen Deklamation. Schlegel hingegen verwarf die Deklamation als gesellige Literaturvermittlung und zog das leidenschaftslose Lesen vor. Tieck und Holtei galten als berühmte lesende Interpreten der eigenen Werke, ihre Virtuosität war in ganz Deutschland bekannt. Eine andere Form des Lesetheaters war in der Hamburger Schauspielakademie üblich. "Gemeinsam lesen" hieß hier, daß eine Person, die nicht mit dem Autor identisch war, das gesamte Stück den anderen (Anwesenden) vorlas. In Hamburg war dies sehr oft der Schauspieler Ekhof, überdies gab es einen Kreis von Kunstenthusiasten (Gelehrte, Juristen, Kaufleute, Schauspieler), die Shakespeares Dramen (in der Übersetzung von Wieland und Eschenburg) auf ihre Aufführbarkeit überprüften. Die Sturm- und Drangdramen wurden zunächst gelesen und "begutachtet". Im Wiener Salon der Karoline Pichler fanden regelmäßig Leseaufführungen statt, die als Schutzraum vor Zensurmaßnahmen und Werkverstümmelungen dienten. Das Lesen mit verteilten Rollen bot überdies die Möglichkeiten kollektiver Textinterpretation. Ein weiterer Grenzfall von Lesetheater sieht Schwendter in der Programmatik von Dada. Das Prinzip des Cabaret Voltaire in Zürich waren dadaistische Orchestrierungen von Lesungen, Musikstücken, rhythmischen Performances und Tänzen. Huelsenbeck, Tzara und Janco traten mit Simultangedichten auf: ein kontrapunktisches Rezitativ, in dem drei oder mehrere Stimmen gleichzeitig sprechen, singen, pfeifen und die Ausdrucksstärke der Stimme exerzieren. Marinetti hielt 1908 in Triest futuristische Rezitationsabende ab. Dramatische Lesungen etwa von Karl Kraus oder der Schauspielerin Gertrud Eysoldt im öffentlichen Rahmen lösten schließlich im 20. Jahrhundert den Salon-Gedanken ab und stellen bis heute publikumswirksame Leseabende mit anlaßgebundener und gemischter Lyrik- und Stückauswahl von Schauspielern dar. Klaus Kinsky und Oskar Werner erreichten Kultstatus, Michael Heltau und Karl Heinz Hackl rufen zumindest Applausstürme hervor. Als legendäre Leseaufführung gilt Picassos surrealistisches Stück Wie man die Wünsche beim Schwanz packt in der Pariser Wohnung des Schriftstellers und Ethnographen Michel Leiris im März 1944. Albert Camus las die Zwischentexte, stellte die Rollen vor, beschrieb das Bühnenbild. Simone de Beauvoir beschreibt die Atmosphäre dieser Lesung als Mittelding zwischen Stegreiftheater und Art-Session. Schwendter unternimmt den mühevollen, bisweilen verschlungenen, durchaus aber verdienstvollen Weg, der 2500jährigen (europäischen) Theatergeschichte Details zum Lesedrama/theater abzutrotzen. Die letzten Kapitel des Buches sind internationalen Lesetheater-Unternehmungen gewidmet. So wird die Hamburger Lesebühne (1950-1953) dokumentiert. Rolf Italiaander überzeugte mit seiner Idee, für die zurückgesetzten westdeutschen Theaterautoren mit staatlicher Unterstützung etwas zu tun. Ida Ehre stellte die Hamburger Kammerspiele zur Verfügung, um nicht gespielte Autoren vorzustellen. Subkulturelle Aktivitäten setzte die Wiener Informelle Gruppe um Friedl Schindler, Heinz Zwerina, Gerhard Zehetgruber und Rolf Schwendter in den Jahren zwischen 1959 und 1967. In außergewöhnlichen Veranstaltungsorten, etwa Burgruinen, im Kobenzel-Bunker, in Lagerräumen, Kohlenkellern und Privatwohnungen, versammelten sich lesefreudige Aktivisten, um vor allem Büchner, Brecht, Sartre, Ionesco zu lesen, die obligatorische Sammelbüchse schepperte am Ende der Vorstellung. Im Kasseler Lesetheater im offenen Wohnzimmer, 1981 von Rolf Schwendter gegründet, gibt es im Gegensatz zum Wiener Lesetheater keine Subventionen und Honorare; so kann es durchaus vorkommen, daß der als Publikum gekommene Besucher unversehens einen Text in der Hand hält und Lesender geworden ist. Eine nicht zu übersehende Rolle spielt die Existenz der Gesamthochschule Kassel, die Hochschullehrenden und Studierenden stellen einen Großteil der Mitwirkenden und Verantwortlichen am Lesetheater dar (insbesondere das Umfeld des wissenschaftlichen Zentrums für Psychoanalyse, ebenso der Fachbereich Sozialwesen). Das Bremer-Lesetheater beginnt 1992 seine Aktivitäten unter Johannes Feest, das im Jänner 2001 eine Gedenklesung für H. C. Artmann veranstaltet. Das Hamburger Lesetheater existiert seit 1999 unter seinem Initiator Thomas Rau. Über einige andere deutschsprachige Lesetheater hinaus hat Schwendter ähnliche Aktivitäten u.a. in Los Angeles recherchiert. Auch zahlreiche Wettbewerbe, etwa das Oxforder Fest der gesprochenen Dichtung und die jährlich in Connecticut stattfindende National Playwriter's Conference finden Erwähnung. Das "Rehearsed theatre", wie die Leseaufführungen bei dieser Konferenz genannt werden, findet auf vier Bühnen statt. Jährlich gibt es ungefähr 1000 Einsendungen, zwölf bis sechzehn Stücke werden ausgewählt und von Off-Broadway-SchauspielerInnen gelesen. Lesemarathons beim Open Ohr Festival in Mainz 2000, die szenischen Lese-Aufführungen bei den Rauriser Kulturtagen, die Reihe "Dichter zu Gast" bei den Salzburger Festspielen und die Wagner-Leseaufführungen, u.a. von der Gesellschaft für Musiktheater veranstaltet, zeigen, daß diese zunächst so exotisch anmutende Gattung durchaus kein Schattendasein führt. Eine weitere Sparte, die in den letzten Jahren hinzukam, ist die der Drehbuchlesungen. Unveröffentlichte Drehbücher werden mit verteilten Rollen vor Publikum gelesen. So fand im Februar 2002 eine Drehbuchlesung im ausverkauften Filmcasino Wien statt, die auch im österreichischen Fernsehen ausgestrahlt wurde. Auch das Medium Internet beschäftigt sich mit dem Lesetheater. Im Zuge des Festivals Crosswaves im Frühling 1996 wurde an der Universität in Pennsylvania das Chat-Theater organisiert. 13 Akteure in zehn verschiedenen Städten in den USA und Kanada wirkten live und online an diesem Projekt mit, sie erhielten ein Manuskript mit festgelegten Sätzen und Raum zur Interpretation. Die letzten Kapitel widmet Schwendter wieder der Programmatik und den Weggefährten seines Ersten Wiener Lesetheaters und Zweiten Stegreiftheaters (zweites deshalb, weil Schwendter als Initiator des Ersten Stegreiftheaters Jakob Levy Moreno sieht). Kam zunächst die Leseaktivität im Hinblick auf die Zahl der Aktivisten und der Leseaufführungen nur stockend voran, ist die Beteiligung und die Zahl der Aufführungen in den letzten Jahren rasant angestiegen. Mittlerweile verfügt Schwendter über einen Pool von über 400 Aktivisten, die jederzeit einen Abend eigenverantwortlich gestalten können. Das leitende Dreiergremium kann wohl ein Veto einlegen, von diesem Recht wurde aber bisher noch nie Gebrauch gemacht. Schwendters seit 1990 genau geführte Statistiken informieren über die aufgeführten Stücke, über Mitwirkende und Verantwortliche und über die Schauplätze der Aufführungen. Schwendters detailreiches Buch beschreibt Geschichte und Gegenwart des Lesetheaters, vermittelt Einblick in seine jahrzehntelange Erfahrung mit diesem Genre. Überdies erweist sich Schwendter diskursbereit für theaterwissenschaftliche Fragestellungen.

ROHRBACH - BERG Rohrbach - Berg ( - ) Einband ( - ) Titelseite (III) Impressum (IV) Inhalt (V) Zur Geschichte der Besiedlung und Entwicklung von Rohrbach - Berg von den Anfängen bis in die Neuzeit ([1]*) Überblick (2*) Allgemeine Voraussetzungen (3*) Naturräumliche Gegebenheiten (3*) [Karte]: (4*) Die Verkehrslage (5*) Das mittelalterliche Gesellschaftssystem (6*) Das alltägliche Leben (11*) [Abb.]: Burgplatz im Nöstelbacherhölzl. (14*) [Abb.]: Größte Einfachheit ist typisch für den Burgenbau vor 1200, Holz ist das wichtigste Baumaterial (15*) Die Herkunft der ersten Siedler (16*) Folgende Dorfnamen von Rohrbach-Berg weisen deutliche Anklänge an Ortsnamen unserer benachbarten Gegenden auf: (17*) Rohrbach - Berg im Lauf der Geschichte (20*) Vorgeschichte und Römerzeit (20*) Die Zeit vor Christi Geburt (20*) Die Römerzeit (21*) Rohrbach-Berg im Mittelalter (500-1500) (22*) Im "Land der Abtei" (1010-1161) (22*) Rohrbach-Berg im Hochstift Passau (1161- ca. 1400) (25*) a) Burgenkette und Rodungsgeschlechter (26*) Die Berger (Perger, de monte) (28*) [3 Abb.]: (1)Perger am Perg. (2)Falkenstein II. (3)Haichenbach I. (28*) Die Falkensteiner und Haichenbacher (29*) Stammtafel. (30*) Die Sprinzensteiner (32*) Die Hautzenberger (33*) Die Herleinsberger (34*) [2 Abb.]: (1)Hautzenberger (2)Herleinsperger (34*) Die Ruestorfer (35*) [Abb.]: Ruestorf. (35*) b) Die Einzelhöfe (37*) c) Die Dörfer (42*) d) Der Markt Rohrbach (43*) Überlegungen zur Baugeschichte von Rohrbach (47*) Die Gründung des Marktes Rohrbach (47*) [Karte]: Nach den derzeitigen Unterlagen kann man die erste Bauperiode von Rohrbach und damit den Burgfried nach folgender Skizze rekonstruieren: (48*) Zu dieser Kartenskizze (49*) Zum quadratischen Marktplatz: (50*) Änderungen im 14. Jahrhundert (51*) [Abb.]: Rohrbachs gotische Reste. Die vorkragenden Steine sind Zeugen gotischer Bausubstanz, die sich im Erdgeschoß mancher Häuser erhalten haben. Abgebildetes Haus: Rohrbach 17 (Marktplatz 30). Entstanden zwischen 1450 und 1600 (52*) Nach 1427/1446 (53*) [Karte]:Versuch der Rekonstruktion, wie der Bau einer Befestigungsmauer möglich gewesen wäre: ([54]*) Mauer und Graben? (55*) [Karte]: Rohrbach um 1450 Versuch der Rekonstruktion des Rohrbacher Baubestandes nach dem Wiederaufbau nach der Zerstörung durch die Hussiten (1427/1446) ([56]*) (Fortsetzung von S. 53*) (57*) [Abb.]: Markverleihungsurkunde 1459 (58*) Der Markt und die Märkte (59*) [Abb.]:Der Viehmarkt in Rohrbach. Ansicht des Rohrbacher Marktplatzes als Viehmarkt aus der Zeit um 1900 (60*) Im Mühl- und Machlandviertel (= oberes und unteres Mühlviertel) waren die Wochenmärkte in folgender Weise organisiert: (61*) [Abb.]: Rohrbacher Viehmarkt. Zeitungsdruck aus der Zeit um 1895 (62*) Rohrbach im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (65*) Das Urbar 1570 (66*) Behauste Güter im Markt Rohrbach (66*) [Karte]: Rohrbach um 1570. Versuch der Rekonstruktion des Baubestandes von Rohrbach zur Zeit der Anlage des ersten Urbars 1570 (67*) Bemerkungen zu den Eintragungen: (69*) Rohrbach-Berg im Bauernkrieg von 1595 bis 1598 (70*) Rohrbach-Berg im Bauernkrieg 1626 (77*) Eine Marktordnung vom Jahr 1667 (81*) [2 Abb.]: Werke der Steinmetzkunst geben Zeugnis vom Fleiß und auch vom sicheren Formbewußtsein dieser Kunsthandwerker (1)Oben: Brunnen vom Jahr 1795 (Rohrbach 4, Marktplatz 17) (2)Unten: Steintisch um 1800 (Rohrbach 41, Marktplatz 37) (83*) Die Grundherrschaft (86*) Die Menschen von Rohrbach-Berg gehörten zu 14 Grundherrschaften; diese ergeben, nach der größe des Herrschaftsgebietes geordnet, folgende Reihung der Herrschaften: (86*) [Abb.]: Die Freyung von Rohrbach. Das Richtschwert über dem Marktwappen (drei Schilfkolben auf moorigem grund) ist Symbol der (niedrigen) Gerichtsbarkeit des Magistrates über seine Untertanen (88*) Die Marktrichter von Rohrbach [1307 1849] (89*) [2 Abb]: (1)Rechts: Handwerksschild vom Jahr 1764 (Rohrbach 41, Marktplatz 37) (2)Links: Die Barockfassade eines höchst selbstbewußten Bürgerhauses (Rohrbach 41, Marktplatz 37) ([91]*) [Abb.]: Rohrbach um 1830. Ansicht des Marktplatzes von Rohrbach. Aquarell aus der Zeit um 1830. Original Privatbesitz in Rohrbach (92*) Gemeindevorsteher nach dem neuen Gesetz. Die Bürgermeister von Rohrbach [1849 - 1983] (93*) [2 Abb.]: (1)Rohrbach 1879. Bleistiftzeichnung im Skizzenbuch von Carl Radler (2)Rohrbach - Bahnhofsstraße. Ansichtskarte aus der Zeit um 1910 ([94]*) Die Bürgermeister der Gemeinde Berg [1865 - 1979] (95*) [Abb.]: Rohrbach 1885. Bleistiftzeichnung von Peter Krenn aus dem Jahr 1885 (96*) Geschichte der Pfarre Rohrbach (98*) Zum Ausklang. (97*) Geschichte der Pfarre Rohrbach (98*) [Abb.]: Rohrbach Rathaus u. Kirche (98*) Erster Teil Bau- und Kunstgeschichte ([99]*) [2 Abb.]: Zwei Ansichten Rohrbachs mit dem früheren Kirchturm ([100]*) Der Bau der barocken Pfarrkirche (1697 - 1700) (101*) Die zehn ältesten Gedenksteine (106*) 1. Grabstein 1562 (oder 1582) (106*) [Abb.]: I. Grabstein Sebastian Aigner 1562 ( oder 1582) (107*) 2. Porträt-Grabstein 1583 (108*) 3. Familiengrabstein Oedt 1583 (108*) [Abb.]: 2. Porträtgrabstein Sebastian von Oedt 1583 (109*) [Plan]: Plan der Pfarrkirche Rohrbach 1696 (110 - 111*) [Abb.]: 3. Familiengrabstein Oedt 1583 ([112]*) 4. Grabstein Weinberger 1641 5. Grabstein Stöger 1688 (113*) [Abb.]: 4. Grabstein Michael weinberger 1641 (114*) [Abb.]: 5. Grabstein Stöger 1688 ([115]*) 6. Wappenschild 1699 (116*) [Abb.]: 6. Wappenschild 1699 (117*) 7. Grabstein Gruber 1706. 8. Grabstein Oedt 1719 (118*) [Abb.]: 7. Grabstein Zacharias Gruber 1706 (119*) [Abb.]: 8. Grabstein Erasmus Anton von Oedt 1719 (120*) 9. Gedenkstein 1720. 10. Wappenstein der Familie Rödern 1743 (121*) [2 Abb.]: (1)Das Portal der Pfarrkirche Rohrbach mit dem Wappenschild des Abtes Michael Felder von dem Jahr der Fertigstellung des Gooteshauses. (2)Das Taufbecken der Pfarrkirche Rohrbach, bald nach 1700 entstanden, Tischlerarbeiten von H. g. Stempl (?), Figuren der Taufe Jesu geschnitzt vom Bildhauer G. W. Wagner (?) ([122]*) Kunstgeschichtliche Führung durch die Pfarrkirche Rohrbach (123*) [Abb.]: Pfarrkirche - Langhaus (124*) [Abb.]: Pfarrkirche - Hochaltar (126*) [Abb.]: Blick zur Anna-Kapelle, Rödern-Wappen (128*) [Abb.]: Pfarrkirche - Kanzel ([130]*) [Abb.]: Die sieben Zufluchten. Andachtsbild um 1800. (132*) [Abb.]: Pfarrkirche - Marienaltar (136*) [Abb.]: Pfarrkirche, Orgel (138*) [2 Abb.]: (1)Rathaus Rohrbach. Die Fleischlauben mit stuckierten Wappenschildern aus der Zeit des Barock um 1750 (2)Rathaus Rohrbach. Der Kern des Gebäudes enthält noch gotische Bausubstanz aus der Zeit um 1450 in sich (142*) [Tabelle]: Die Glocken, die am 4. Dezember 1949 von Abt Cajetan Lang die kirchliche Segnung erhielten, sind folgende: (143*) Sonstige Sehenswürdigkeiten (143*) [Abb.]: Die Dreifaltigkeitssäule (1743). Ansichtskarte vom Jahr 1910 (144*) [Abb.]: Dreifaltigkeitssäule (146*) Wallfahrtskirche Maria - Trost am Berg bei R. (150*) Bau- und Kunstgeschichte der Wallfahrtskirche Maria Trost am Berg bei Rohrbach (150*) [Abb.]: Maria-Trost-Kirche (150*) [2 Abb.]: (1)Rechts: Hochaltar der Wallfahrtskirche Maria Trost (2)Links: Kapelle mit zwei Engeln (152*) [Abb.]: St. Sebastian - Altar (154*) Kapellen und Denkmäler rund um die Berger Kirche (157*) Das Benefizium mit Kirche und Benefiziatenhaus wurde am 14. November 1912 vom Stift Schlägl angekauft, und von diesem Zeitpunkt an versehen Schlägler Chorherren das Benefizium und damit die Seelsorge an der Wallfahrtskirche Maria Trost: (157*) [2 Abb.]: (1)Oben Buchet - Kapelle, (2)Unten Hl. Grab (158*) Kapellen am Wallfahrtsweg von Haslach zum Berg (159*) [Karte]: (160*) Die Maria-Hilf-Kapelle (162*) [Abb.]: Deckenfresko der Maria Hilf-Kapelle (1764). (162*) [Abb.]: Der Schickanus. Statue des hl. Ivo von Helori 1720/30 (164*) Kapellen am Wallfahrtsweg von Rohrbach zum Berg (165*) [2 Abb.]: (1)Links: Die Statue der hl. Mutter Anna der Maria-Hilf-Kapelle kann als Werk des Bildhauers Johann Worath (1609 - 1680) angesprochen werden. (2)Rechts: Die Maria-Schnee-Kapelle befindet sich am Wallfahrtsweg, der von Haslach zum Berg führt ([166]*) Die Michaels-Kapelle bei Krien (168*) [Abb.]: St. Michaels - Kapelle bei Krien (168*) Geschichte der Pfarre Rohrbach Zweiter Teil Kirchen- und Pfarrgeschichte von Isfried H. Pichler (171*) [Abb.]: der Apostel Jakobus als Pilger und Prediger im Siegel des Pfarramtes Rohrbach (172*) Kirchen- und Pfarrgeschichte (173*) Patrozinium St. Jakob (173*) Der Umfang der Pfarre Rohrbach im Mittelalter kann nicht ganz genau, aber doch im wesentlichen angegeben werden: (175*) Inkorporation an das Stift Schlägl (176*) Die Pfarrer des 14. Jahrhunderts (179*) Das Herleinsperger-Benefizium St. Georg (1413) (182*) Die Pfarrer des 15. Jahrhunderts (184*) St. Wolfgang am Stein (185*) Filialkirche Oepping (193*) [2 Abb.]: (1)Oben: Votivkirche mit Darstellung des ehemaligen Bürgerspitals (Rohrbach 33) an der Bahnhofstraße (2)Rechts: Der Hahn auf dem Rathaus zu Rohrbach ([196]*) Rohrbach im Jahrhundert der Reformationswirren (1526 - 1626) (197*) Pfarrer Johannes Pigler (1526 - 1533) (197*) Pfarrer Georg Nadler (1533 - 1544) Pfarrer Christoph Kreuss (-1561-) (198*) Pfarrer Andreas Schueschitz (1568 - 1570) Pfarrer Michael Träxel (1570 - 1583) (199*) Pfarrer Kaspar Diethmayr (1583 - 1587) (200*) Pfarrer David Gebhardt (1588 - 1595 und 1599 - 1623) (200*) Martin Huber. Wolfgang Mayeröberl. Hieronymus Kammerstock (1597 - 1599) Pfarrer David Gebhardt (201*) Pfarrer Michael Pögl (1623 - 1625) Pfarrer Wilhelm Georg Göhl (1625 - 1626) (202*) Rohrbach im 17. Jahrhundert (1626 - 1695) (203*) Pfarrer David Goll (1627 - 1629) (203*) Pfarrer Johannes Rehbock (1629 - 1645) (203*) [Abb.]: Widmung der "Exempla tragica" von Theodorich von Rödern an den Rohrbacher Pfarrer Domink Wirth. Dieses Büchlein kam 1670 in die Stiftsbibliothek Schlägl ([204]*) Pfarrer Matthäus Ill (1646 - 1651) (205*) Pfarrer Dominik Wirth (1651 - 1674) (205*) Pfarrer Benedikt Fischer (1674 - 1695) (206*) Die Pfarrer des 18. Jahrhunderts (207*) Pfarrer Wilhelm Kammerruck (1695 - 1705) (207*) Pfarrer Dr. Adalbert Landgraf (1705 - 1727) (207*) [Abb.]: Glorreicher Röderischer Schutz- und Trost-Berg Mariae. (208*) Pfarrer Dr. Franz Posch (1727 - 1731) (209*) Pfarrer Dominik kammerruck (1731 - 1749) (210*) Pfarrer Mathias Wöss (1749 - 1775) (211*) Pfarrer Michael Schmidinger (1775 - 1782) (211*) [Abb.]: Rohrbach 1933 Zeitungsdruck des Viehmarktes vom jahr 1933. Interessant die steilen, schindelgedeckten Dächer (212*) Pfarrer Augustin Bachmann (1782 - 1797) (213*) [Abb.]: Pfarrer Bruno Spalt ist als erster Rohrbacher Pfarrer im Bildnis überliefert. Porträt von Franz Wenger 1802 (214*) Pfarrer Bruno Spalt (1797 - 1805) (215*) Die Pfarrer des 19. Jahrhunderts (216*) Pfarrer Franz Xaver Popp (1805 - 1813) (216*) Pfarrer Norbert Ruezinger (1813 - 1830) (216*) Pfarrer Friedrich Bayer (1830 - 1840) (217*) Pfarrer Dr. Ferdinand Ramet (1840 - 1866) (218*) Pfarrer Konrad Weinbauer (1866 - 1878) (218*) Pfarrer Ludwig Freyinger (1878 - 1887) (219*) Pfarrprovisor Hermann Voraberger (1887/88) (220*) Pfarrer Raphael Cambefort (1888 - 1898) (221*) Die Pfarrer des 20. Jahrhunderts (222*) Pfarrer Ferdinand Laad (1898 - 1917) (222*) Pfarrer Norbert Wipplinger (1917 - 1928) (222*) Pfarrer Pius Feldler (1928 - 1931) (223*) [Abb.]:Hugo H. Haimann (18. 7. 1880 - 12. 2. 1961) (224*) Pfarrer Hugo Haimann (1931 - 1946) (225*) [Abb.]: Jakob L. Pichler (2. 11. 1892 - 26. 5. 1961) ([226]*) Pfarrer Jakob Pichler (1946 - 1961) (227*) Pfarrer Johannes Felhofer (1961 - 1963) (228*) Pfarrer Otto Karasek (1963 - 1967) (228*) Pfarrprovisor Bruno Grünberger (1967) (229*) Pfarrer Albert Dorninger (seit (1967) (229*) [Abb.]: Rohrbacher Pfarrblatt ([230]*) Literaturverzeichnis (232*) [Abb.]: Das Hirtenhäusl (Rohrbach 34, an der Bahnhofstraße) hat die alte Bauweise der einfachen Häuser des Böhmerwaldgebietes dokumentarisch bewahrt, bis es 1939 abgetragen worden ist. Typisch ist das gemauerte Sockelgeschoß, auf dem der Aufbau in Holzbauweise errichtet worden ist. Ebenso typisch ist das flache Dach, dessen Legeschindeln mit Steinen beschwert wurden. (240*) Anhang. Register der Personen- und Ortsnamen und der wichtigsten Sachbegriffe ([241]*) A, B (242*) C - E (243*) F (243*) G (244*) H (244*) I = J (245*) K (245*) L (246*) M (246*) N, O (247*) P (247*) R (248*) S (249*) SCH (249*) St, T (250*) U (250*) V - Z (251*) Häuserchronik Rohrbach - Berg ([1]) I. Teil Straßenverzeichnis Rohrbach - Berg ([1]) Einleitung (2) Akademiestrasse (Ro 1). Am Binderhügel (Ro 2) (5) Am Schlosserhügel (6) Angerweg (Bg 7) (6) Bahnhofstrasse (Ro 3, Bg 8) (7) [Karte]: Gemeinde Berg bei Rohrbach Strassenkarte (9) [Karte]: Strassenkarte Rohrbach (10 - [11]) Illustrationen (12) Bergfeld (Bg 20) (13) Berggasse (Ro 4, Bg 11) (14) Bergweg (Bg 17) (15) Birkenweg (Ro 5) (16) Böhmerwaldstrasse (Ro 6) (17) Brucknerstrasse (Ro 7) (17) [Abb.]: Anton Bruckner (1824 - 1896) (18) Ehrenreiterweg (Ro 8). Erlengrund (Bg 9) (19) Fadingerstrasse (Ro 9) (20) Feldweg (Ro 43) (20) Friedhofweg (Ro 10). Fürlingerberg (Bg 1) (21) Gartenstrasse (Ro 11) Götzendorfer Steig (Ro 12) (22) Grabenstrasse (Ro 13) (23) [Abb.]: Franz Grillparzer (1791 - 1872) (24) Grillparzerstrasse (Ro 14). Hafnerweg (Bg 21) (25) Hanriederstrasse (Ro 15) (25) [Abb.]: Norbert hanrieder (1842 - 1913) ([27]) Harrauerstrasse (Ro 17) (28) Haslacherstrasse (Ro 18) (29) Hofmark (Bg 10) (30) Höhenweg (Bg 14) Hopfengasse (Ro 19) (31) Im Tal (Bg 6) Krankenhausstrasse (Ro 20) (32) Lerchenweg (Ro 22) (33) Linzer Strasse (Ro 23) (33) [Abb.]: Maria-Trost bei Rohrbach. ([34]) Maria Trost (Bg 15) (35) Marktplatz (Stadtplatz (Ro 24) (35) Mayrhoffeld (Ro 26) (37) Mitterfeld (Ro 27) (38) Mitterweg (Bg 18) (38) Molkereistrasse (Bg 2) (39) Muldenweg (Ro 28) Parkweg (Ro 29) (40) Pfaffenberg (Bg 13) Pfarrgasse (Ro 30) (41) Poeschlgasse (Ro 31) Rödernweg (Bg 16) (42) Schnopfhagenstrasse (Ro 32) (42) [Abb.]: Hans Schnopfhagen (1845 - 1908) ([43]) Schulstrasse (Ro 34) (44) Schulweg (Bg 12) (45) Siedlungsstrasse (Ro 35) (45) Spielplatzgasse (Bg 5) (46) Spitalfeld (Ro 36) (46) Sportplatzgasse (Ro 37) Stadtplatz: Siehe Marktplatz Steinland (Ro 38) (47) [Abb.]: Franz Stelzhamer (1802 - 1874) (48) Stelzhamerstrasse (Ro 39) (49) Stifterstrasse (Ro 40, Bg 19) (49) [Abb.]: Adalbert Stifter (50) Stift - Schlägler - Siedlung (Bg 4) (52) Wagner von der Mühl-Strasse (53) Wandschamlweg (Ro 41) (54) Wimholzsiedlung (Bg 3) (54) Wirtschaftszeile (Ro) (55) [Abb.]: Wagner von der Mühl: Seine Eltern erwarben 1890 Rohrbach 66 (Marktplatz 9) (56) Epilog (56a) Brände in Rohrbach: (56a) [Zeitunsartikel]: Rohrbach. Der Umbau des alten Baderhauses (56b) Rohrbach 41 (Marktplatz 37): (56c) 2. Teil Häuserchronik Rohrbach - Berg ([57]) Einleitung (58) Wie ist die Häuserchronik aufgebaut und wie ist sie zu lesen? (59) Verzeichnis der erhaltenen und für die Häuserchronik Rohrbach - Berg bearbeiteten Bände des "alten" Grundbuches, die im oberösterreichischen Landesarchiv (4020 Linz, Anzengruberstraße 19) aufbewahrt werden. (63) Häuserchronik Rohrbach (67) Rohrbach 1: Linzer Straße 10 (67) Rohrbach 2: Linzer Straße 8 (67) Rohrbach 3: Marktplatz 16 (68) Rohrbach 4: Marktplatz 17 (69) Rohrbach 5: Marktplatz 18 (70) Rohrbach 6: Marktplatz 19 (70) Rohrbach 7: Marktplatz 20 (71) Rohrbach 8: Marktplatz 21 (72) Rohrbach 9: Marktplatz 22 (73) Rohrbach 10: Marktplatz 23 (73) Rohrbach 11: Marktplatz 24 (74) Rohrbach 11a: Marktplatz 24 Rohrbach 12: Marktplatz 25 (75) Rohrbach 13: Marktplatz 26 (76) Rohrbach 14: Marktplatz 27 (76) Rohrbach 15: Marktplatz 28 (77) Rohrbach 16: Marktplatz 29 (78) Rohrbach 17: Marktplatz 30 (79) Rohrbach 18: Hanriederstraße 3 (79) Rohrbach 19: Hanriederstraße 18 (80) Rohrbach 20: Hanriederstraße 8 (80) Rohrbach 21: Hanriederstraße 6 (81) Rohrbach 22: Hanriederstraße 4 (82) Rohrbach 23: Hanriederstraße 2 (82) Rohrbach 24: Marktplatz 31 (83) Rohrbach 25: Marktplatz 32 (84) Rohrbach 26: Marktplatz 33 (85) Rohrbach 27: Marktplatz 34 (85) Rohrbach 28: Marktplatz 35 (86) Rohrbach 29: Bahnhofstraße 3 (87) Rohrbach 30: Bahnhofstraße 9 Rohrbach 31: Harrauerstraße 1 (88) Rohrbach 32: (Bahnhofstraße) Rohrbach 33: (Bahnhofstraße) Rohrbach 34: (Bahnhofstraße) (89) Rohrbach 35: Bahnhofstraße 16 (90) Rohrbach 36: Bahnhofstraße 14 (90) Rohrbach 37: Bahnhofstraße 12 (91) Rohrbach 38: Bahnhofstraße 10 (92) Rohrbach 39: Bahnhofstraße 4 (92) Rohrbach 40: Marktplatz 36 (93) Rohrbach 41: Marktplatz 37 (93) Rohrbach 42: Poeschlgasse 3 (94) Rohrbach 43: Poeschlgasse 5 (95) Rohrbach 44 und 81: Berggasse 1 und Poschlgasse 7 (96) Rohrbach 45: Berggasse 5 (97) Rohrbach 46: Berggasse 2 (97) Rohrbach 47: Pfarrgasse 8 (98) Rohrbach 48: Pfarrgasse 6 (98) Rohrbach 49: Pfarrgasse 4 (99) Rohrbach 50: Poeschlgasse 2 (100) Rohrbach 51: Marktplatz 38 (101) Rohrbach 52: Marktplatz 39 (101) Rohrbach 53: Marktplatz 40 (102) Rohrbach 54: Marktplatz 41 (103) Rohrbach 55: Marktplatz 42 (103) Rohrbach 56: Marktplatz 43 (104) Rohrbach 57: Marktplatz 44 (105) Rohrbach 58: Marktplatz 1 (105) Rohrbach 59: Marktplatz 2 (106) Rohrbach 60: Marktplatz 3 (107) Rohrbach 61: Marktplatz 4 (108) Rohrbach 62: Marktplatz 5 (109) Rohrbach 63: Marktplatz 6 (109) Rohrbach 64: Marktplatz 7 (110) Rohrbach 65: Marktplatz 8 (111) Rohrbach 66: Marktplatz 9 (111) Rohrbach 67: Marktplatz 10 (112) Rohrbach 68: Marktplatz 11 (113) Rohrbach 69: Marktplatz 12 (113) Rohrbach 70: Marktplatz 13 (114) Rohrbach 71: Marktplatz 14 (115) Rohrbach 72: Linzer Straße 1 (115) Rohrbach 73: Linzer Straße 5 (116) Rohrbach 74: Linzer Straße 7 Rohrbach 75: Linzer Straße 11 (117) Rohrbach 76: Stifterstraße 1 (118) Rohrbach 77: Stifterstraße 7 (118) Rohrbach 78, 79 siehe: Mayrhof Rohrbach 80: Bahnhofstraße 6 (119) Rohrbach 81 Rohrbach 82: Linzer Straße 3 Rohrbach 83: Linzer Straße 9 (120) Rohrbach 84: Linzer Straße 2 Rohrbach 85: Marktplatz 15 Rohrbach 86: Bahnhofstraße 8 (121) Rohrbach 87: Hanriederstraße 15 Rohrbach 88: Linzer Straße 4 (122) Rohrbach 89: Linzer Straße 6 (122) Rohrbach 90: Hanriederstraße 16 Rohrbach 91 und 100: Linzer Straße 12 und 14 Rohrbach 92: Bahnhofstraße 7 - 9 - 11 (123) Rohrbach 93: Hanriederstraße 5 Rohrbach 94: Hanriederstraße 9 Rohrbach 95: Hanriederstraße 7 Rohrbach 96: Harrauerstraße 4 (124) Rohrbach 97 und 98: Poeschlgasse 4 und 6 Rohrbach 99: Hanriederstraße 20 Rohrbach 100: Linzer Straße 14 Rohrbach 101: Hanriederstraße 14 (125) Rohrbach 102: Hanriederstraße 2a Rohrbach 103 und 104: Stifterstraße 9 und 11 Rohrbach 105: Stifterstraße 8 Rohrbach 106: Hopfengasse 3 (126) Rohrbach 107: Bahnhofstraße 15 Rohrbach 108: Bahnhofstraße 13 Rohrbach 109: Grabenstraße 1 (127) Rohrbach 110: Stfiterstraße 23 (127) Rohrbach 111: Stfiterstraße 15 Rohrbach 112: Bahnhofstraße 5 Rohrbach 113: Stfiterstraße 17 (128) Rohrbach 114: Bahnhofstraße 28 (128) Rohrbach 115: Hanriederstraße 22 Rohrbach 116: Siedlungsstraße 23 Rohrbach 117: Siedlungsstraße 21 (129) Rohrbach 118: Siedlungsstraße 19 Rohrbach 119: Siedlungsstraße 17 Rohrbach 120: Siedlungsstraße 15 Rohrbach 121: Siedlungsstraße 20 (130) Rohrbach 122: Siedlungsstraße 22 Rohrbach 123: Siedlungsstraße 24 Rohrbach 124: Siedlungsstraße 26 Rohrbach 125: Siedlungsstraße 28 (131) Rohrbach 126: Siedlungsstraße 30 Rohrbach 127: Siedlungsstraße 32 Rohrbach 128: Stifterstraße 19 Rohrbach 129: Stifterstraße 21 (132) Rohrbach 130: Hanriederstraße 26 Rohrbach 131, 132, 133: Harrauerstraße 9, 11, 13 Rohrbach 134: Friedhofweg 2 Rohrbach 135: Harrauerstraße 6, 8 (133) Rohrbach 136: Harrauerstraße 18 (133) Rohrbach 137: Harrauerstraße 20 Rohrbach 138: Harrauerstraße 22 Rohrbach 139: Harrauerstraße 24 (134) Rohrbach 140: Harrauerstraße 26 Rohrbach 141: Harrauerstraße 28 Rohrbach 142: Harrauerstraße 23 Rohrbach 143: Harrauerstraße 21 (135) Rohrbach 144: Siedlungsstraße 2 (135) Rohrbach 145: Siedlungsstraße 4 Rohrbach 146: Siedlungsstraße 6 Rohrbach 147: Siedlungsstraße 8 (136) Rohrbach 148: Siedlungsstraße 10 Rohrbach 149: Siedlungsstraße 12 Rohrbach 150: Siedlungsstraße 14 Rohrbach 151: Siedlungsstraße 16 (137) Rohrbach 152: Siedlungsstraße 18 (137) Rohrbach 153: Siedlungsstraße 13 Rohrbach 154: Siedlungsstraße 11 Rohrbach 155: Siedlungsstraße 9 Rohrbach 156: Siedlungsstraße 7 (138) Rohrbach 157: Siedlungsstraße 5 Rohrbach 158: Siedlungsstraße 3 Rohrbach 159: Siedlungsstraße 1 Rohrbach 160: Harrauerstraße 27 (139) Rohrbach 161: Akademiestraße 6 (139) Rohrbach 162: Bahnhofstraße 11 Rohrbach 163: Harrauerstraße 5 Rohrbach 164: siehe Mayrhof 1 Rohrbach 165: Harrauerstraße 38 Rohrbach 166: Stifterstraße 24 (140) Rohrbach 167: Ehrenreiterweg 5 Rohrbach 168: Hanriederstraße 40 Rohrbach 169: Birkenweg 4 Rohrbach 170 : Schulstraße 5 Rohrbach 171 : Schulstraße 3 (141) Rohrbach 172 : Stifterstraße 5 Rohrbach 173 : Stifterstraße 13 Rohrbach 174 : Stifterstraße 14 Rohrbach 175 : Linzer Straße 16 Rohrbach 176 : Stifterstraße 10 (142) Rohrbach 177: Haslacher Straße 3 Rohrbach 178: Stifterstraße 6 Rohrbach 179: Linzer Straße 13 Rohrbach 180: Schulstraße 8 (143) Rohrbach 1181: Harrauerstraße 31 (143) Rohrbach 182: Harrauerstraße 25 Rohrbach 183: Grabenstraße 29 Rohrbach 184: Grabenstraße 27 Rohrbach 185: Grabenstraße 25 (144) Rohrbach 186: Grabenstraße 23 Rohrbach 187: Gartenstraße 1 Rohrbach 188: Gartenstraße 3 Rohrbach 189: Gartenstraße 5 Rohrbach 190: Gartenstraße 7 (145) Rohrbach 191: Gartenstraße 9 Rohrbach 192: Schulstraße 10 Rohrbach 193: Hanriederstraße 27 Rohrbach 194: Berggasse 1 Rohrbach 195: Hanriederstraße 9a (146) Rohrbach 197: Berggasse 8 Rohrbach 197: Gewerbeallee 3 (Feldweg 3) Rohrbach 198: Spitalfeld 32 Rohrbach 199: Hanriederstraße 32 (147) Rohrbach 200: Bahnhofstraße 23 Rohrbach 201: Hopfengasse 5 Rohrbach 202: Stifterstraße 27 Rohrbach 203: Hanriederstraße 28 Rohrbach 204: Haslacher Straße 11 (148) Rohrbach 205: Stifterstraße 20 Rohrbach 206: Haslacher Straße 9 Rohrbach 207: Grabenstraße 6 Rohrbach 208: Sportplatzgasse 8 Rohrbach 209: Sportplatzgasse 6 (149) Rohrbach 210: Sportplatzgasse 2 Rohrbach 211: Sportplatzgasse 4 Rohrbach 212: Gartenstraße 11 Rohrbach 213: Bahnhofstra 15 Rohrbach 214 und 218: Ehrenreiterweg 9 und 11 (150) Rohrbach 215: Ehrenreiterweg 8 Rohrbach 216: Schulstraße 6 Rohrbach 217: Mayrhoffeld 3 Rohrbach 218: siehe Rohrbach 214 Rohrbach 219: Harrauer Straße 30 (151) Rohrbach 220: Grabenstraße 21 Rohrbach 221: Bahnhofstraße 20 Rohrbach 222: Bahnhofstraße 27 Rohrbach 223: Grabenstraße 35 Rohrbach 224: Stifterstraße 29 (152) Rohrbach 225: Bahnhofstraße 21 Rohrbach 226: Pfarrgasse 8a Rohrbach 227: Poeschlgasse 1 Rohrbach 228: Mayrhoffeld 7 Rohrbach 229: Grabenstraße 37 (153) Rohrbach 230: Harrauer Straße 382 Rohrbach 231: Hanriederstraße 30 Rohrbach 232: Steinland 12 Rohrbach 233: Stifterstraße 16 (154) Rohrbach 234: Birkenweg 6 Rohrbach 235: Birkenweg 8 Rohrbach 236: Gartenstraße 8 Rohrbach 237: Gartenstraße 3 Rohrbach 238 und 239: Haslacher Straße 7 und 7a (155) Rohrbach 240: Mayrhoffeld 5 Rohrbach 241: Grabenstraße 10 Rohrbach 242: Birkenweg 1 Rohrbach 243: Harrauer Straße 40 Rohrbach 244: Grabenstraße 4 (156) Rohrbach 245: Hopfengasse 18 Rohrbach 246: Bahnhofstraße 24 Rohrbach 247: Grabenstraße 17 Rohrbach 248: Harrauer Straße 32 Rohrbach 249: Haslacher Straße 13 (157) Rohrbach 250: Haslacher Straße 15 Rohrbach 251: Gartenstraße 4 Rohrbach 252: Gartenstraße 6 Rohrbach 253 und 254: Gartenstraße 8 und 10 Rohrbach 255: Linzer Straße 17 (158) Rohrbach 256: Spitalfeld 18 Rohrbach 257: Grabenstraße 5 Rohrbach 259: Bahnhofstraße 26a Rohrbach 260: Böhmerwaldstraße 3 Rohrbach 261: Hanriederstraße 38 (159) Rohrbach 262: Steinland 6 Rohrbach 263: Gartenstraße 2 Rohrbach 264: Hanriederstraße 20a Rohrbach 265: Akademiestraße 8 Rohrbach 266: Spitalfeld 34 (160) Rohrbach 267: Harrauer Straße 14 Rohrbach 268: Stifterstraße 6 Rohrbach 269: Schulstraße 12 Rohrbach 270: Haslacher Straße 23 Rohrbach 271: Ehrenreiterweg 14 (161) Rohrbach 272: Schulstraße 7 Rohrbach 273: Bahnhofstraße 22 Rohrbach 274: Pfarrgasse 10 Rohrbach 275: Steinland 4 Rohrbach 276: Ehrenreiterweg 18 (162) Rohrbach 277: Hopfengasse 13 und 15 Rohrbach 278: Schnopfhagenstraße 3 Rohrbach 279: Hanriederstraße 23 Rohrbach 280 Rohrbach 281: Schulstraße 4 (163) Rohrbach 282: Schnopfhagenstraße 8 Rohrbach 283: Schnopfhagenstraße 5 Rohrbach 284: Schnopfhagenstraße 10 Rohrbach 285: Grabenstraße 16 Rohrbach 286: Stelzhamerstraße 6 (164) Rohrbach 287: Stifterstraße 25 Rohrbach 288: Wagner von der Mühl - Straße 4 Rohrbach 289: Siedlungsstraße 10a Rohrbach 290: Böhmerwaldstraße 5 Rohrbach 291: Akademiestraße 15 Rohrbach 292: Grabenstraße 9 (165) Rohrbach 293: Grabenstraße 31 Rohrbach 294: Stelzhamerstraße 5 Rohrbach 295: Mitterfeld 4 Rohrbach 296: Ehrenreiterweg 20 Rohrbach 297: Krankenhausstraße 22 (166) Rohrbach 298: Lanzersdorf 27 Rohrbach 299: Ehrenreiterweg 23 Rohrbach 300: Grabenstraße 16 Rohrbach 301: Mitterfeld 14 Rohrbach 302: Ehrenreiterweg 10 Rohrbach 303: Mayrhoffeld 9 (167) Rohrbach 304: Mitterfeld 11 Rohrbach 305: Mayrhoffeld 13 Rohrbach 306: Gewerbeallee Rohrbach 307: Haslacher Straße 2 Rohrbach 308: Steinland 14 Rohrbach 309: Mayrhoffeld 11 (168) Rohrbach 310, 311, 312, 313: Fadingerstraße 12 und 13, Lerchenweg 11 und 13 Rohrbach 314 und 315: Lerchenweg 8 Rohrbach 316: Harrau 12 Rohrbach 317: Brucknerstraße 9 Rohrbach 318: Brucknerstraße 11 (169) Rohrbach 319: Fadingerstraße 9 Rohrbach 320: Wandschamlweg 6 Rohrbach 321: Brucknerstraße 5 Rohrbach 322: Fadingerstraße 8 Rohrbach 323: Akademiestraße 12 Rohrbach 324: Lerchenweg 1 (170) Rohrbach 325: Fadingerstraße 1 Rohrbach 326: Harrauer Straße 34 Rohrbach 327: Brucknerstraße 1 Rohrbach 328: Brucknerstraße 7 Rohrbach 329: Fadingerstraße 11 (171) Rohrbach 330: Harrauer Straße 42 Rohrbach 331: Steinland 7 Rohrbach 332: Grillparzerstraße 3 Rohrbach 333: Mitterfeld 6 Rohrbach 334: Ehrenreiterweg 29 Rohrbach 335: Siedlungsstraße 20 (172) Rohrbach 336: Hanriederstraße 2b Rohrbach 337: Ehrenreiterweg 27 Rohrbach 338: Ehrenreiterweg 31 Rohrbach 339: Fadingerstraße 6 Rohrbach 340: Krankenhausstraße 1 (173) Rohrbach 341: Götzendorfer Steig 9 Rohrbach 342: Brucknerstraße 3 Rohrbach 343: Mitterfeld 13a, b, c; 15a, b; 16a, b, c, d Rohrbach 344: Haslacher Straße 4 Rohrbach 345: Grabenstraße 39 (174) Rohrbach 346: Fadingerstraße 7 Rohrbach 347: Muldenweg 8 Rohrbach 348: Parkweg 3 Rohrbach 349: Grabenstraße 45 Rohrbach 350: Akademiestraße21 Rohrbach 351: Ehrenreiterweg 25 (175) Rohrbach 352: Brucknerstraße 8 Rohrbach 353: Fadingerstraße 10 Rohrbach 354: Linzerstraße 18 Rohrbach 355: Fadingerstraße 5 Rohrbach 356: Lerchenweg 18 (176) Rohrbach 357: Parkweg 7 (176) Rohrbach 358: Böhmerwaldstraße 7 Rohrbach 359: Grabenstraße 33 Rohrbach 360: Am Binderhügel 2 Rohrbach 361: Krankenhausstraße 28 (177) Rohrbach 362: Gewerbeallee (Feldweg) Rohrbach 363: Krankenhausstraße 4 Rohrbach 364: Stifterstraße 12 Rohrbach 365: Harrauer Straße 39 Rohrbach 366: Götzendorfer Steig 15a (178) Rohrbach 367: Grabenstraße 36 (178) Rohrbach 368: Mitterfeld 12 Rohrbach 370: Muldenweg 6 Rohrbach 370: Muldenweg 10 (179) Rohrbach 372: Muldenweg 11 Rohrbach 373: Schnopfenhagenstraße 12 Rohrbach 374: Wandschamlweg 4 Rohrbach 375: Wandschamlweg 5 Rohrbach 376a: Hopfengasse 20 (180) Rohrbach 376b: Hopfengasse 22 Rohrbach 377: Muldenweg 3 Rohrbach 378: Muldenweg 4 Rohrbach 379: Muldenweg 2 Rohrbach 380: Harrauer Straße 45 Rohrbach 381: Harrauer Straße 44 Rohrbach 382: Muldenweg 5 (181) Rohrbach 383: Grabenstraße 19 Rohrbach 384: Stifterstraße 26 Rohrbach 385: Harrauer Straße 29 Rohrbach 386: Am Schlosserhügel Rohrbach 387: Wirtschaftszeile 2 Rohrbach 388: Wirtschaftszeile 1 Rohrbach 389: Hopfengasse (182) Rohrbach 390: Am Schlosserhügel 5 Rohrbach 391: Gewerbeallee Rohrbach 392: Grabenstraße Rohrbach 393: Rohrbach 394: Am Schlosserhügel 15 Rohrbach 395: Am Schlosserhügel 11 Rohrbach 396: Am Schlosserhügel 7 (183) Rohrbach 397: Am Schlosserhügel 17 Rohrbach 398: Am Schlosserhügel 13 Rohrbach 399: Am Schlosserhügel 9 Rohrbach 400: Am Schlosserhügel 18 Rohrbach 401: Am Schlosserhügel 6 Rohrbach 402: Am Schlosserhügel 10 Rohrbach 403: Am Schlosserhügel 14 (184) Rohrbach 404: Mayrhof 7 Rohrbach 405: Grabenstraße 12 Rohrbach 406: Haslacher Straße 17 Rohrbach 407: Harrauer Straße Rohrbach 408: Spitalfeld Rohrbach 409: Gewerbeallee Rohrbach 410: Sportplatzgasse 1 (184a) Rohrbach 411: Sportplatzgasse 3 Rohrbach 412: Sportplatzgasse 5 Rohrbach 413: Sportplatzgasse 7 Rohrbach 414: Haslacher Straße 6 (184b) Berg bei Rohrbach ([185]) [Karte]: Berg bei Rohrbach ([185]) Zur Geschichte von Berg ([186]) Die Perger. Die Ruestorfer ([186]) Die Grafen von Rödern (187) Verschiedene Besitzer von Berg (189a) Schloß Berg. Das Schloß Berg wurde nach 1912 zerstückelt und existiert jetzt in folgenden Realitäten: Brände in Berg (189b) [Abb.]: Schloß Berg (190) Häuserchronik Berg (191) Berg 1: Berggasse 10 - Schulweg 1, 3 (191) Berg 2: Berggasse 12 (192) Berg 3: Berggasse 14 (192) Berg 4: Berggasse 13 (193) Berg 5: Berggasse 23 (194) Berg 6: Hofmark 1 (194) Berg 7: Hofmark 3 und Hofmark 23 (195) Berg 8 und ehem. 30 zu Berg: Hofmark 4 (196) Berg 9: Hofmark 6 (197) Berg 10: Hofmark 15 (197) Berg 11: Hofmark 16 (198) Berg 12: Hofmark 17 (199) Berg 13: Pfaffenberg 4 (200) Berg 14: Bergweg 9 Berg 14: (alt) (201) Berg 15: Bergweg 15 (202) Berg 16: Bergweg 16 (Berggasse 43) (202) Berg 17: Stifterstraße 69 (203) Berg 18: Stifterstraße 70 (204) Berg 19 und 20: Maria Trost 3 und 4 (205) Berg 21: Maria Trost 2 (205) [Abb.]: Benefiziatenhaus Berg 20 (Maria Trost 3) Das in den Jahren 1708/1709 erbaute Benefiziatenhaus sicherte die Seelsorge an der Maria-Trost-Wallfahrtskirche. Das Benefizium wurde 1706 von Gräfin Maria Theresia von Rödern g. Freifrau von Oedt auf Götzendorf gestiftet. Dieses Haus, im Volksmund "Pfarrhof" genannt, ist im Jahr 1973 renoviert und modernisiert worden. ([206]) Berg 22: Bahnhofstraße 55 (Wimmhof) (207) Berg 23: Berggasse (207) [Abb.]: Renaissance-Portal. Einfahrt in das Schloß Berg; bereits zu sehen am Stich von G. M. Vischer 1679; der Löwe gibt Kunde vom Selbstbewußtsein der Herrschaften des 17./18. Jahrhunderts. Ausgeführt wurde dieses Portal wohl von der gerade zu berühmten "Firma" Getzinger aus Haslach an der Mühl. ([208]) Berg 23: Berggasse 20, 21 (209) Berg 24: Berggasse 28 (210) [Abb.]: Rundell-Häusl Berg 24 (Berggasse 28) Rest der gartengebäude des Schlosses Berg; als Rundturm im Kupferstich von G. M. Vischer 1679 bereits zu sehen (211) [Abb.]: Marien-Kapelle. Diese Kapelle bei Berg 25 (Maria Trost 1) am Wallfahrtsweg von Rohrbach nach Maria Trost hat mehrere Namen. Um 1780 wird sie "Urlaub Capellen" genannt (der Wallfahrer nimmt "Urlaub", Abschied, vom Heiligtum). Dann taucht der Name Teufelskapelle (in sich selbst ein Widerspruch!) auf, wohl wegen der Sage vom Teufelstanz, die man hier lokalisierte. Die Umgestaltung als Marien-Kapelle, die Sicherung durch ein Schmiedeeiserenes Gitter und der gepflegte Blumenschmuck sind lobend hervorzuheben! ([212]) Berg 25: Maria Trost 1 (213) Berg 26: Bergweg 2 (Berggasse 36) (213) Berg 27: Hofmark 2 (214) Berg 28: Bergweg 14 (Berggasse 42) (214) Berg 29: Hofmark 2a (215) Berg 30 (8): Hofmark Berg 30: Bahnhofstraße 57 (216) [Abb.]: Kreuzsäule im Hof des ehemaligen Schlosses Berg (217) Berg 31: Bahnhofstraße 58 Berg 32: Bergweg 3 (Berggasse 37) Berg 33: Berggasse 15 Berg 34: Berggasse 16 (218) Berg 35: Berggasse 34 (Teil des Schlosses Berg) Berg 36: Berggasse 35 (Teil des Schlosses Berg) Berg 37: Berggasse 32 (Teil des Schlosses Berg) Berg 38: Bahnhofstraße 46 Berg 39: Hofmark 7 (219) Berg 40: Bahnhofstraße 45 Berg 41: Berggasse 25 Berg 42: Berggasse 26 Berg 43: Berggasse 31 Berg 41 und 42 (220) Berg 44: Berggasse 24 (Teil des Schlosses Berg) Berg 45: Bahnhofstraße 4 Berg 46: Bahnhofstraße 64 Berg 47: Berggasse 18 (221) Berg 48: Hofmark 5 Berg 49: Stifterstraße 67 Berg 50: Stifterstraße 31 Berg 51: Hofmark 9 (222) Berg 52: Berggasse 17 Berg 53 (alt): Baufläche 1956 gelöscht Berg 53 (neu): Berggasse 33 (Teil des Schlosses Berg) Berg 54: Bahnhofstraße 31 Berg 55: Bahnhofstraße 33 (223) Berg 56: Bahnhofstraße 35 Berg 57: Bahnhofstraße 37 Berg 58: Bahnhofstraße 39 Berg 59: Bahnhofstraße 41 Berg 60: Bahnhofstraße 65 (224) Berg 61: Bahnhofstraße 67 Berg 62: Wimholzsiedlung 1 Berg 63: Wimholzsiedlung 2 Berg 64: Wimholzsiedlung 3 Berg 65: Wimholzsiedlung 4 (225) Berg 66: Wimholzsiedlung 5 Berg 67: Wimholzsiedlung 6 Berg 68: Wimholzsiedlung 7 Berg 69: Wimholzsiedlung 8 (226) Berg 70: Wimholzsiedlung 9 Berg 71: Wimholzsiedlung 10 Berg 72: Wimholzsiedlung 11 Berg 73: Wimholzsiedlung 12 (227) Berg 74: Wimholzsiedlung 13 (227) Berg 75: Wimholzsiedlung 17 Berg 76: Wimholzsiedlung 15 Berg 77: Wimholzsiedlung 16 (228) Berg 78: Wimholzsiedlung 14 (228) Berg 79: Bahnhofstraße 54 Berg 80: Bahnhofstraße 53 Berg 81: Hofmark 8 Berg 82: Mitterweg 15 (229) Berg 83: Bergweg 20 (Berggasse 45) Berg 84: Bergweg 6 (Berggasse 38) Berg 85: Hofmark 11 Berg 86: Angerweg 2 Berg 87: Bahnhofstraße 59 (230) Berg 88: Stifterstraße 68 Berg 89: Hofmark 14 Berg 90: Bahnhofstraße 38 Berg 91: Bahnhofstraße 42 Berg 92: Bahnhofstraße 40 (231) Berg 93: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 3 Berg 94: Stifterstraße 33 Berg 95: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 10 Berg 96: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 5 Berg 97: Berggasse 30 Berg 98: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 7 (232) Berg 99: Hofmmark 13 Berg 100: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 4 Berg 102: Bergweg 13 Berg 103: Bahnhofstraße 62 (233) Berg 104: Bahnhofstraße 56 Berg 105: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 2 Berg 106: Stifterstraße 32 Berg 107: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 9 Berg 108: Bahnhofstraße 44 (234) [Abb.]: Bildstock beim Haus Berg 106 (Stifterstraße 32); der kielförmige Bogen erinnert an ein spätgotisches Vorbild. (235) Berg 109: Pfaffenberg 1 (Berggasse 27) Berg 110: Berggasse 22 Berg 111: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 11 Berg 112: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 15 Berg 113: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 6 (236) Berg 114: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 1 Berg 115: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 8 Berg 116: Bahnhofstraße 42a Berg 117: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 16 Berg 118: Mitterweg 16 (237) Berg 119: Spielplatzgasse 3 (237) Berg 120: Mokereistraße 1 Berg 121: Mokereistraße 2 Berg 122: Hofmark 10 Berg 123: Bahnhofstraße 36 (238) Berg 124: Bahnhofstraße 70 Berg 125: Bahnhofstraße 69 Berg 126: Mitterweg 5 Berg 127: Mitterweg 6 Berg 128: Mitterweg 7 Berg 129: Hofmark 12 (239) Berg 130: Wimholzsiedlung 18 Berg 131: Stifterstraße 43 (früher 38) Berg 132: Stifterstraße 435 (früher 39) Berg 133: Stifterstraße 47 (früher 40) Berg 134: Stifterstraße 49 (früher 41) Berg 135: Stifterstraße 31 (früher 42) (240) Berg 136: Stifterstraße 53 (früher 43) Berg 137: Stifterstraße 50 (früher 55) Berg 138: Stifterstraße 41 (früher 37) Berg 139: Hofmark 24 Berg 140: Bahnhofstraße 71 (241) Berg 141: Bahnhofstraße 51 (241) Berg 142: Bahnhofstraße 56 Berg 143: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 14 Berg 144: Mitterweg 17 Berg 145: Bergfeld 9 Berg 146: Stifterstraße 37 (früher 35) (242) Berg 147: Bergfeld 7 Berg 148: Bahnhofstraße 72 Berg 149: Wimholzsiedlung 24 Berg 150: Angerweg 1 (Bahnhofstraße 76) Berg 151: Bergfeld 5 Berg 152: Stifterstraße 34 (243) Berg 153: Stifterstraße 55 (früher 44) Berg 154: Molkereistraße 3 Berg 155: Molkereistraße 4 Berg 156: Stifterstraße 52 Berg 157: Bergfeld 4 (244) Berg 158: Höhenweg 5 (Berggasse 46) Berg 159: Molkereistraße 6 Berg 160: Stifterstraße 57 (früher 45) Berg 161: Bahnhofstraße 63 Berg 162: Bergfeld 1 Berg 163: Bahnhofstraße 34 (245) Berg 164: Wimholzsiedlung 20 Berg 165: Stift-Schägler-Siedlung 17 Berg 166: Stift-Schägler-Siedlung 18 Berg 167: Berggasse 47 Berg 168: Berggasse 48 (246) Berg 169: Bergfeld 6 (246) Berg 170: Angerweg 4 Berg 171: Angerweg 5 Berg 172: Bahnhofstraße 60 Berg 173: Mitterweg 13 (247) Berg 174: Angerweg 6 Berg 175: Bahnhofstraße 43 Berg 176: Bahnhofstraße 48 Berg 177 und 178: Bahnhofstraße 78 und 77 Berg 179: Bergfeld 2 Berg 180: Bergfeld 3 (248) Berg 181: Berggasse 29 Berg 182: Berggasse 39, 49 Berg 183: Berggasse 40 Berg 184: Berggasse 44 Berg 185 und 186: Bergweg 14a Berg 188: Bergweg 17 (249) Berg 189: Bergweg 18 und 18a Berg 190: Bergweg 24 Berg 191: Fürlingerberg 1 Berg 192: Fürlingerberg 4 Berg 193: Fürlingerberg 6 (250) Berg 194: Fürlingerberg 8 (250) Berg 195: Fürlingerberg 10 Berg 196: Höhenweg 1 Berg 197: Höhenweg 2 Berg 198: Hofmark 23 (251) [Abb.]: Maria Trost bei Rohrbach. ([252]) Berg 199: Berg 200: Maria Trost 5 Berg 201: Mitterweg 4 Berg 202: Pfaffenberg 6 Berg 203: Schulweg 5 Berg 204: Bergfeld 13 Berg 205: Stifterstraße 30 Berg 206: Stifterstraße 35 (253) [Abb.]: Kreuzsäule am Pfaffenberg auf der Kuppe des Zwischenmühlrückens gelegen, markiert einen Punkt von ganz besonders weitreichender Fernsicht (254) Berg 207: Stifterstraße 58 Berg 208: Stifterstraße 60 Berg 209: Stifterstraße 64 Berg 210: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 6a Berg 211: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 6b Berg 212: Stift-Schlägler-Siedlung 19 Berg 213: Wimholzsiedlung 22 Berg 214: Wimholzsiedlung 23 (255) Berg 215: Im Tal 4 Berg 216: Wimholzsiedlung 25 Berg 217: Wimholzsiedlung 26 Berg 218: Bahnhofstraße 50 Berg 219: Höhenweg 3 Berg 220: Rödernweg 4 Berg 221: Molkereistraße 13 Berg 222: Bahnhofstraße 49 (256) Berg 223: Höhenweg 9 Berg 224: Bergweg 10 Berg 225: Hafnerweg 1 Berg 226: Hafnerweg 2 Berg 227: Bergweg 8 Berg 228: Fürlingerweg 12 Berg 229: Stifterstraße 48 Berg 230: Berggasse 9 (257) Berg 231: Im Tal 15 Berg 232: Im Tal 22 Berg 233: Im Tal 23 Berg 234: Im Tal 25 Berg 235: Im Tal 26 Berg 236: Im Tal 30 Berg 237: Pfaffenberg 9 Berg 238: Bahnhofstraße 52 Berg 239: Mitterweg 9 Berg 240: Mitterweg 14 Berg 241: Molkereistraße 12 (258) [Abb.]: Grabstein des Franz Anton Graf von Rödern (gestorben am 20. März 1718) Der Stein befindet sich an der Straße vor der Garage des Hauses Berggasse 32 (Berg 37). (259) Anhang zu Berg: Literaturauswahl (260) Götzendorf ([261]) [Abb.]: Götzendorf ([261]) [Karte]: ([262]) Geschichtliche Entwicklung (263) Die Herren von Götzendorf 1180 -1422 (263) Herren von Oedt auf Götzendorf 1453 - 1756 (264) [Abb.]: Der Meierhof nach einer alten Aufnahme. Max Holzer, Verwalter Stöckl. ([265]) Fürsten von Lamberg 1758 - 1912 (267) Benefizium Götzendorf 1719 (267a) Nachträge zu Götzendorf (267b) [Abb.]: Wappenstein Wolf von Oedt ([268]) Häuserchronik Götzendorf (269) Götzendorf 1 (269) Götzendorf 2 (270) Literatur zu Götzendorf (270) Götzendorf 3 (270) [Abb.]: Gezendorf. Kupferstich des Schlosses Götzendorf aus dem Jahre 1674 (271) Götzendorf 4 (272) Götzendorf 5 (272) Götzendorf 6 (273) Götzendorf 7 (273) Götzendorf 8 (274) Götzendorf 9 (275) Götzendorf 10 (276) Götzendorf 11 (277) Götzendorf 12 (alt) (277) Götzendorf 12 (neu) (278) Götzendorf 13 (279) Götzendorf 14 (279) Götzendorf 15 (280) Götzendorf 16 (281) Götzendorf 17 (282) Götzendorf 18 (283) Götzendorf 19 (283) Götzendorf 20 (284) [Abb.]: Hammerschmiede Götzendorf 20. Die Zuleitung des Fischbaches zum Betreiben des schweren Schmiede-Hammers ist noch zu erkennen, die Schmiede jedoch längst nicht mehr in Betrieb. Derzeit bietet eine Gaststätte für Ausflügler und Wanderer willkommene Rast. Im Hintergrund das Nebenhaus, das Obergeschoß von einem geschnitzten Geländer umgeben. (285) Götzendorf 21 (286) Götzendorf 22 (287) Götzendorf 23 (alt) (287) Götzendorf 23 (neu) (288) Götzendorf 24 (288) [Abb.]: Christophorustafel. Spätgotisches Tafelbild, wohl bald nach 1500 entstanden, befand sich ursprünglich in der Schloßkapelle als Heiligenbild beim Hochaltar und wurde zu Beginn des 20. Jh. der Galerie des Stiftes Schlägl überschrieben. Möglicherweisee wurde sie anläßlich der Taufe des hanns Christoph von Oedt (um 1550) angeschafft. ([289]) Götzendorf 25 Götzendorf 26 (290) Götzendorf 27 Götzendorf 28 Götzendorf 29 (291) Götzendorf 30 Götzendorf 31 Götzendorf 32 Götzendorf 33 Götzendorf 34 Götzendorf 36 Götzendorf 37 (292) Götzendorf 39 Götzendorf 40 Götzendorf 41 Götzendorf 42 Götzendorf 43 Götzendorf 45 Götzendorf 50 Götzendorf 52 (293) [Abb.]: Johannes - Nepomuk - Statue. Dies wurde 1719 von Hanns Christoph von Oedt anläßlich seiner Übernahme von Schloß und Herrschaft Götzendorf und als Denkmal für seine 1719 verstorbene Ehefrau Charlotte von Geyersperg (Heirat 1707) errichtet. ([294]) [Abb.]: Dorfkapelle. Sie steht an der Straße zur Hammerschmiede und ist vielleicht identisch mit der Kapelle, über die Benedikt Pillwein 1830 geschrieben hat: 430 Schritte von der Schloßkapelle befindet sich eine dem Einsturz nahe Kapelle. Möglicherweise befand sich hier die Götzendorfer Madonna, bevor sie zum Schutz vor der Witterung und anderen Unbilden in ein Privathaus gebracht worden ist. ([296]) Götzendorf 56 Götzendorf 58 Götzendorf 59 (296a) [Abb.]: Die Götzendorfer Madonna kann stilistisch der Spätgotik zugerechnet werden und ist wohl kurz nach 1500 entstanden. Sie befand sich ursprünglich in der Schloßkapelle und ist derzeit in einem Privathaus (296b) Altenhofen. ([297]) [Abb.]: ([297]) [Karte]: Altenhofen ([298]) Häuserchronik Altenhofen (299) Altenhofen 1 (299) Altenhofen 2 (300) Altenhofen 3 (300) Altenhofen 4 (301) [2 Abb.]: Koblbauer. Der Stattliche Hof des Koblbauer (Altenhofen 5) mit dem restaurierten Türgericht vom Jahr 1810 ([302]) Altenhofen 5 (303) [2 Abb.]: Dorfkapelle gehört zum Haus Altenhofen 2 und ist bemerkenswert wegen ihrer zweiachsigen Anlage und der relativ qualitätsvollen Einrichtung: (1)Christus am Kreuz, in Holz geschnitzt, wohl 19. Jahrh., darunter ein Kästchen mit einem gewickelten Jesuskind, nach Art eines Reliquiars gestaltet. Früher befand sich bei der Kapelle noch ein Vorbau aus Holz mit Sitzbänken. (304) Arbesberg ([306]) [Karte]: Arbesberg ([306]) [Abb.]: Abb. Arbesberg 3 (307) Häuserchronik Arbesberg (308) Arbesberg 1 (308) Arbesberg 2 (309) [Abb.]: Dorfkapelle. Sie gehört zum Haus Nr. 3, dem Sonnleitner-Erbhof. Die Kapelle ist überdurchschnittlich gut gepflegt, mit frischen Blumen und grünen Sträuchern grschmückt, und enthält als große Seltenheit eine Madonna mit dem Jesuskind, beide mit Gewändern bekleidet, nach dem Vorbild des Hochaltares der Maria-Trost-Kirche am Berg bei Rohrbach. ([310]) Arbesberg 3 (311) Arbesberg 4 (312) Arbesberg 5 (312) Arbesberg 6 (313) Arbesberg 7 (314) Arbesberg 8 Arbesberg 9 Arbesberg 10 Arbesberg 11 Arbesberg 12 (315) Arbesberg 13 Arbesberg 14 Arbesberg 16 (316) Autengrub ([317]) [Abb.]: Autengrub wird urkundlich erstmals 1312 genannt: ([317]) [Karte]: Autengrub ([318]) Häuserchronik Autengrub (319) Autengrub 1 Doppelbauerngut (319) [3 Abb.]: (1)Oben rechts: Die frühere Dorfkapelle (2)Oben links: Die 1987 erbaute neue Dorfkapelle (3)Unten: Der Altar der neuen Kapelle ([320]) Autengrub 2 (321) Autengrub 3 Mitterbauerngut (322) Autengrub 4 (323) Autengrub 5 (324) Autengrub 6 (324) Autengrub 7.8 (325) Dobretshofen ([327]) [Abb.]: ([327]) [Karte]: ([328]) Häuserchronik Dobretshofen (329) Dobretshofen 1 (329) Dobretshofen 2 (329) Dobretshofen 3 (330) Dobretshofen 4 (331) Dobretshofen 5 (332) Dobretshofen 6 (333) [5 Abb.]: (1)Oben Dobtresthofen 5 wurde 1802 mit einer bemerkenswerten Stuckfassade versehen; Lorenz Windsteiger schmückte das Haus mit einem Fries, das Namen und Entstehungsjahr angibt; die Fenster des Obergeschoßes zierte er mit klassizistischen Elementen, dazwischen setzte er die Monogramme Jesu und Maria (ein absolut denkmalwürdiges Monument ländlicher Baukunst) Rechte Seite die Kapelle von Dobretshofen (2)Oben links: Kapelle beim Ruggerhof, mit einem schmucken modernen schmiedeeisernen Gitter versehen (3)oben rechts: Kreuzstein an der Landstraße, gußeiserner Kruzifixus mit versilbertem Schutzengel, auf Steinsockel montiert, datiert 1877 (4)unten links: Das Innere der Kapelle in Dobretshofen zeigt eine bäuerliche Malerei der Dreifaltigkeit, in den letzten Jahren aufgefrischt worden (5)unten rechts: Kapelle beim Grüblhof, 1971 neu erbaut anstelle einer baufälligen, die verkehrsmäßig ungünstig gelegen war ([334 - 335]) Dobretshofen 7 (336) Dobretshofen 8 (336) Dobretshofen 9.10 (337) Dobretshofen 11 (338) Dobretshofen 12 (339) Dobretshofen 13 (340) [Abb.]: Die Neumühle (Dobretshofen 12) an der kleinen Mühl, nach dem Türgericht 1829 von Jakob Koblmiller erbaut (340) Fraundorf ([341]) [Abb.]: ([341]) [Karte]: Fraundorf ([342]) Häuserchronik Fraundorf (343) Fraundorf 1 (343) Fraundorf 2 (344) Fraundorf 3 (344) Fraundorf 4 (345) Fraundorf 5 (346) Fraundorf 6 (347) Fraundorf 7 (347) Fraundorf 8 (348) Fraundorf 9 (349) Fraundorf 10 (350) [Abb.]: Kapelle des Hauses Fraundorf 1 erbaut 1856 von Johann Gahleitner renoviert circa 1980 (350) Frindorf ([351]) [Abb.]: ([351]) Die Gemeinde Frindorf (352) Die Bürgermeister von Frindorf [1854 - 1945] (353) [Karte]: Frindorf ([354]) Häuserchronik Frindorf (355) Frindorf 1 (355) Frindorf 2 (355) Frindorf 3 (356) Frindorf 4 (357) Frindorf 5 (358) [Abb.]: Kapelle. Anstelle der freistehenden Kapelle des Hauses Frindorf 5 wurde um 1980 eine Nische an der Außenmauer des Hauses gestaltet. Die Statue Maria mit dem Jesuskind stammt vom Bildhauer Ägidius Gamsjäger, Raffelding bei Eferding. Das Schmiedeeiserne Gitter machte Heinrich Grill, Kunstschmied in Rohrbach. (359) Frindorf 6 (360) Frindorf 7 (361) Frindorf 8 (361) Frindorf 9 (362) Frindorf 10 (363) Frindorf 11 (364) Frindorf 12 (364) Frindorf 13 (365) Frindorf 14 (366) Frindorf 15 (367) Frindorf 16.17 (367) [2 Abb.]: (1)Oben: Die Teufelsbruckmühle (Frindorf 16.17) (2)Rechts: Bildstock bei Frindorf vom Jahr 1670 ([368]) Frindorf 18 (369) Frindorf 19 Frindorf 20 (370) Fürling ([371]) [Abb.]: ([371]) [Karte]: Fürling ([372]) Häuserchronik Fürling (373) Fürling 1 (373) Fürling 2.19 (374) Fürling 3 (375) Fürling 4 (375) Fürling 5 Fürling 6 (377) Fürling 7 Fürling 8 (378) Fürling 9 (378) Fürling 10 Fürling 11 (alt) Fürling 11 (neu) (379) Fürling 12 Fürling 13 Fürling 14 Fürling 15 Fürling 16 (380) [2 Abb.]: (1)Breitpfeiler im Fürlingerholz an der Straße von Fürling nach Aigen-Schlägl datiert 1850 (2)Bildstock (sog. Hexensäule) an der Straße zwischen Berg (Molkerei) und Fürling (381) Fürling 17 Fürling 18 Fürling 19 Fürling 20 Fürling 21 Fürling 22 Fürling 23 Fürling 24 (382) Fürling 27 Fürling 28 Fürling 32 Fürling 33 Fürling 34 Fürling 35 Fürling 38 (383) [Abb.]: Kruzifix. Kreuzigungsdarstellung mit einem Blechschnitt-Christus beim Haus Fürling 1 (384) Gattergaßling ([385]) [Abb.]: ([385]) [Karte]: Gattergaßling ([386]) Häuserchronik Gattergaßling (387) Gattergaßling 1 (387) Gattergaßling 2 (388) Gattergaßling 3 Gattergaßling 4 (389) Gattergaßling 5 (389) [2 Abb.]: (1)Pfefferhof ist eines der traditionsreichsten Güter der Pfarre Rohrbach (Gattergaßling Nr. 5) (2)Grand des Pfefferhofes aus dem Jahr 1829; er war ursprünglich beim Asanger in Fraundorf 1 ([390]) [2 Abb.]: (1)Bildstock bei Gattergaßling aus dem Jahr 1717 (2)Stuck in der Stube des Pfefferhofes (Gattergaßling 5 ) aus dem Jahr 1807 mit Christus- und Marien-Monogramm (391) Gattergaßling 6 Gattergaßling 7 (393) Gattergaßling 8 (393) Gattergaßling 9 (394) Gattergaßling 10 Gattergaßling 11 (395) [Abb.]: Kapelle beim Dorf Gattergaßling am Türgericht mit 1889 datiert doch vermutlich wesentlich älter (396) Gierling (397) [Abb.]: Gierling 2/3 ([398]) Häuserchronik Gierling (399) Gierling 1.2 (399) Gierling 3 (400) Gierling 4 (401) Gierling 5 (401) Gintersberg (403) [Karte]: Gintersberg ([404]) Gintersberg 1 (405) [Abb.]: Kapelle von Gintersberg (406) Gintersberg 2 ([407]) Gintersberg 3 ([407]) Gintersberg 4 (408) Gintersberg 5.6 (409) Gollner ([411]) [Abb.]: ([411]) [Karte]: ([412]) Häuserchronik Gollner (413) Gollner 1 (413) Gollner 2 (414) Gollner 3 (415) Gollner 4 (415) Gollner 5 (416) [2 Abb.]: Tür und Tor. Besonders gelungen gestaltetes Hoftor (durch geschmiedete Nägel das Sonnenrad angedeutet) und hübsche Haustüre (mit klassizistischen Elementen geschmückt) des Hauses Gollner 5 ([417]) [2 Abb.]: Abb. S. 418: (1)Links oben: Der stattliche Hof Gollner 5 (2)Links unten: Bäuerliche Pietà mit dem hl. Johannes Nep. und einem Pilger (Jakobus,? Felix?), Hauskapelle Gollner 7. ([418]) Gollner 6 (419) Gollner 7 (420) Gollner 8 (421) Gollner 9 (und 15) (422) Gollner 10 (423) Gollner 11.12 (424) Gollner 13 (425) Gollner 14 (426) Gollner 15 (426) Gollner 16 (427) Gollner 17 (428) Gollner 18 (428) Gollner 19 (429) Gollner 20 (429) Gollner 21 Gollner 22 (430 - [431]) [4 Abb.]: Zu den Abbildungen 431: (1)Oben links: Kapelle von Gollner mit Maria-Hilf-Bild, mit schmiedeeisernem Gitter versehen. (2)Oben rechts: Bildstock bei Gollner 5 aus dem Jahr 1690 (3)Unten links: Passionskreuz am Haus Gollner 18 (4)Unten rechts: Breitpfeiler bei Gollner 6 von 1852. Dieser Breitpfeiler wurde 1852 an der Straße zwischen Rohrbach und Gollner gesetzt zum Gedächtnis an den hier am 3. 1. 1852 am Schlagfluß verstorbenen Jakob Mandl aus Hintring; als an dieser Stelle ein Haus (Haslacherstr. 15) erbaut wurde, versetzte man den Bildstock zum Haus Gollner 6, weil hier eine Verwandte des Verstorbenen eingeheiratet hat (430 - [431]) Gollner 23 Gollner 24 Gollner 25 Gollner 26 Gollner 27 Gollner 28 Gollner 29 (432) Grub ([433]) [Karte]: Hauzenberg, Grub ([434]) Häuserchronik Grub (435) Grub 1 (435) Grub 2 (436) Grub 3 (437) Grub 4 Grub 5 Grub 6 (438) [Abb.]: Kapelle zwischen der Ortschaft Grub und dem Haus Grub Nr. 5 (439) Grub 7 Grub 8 Grub 9 (440) [Abb.]: Dreifaltigkeitsbild in der Kapelle zwischen Grub und dem Haus Grub 5. (441) Harau ([442]) [Karte]: Harrau ([442]) Häuserchronik von Harau (444) Harau 1.6 (444) Harau 2 (444) [Abb.]: Bildstock in Form einer Laterne mit Madonnenstatue, zur Erinnerung an Frau Maria Schauer, die ihren Hof (Harau 2) der Pfarrkirche Rohrbach vermacht hat, errichtet an der Stelle, wo die Kapelle ihres Hauses stand. Diesen Bildstock ließ die Pfarre Rohrbach vom Steinmetzmeister Karl Grünzweil, Helfenberg-Waldhäuser im Jahr 1976 anfertigen und aufstellen. ([445]) Harau 3.13 (446) Harau 4.5 (Inhäusel) (447) Harau 7 (448) Harau 8 Harau 9 Harau 10 Harau 11 (449) Harau 12 (Rohrbach 316) Harau 14 (450) Hauzenberg (451) Häuserchronik Hauzenberg (452) Hauzenberg 1 (452) Hauzenberg 2 (452) [2 Abb.]: (1)Kapelle des Hauses Hauzenberg 2 (2)Hauzenberg Blick auf Straße und Dorfanger (453) Hauzenberg3.6 (454) Hauzenberg 4 (455) [Abb.]: Kapelle an der Straßengabelung Hauzenberg/Grub, im Volksmund Wildin- (Witwen-) Kapelle bei Hauzenberg genannt; 1985 renoviert. (456) Hauzenberg 5 Hauzenberg 6 (457) Hauzenberg 7 (458) Hehenberg (459) [Karte]: Hehenberg (460) Häuserchronik Hehenberg (461) Hehenberg 1 (461) Hehenberg 2 (461) Hehenberg 3 (462) Hehenberg 4 (463) [2 Abb.]: Kreuzsäule an der Rohrbacher Bundesstraße vom Jahr 1663 gehört zum Rimpflergut (Hehenberg 5) (464) [Abb.]: Hehenberg. Blick auf die Streusiedlung, im Hintergrund der namenlose hohe Berg, von Kimerting aus ([465]) Schutzengel ([465]) Hehenberg 5 (466) Hehenberg 6 Hehenberg 7 (über Arbesberg) (467) Hehenberg 8 (über Arbesberg) (467) Hehenberg 9 (468) Hehenberg 10 (über Arbesberg) (468) Hehenberg 11 Hehenberg 12 (469) Hehenberg 13 Hehenberg 14 Hehenberg später Fürling 10 (470) Notiz zum Schutzengel von Hehenberg (470) Hintring (471) [Abb.]: Hintring 2 ([472]) [Karte]: Hintring ([472]) Häuserchronik Hintring (473) Hintring 1 (473) Hintring 2.3 (473) Hintring 4 (474) Hintring 5 (475) Hintring 6 (476) Hintring 7 (477) Hintring 8 (477) Hintring 9 Hintring 11 (478) Hundbrenning (479) Häuserchronik Hundbrenning (481) Hundbrenning 1 (481) [Karte]: Hundbrenning (482 - [483]) [4 Abb.]: Zu den Abbildungen der nächsten Seite: (1)Oben links: Bildstock bei Hundbrenning 18 neugotische, sorgfältige Formgebung (2)Oben rechts: Kreuzsäule zwischen Felberau und Hundbrenning (3)Unten links: Kapelle im Dorf Hundbrenning, von benachbarten Bäumen stark bedrängt (4)Unten rechts: Kapelle bei Hundbrenning 13 (Almesmühl, Krennschmiede) (482 - [483]) Hundbrenning 2.3 (484) Hundbrenning 4 (484) [2 Abb.]: (1)Hundbrenning, Dorfmitte (2) Hundbrenning 13 ([485]) Hundbrenning 5 (486) Hundbrenning 6 (alt) Hundbrenning 6 (neu) (487) Hundbrenning 7 Hofer (487) Hundbrenning 8 (488) Hundbrenning 9 (489) Hundbrenning 10 (490) Hundbrenning 11 (490) Hundbrenning 12 (491) Hundbrenning 13 (491) Hundbrenning 14 (492) Hundbrenning 15 (493) Hundbrenning 16 (alt) Hundbrenning 16 (neu) (494) Hundbrenning 17 (alt) Hundbrenning 17 (neu) Hundbrenning 18 (alt) Hundbrenning 18 (neu) Hundbrenning 19 (495) Hundbrenning 20 (495) Hundbrenning 21 Hundbrenning 22 Hundbrenning 23 (alt) Hundbrenning 23 (neu) (496) Katzing (497) [Karte]: Katzing (498) Häuserchronik von Katzing (499) Katzing 1 (499) Katzing 2.3 Katzing 3 (500) Katzing 4.5 (501) Katzing 6 (501) Katzing 7 (502) Katzing 8 (503) [Abb.]: Katzing ([504]) [2 Abb.]: (1)Kapelle im Dorf Katzing (2)Kapelle bei Katzing 4/5 Schwalsed, Neumühl (505) Katzing 9 (506) Katzing 10 (506) Katzing 11 Katzing 12 Katzing 13 (507) Katzing 14 Katzing 15 Katzing 16 Katzing 17 Katzing 18 Katzing 19 (508) Keppling (509) [Karte]: Keppling (510) Häuserchronik Keppling (511) Keppling 1 (511) Keppling 2 (511) [2 Abb.]: (1)Kapelle im Dorfe Keppling (2)Unten: Inneres der Kapelle. Bäuerliche Malerei (512) Keppling 3.7 (513) Keppling 4 Ringsenberg (514) [2 Abb.]: (1)Keppling Ansicht von der Dorfstraße (2)Bildstock bei Ringsenberg ([515]) Keppling 5 (516) Keppling 6 (516) Keppling 9 Keppling 10 (517) Keppling 11 Keppling 12 Keppling 13 Keppling 15 Keppling 17 Keppling 18 Keppling 19 Keppling 20 (518) Krien (519) [Karte]: Krien (520) Häuserchronik Krien (521) Krien 1 (521) Krien 2 (521) Krien 3 (522) [2 Abb.]: (1)Krien Blick ins Dorf (2)Kapelle beim Haus Krien 5 ca. 1983 neu erbaut von der F. Feuerwehr ([523]) Krien 4 (524) Krien 5 (525) Krien 6 (525) Krien 7 (526) Krien 8 Krien 9 (527) Krien 10 Krien 11 Krien 13 (528) Lanzerstorf (529) Lanzerstorf (529) Häuserchronik Lanzerstorf (530) Lanzerstorf 1 (530) Lanzerstorf 2 (531) [Karte]: Lanzerstorf ( - ) Lanzerstorf 3 (532) Lanzerstorf 4 (533) [Abb.]: Lanzerstorf. Blick von Westen in die bäuerliche Siedlung (links Nr. 3 und 2, rechts Nr. 4 zu sehen) ( - ) Lanzerstorf 5 (534) Lanzerstorf 6 (535) Lanzerstorf 7 (alt) Lanzerstorf 7 (neu) (537) Lanzerstorf 8.9 (537) Lanzerstorf 10 (538) [Abb.]: Wolketsberg. Blick auf eines der modernisierten Häuser dieses Weilers ( - ) Lanzerstorf 11 (539) [Abb.]: Passionskreuz bei Wolketsberg, geschnitzt von Heinrich Vierlinger, Lanzerstorf 12, um das Jahr 1950 ([540]) Lanzerstorf 12.13 (541) Lanzerstorf 13 Lanzerstorf 14 (542) Lanzerstorf 15 Lanzerstorf 16 Lanzerstorf 17 Lanzerstorf 18 (543) Lanzerstorf 19 Lanzerstorf 20.29 Lanzerstorf 21 Lanzerstorf 22 Lanzerstorf 23 (544) Lanzerstorf 24 Lanzerstorf 25 Lanzerstorf 26 Lanzerstorf 27 Lanzerstorf 28 Lanzerstorf 29 (545) Lanzerstorf 30 Lanzerstorf 31 (546) Liebetsberg (547) [Abb.]: ([548]) [Karte]: Liebetsberg ([548]) Liebetsberg 1 (549) Liebetsberg 2 (549) Liebetsberg 3.9 (550) [Abb.]: Kapelle in Liebetsberg (551) Liebetsberg 4 (552) Liebetsberg 5 (552) Liebetsberg 6 (553) Liebetsberg 7 (553) Liebetsberg 8 (554) Märzing (555) [2 Karten]: (1)Obermärzing (2)Untermärzing (556) Märzing 1 (557) Märzing 2 (alt) (557) Märzing 2 (neu) (558) Märzing 3 (558) Märzing 4 (559) Märzing 5 (alt) Märzing 5 (neu) (560) Märzing 6 (561) Märzing 7 (561) [2 Abb.]: (1)Oben: Märzing 6 (2)Unten: Märzing 7 ([562]) Märzing 8.9 (563) Märzing 10 (564) Märzing 11 (= Hundbrenning 18) (565) [6 Abb.]: (1)Oben links: Breitpfeiler bei Untermärzing (2)Oben rechts: Passionskreuz am Haus Obermärzing 7 Abbildungen der rechten Seite: (3)Breitpfeiler in Obermärzing, eingemeißelter Text siehe Märzing 8.9 (4)Oben links: Madonna mit Jesuskind Rückseite des Breitpfeilers (5)Unten links: Kapelle in Untermärzing (Märzing 6). Wegen des Straßenbaues hierher versetzt (6)Unten rechts: madonna mit dem Jesuskind in moderner ansprechender Formgebung im Inneren der Kapelle von Märzing 6 (566 - 567) Märzing 12 (= Spielleiten 4) Märzing 13 Märzing 14 Märzing 15 (568) Mayrhof (569) [Abb.]: Troadkasten bei Mayhof (abgetragen) ([570]) [Karte]: Mayrhof ([570]) Mayrhof 1 (früher: Rohrbach 164) Mayrhof 3 (früher: Rohrbach 76 und 78) (571) Mayrhof 5 (früher Rohrbach 79) (572) Neundling (573) [Karte]: Neundling ([574]) Neundling 1 (575) Neundling 2 (575) Neundling 3 (576) Neundling 4 (577) Neundling 5 (577) Neundling 6.10 (578) Neundling 7 (579) Neundling 8 (580) Neundling 9 (580) Neundling 11 (581) Neundling 12 (582) Neundling 13 (beim "Kaiser) (583) Neundling 14 (583) Neundling 15 (584) Neundling 16 Neundling 17 Neundling 18 (585) Neundling 19 Neundling 20 Neundling 21 Neundling 22 Neundling 23 Neundling 24 Neundling 25 (586) Nößlbach (587) [Abb.]: ([588]) [Karte]: Nößlbach ([588]) Nößlbach 1.2 (589) Nößlbach 3 (590) Nößlbach 4.5 (591) Nößlbach 6.14 (592) Nößlbach 7 (592) Nößlbach 8 (593) [2 Abb.]: (1)Tannzepfenmühle (Nößlbach 9) (2)Holzhäusl bei der Tannzepfmühle (Nößlb. 10) Interessant hier die Holzbauweise auf einem gemauerten Sockel ([594]) Nößlbach 9 (595) Nößlbach 10 (596) Nößlbach 11.17 (596) [2 Abb.]: (1)Bildstock bei Nößlbach Kruzifix aus Gußeisen mit Maria, Johannes und Maria Magdalena (knieend Granitsockel mit Christusmonogramm IHS und Jahreszahl 1895 (2)Unten: Die Magerlmühle (Nößlbach 11) (597) Nößlbach 12 (alt) (598) Nößlbach 12 (neu) Nößlbach 13 Nößlbach 14 Nößlbach 15 (599) Nößlbach 16 Nößlbach 17 (von Nr. 11 abgetrennt 1986) Nößlbach Nößlbach 18 (600) Nößlbach 19 Nößlbach 20 Nößlbach 21 Nößlbach 22 Nößlbach 23 (601) Nößlbach 24 Nößlbach 25 Nößlbach 26 Nößlbach 27 Nößlbach 28 (602) Nößlbach 29 Nößlbach 30 Nößlbach 31 Nößlbach 32 Nößlbach 33 (603) Nößlbach 35 Nößlbach 36 Nößlbach 37 Nößlbach 38 (604) Oberfischbach (605) [Karte]: Oberfischbach (606) Oberfischbach 1 (607) Oberfischbach 2 (607) Oberfischbach 3 (alt) Oberfischbach 3 (neu) (608) Oberfischbach 4 (609) Oberfischbach 5 (609) [5 Abb.]: (1)Abbildung links: Schmiedeeisernes Kreuz zum Andenken an den 1885 zwischen Kimmerting und Oberfischbach im 19. Lebensjahr verunglückten Johannes Jell (Oberfischbach 7) (2)Abb. links unten: Ehrwürdiges Bauernhaus mit alten metallenen Fensterläden Abbildungen der rechten Seite (3)Obere Hälfte: Kapelle in Oberfischbach in den letzten Jahren sorgfältig renoviert (4),(5)Madonna mit dem Jesuskind, im Hintergrund 2 Engel mit den Symbolen des Leidens Christi, in der Kapelle in Oberfischbach. (610 - 611) Oberfischbach 6 (612) Oberfischbach 7 Oberfischbach 8 Oberfischbach 9 Oberfischbach 10 (613) Obergahleiten (614) [Abb.]: Hötzeneck (Obergahleiten 7) (614) [Karte]: Obergahleiten (616) Obergahleiten 1 (617) Obergahleiten 2 Gumpenberg (618) Obergahleiten 3 Ruetzhof (618) [2 Abb.]: (1)Abb. links: Kapelle beim Haus Obergahleiten 4 (2)Abb. unten: Obergahleiten Blick zur Dorfmitte (619) Obergahleiten 4 (620) Obergahleiten 5 (621) Obergahleiten 6 (622) Obergahleiten 7 Hötzeneck (622) [2 Abb.]: (1)Abb. links: Kapelle bei Pecketsberg (2)Abb. unten Pecketsberg (Obergahleiten 8) (623) Obergahleiten 8 Pecktesberg (624) Obergahleiten 9 (625) Obergahleiten 10 (626) Obergahleiten 11 (627) Obergahleiten 12 (627) Obergahleiten 13 (628) Obergahleiten 14 (629) Obergahleiten 15 Obergahleiten 16 Obergahleiten 17 Obergahleiten 19 (630) Peherstorf (631) [Karte]: Peherstorf (632) Peherstorf 1 (633) Peherstorf 2 (633) Peherstorf 3 (634) [2 Abb.]: (1)Peherstorf Nr. 1 (2)Oberöhlingerhof, Peherstorf 5 (635) Peherstorf 4 (636) Peherstorf 5 (637) Peherstorf 6 (638) Peherstorf 7 (639) Peherstorf 8 Peherstorf 9 (640) Perwolfing (641) [3 Karten]: (1)Rothberg (2)Perwolfing (3)Andexling (642) Perwolfing 1 (643) Perwolfing 2.8 (643) [2 Abb.]: Perwolfing (644) Perwolfing 3 (645) Perwolfing 4.16 (646) [2 Abb.]: (1)Abb. links: bei Perwolfing aus dem Jahr 1710 (2)Abb. rechts: Breitpfeiler beim Haus Perwolfing 3 (647) Perwolfing 5 Andexling (648) Perwolfing 6 (648) Perwolfing 7 (650) Perwolfing 8 (650) Perwolfing 9 Perwolfing 10 (651) Perwolfing 11.12 (651) Perwolfing 13 Perwolfing 14 Perwolfing 15 (652) Perwolfing 16 Perwolfing 17 Perwolfing 18 Perwolfing 19 Perwolfing 20 (653) Perwolfing 21 Perwolfing 22 Perwolfing 23 Perwolfing 24 (654) Pitretsberg (655) [Karte]: Pitretsberg (656) Pitretsberg 1 (657) Pitretsberg 2 (658) [2 Abb.]: (1)Abb. links: Kapelle beim Dorf Pitretsberg (2)Abb. unten Blick auf das Dorf Pitretsberg (659) Pitretsberg 3 (660) Pitretsberg 4.7 (660) Pitretsberg 5 (661) Pitretsberg 6 (662) Pitretsberg 7 Pitretsberg 8 (663) Pitretsberg 9 Pitretsberg 10 Pitretsberg 11 Pitretsberg 12 Pitretsberg 13 (664) Reith (665) [Karte]: Reith (666) Reith 1 (667) Reith 2.3 (667) Reith 3 (668) [Abb.]: Kapelle bei Reith bemerkenswert das aus Steinen gemauerte Dach (669) Reith 4 (670) Reith 5 (670) Reith 6 (671) Reith 7 Reith 8 (673) Reith 9 Reith 10 Reith 11 (674) [2 Abb.]: (1)Bildstock bei Kollonödt (Reith 13) (2)Detail dieses Bildstockes mit der Jahreszahl 1713. Die Initialen MFN sind derzeit nicht auflösbar (675) Reith 12 Grundbuch KG Steineck 57 Reith 13 Grundbuch KG Steineck 72 Reith 14 Grundbuch KG Steineck 58 (676) Reith 15 Grundbuch KG Steineck 59 Reith 16 Grundbuch KG Steineck 73 Reith 17 Grundbuch KG Steineck 162 Reith 18 Grundbuch KG Steineck 164 (677) Reith 19 Grundbuch KG Steineck 217 (678) [Abb.]: Grenzstein der Katastralgemeinde Steineck an der Straße bei Reith vom Jahr 1787 (678) Rumerstorf (679) [Karte]: Rumerstorf (680) Rumerstorf 1 (680) [2 Abb.]: (1)Links: Troadkasten in Rumerstorf (2)Unten: Blick auf Rumerstorf von der Kapelle zur Dorfmitte (682) Rumerstorf 2 Rumerstorf 3 (683) Rumerstorf 4 (684) Rumerstorf 5.9 (684) Rumerstorf 6 (685) Rumerstorf 7 (686) [2 Abb.]: (1)Links: Kapelle von Rumerstorf 8, erbaut im Jahr 1978 (2)Rechts: Bildstock bei Rumerstorf 8. Stand als Pestsäule ursprünglich im nahen Buchetwald, soll dort ein Pestgrab angezeigt haben; wurde im Jahr 1964/65 ins Dorf versetzt und 1985 renoviert, nachdem sie von einem Lastkraftwagen umgefahren worden war (687) Rumerstorf 8 Rumerstorf 9 Rumerstorf 10 (688) Rumerstorf 11 (früher 3) Rumerstorf 12 Rumerstorf 13 (689) [Abb.]: Eingangstür zum Troadkasten von Rumerstorf, das dargestellte Muster meint die Sonnenscheibe und gibt Zeugnis vom sicheren Formgefühl der ländlichen Zimmerer (690) Scheiblberg (691) [Karte]: Scheiblberg (692) Scheiblberg 1 (693) [2 Abb.]: Scheiblberg 1 (694) Scheiblberg 2 (695) Scheiblberg 3 (696) Scheiblberg 4 (696) [2 Abb.]: (1)Scheiblhof (Scheiblberg 4) (2)Ehrenreiter (Scheiblberg 7.8) (697) Die Herleinsberger. (699) Scheiblberg 5.6 (701) [2 Abb.]: Herleinsperg (Scheiblberg 5) (1)Links: Die "Oberntür", gestaltet in Renaissanceformen, vor 1600 entstanden (1973 abgetragen) (2)Unten: Der Grand des Johann Berger vom Jahr 1829 (702) Scheiblberg 6 (703) Scheiblberg 7.8 (703) Scheiblberg 7 (neu) (704) Scheiblberg 9 (704) Scheiblberg 10 (705) Scheiblberg 11 (705) Scheiblberg 12 Scheiblberg 13 Scheiblberg 14 Scheiblberg 15 (706) Scheiblberg 16 Scheiblberg 17 Scheiblberg 18 Scheiblberg 19 Scheiblberg 20 Scheiblberg 21 (707) Scheiblberg 22 Scheiblberg 23 Scheiblberg 25 Scheiblberg 26 (708 - 709) [4 Abb.]: (1)Oben links: Kreuzsäule beim Bruckhäusl, Scheiblberg 9 hier datiert mit dem Jahr 1850 (2)Oben rechts: Die Brücke über den Froschbach in einfacher, gefälliger Formgebung; am Gewölbe datiert 1857 (3)Unten links: Kapelle unterhalb des Scheiblhofs (4)Unten rechts: Kapelle oberhalb des Scheiblhofs, ursprünglich eine Christophoruskapelle (708 - 709) Scheiblberg 27 Scheiblberg 28 Scheiblberg 30 Scheiblberg 31 Scheiblberg 34 Scheiblberg 35 (710) Schönberg (711) [Karte]: Schönberg (712) Schönberg 1 (713) Schönberg 2 (713) Schönberg 3 (714) Schönberg 4 (715) Schönberg 5 (716) Schönberg 6 (717) Schönberg 7.8 (717) Schönberg 9 (718) Schönberg 10.11 (719) Schönberg 11 (neu) (720) [Abb.]: Schönberg 4, Kapelle (720) Sexling (721) [Karte]: Sexling ([722]) Sexling 1.10 (723) Sexling 2.3 (723) [2 Abb.]: Sexling (1)Links: Bildstock bei Sexling, Inschrift GK 1832 (GK kann Georg Kobler oder Georg Kitzmüller bedeuten, Nr. 1 od. 7.8) (2)Unten Blick ins Dorf Sexling (724) Sexling 2 (neu) (725) Sexling 4 (725) Sexling 5.6 (726) Sexling 7.8 (727) Sexling 8 (neu) (728) Sexling 9 (728) Sexling 10 (Eigentümer siehe Sexling 1) (729) Sexling 11.12 (729) [2 Abb.] Zizelbauer (sexling 11.12) (1)Links: Kapelle beim Zizelhof (2)Unten: Blick auf den Zizelhof von Maria Trost aus (730) Sexling 13 (731) Sexling 14 (731) Sexling 15 Grundbuch KG Berg 119 (732) Sexling 16 (732) Sexling 17 (alt) Klingreithhäusel Herrschaft Berg 3/843 Grundbuch KG Berg 121 (733) Sexling 17 (neu) Sexling 18 herrschaft Pürnstein 161/681 Grundbuch KG Berg 122 (734) Sexling 19 Grundbuch KG Berg 153 (734) Sexling 20 Von Nr. 7.8 abgeschieben Sexling 21 Grundbuch KG Berg 270 Sexling 22 Grundbuch KG Berg 388 Sexling 23 Grundbuch KG Berg 410 (735) Sexling 24 Grundbuch KG Berg 462 Sexling 25 Grundbuch KG Berg 487 Sexling 26 Grundbuch KG Berg 489 Sexling 27 Grundbuch KG Berg 514 Sexling 28 Grundbuch KG berg 529 Sexling 29 Grundbuch KG Berg 536 (736) Sexling 30 Grundbuch KG Berg 626 Sexling 32 Grundbuch KG Berg 661 Sexling 33 Grundbuch KG Berg 660 Sexling 35 Grundbuch KG Berg 669 Sexling 36 Grundbuch KG Berg 663 Sexling 40 Grundbuch KG Berg 637 (737) Sexling 44 Grundbuch KG Berg 662 Sexling 47 Grundbuch Haus Nr. 7 in Sexling: KG Berg 220 Sexling 34 Sexling 37 Sexling 42 Sexling 43 Sexling 48 Sexling 51 (738) Spielleiten (739) [Karte]: Spielleiten (740) Spielleiten 1 (741) [Abb.]: Spielleiten 1 (742) Spielleiten 2 Spielleiten 3 (743) Spielleiten 4 (alt) Spielleiten 4 (neu) (744) Sprinzenstein (745) Eigentümer des Schlosses und der herrschaft Sprinzenstein [1253 - 1972] (746) Sprinzenstein als politische Gemeinde (1850 - 1945) (747) [Karte]: Sprinzenstein ([748]) Sprinzenstein 1 (749) Sprinzenstein 2.13 (749) [5 Abb.]: (1)Kupferstich des Schlosses Sprinzenstein aus dem Jahr 1674 von Georg Matthäus Vischer in der Topographia Austriae Superioris Modernae, Blatt 171. (2)Oben links: Felix-Kapelle beim Dorf Sprinzenstein mit der Inschrift: Gestiftet zu Ehren des heiligen Felix im Jahre nach Christi Geburt MDCCLX (1760). (3)Oben rechts: Statue des hl. Felix, wahrscheinlich aus dem Jahr 1760 (4)Unten rechts: Johannes Nepomuk-Kapelle zwischen Sprinzenstein und Altenhofen an der Landstraße, von mächtigen Bäumen stark eingeengt (5)Unten links: Statue Johannes Nepomuk aus dieser Kapelle. (750 - 751) Sprinzenstein 3 Sprinzenstein 4 (752) Sprinzenstein 5 (752) [2 Abb.]: Sprinzenstein (1)Kreuzsäule beim Schloß Sprinzenstein aus dem Jahr 1598 (2)Das Schloß am Abhang zur Kleinen Mühl in natürlich geschützter Lage (753) Sprinzenstein 6 (alt) (754) Sprinzenstein 6 (neu) Sprinzenstein 7 (755) [2 Abb.]: Sprinzenstein (1)Das Wappen des Schlosses Sprinzenstein in einer Renaissance-Kartusche: Oben rechts gekrönter schwarzer Greif (vogel), unten links ein Sprinz auf Steinen (redendes Wappen); oben links und unten rechts fünf schräg geteilte Felder; im Herzschild wachsender silberner Auerochs (2)Die Taverne des Schlosses mit der Bauinschrift 1574, eines der ältesten gemauerten Häuser der Gegend (756) Sprinzenstein 8 Sprinzenstein 9 (757) Sprinzenstein 10 Sprinzenstein 11.14 (758) Sprinzenstein 12 (alt) (758) [2 Abb.]: Sprinzenstein (1)Das Schloß, am Abhang zur Kleinen Mühl, von gewaltigen Fundamentmauern getragen (2)Die Sprinzelmühle (Sprinzenstein 11.14) in der Nähe des Schlosses an der Kleinen Mühl war lange Zeit Mühle und Säge (759) Sprinzenstein 12 (neu) Sprinzenstein 13 (760) Sprinzenstein 14 Sprinzenstein 15 Sprinzenstein 17 (761) Literatur zur Geschichte Sprinzensteins (762) Steineck (763) [Karte]: Steineck (764) Steineck 1 (765) Steineck 2 (765) [2 Abb.]: Steineck Voitenhof (Steineck 9.10) (766) Steineck 3 (alt) (767) Steineck 3 (neu) (768) Steineck 4 (768) Steineck 5 (769) Steineck 6 (770) Steineck 7 Pfeffermühle (770) [2 Abb.]: Pfeffermühle (Steineck 7) (1)Blick auf die angestaute Große Mühl mit der Zuleitung zur Mühle (2)Blick auf die Pfeffermühle in Richtung Nordwesten (771) Steineck 8 (772) [2 Abb.]: Pfeffermühl-Kapelle (1)Links: Ansicht der Kapelle, die in den letzten Jahren renoviert worden ist. (2)Rechts: Bild mit folgender Inschrift: Erinnerung an Jakob Stegmüler, welcher den 10. Juli 1881 verunglückte. Es wird gebeten um einen Vater Unser. Die Darstellung (bäuerliche Malerei) zeigt den Kanal mit unterschlächtigen Wasserrädern, darüber ein Maria-Hilf-Bild nach Vorbild des Passauer Cranach-Bildes. (773) Steineck 9.10 (774) Steineck10 (774) Steineck 11 Steineck 12 (775) Steineck 13 (775) Steineck 14 Steineck 17 Steineck 18 Steineck 15 Steineck 16 (776) Unterfischbach (777) [Karte]: Unterfischbach ([778]) Unterfischbach 1 (779) Unterfischbach 2 (779) Unterfischbach 3 (780) Unterfischbach 4 (781) [2 Abb.]: Unterfischbach (1)Freiluftmalerei (Fresko?) am Haus Unterfischbach 3 mit dem Sinnspruch: Segle ruhig weiter, Gott ist dein Begleiter, Auch wenn der Mast bricht, Gott verläßt dich nicht. Signiert mit "List" und dattiert 19. 6. 1987. (2)Blick auf das Dorf Unterfischbach mit seinen teilweise modernisierten Häusern. (782) Unterfischbach 5 (783) Unterfischbach 6.7 (783) Unterfischbach 8 (784) [2 Abb.]: Kapellen von Unterfischbach (1)Links: Kapelle bei Unterfischbach 2, erbaut im Jahr 1949, signiert mit den Initialen L A Ar (Ludwig und Anna Anreiter) und der Inschrift "Gelobt sei Jesus Christus" mit Schablonenbuchstaben (2)rechts: Kapelle beim Ruetzhof (Unterfischbach 6.7), in den letzten Jahren vorbildlich renoviert worden; im Inneren Gedächtnisinschriften an die verstorbenen der Eigentümerfamilie (785) Wandschamel (787) [Karte]: Wandschaml (788) Wandschamel 1.3 (789) Wandschamel 2.7 (789) [Abb.]: Wandschamel - Dorfmitte (790) Wandschamel 4 (791) [2 Abb.]: Kapellen von Wandschamel (1)Links: Hötzendorferkapelle an der Rohrbacher Bundesstraße zwischen der Wimholzsiedlung und der Bahnüberquerung (2)Rechts: Wegerhof-Kapelle (Wandschamel 5.6) (792) Wandschamel 5.6 (793) [Abb.]: Wegerhof-Kapelle. Die Dreifaltigkeit als Gnadenthron, bäuerliche Malerei aus dem Jahr 1744, renoviert 1856 von HHHH, und 1967 von Hans Küblböck (794) Wandschamel 8 (Das Kellerhäusl) (795) Wandschamel 9 Wandschamel 10 Wandschamel 11 Wandschamel 12 Wandschamel 13 (796) Anhang Register der Personen- und Ortsnamen Photonachweis ([797]) Register der Personen- und Ortsnamen zusammengestellt von Isfried H. Pichler (798) A (799) B = P (800) C siehe K (805) D = T (805) E (807) F = V (808) G (811) H (814) I = J (819) K = C (819) L (823) M (826) N (828) O (829) P siehe B (830) R (830) S (833) SCH (833) SEB (836) SP (836) ST (837) U (839) W (839) Z (842) Photonachweis (843) Einband ( - ) Einband ( - )

Issue 58.3 of the Review for Religious, May/June 1999. ; f 0 r relig i ous Christian Heritages and ,Contemporary Living MAY-JUNE 1999 * VOLUME 58 ¯ NUMBER 3 Review for Religioug is a forum for shared reflection on the lived experience of all who J~nd that the church's rich heritages of spirituality support their personal and apostolic Christian lives. The articles in the journal are meant to be informative, practical, historical, or inspirational, written from a tbeological or spiritual or sometimes canonical point of view. Review for Religious (ISSN 0034-639X) is published bi-monthly at Saint Louis University by the Jesuits of the Missouri Province. Editorial Office: 3601 Lindell Boulevard ¯ St. Louis, Missouri 63108-3393. Telephone: 314-977-7363 ¯ Fax: 314-977-7362 E-Mail: foppema@slu.edu Manuscripts, books for review, and correspondence with the editor: Review for Religious ° 3601 Lindell Boulevard ° St. Louis, MO 63108-3393. Correspondence about the Canonical Counsel department: Elizabeth McDonough OP P.O. Box 29260; ~,rashington, D.C. 20017 POSTMASTER Send address changes to Review for Religious ° P.O. Box 6070 ¯ Duluth, MN ~5806. Periodical postage paid at St. Louis, Missouri, and additional mailing offices. See inside back cover for information on subscription rates. ©1999 Review for Religious Permission is herewith granted to copy any material (articles, poems, reviews) contained in this issue of Review for Religious for personal or internal use, or for the personal or internal use of specific library, clients within the limits outlined in Sections 107 and/or 108 of the United States Copyright Law. All copies made under this permission must bear notice of the source, date, and copyright owner on the first page. This permission is NOT extended to copying for commercial distribu-tion, advertising, institutional promotion, or for the creation of new collective works or anthologies. Such permission will only be considered on written application to the Editor, Review for Religious. Editor Associate Editors Canonical Counsel Editor Editorial Staff Advisory Board David L. Fleming sJ Philip C. Fischer SJ Regina Siegfried ASC Elizabeth McDonough OP Mary Ann Foppe Tracy Gramm Jean Read James and Joan Felling Kathryn Riehards FSP Joel Rippinger OSB Bishop Carlos A. Sevilla SJ David Werthmann CSSR Patricia Wittberg SC Heritages and Contemporary Lfiv~ng MAY-JUNE 1999 * VOLUME58 * NUMBER3 contents 230 251 women religious Charism or Deep Story? Towards Understanding Better the 19th-Century Origins of American Women's Congregations Margaret Susan Thompson suggests that emphasis on "charism" may not be helpful in explaining the ,founding experiences of many women's communities in 19th-century America, and identifies some of the reasons why "deep stow" may be a more usable concept. The Need for Self-Criticism: Affirmative Comments Elizabeth McDonough OP suggests that the time has come for United States religious women to initiate some possibly difficult but genuinely constructive self-criticism and some corrective change of course in various aspects of postconciliar renewal. 261 266 women and the church The Annuario Pontificio: The Vatican's "Pontifical Yearbook" and a Recent Editorial Decision Larry N. Lorenzoni SDB updates a bit of history about who are included in the Vatican's "Pontifical Yearbook." Women and Canon Law Joan A. Range ASC investigates the extraordinary recent history of women entering the field of canon law. Review for Religious 286 295 mary Five Faces of Mary Robert P. Maloney CM offers five Marian faces as a way of meditating on the rich, varied tradition surrounding the Virgin Mary. The Temple and the Journeying: Mary of Sorrows Joel Giallanza CSC draws directions for our spiritual life's journey from reflecting on the traditional seven sorrows of Mary. 3O5 314 witnessing Blessed Maria Droste: A Good Shepherd Motif in Sacred Heart Spirituality Juliana Devoy RGS tells the story of Blessed Maria Droste, which gives witness to her vision of God's merciful love reflected in Sacred Heart spirituality. Echoes from My Fifty-sixth Annual Retreat Robert F. Drinan sJ shares reflections on God!s grace stirring thoughts and feelings in a retreat. 228 32O 325 departments Prisms Canonical Counsel: Visitation by External Authorities Book Reviews May-.~une 1999 227- Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. --John 14:9 Wean talk about God in some very un-Christian ways. As we "dress up" God in the various cultural and time-bound categories of our human world, we are inevitably limited, in both our reasoning and our imagining. When we get swept up into a highly intellectualized philosophical approach, we find our-selves projecting a vague abstract and sometimes fright-ening power and a childishly understood world. God without a face. Although Jesus lived within human limitations of time and culture, he dared to speak "with authority" about the reign of God in images and parables that tore down the temple curtain of separation to let people catch some glimpses of God that are new. The synoptic Gospels--Mark, Matthew, and Luke--talk of a celebra-tory invitation to a banquet, of a shepherd doggedly searching out a lost sheep, so that we come to know and relate to God with fresh affective response. But the Gospel of St. John stands out as the Gospel of the God revealed to us by Jesus as "Father." Few are the chapters in John's Gospel that do not have explicit reference to God as Father. The qualities of this Father-God tumble out. This God is the God of life: "Just as the Father who has life sent me and I have life because of the Father." Jn 6:44. This is a God who works: "My Father is at work until now, and I am Review for Religious' at work as well" Jn 5:17. This is a God who teaches: "My doctrine is not my own; it comes from him who sent me" Jn 7:16; "I say only what the Father has taught me" Jn 8:28. This is a God who cultivates growth: "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine-grower" Jn 15:1. Above all, this God is the one who loves: "The Father loves the Son and has given everything over to him" Jn 3:35; "the one who loves me will be loved by my Father"Jn 14:21. In retreat notes published as a book, The Ignatian Exercises in the Light of St. John, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini SJ reflects that a way of considering the Fourth Gospel is to see it as a gospel of prayer, It is prayer not just from people responding to Jesus as we do so often in our prayer lives, but prayer also from Jesus to the one he lovingly calls Abba-Father. From Jesus We learn how we are meant to grow in our relationship with God. And so this Gospel, in teaching a way of relating to God for the mature Christian, is paradoxically the Gospel most insistent in remind-ing us that we are still "children" who have--and who need for our very existence--a Father. We are called, in imitation of Jesus, to relate to a God from whom we have everything--all that we are and all that we would call "our own." This is the God that Jesus describes as the One apart from whose words he himself has nothing to say, the God apart from whose works he has no work to do. As Christian evan-gelizers, then, we need to follow the example of Jesus so that what we say flows from our union with this God. As Christian ministers we need to strive that all our deeds and good works flow from the baptismal grace given by God that makes us all very special children, God's sons and daughters. It is from this God we have come--a Source we call by Jesus' word Father-- and it is to this God we direct our whole life as the One we, with John, identify as Love. If we let the words of St. John enter more deeply into our very being, we will find ourselves being shaped and molded by the reality behind our personally limited understandings of God as Father and God as Love. This is the revealed God of Scripture we seek to know and make known ever better in this year dedi-cated to God the Father. David L. Fleming SJ '229 May-June 1999 MARGARET SUSAN THOMPSON Charism or Deep Story? Towards Understanding Bett@r the 19th-Century Origins of American Women's Congregatigns Since the Second Vatican Council, the term charism increasingly has become associated with the identity, and .even the integrity, of religious congregations.1 Literally dozens of published essays explore the term's meaning and significance~ A substantial number of the community websites created in recent years contain a page about-- or at least an allusion to--the group's "charism," as do postconciliar constitutions, mission statements, and voca-tion paraphernalia. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has not been silent either, particularly during the current papacy. For example, in its 1983 document "Essential Elements in the Church's Teaching on Religious Life 'as Applied to Institutes Dedicated to Works of the Apostolate," the Sacred ~Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes used ~the term ten times, and it shows up a whopping eighty-six times in//Tta con-secrata, John Paul II's apostolic letter in response to the 1994 Synod on Religious Life. . Ironically, the word itself is not: to be found in Perfectae caritatis, the council document which treats the Margaret Susan Thompson PhD has written and lectured extensively on the history of women religious in the United States. She is associate professor of history and political sci-ence at Syracuse University; Department of History; 145 Eggers Hall; Syracuse, New York 13244. Review for Religious "Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life." In fact, its first appearance in a magisterial treatise seems to be in 1971's Evangelica testificatio. Addressing religious themselves, Paul vI speaks of the "charisms of your founders" and the "charisms of the various insti-tutes" (§§11, 32), assuming, probably with justification, that the terminology would be familiar to his intended audience. But, for those in doubt about this nomenclature, Paul cites Perfectae cari-tatis §2b, which calls upon members of religious institutes to respect their "particular characteristics and work" and "their founders' spirit and special aims" as they proceed with their groups' renewal. Paul extends the discussion in Mutuae relationes (1978), using the term nineteen times and declaring, among other things, that "the very charism of the founders (Evangelii nuntiandi, §I 1) appears as an 'experience of the Spirit'" and that "every authentic charism implies a certain element of genuine originality and of special initiative for the spiritual life of the church" (§12). By now, therefore, one would assume that the meaning of a term so widely and authoritatively used would be clear, and one might also assume that the reality of the thing known as "charism" would be easily identifiable and inherent to religious life. Indeed, this seems to be implicit in various references from the two doc-uments of the current pontificate mentioned above. The first para-graph of "Essential Elements" refers to "the founding charism of a particular institute" and later even says that, through its appro-bation of a community's canonical status, the "God-given ministry of the hierarchy" has ratified the "authentic discernment of its founding charism" (§41):2 The references in Vita consecrata are too numerous even to summarize, but here are a few of them: "charisms proper to the various institutes," "fidelity to the found-ing charism," "[an institute's] Rule and constitutions [are approved] in accordance with a specific charism confirmed by the church," and "the uniqueness of their different ~harisms' (§§19, 36, 37, 53). Surely, then, "charigm" is intrinsic to religious life. Every con-gregation must have one, unique to that particular institute and traceable directly to its individual founder., But the rationale for this essay is precisely that none of the assumptions above seems necessarily to be the case. It is my con-tention that, in much of its current usage, charism is a term of such vagueness and ambiguity as to be almost meaningless. More impor-tantly, even if we can accept the connotations that John Paul II apparently regards as definitive (and he is hardly alone in this atti- May-~tune 1999 -231 . Thompson ¯ Charism or Deep Story? tude), I would argue that a good many of the women's apostolic congregations that ministered in the 19th and early 20th century in the United States have no such thing as a "charism" according to this understanding. Thus, if, as John Paul II suggests, "charism" is an "essential element" of religious life, the very legitimacy of these congregations seems to be east into question--surely a seri-ous, perhaps even disastrous, consequence for the groups involved. What is needed, therefore, is some alternative to charism, some concept that is more in accord with the historical reality of many institutes and legitimates their experience and continued existence. It is unlikely that my consideration here will arrive at any defini-tive conclusions, but I hope to suggest some alternative ways of thinking that may prove useful in framing the historical and cur-rent context of sisters' experiences and perhaps assist in the pro-cess of religious revitalization and renewal. At the very least, from my ongoing research into women's religious life in the 19th-cen-tury United States, I think I can explain why the emphasis on "charism" in contemporary thinking about religious life is prob-lematic and historically unjustified, at least as a universal norm. Before we proceed, a few assumptions need to be made explicit. First, I believe that some congregations do have a charism and that in some cases it is traceable, at least in some degree, to an individual "founder." In other instances, its origin may lie with a founding group of individuals (a "founding generation"), while in still others a charism may have emerged later in a community's history--or a buried, neglected, or even repudiated charism may be discerned or refurbished by subsequent generations. Second-- and in this I am confirmed by the usages of several scholars as well as by both Paul vI and John Paul II--I believe there is also some-thing generic that can be called "a charism of apostolic religious life." Third, the lack of a particular charism does not render an institute (or its members or ministries) less significant, "spiritual," or legitimate than those which do have such a "gift":--just as the existence of one does not indicate superiority or greater validity. Indeed, given that the use of the term charism in connection with religious life is of such recent provenance, its application to past experience--particularly if it is considered to be some sort of uni-versal norm--actually may be ahistorically anachronistic. The word charism, of course, is Greek and means "gift." In contemporary Christian usage, it refers specifically to a spiritual gift, that is, "a free gift of grace." Moreover, virtually all Catholic Review for Religious scholars agree that a charism is not solely for the benefit of its direct recipient; rather, "it is a supernatural gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit for building up the body of Christ" or, in simpler terms, a "divine spiritual gift to individuals or groups for the build-ing up of the community." Within the context of religious life, the charism presumably is received initially by an institute's founder, who transmits it on to her followers. It is this "gift of grace" which is to imbue the community with its unique character or identity; as Richard McBrien puts it, "the unique gift of the founder., is given to every member from one generation to the next."3 Between 1727 and 1917, at least 422 Catholic apostolic con-gregations of women religious were active within the United States.4 Some were short-lived, but four hundred of them contin-ued to exist in 1917, and the overwhelming majority are extant today. Of the 422, a total of 273 belonged to one of ten large reli-gious "families," each of which could trace its birth to a particu-lar founder or pair of founders (see Table 1). Thus, each of these could be presumed to be a beneficiary of the. "charism" of the per-son or persons with whom that family began. Moreover, many of these groups also regard themselves as having their own particular founders, who "re-visioned" the familial identity in some way that imparted a special or distinct character to it.s Table 1 U.S. Al~ostolic Women's Communities andTheir Religious "Families" . FAMILY FOUNDER(S) NO. OF COMMUNITIES Benedictine Benedict, Scholastica 32 Carmelite (reform) Teresa of Avila 3 Dominican Dominic 30 Franciscan Francis 54 St. Joseph Jean Pierre Medaille 27 Mercy Catherine McAuley 65 Presentation Nano Nagle 7 Ursuline Angela Merici 30 Vincentian Vincent de Paul and Louise de Marfllac 10 Visitation Francis de Sales and Jane Frances de Chantal 15 May-June 1999 233 Thompson ¯ Charism or Deep Story? No one can or will deny that these communities have---since their founding, in most cases--been known by one of these "fam-ily names." Still, this begs some important questions. How many of even these congregations can be said to have been "birthed" into the charism of their family forebears? How many incorpo-rated themselves into a particular family with explicit awareness of the spiritual and ecclesial consequences? How many can assert with confidence that their history is one of explicit and consistent acknowledgment of and fidelity to that charism? In other words, to what extent did "charism" traditionally play a part in shaping the identities of at least some of these institutes? Alternatively, how many of them became, in fact, "generic" apostolic entities doing good work, composed of good (even holy) people, but ~undistin-guished by any familial or "particular" spiritual identity that would differentiate them clearly from others of theoburgeoning number of women's religious orders that came increasingly to "do their thing" in the United States in, the 19th and 20th centuries? Finally, most of the nearly one hundred fifty other women's congregations I have studied also assert that they have particular "founders' charisms." Are all of them justified in their claims? It naturally is impossible to provide in one article definitive answers to any of these questions. Instead, I intend to offer some representative examples from the histories of the communities I have studied, examples that I believe will demonstrate some of the major problems with the assumptions about charism that charac-terize so much of what has been said about religious life in the past quarter century. Let me emphasize thavnone of these exam-ples is unique; rather, each is suggestive of all-too-typical congre-gational experiences. Each indicates some aspect of why I believe that the notion of a "founder's?' or "founding" charism is so prob-lematic and why the notion may, in fact, do more to obscure the realities of women's religious history than to illumine it. The Most Common Scenario: Instrumentalism Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Catholic population of the United States exploded. As early as 1850, Catholics constituted the largest single body of believers in the nation, a ranking they have maintained ever since. But, hardly monolithic, they consisted of an ecer growing number of proudly distinct (and sometimes mutually antagonistic) ethnic groups, many Review for Religious of which came to the New World specifically to escape religious persecution or to preserve their cultural identities. Most were poor when they arrived in their new nation; few except the Irish spoke English. Their secular and Protestant neighbors greeted them with suspicion and often with overt hostility. Clearly, these were peo-ple with numerous and diverse needs to be met, and church lead-ers, beleaguered and fearful of "leakage" from the faith, sought ways to respond effectively. It is not surprising, therefore, that dozens of institutes were started in or brought to the United States to provide practical ser-vices, often to specific subgroups of Catl~olics. Both individual community histories by the score and various more com-prehensive works attest con-vincipgly-- and, before 1965, unapologetically--to what I call the instrumental motivation for so many foundations: to teach the ever growing number of school-age children,6 to provide healthcareand relief (primarily, of course, but not only to Catholics), and, increasingly, to work with persons from partic-ular immigrant groups who needed ministers who understood both their languages and their traditions and could both foster cultural survival and ease the pro-cess of Americanization. Others were started for equally functional purposes: to do housework for priests or to offer catechetical instruction to children outside the parochial schools. Consider, for instance, the following accounts of foundings, taken almost randomly from the 1964 edition of Thomas McCarthy's Guide to the Catholic Sisterhoods of the United States-- perhaps the most successful comprehensive "vocation book" ever published in this country:7 [Sisters of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin:] A school, but no teachers, and none to be had from any religious commu-nity in spite of numerous requests by Father Jean Harper. ¯. He decided to act upon his curate's suggestion: "We can-not obtain nuns? Then, let us make some!" And so the con-gregation came into existence . . (p. 192). Dozens of institutes were started in or brought to the United States to provide practical services, often to specific subgroups of Catholics. 235--- May-~une 1999 Thompson * Charism or Deep Story? [Franciscans of Tiffin, Ohio:] Father Joseph L. Bihn . . . founded this Franciscan community to help him care for the many children orphaned as a result of the Civil War. Three of his parishioners, Elizabeth Schaeffer, a widow, and her two daughters, formed the nucleus of this congregation. (p. 271). [Sisters of Sts. Cyril ahd Methodius:] The early 1900s was a critical period for the many immigrants from Slovakia who setded in the United States. Father Matthew Jankola of the Scranton diocese was keenly aware that this adjustment required not only the building of schools but also of secur-ing sisters to staff them. As a result of his efforts, this dioce-san congregation was established in 1900 (p. 189). [Sisters of the Holy Family, San Francisco, California:] "I have another work for you to do," Archbishop Joseph S. Alemany OP said to young Elizabeth Armer when she came to consult him about entering a contemplative order. The archbishop unfolded to the future Mother Dolores his plans for an insti-tute to give religious instruction to children who could not attend Catholic schools. (p. 295). [Little Daughters of St. Joseph:] Father Antoine Mercier, a Sulpician priest., who desired to establish a congregation of nuns who would consecrate themselves to the spiritual and material welfare of the clergy and seminarians, founded this community with the assistance of Miss de Lima Dauth, the co-foundress. On April 26, 1857, both began this eminently apostolic work of helping priests and seminarians by means of a life of prayer, self-denial, and manual labor (p. 36). [Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Houston, Texas:] "A multitude of sick and infirm seeks relief at your hands" was the irresistible plea of Rt. Rev. C.M. Dubuis when he went to France to seek volunteers to help him in his missionary labors in Galveston, Texas. Three young women answered his appeal and with these he founded the congregation in 1866. The community, which built the first Catholic hospital in the state, has papal approval and conducts twenty-six insti-tutions. (p. 120). 236 Where, in any of these stories, can one discern a charism? Ministry, yes; inspiring service to needy people, certainly. But two obstacles to discerning a "charism of the founder" recur in each instance. First, the reason each community came into being was functional, not charismatic. And, second, at least as these accounts would have it, the initiating impulse came not from the women who would offer to respond, but from clerics--men who, by def- Review for Religious inition, were persons outside of the community itself and thus hard to recognize as part of the group's intrinsic "lived tradition.''s Random Rule Selection and the Problem of Charism Every autonomous congregation has its own constitution, but, properly speaking, only four Rules (St. Basil, St. Augustine, St. Benedict, and St. Francis) were approved by Rome, and every com-munity had to select one of these as the basis for its organization and gov-ernance. 9 This helps to explain, for example, why so many women's con-gregations belonged to the Franciscan "family"--generally speaking, it was considered the most "flexible" of the four and therefore the easiest to adapt to a variety of instrumental purposes. To assume, then, that every commu-nity designated as "Franciscan" also and intentionally embodied a Franciscan charism requires an enor-mous leap of faith; in fact, even some founders who wanted to be "Franciscan" sometimes began by organizing themselves by another Rule. Two contrasting examples will illustrate the problem. First, there is that of the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, originally founded in Olpe, Westphalia, in 1859 (and eventually established in the U.S. in 1875). The founder, Mother Mary Theresia (Aline) Bonzel, had great devotion to St. Francis and wanted to be Franciscan, but one of her co-founders, Clara Pfaender, had previously belonged to a con-gregation which followed the Augustinian Rule. We may let the community's first historian, an unusually forthright individual, take the story from there: Aline Bonzel wanted the Franciscan Rule by all means. But seemingly she was not well acquainted with the basic Rule of religious orders . Clara Pfaender knew the Augustinian Rule from her convent days with the Sisters of Christian Charity. She felt she could write a constitution based on that Rule. Since she was the superior and responsible for admit-ting candidates into the community, it s~emed advisable, in this very beginning, that she have the liberty to employ her To assume that every community designated as "Franciscan" also and intentionally embodied a Franciscan charism requires an enormous leap of faith. 237 May-June 1999 Thompson ¯ Charism or Deep Story? full experience in religious life. Only on this basis can one explain how a community which uniformly desired to live according to the Franciscan Rule began with the Augustinian Rule, but with the intention of later converting to the Franciscan Rule. In this procedure the character of the times can readily be detec(ed. Many most likely saw basically lit-de difference whether one lived according to the Augustinian or the Franciscan Rule. The development of a specialized spirituality came later and in many instances vqry much later. As this author put it elsewhere: So many religious congregations came into being in the 19th century, and many chose their Rule by chance. Charitable activity called, and congregations were founded to fill the need to serve God and man. With some it seemingly made no difference what religious Rule was followed, for all were good and sanctifying~ . . . Foundations flourished which at first simpl); set up the aciivities and objectives of the apos-tolate and later wrote the rule and constitutions. Often enough at the very beginning it was purely accidental rather than a conscious effort that one or the other rule took hold.l° Contrast this with the experienqe of the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Third Order of St. Francis (SSJ-TOSF). Their history has been recounted superbly in two volumes by Josephine Marie Peplinski; basically, the group owed its origins to ethnic conflict within the School Sisters of St. Francis. The School Sisters were predominantly German, and the founding SSJ-TOSFs were Polish members who, after many incidents distressing to them, decided in 1901 to break off and found their own congregation. They took the Rule and name of "Franciscan" with them, but their self-claimed identity was fundamentally Polish. Indeed, as Peplinski has docu-mented, part of the problem was that, for its first few decades of existence, the community's leadership was passed back and forth between two very different individuals, one of whom (Mother Mary F~licia Jasku, lski) had a real devotion to St. Francis, while the other (Mother Mary Boleslaus Rybicki) "moved the congre-gation toward a popular Jesuit interpretation of obedience and authority--military in tone." As Peplinski puts it, "She exerted great influence in developing the spirituality of the congregation throughout her lifetime . . . and afterwards through those who adopted her ideals. It is ~v0rthy to note that until 1940, fourteen years after Mother Mary Boleslaus's death, almost all of the retreat masters invited to th~ congregation were Jesuits." Peplinski describes tlie congregation during its first sixty years as a Review for Religious "Franciscan sisterhood adapted to the post-Tridentine paradigm of religious life serving the American immigrant church . A basic problem was that canon law rather than the gospel law of love was set up as the ideal." In fact, not until after Vatican II, under Peplinsld's own leadership (she led the congregation 1968-1976), did the SSJ-TOSFs make a concerted and systematic effort to dis-cover what "bein~ Franciscan:' was all about. But, while they in fact embrace a Franciscan spirituality as they enter into their sec-ond century, is it at all accurate, despite their name, to regard it as their "founding charism"?II What Happened to the Benedictines? .Peplinski's congregation was not the only one "adapted to the post-Tridentine paradigm of religious life serving the American immigrant church." What happened to the Benedictines was equally dramatic and potentially of even more profound conse-quence to what they were supposed to be all about. It is a com-plicated story, ably told from somewhat different perspectives by Judith Sutera, M. Incarnata Girgen, and Ephrem Hollermann.12 The first nuns came to St. Marys, Pennsylvania, in 1852 from Eichst~itt, Bavaria, where they had lived in a way that permitted full cenobitic, monastic observance, including recitation of the Divine Office and solemn vows according to the Benedictine formulary: stability, conversatio ("conversion of life"), and obedience, However, within less than ten years after their arrival in the United States, a complicated series of events ensued, resulting in fundamental alterations to their tradition. Stated simply, the right to take solemn vows was abrogated (because the women were unable to observe strict enclosure), pressures of "life in mission territory" (as well as the elimination of solemn vows) led to "permission" to miti-gate the requirement to recite the full Divine Office (allowing substitution of the Little Office of th~ Blessed Virgin Mary, parts only of the Divine Office, or ~ven rosaries and other devotional practices), the jurisdiction of community leaders was made sec-ondary to that of diocesan, bishops (who could, among other things, approve or reject the election of prioresses and the admission of new members--something unheard of, normally, in Benedictinism). Even the simple vows the women now professed wer~ not neces-sarily the Benedictine ones. As Sutera explains, some took the tra-ditional vows, some took the three vows common to other May-June 1999 Thompson ¯ Charism or Deep Story? communities (poverty, chastity, obedience), Others took five vows and some four (not stability, because there were rumors that the women were to be reorganized into a large congregation complete with provinces, regional novitiates, and so forth). She summarizes the consequences this way: "What Rome had done was to create a canonical anomaly, a group of unenclosed monastic women who retained the right to the designation of 'O.S.B.' This right implied some recognition that they were nuns of the ancient order rather than sisters of a later congregation despite their simple vows. However, it left them as technically neither one nor the other. [Practically speaking,] they faded into the mass of apostolic orders." 13 Sutera and Hollermann's books, especially, are potent wit-nesses to the extent to which American Benedictines struggled over the following century both to respond 'to the ministerial and apostolic demands placed upon them and to remain as faithful as they could to their Benedictine heritage. Both accounts verify the existence and persistence of Benedictine charism, however "re-visioned" in the American context, despite the many and substan-tial obstacles put in the sisters' way. Thus, when Vatican II came along, with its call for renewal in the spirit of the founders, the Benedictines had a strong foundation on which they could rely. Nonetheless, the disparate experiences of the various autonomous foundations during the years between their foremothers' arrival in the U.S. and the postconciliar period raise important questions about how, and the extent to which, "fidelity to charism" shaped the historical reality of American Benedictine sisters. If one reads the descriptions of them in McCarthy's 1964 compendium, for instance, they seem virtually indistinguishable from the plethora of apostolic institutes that surrounded them.14 "Charisms" Buried, Repudiated, or Denied At least the Benedictines had a strong tradition, never com-pletely lost, that they could revitalize when called to do so by the Second Vatican Council, Others, however, were not so fortunate, The situations of those who chose their traditions randomly, or who were founded for largely instrumental purposes, have already been discussed. But what about those who did have more charismatic founders, whose legacies, for various reasons, were obscured or even rejected? Probably the most famous such case is that of the Institute Review for Religious of the Blessed Virgin Mary, founded by the remarkable Mary Ward in 1609; not until the papacy of Pius XI! were they able to claim her officially as the founder of their congregation. But other instances pertain more directly to the U.S. Catholic experience; here I will refer to just three of them (by no means the only ones). As late as McCarthy's 1964 Guide (p. 317), the sisters founded by Margaret Anna Cusack in 1884 were identified unqualifiedly as the "Sisters of St. Joseph of Newark" and were described as having been founded by "Bishop Bagshawe of Nottingham, England . . . in 1888." Then, we are told, Bishop Michael Wigger of Newark, New Jersey, "received the community into his dio-cese shortly after its establish-ment." The latter sentence, technically, is true, but the foundation was in 1884; by 1888 the controversial Cusack had left both Newark and the Catholic Church. The myth of Bagshawe's role, as well as the rather skewed chronology, evolved largely to bury the fact that this group's founder--a woman who did, I believe, have a charism and who had a very revolutionary vision for her community--was regarded at the time of her death as an "apostate." Dorothy Vidulich has provided a first-rate account of how Cusack's community rediscovered her in the aftermath of Vatican II, officially reclaiming her in 1970 as their founder and reclaiming, too, her original name for the congregation: the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace. Since then, the group has devoted enormous effort to uncovering and taking ownership of her and their charism; nonetheless, the fact that her very connection with the institute was buried for eighty-five years (starting less than four years after it began) makes it difficult to discern the extent to which her charism ever played a meaningful role in its earlier historical expe-rience. Is the identity of this community primarily traceable to Cusack? Or, like an adopted child, must this group, like it or not, acknowledge that other "parents" may actually have been more significant in shaping their ongoing lived reality? 15 American Benedictines struggled both to respond to the ministerial and apostolic demands placed upon them and to remain as faithful as they could to their Benedictine heritage. May-June 1999 Thompson ¯ Charism or Deep Story? Which person or persons must be acknowledged as having contributed-- and how--to the congregation's actual history ? The founder of the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, of Monroe, Michigan, was never, stricdy speaking, denied; her central role in the congregation's founding was, how.ever, unde-niably minimized and obscured. Theresa Maxis Duchemin was the offspring of an unwed "woman of color." Both her "race" (her mother was an immigrant to the U.S. from what now is known as Haiti) and her "illegitimate" parentage were, of course, problem-atic. So was the fact that she obscured both of them when she came to Michigan in 1845 to found the congregation ("passing" as "white")--in doing so, she left the commu- 'nity she had belonged to since 1829, the Oblate Sisters of Providence. (This group was the first African American con-gregation in the history of Catholicism. Duchemin was one of its first ,four members, its only American-born founder, and was onetime superior gen-eral of it. In the 1830s her mother, too, joined the community.) What perhaps contributed most, however, towards her role in Monroe IHM history becoming "shadowy" were her ongoing con-flict with Edward Joos (an early spiritual father assigned to the congregation by the bishop), her decision to establish a foundation in Pennsylvania (which the bishop did not approve of, and which soon turned into two), her subsequent conflicts with the .authori-tarian bishop of Philadelphia who succeeded Duchemin's beloved John Neumann, and tier resultant eighteen years of exile in Canada, during which she was forbidden contact with any of the three IHM communities she had founded. Eventually Duchemin was allowed to return to the Philadelphia foundation; ironically, however, only the Scranton one has always acknowledged her role in its begin-nings, In Monroe, meanwhile, Mother Mary Joseph Walker, who succeeded Duchemin as superior in 1859, was becoming regarded as the group's "true foundress," while Joos, who served 'as its eccle-siastical superior from 1857 to 1901, was referred to as the "beloved father." 16 How is a grouplike this to return to the "charism of the founder"? Even in the 1990s the Monroe community is ambivalent Review for Religions as to how it should refer to Duchemin: was she their "founder," their "co-founder" (along with Louis Gillet, the Redemptorist who called her to Michigan in 1845 and departed' abruptly two years later), or simply one of the "first four"? What about the "found-ing" and "formative" roles of Walker and, especially, Joos? At the time of the latter's death, his loss was apparently considered so traumatic that the then general superior "had to assure the sisters that it was possible for the congregation to continue without him." True, Margaret Brennan IHM has documented the persistence of certain very specific elements of Duchemin's spiritual legacy, even through the decades when her contribution was denied, but impor-tant questions still remain.~7 As with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, which person or persons must be acknowledged as having contributed--and how--to the congregation's actual history? "The Most Reverend Archbishop William Gross CSSR of Oregon City founded [the Sisters of St. Mary of Oregon] in Sublimity, Oregon, in 1886 . A vastly scattered flock, with . only a few religious to care for them, made Archbishop Gross determined to establish his own community of sisters."18 It seems a typical 19th-century story; unfortunately, it has almost no basis in reality. The real root of this community is a group of lay peo-ple who more than a decade earlier followed a schismatic priest of the Congregation of the Precious Blood, Charle~ Albrecht, out of Ohio into exile in Wisconsin and Minnesota (where Albrecht died) and then moved (with Albrecht's body) on to rural Oregon. There a young,girl in the group--who had been "bequeathed" to the cultish "trusteeship" of a trio of laymen ("devotees" of Albrecht, whose body during many months after his death,was kept in a cof-fin mounted above the dining table in the group's community room in Minnesota and then, quite ossified, was transported illegally to Oregon)--sought help from some Benedictine monks of Mount Angel Abbey, who put the future Mother Wilhelmina Bleily in touch with Gross, who eventually "regularized" the status of those who sought it and provided official recognition for the "sisters." Shortly thereafter he deposed Wilhelmina from the superiorship to which she had been duly elected, brought in a sister from Wisconsin to provide "formation" for the. community, and reshaped its identity completely. Although the original sisters had retained a strong devotion to the Precious Blood from their Ohio heritage, for instance, Gross refused to allow them to include this in the name of their congregation. By the 1960s, after decades of denial, May-June 1999 9A2 Thompson * Charism or Deep Story? Inappropriate reliance for spiritual grounding upon "a" founder and her or his significance can lead to a spirituality that is static or reactionary. Wilhelmina's contributions had been forgotten (and her diary, which recorded all that had happened, both before 1886 and after, lay gathering dust in the community's attic, not to be rediscov-ered until a new motherhouse was constructed in the 1970s), and the only things that remained from their roots were a red cord (on which they wore a crucifix around their necks) and a vague acknowledgment of a "devotion to the Precious Blood," one among many devotions that had been accepted without explanation for several generations29 More than either of the other two groups dis-cussed. here, the SSMO's decision to bury its past (not to mention Albrecht's body) certainly is understandable. It is also under-standable that, because of their "rescue" from the "trustees" by Gross, this really rather remark-able group has always prided itself on its loyalty to and reverence for the hierarchy. But how to imple-ment that loyalty whe, n the hier-archy charges one with "restoring the founder's charism"? In this case, what are they to do with Albrecht, with the trustees, with years of schismatic and extremely odd cultic spirituality, with the deposing of Wilhelmina, and with the clearly subordinate status that "in gratitude" the SSMOs were expected to tolerate in the Portland Archdiocese for most of the yea.rs of their existence? In this paper I have offered reasons why emphasis on the founder's charism--which has characterized so much of post- Vatican II religious renewal--deserves reexamination regarding its relevance and utility to the histories (and subsequent revitaliza-tions) of many religious congregations. Clearly, in many cases it is not something that can be easily identified, and, in some cases where it can be, that very recognition leads to problems of a dif-ferent sort. I could have discussed other issues as well: that certain congregations owe their origins to groups rather than to individ-uals, that emphasis on "formal" founders (founders who have offi-cial canonical recognition from the [male] prelates charged with 9rid "verifying" the "authenticity" of a congregation, and many of Review for Religiotts whom, for women's congregations, have erroneously been identi-fied as men) tends to obscure the cumulative and ongoing respon-sibilities that all community members have for their collective spirituality, and that inappropriate reliance for spiritual grounding upon "a" founder and her or his significance can lead to a spiritu-ality that is static or reactionary. All of these matters deserve explo-ration; unfortunately, constraints of space in the present circumstances prevent their serious consideration here. What I do offer for present consideration is an alternative approach to "charism" that may prove of value to communities that recognize some of their own histories in what I have been able to include in this essay. It is developed most fully, perhaps, in a 1989 article in Review for Religious by Bernard Lee SM.2° Lee begins with a clear assertion: The "recovery of charism" may be one of the most unsup-portable and unnecessary burdens a religious institution has ever been asked to bear, because it cannot be done. Charism is not a property. It is not a possession. It is not transfer-able, not transmittable, and not controllable. Charism is a deeply historicized social phenomenon. It cannot be dupli-cated in any other time or place. Charism has never been a movable feast. (p. 124) Instead, Lee suggests the notion of "deep story" as an alter-native to the emphasis on charism. He defines this as a category of interpretation that comes out of structuralism, which is a method for interpreting group identity. It pre-supposes that group identity is rooted in a narrative structure, that is, in recurring patterns of relationships and social activ-ities. The narrative structure of any complex and interesting group, however, is extremely elusive because it is instinctual and unconscious even more than it is deliberate and self-conscious . Deep stories are exhibited in rituals that cel-ebrate them (for example, rituals of profession), in special words and phrases that belong especially to them. Stephen Crites says that all of these things are elusive expressions of deep stories (he calls them sacred stories) "that cannot fully be told, because they live, so to speak, in the arms and legs and bellies of the celebrants. These stories lie too deep in the consciousness of a people to be directly told: they form con-sciousness rather than being among the objects of which it is directly aware." (p. 126)z' What Lee intends to suggest by all this, I think, is the con-tinuous and cumulative process of a community's identity forma- Thompson ¯ Charism or Deep Story? tion--its spiritual nature (my term), its history--which, of course, in sacred time and space, encompasses the present and future as much as the past. Thus, to turn to Lee once again, "the founder's or foundress's gift is not a community's charism. The real found-ing gift is a narrative structure that supported and reflected a charismatic event in the foundation's birth, and may do so again" (p. 129). But, as I understand this, it cannot remain static; instead, a "community of memory"--while "creatively rooted" in, or faith-ful to, its deep story--must always be on its way to the realization of a new charismatically gifted reality, one in which all members must participate and assume responsibility. I believe that the notion of deep story--as a paradigm--can help all of us cope with ongoing foundings and refoundings in religious life. Seen as participants in deep story, Wilhelmina Bleily, Charles Albrecht, and William Gross, Theresa Maxis Duchemin and Mary Joseph Walker and Edward Joos, Mary Felicia Jaskulski and Mary Boleslaus Rybicki, Margaret Anna Cusack, Theresia Bonzel, and Clara Pfaender, countless Benedictines, and tens of thousands of others, living and dead, can all find space and be "at home'--not comfortably, perhaps, or e~sily, but the Christian story, the deep story, is never easy or comfortable. It is, however, real, as real as the ongoing spiritual "gift" (dare I, after all this, say "charism"?) that has called so many over the centuries to fol-low the path of religious life. Notes ~ This essay was presented originally at the 1998 History of Women Religious Conference in Chicago. Though not every point is supported by refei'ences, this essay rests upon my decade-long research into the history of American women religious, including work in the archives of about seventy-five congregations and familiarity with virtually all the published materials on this subject, including historical and biographical works on over three hundred individual communities. On the subject of charism, I read all Vatican documents dealing with religious life, as well as approximately three dozen articles directly or indirectly on this sub-ject that have appeared in Review for Religious (U.S.A.) and Religious Life Review (Ireland). Many of the incidents and ideas recounted here are developed more fully in some of my previous publications; see, in par-ticular, "Discovering Foremothers: Sisters; Society, and the American Catholic Experience," U.S. Catholic Historian 5 (Summer/Autumn 1986): 273-290; "To Serve the People of God: Nineteenth-Century Sisters and the Creation of an American Catholic Religious Life," Cushwa Center Working Papers, Series 18, no. 2 (1986); "Women and American Review for Religious Catholicism, 1789-1989," in Perspectives on the Catholic Church in America, 1789-1989, ed. Virgina Geiger and Stephen Vicchio (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1989), pp. 123-142; "Sisterhood and Power: Class, Culture, and Ethnicity in the American Convent," Colby Library Quarterly 25 (1989): 149-175; "Women, Feminism, and the New Religious History: Catholic Sisters as a Case Study," in Belief and Behavior: Essays in the New Religious History, ed. Philip VanderMeer and Robert Swierenga (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1991), pp. 136-163;."Cultural Conundrum: Sisters, Ethnicity, and the Adaptation of American Catholicism," Mid-America 74 (1992): 205-230; "The Validation of Sisterhood: Canonical Status and Liberation in the History of American Nuns," in A Leaf of the Great Tree of God: Essays in Honor of Ritamary Bradley SFCC, ed. Margot H. King (Toronto: Peregrina Publishing Co., 1994), pp. 38-78; and "Concentric Circles of Sisterhood," in Building Sisterhood: A Feminist History of the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1997), pp. 1-21. For their insights into this subject, I offer my thanks to Ritamary Bradley SFCC, Thomas J. Costello, Barbara Garland SC, James Hennesey SJ, Mary Ann Hinsdale IHM, Elizabeth A. West ICM, and many of the participants in the Sister-L internet discussion group 2 In this, SCRIS reiterates a point made in a document it issued five years earlier, Mutuae relationes: "Bishops, in union with the Roman pon-tiff, receive from Christ the head the duty (see LG §21) of discerning gifts and competencies, of coordinating multiple energies, and of guid-ing the entire people in living in the world as a sign and instrument of salvation. They, therefore, are also entrusted with the duty of caring for religious chariSms" (§9); and "It is .the duty of bishops as authentic teach-ers and guides of perfection for all the members of the diocese (see CD §§12; 15; 35, 2; and LG §§25, 45) to be the guardians likewise of fidelity to the religious vocation in the spirit of each institute . Bishops, along with their clergy, should be. firm guardians of the specific character of each religious family both in the spiritual and in the apostolic field" (§28). These passages, as well as that from EssentialElements (§41), raise some serious questions about the autonomy and integrity of religious charisms, since the implication is that they cannot be presumed to exist "authentically" until those in (external) hierarchical authority say they exist. Certainly, this is a matter deserving of substantial Consideration; but, unfoi'tunately, that is outside the scope of this paper. 3 Wilfrid Harrington, "Charism," in A New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Joseph A. Komonchak et al. (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987), p. 180; The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, ed. Richard E McBrien (HarperSanFrancisco, 1989), pp. 299-300. 4 These figures, as well as information included in Table 1, are derived from a detailed listing of all Catholic women's apostolic communities that I have located to date that existed in the United States between 1727 and 1917. Included in this list are com.munities which, for most or all of their existence, engaged in some form of active ministry. Thus, for May-June 1999 247 24S Thompson ¯ Charism or Deep Story? instance, contemplative Benedictines are omitted, as are purely contem-plative Visitation monasteries. In compiling these data, principal sources were: Elinor Tong Dehey, Religious Orders of Women in the United States, rev. ed. (Hammond, Indiana, 1930); Joan M. Lexau, Convent Life: Roman Catholic Religious Orders for Women in North America (New York, 1964), pp. 209-387 (Index of Orders); and Evangeline Thomas, Women Religious History Sources: A Guide to Repositories in the United States (New York, 1983), pp. 169-176 (Table of U.S. Founding Dates). Some information came from other sources, which are identified on the comprehensive list in my possession. s In that respect, they bear a similarity to the rest of the 149 U.S. con-gregations that have more individualized origins and have "founders" that they share, if at all, with only a handful of others. I shall return a bit later to the question of charism as it affects them. 6 All eight of the first indigenous communities of women studied by Barbara Misner in her landmark work, "Highly Respectable and Accomplished Ladies": Catholic Women Religious in America, 1790-18Y0 (New York: Garland, 1988), devoted most or all of their early ministerial energies to teaching. So did the vast majority of foundations initiated from abroad-- including the first in what is now the United States, the New Orleans Ursulines (founded in 1727). By 1884 the U.S. bishops, gathered at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore and extremely concerned about "leak-age" from the faith, paid tribute to the success of these pioneers (and to their belief that the education of youth was the best way to keep people within the church) by their declaration that every parish in the country should establish at least one school within the next two years. That, in turn, increased the demand for religious teachers (the overwhelming majority of them women, and sisters), just as the "new immigration" (c. 1880-1917) from heavily Catholic eastern and southern Europe was get-ting underway. See also Gerald Shaughnessy, Has the Immigrant Kept the Faith? (New York: Macmillan, 1925); "The Pastoral Letter of 1884," in The National Pastorals of the American Hierarchy (1792-1919), ed. Peter Guilday (Washington, D.C.: National Catholic Welfare Council, 1923), pp. 280-282; Thompson, "Women and American Catholicism," p. 125. 7 This Guide (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1964) appeared in six editions, the first in 1952 and the last in 1966. The 1964 edition was selected for use here because it appeared only one year before Perfectae caritatis called upon religious to renew themselves "in the spirit of their founders," thereby initiating the whole postconciliar emphasis on "charism." It should be noted that McCarthy acquired his information from the communities; therefore, these are the founding stories that the sisters themselves had identified and transmit-ted to him for inclusion. s I have written extensively elsewhere about the fact that many of these stories bear little or no resemblance to reality. That is, communi-ties which traditionally cited clerics as founders have, since Vatican II, in quite a number of cases, identified and reclaimed women as their prin- Review for Religious cipal initiators. Nevertheless, we cannot dismiss the significance of these founding stories (often recounted and thereby reinforced for several gen-erations) either. Whether or not men actually took the principal initia-tive in founding particular communities, it did affect the self-understandings of hundreds of sisters who were taught, and who believed, that the men had done so. 9 William Humphrey SJ, Elements of Religious Life, 2nd ed. (London: Thomas Baker, 1903), p. 164. 10 p. Lothar Hardick OFM, He Leads, I Follow: The Life of Mother Maria Theresia Bonzel, Foundress of the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, trans. Sisters M. Honora Hau and M. Clarahilda Fischer (Colorado Springs, I971), pp. 23, 30-31, 185-186. Ironically, perhaps, Pfaender later separated and founded her own religious congregation, which also was Franciscan (known in the U.S. as the Wheaton [Illinois] Franciscans): M. Brunilde Probst, The Burning Seak Mother Mary Clara Pfaender, 1827- 1882 (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1960). n The founding of the community is recounted in great detail in Vol. 1 of Josephine Marie Peplinski SSJ-TOSF, A Fitting Response: The History of the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Third Order of St. Francis (South Bend, Indiana: priv. pub., 1982, 1992); material here is taken specifically from Vol. 2, pp. ix, 49-50, 239 (italics in the original). Jaskulski was superior general for 1902-1908, 1918-1928, 1940-1942 (when she died); Rybicki was superior general for 1908-1918. Both were perpetually in leader-ship, either as head of the congregation or on its council, from its foun-dation until their deaths (Ryb!cki died in 1926); their lives, spiritualities, and contrasting administrations are described meticulously in chapters 1, 4, and 5 of Vol. 2. I also have written about the SSJ-TOSF story; see esp. "Sisterhood and Power" and "Cultural Conundrum" (see note 1). 12Judith Sutera OSB, True Daughters: Monastic Identity and American Benedictine Women's History (Atchison: priv. pub., 1987); M. Incarnata Girgen, Behind the Beginnings (St. Joseph, Minnesota: priv. pub., 1981); Ephrem Hollermann, The Reshaping of a Tradition: American Benedictine Women, 1852-1881 (Vv'inona: St. Mary's Press, 1994). ~3 Sutera, True Daughters, esp. chaps. 4-5 and pp. 38, 42, 53-56. 14 McCarthy, 1964 Guide, pp. 195-197. ,s Dorothy A. Vidulich, Peace Pays a Price: A Study of Margaret Anna Cusack, the Nun ofKenmare, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C., priv. pub., 1990; orig. 1975); see also Irene Ffrench Edgar, Margaret Anna Cusack (Dublin: Women's Press, 1979); Margaret Anna Cusack, The Nun of Kenmare: An Autobiography (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891). 16 The Monroe IHM story is told in fascinating detail throughout Building Sisterhood (see note 1, above); see, in particular, Marita-Constance Supan IHM, "Dangerous Memory: Mother M. Theresa Maxis Duchemin and the Michigan Congregation of the Sisters, IHM," pp. 31-67; Suzanne Fleming IHM, "She Who Remained: Mother Mary Joseph Walker and the 'Refounding' of the IHM Congregation," pp. 69-92; and Thompson, May-Jutte 1999 Thompson ¯ Cbarinn or Deep Story? "Concentric Circles," esp. pp. 5-8, and "Part l:The Context," pp. 25-28. L7 Fleming, "She Who Remained," p. 91; Margaret Brennan IHM, "'No Two Exactly Alike': IHM Spirituality," in Building Sisterhood, pp. 95-109; see also Rosalita Kelly IHM, No Greater Service: The History of the Congregation of the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Monroe: priv. pub., 1948), esp. p. 132. L8 McCarthy, 1964 Guide, p. 325. ~9 The SSMO story is told with honesty in Wilfred P. Schoenberg SJ, These Valiant Women: History of the Sisters of St. Mary of Oregon, 1886- 1986 (Portland: priv. pub., 1986)~ I also have read Wilhelmina's diary in the SSMO archives, Beaverton, Oregon. Three of the original members of the Ohio group left it during the days in Wisconsin and became found-ing members in 1869 (one of them first superior when the group was of officially established) of the Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity in Manitowoc; see M, Teresita Kit~:ell OSF, Refining His Silver: Pioneer Days of the Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, 1866- 1911 (Manitowoc: priv. pub., 1979). This, among other things, serves to document the length of time that the: schismatic "cult" was in existence before the SSMO's "founding" in 1886. 20 Bernard Lee SM, "A Socio-Historical Theology of Charism," Review for Religious 48, no. 1 (1989): 124-135; see also Doris Gottemoeller RSM, "Befriending the Wind," Review for Religious 53, no. 6 (1994): esp. p. 811. n See also Stephen Crites, "The Narrative Quality of Experience," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39 (1971). Open Wounds Be bold, twin brother. Probe the wounds doubt demands to see. The gash is but entrance to his heart. Pry it wide to penetrate the core. Review for Religious Demand and desire, too, are twins that seek to let his hallowed, hollow hands transform old hurts to quiet awe. , ~Eugene Cartier ELIZABETH McDONOUGH The Need for Self-Criticism: Affirmative Comments I n the United States the precipitous decline in numbers of postolic women religious since Vatican Council II will surely have far-reaching consequences for all segments of the church as the third millennium begins. Church-related educational and healthcare institutions will probably continue to be transferred to nonecclesial and sometimes for-profit auspices, and many Catholics may grow up unaware that apostolic congregations of women reli-gious exist as ways of life that could have appealed to them. ~ Recently, in commenting on the years of renewal in religious life since Vatican II, Sister Doris Gottemoeller RSM noted that "for the most part we have not identified and reflected on the learnings" from this experience and that "critical reflection on our present reality" has been lacking.1 She is currently president of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, is a recent past president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), was a participant in the 1994 Synod on Consecrated Life, and is one of the original members of the Catholic Common Ground Initiative. Her comments may represent a pivotal change in perspective by someone in an influential leadership position. And, since critical self-appraisal has been neither prevalent nor popular among American women religious since Vatican II, her comments may also represent a significant change at this time. Elizabeth McDonough OP has written the Canonical Counsel column in this journal since our issue of July-August 1990 and has contributed several other articles as well. Her address is P.O. Box 29260; Washington, D.C. 20017. ,~'h~y-~une 1999 McDonougb * The Need for Self-Criticism Though voices of criticism have consistently been raised about the postconciliar renewal efforts of religious life--by members of the hierarchy, by diocesan and religious clergy, by lay people, and by sisters themselves--critical reflection from without or from within has frequently been openly excluded Or quietly ignored in many, and perhaps most, women's apostolic communities. Over the years, members of women's religious communities have, in both speech and writing, lodged various objections to the general direction the path of postconciliar change was taking, a path that people now see as leading to pos-sible demise. The objections made over the years concerned, among other matters, the tendency towards having women religious governed by groups or by intermediate administrative personnel rather than by specific individuals elected to particular offices; the steady move-ment towards (so-called) total-participation chapters, which fre-quently exclude actual participation for many sisters; the general abandonment of easily recognizable identity symbols, along with the failure to maintain various community practices that many found meaningful; the increased use of open placement regarding sisters' employment, with the concomitant results of expanded apostolic diversity, an inability of congregations to make or meet institutional commitments, and the lessening of opportunities for community living. But in many women's congregations such objec-tions have not been well received by leadership or by segments of the membership. Moreover, although explicit internal objections regarding prevalent renewal patterns seem to have diminished over the years and to be somewhat rare now, it seems that members who still wish to embrace a renewed but traditional form of religious life (and who may be in their sixties, seventies, or even eighties) now channel their efforts elsewhere because of their experience of func-tional or systematic exclusion from effecting changes in internal governance. Many now direct their energies to living the remain-ing years of their vowed life by witnessing simply to the values they have consistently embraced but felt circumstantially unable to practice during much of the course of renewal. That is, they now consciously seek opportunities to live in common, to share com-munity prayer, and to minister in an apostolate traditionally related to their charism. Meanwhile, younger members--that is, mem-bers mostly under fifty--have initiated regular intra- and inter- Review for Religious congregational gatherings and networking in search of mutual sup-port and deeper religious meaning. Regarding various community renewal policies and proce-dures, then, numbers of community members have voiced explicit criticism--and by their practice have made some implicit criticism unmistakably clear too. Beyond this criticism arising from within apostolic communities of women religious, critical assessments have come also from people outside these communities. These assess-ments have been met with a similar pattern of rejection. Comments that even border on being critical have been categorically discountenanced as arising variously from arrogant, intemperate, shallow, uninformed, traditionalist, or ignorant sources. Criticism from the hierarchy and diocesan clergy seems often to have been excluded because they are regarded as hopelessly embedded in patriarchy. Criticism from religious priests seems to have been judged unacceptable because they are con-sidered to be unduly influenced by their experience of clerical advantage. And criticism from lay people seems to have been readily rejected because many of them are viewed as harboring unrealistic expectations of a lifestyle in which they do not share. Indeed, a pattern of negative reaction to critical assessmentsof what has happened since Vatican II is evident in responses to a recent article concerning possible causes for the current dearth of religious vocations in some communi-ties) It often appears that only certain internal, ostensibly self-perpetuating authorities or select special-interest groups are judged as adequately expressing the renewa! process among women reli-gious. Any suggestion from any source that any viable religious life in the future might diverge from the direction envisioned by the prevailing progressive model seems to be all too readily con-sidered as patently reactionary, as categorically negative, as arro-gantly uninformed, as judgmentally ignoring women's unique lived Any suggestion from any source that any viable religious life in the future might diverge from the direction envisioned by the prevailing progressive model seems to be all too readily considered as patently reactionary. ;'~,lay-JuJle 1999 254 McDonough ¯ The Need for Self-Criticism experience, as unfairly critical, or as an emotionally immature attachment to a former way of life) Furthermore, as postconciliar renewal has continued, it is not only critical observations that have been shunned .by women reli-gious in this country. Significant research data and pointed rec-ommendations from comprehensi'be sociological studies have also been embraced only selectively and implemented only sporadi-cally. Results from the ongoing, multifaceted, and controversial "Sisters' Survey"--as formulated and conducted under the direc-tion of sociologist Marie Augusta Neal SNDdeN--were systemat-ically distributed to participating congregations, published in several books~ and regularly reported at national meetings of major superiors from 1967 through the late 1980s. In stark contrast, amazingly little attention has been given to the more recent findings of psychologists David Nygren CM and Miriam Ukeritis CgJ. These researchers surprised participants at a 1992 Chicago workshop when, in presenting data from their study on the Future of Religious Orders in the United States (abbreviated as FORUS), they announced that many religious communities in this country had only a "ten-year window" in which to alter the present course of decline if they wished to perdure many years into the third millennium. The conferences of major superiors (CMSM and LCWR) were directly involved in the planning and execution of the FORUS study, which rendered some startling results about reli-gious in the United States. Included in these discoveries were. a lack of role clarity among religious (especially in apostolic groups of women), a high degree of cultural assimilation by religious, a general ministerial invisibility of religious, a relative dearth of effec-tive leadership in most religious communities, an apparently less-ened inclination to sacrifice among religious, and a widespread loss of institutional commitments by religious congregations.4 More than half a decade has passed since Nygren and Ukeritis projected that there was only a "ten-year window" of opportunity for the viability of religious institutes in America. During this time the FORUS findings seem to have gone largely unheeded or to have been relegated to convenient oblivion. Could it be that this study was greeted with a less than enthusiastic response precisely because its findings were unpopular among the group being assessed? For, indeed, the FORUS results did not shower unbounded accolades on the postconciliar transformation of reli-gious life in America; did not unquestioningly advocate contin- Review for Religious ued pursuit of the progressive model of renewal, and did not offer unrestrained optimism for the future prospects of religious insti-tutes. Or could it be that the FORUS findings, perceived as being all too accurate, were simply too painful to accept and conse-quently were met with at least unconscious denial at individual and collective levels in most congregations, particularly those of women religious? Over the years, religious in several areas of expertise have also sounded calls for critical reassessment of current practices in light of the manifest patterns of continuing decline in religious institutes. These calls, too, seem largely unheeded. The historical and sociological analyses of Raymond Fitz SM and Lawrence Cada SM, which appeared in the mid 1970s, got little attention after several months of popular discussion. Their work said quite clearly that probably only a small fraction of the then extant communi-ties would successfully negotiate post- Vatican renewal efforts,s Might the brief notice that Fitz and Cada's anal-yses received.be due, at least in part, to their intimation that religious con-gregations over the centuries have had identifiable lifespans, that many con-gregations did not last long after a per-vasive experience of absolute doubt regarding purpose, and that this seemed to be precisely the situa-tion at that time for thousands of religious in America? In 1983 CARA (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate) in Washington, D.C., published a translation of the 1972 land-mark monograph of Raymond Hostie SJ, Vie et mort des ordres religieux, on which the Fitz and Cada material was directly based.6 The introduction to this booklet, by historian Dolores Liptak RSM, explains its significance, its application to ~enewal among American religious and specifically women religious. But this, too, appears to have received only scant attention within women's communities in the United States. All through the early 1990s, Eleace King IHM, of CAR& pub-lished data about--and reasons for--the steady decline in voca- Religious in several areas of expertise have also sounded calls for critical reassessment of current practices in light of the manifest patterns of continuing decline in religious institutes. 255 May-,]une 1999 McDonougb * The Need for Self-Criticism tions to progressively oriented communities along with parallel data about the constant flow of vocations to traditional groups.7 Little note, however, has been taken of these results. At the beginning of this decade, David O'Connor ST offered a balanced and readable summary of the various cultura!, eccle-sial, theological, and ideological shifts that may be contributing to the (possible) disappearance of many religious institutes in this country; but his work is rarely cited or even referenced in reli-gious- life circles.8 In 1991 I myself published what the editor of America magazine referred to as a "trenchant critique" of the then prevailing trends in religious life, while the editor of First Things described it as "a first-rate analysis of what has gone awry in the many worlds of American religion."9 This analysis and critique received an overwhelming positive response from members of reli-gious communities around the world, but it was simultaneously greeted with resounding silence from those in leadership. Albert DiIanni SM has offered thoughtful considerations based on his experience of the renewal of religious life as it currently relates to religion, to modernity, to modern psychology, to com-munity, to decreasing vocations, and to certain laicizing trends in the post-Vatican II era; but his observations have been met with either studied unconcern or strident rejectionJ° And little heed has been paid to the recent, assessment of sociologist Patricia Wittberg SC that the future of most religious communities is severely limited--if not rather bleak---precisely because a coinci-dence of internal and external factors has resulted in a collapse of their ideological framework and a lessening or elimination of their functional supports.~ Regarding postconciliar religiousqife trans-formation, are only laudatory comments able to be perceived as having any meaning and value for communities of women reli-gious in America today? In many of these communities, a pattern of dismissing with studied disdain or even open derision any factual data that leads to disconcerting conclusions about their lives has been ill too evi-dent in the response to Ann Carey's recent book, a book (widely conceded to be well documented) that details decisions and actions taken in the decades since Vatican II within the conference of major superiors for women's institutes.~2 Note, hbwever, that Lora Ann Quifionez CDP and Mary Daniel Turner SNDdeN published a book earlier in the decade that traced precisely the same era of transi-tion and detailed most of the same topics, but from a different Review for Religious perspective and with less specific documentation.13 In contrast to Carey's work, the Quifionez-Turner book was well received and has been highly touted as an accurate portrait of renewal. Yet both books present renewal as deliberately intended and carefully planned. Both books address the influence of cultural context, the impa6t of the Sisters' Survey, the effect of feminist initiatives, the disruption from internal conference conflicts, the consequences of hierarchic confrontations, and other such topics in reference to postconciliar religious life. Both books name those who were instrumental in the renewal process at national and local levels in this country. And the authors of both books offer assessments of what has actually occurred. Could the disparity in recep-tion of these two works be due at least in part to the fact that the Quifionez- Turner book evaluates these happen-ings positively while the Carey book views the results as more than slightly wide of the mark envisioned by Perfectae caritatis? To be sure, journalist Carey is a laywoman who judged the evidence she amassed as anything but complimen-tary to the renewal process and those who directed it, and she called for critical reassessment of renewal results. On the other hand, Quifionez and Turner are women religious--both former executive secretaries of LCWR and both instrumental in effecting the postconciliar transformation--who judged the results thus far as entirely positive and urged further development along the same course of renewal. It is a truism of historical scholarship that those attempting an analysis of a set of events need a realistic broad familiarity with the historical context. But does this explain why the perspective on religious-life renewal presented by those who guided it should so readily be judged more accurate or more objective or more accept-able than the perspective of someone who has carefully pored over official documentation and verifiable data and has her own lived familiarity with post-Vatican II renewal? Could it be that negative assessments of religious-life renewal from whatever source are Could it be that negative assessments of religious-life renewal from whatever source are simply unacceptable to women religiousm for whatever reason ? 257 May-June 1999 McDonougb ¯ The Need for Self-Criticism t_g_ 1 simply unacceptable to women religious--for whatever reason? For an explanation of the present situation of decline and demise, are many women religious simply incapable of looking further than a speculatively fascinating and vaguely consoling convergence of sociological circumstances that impact religious life fr0m outside? Is none of the decline and demise of the past thirty-three years attributable to decisions made and actions taken within religious communities? Have dispersed ministries and secular attire (with lapel pins) and apartment living had absolutely no detrimental effect, whether expected or not? Are women religious able to look at none of the above? And, if so, why? Though the suggestion made ten years ago by sociologist Wittberg that the behavioral patterns among congregations of women religious might "actually be dysfunctional for organiza-tional survival" appears to have been effectively ignored, it may well identify a pertinent reality that needs to be at least acknowl-edged- if not directly addressed--by religious congregations of women today.14 And perhaps women religious would also do well to attend to the warning, offered in 1988 by psychologist Donna Markham OP, that the positive perception they had of themselves did not match the perception of others--something that did not bode well for vocations.~s Indeed, with rare exception, vocations have declined steadily throughout the decade since Markham's observation, and in most communities of apostolic women reli-gious the median age has gradually increased. " True enough, religious life is not merely a functional institu-tion, and it certainly ought not to be reduced to a numbers game. But is it unrealistic to suggest that a minimal number of members is needed for a community to perdure, to serve effectively, and to hand on a religious tradition? And, when women religious look over their shoulder for younger women walking in their footsteps and see no one there, is it really unfair to surmise that what they have been fashioning since Vatican II may not be a viable form of future religious life after all? Or, again, when congregations begin realistically to project that by the year 2010 fewer than ten percent of their members will be under sixty-five years of age, is it unduly critical to suggest that someone somewhere somehow may have made some decision(s) in the three-plus decades of post-Vatican II renewal that ought seriously to be reassessed and perhaps even altered? I think not. Review for Religious Indeed, on the part of women religious in America (and per-haps elsewhere in the world, too), some possibly difficult but gen-uinely constructive self-criticism and some corrective change of course in various aspects of postconciliar renewal ought to be hon-esdy welcomed.'6 And both may be long overdue, because the real-ity at issue has import far beyond the ever-dwindling numbers of ever-aging apostolic women religious themselves. Notes 1 Doris Gottemoeller, "Religious Life: Where Does It Fit in Today's Church?" in Review for Religious 57, no. 3 (March-April 1998): 146- 160. 2 Albert Dilanni, "A View of Religious Vocations," America 178, no. 6 (28 February 1998): 8-12. 3 See various responses to the Dilanni article (note 2 above) among letters to the editor in the March and early April issues of 1998. 4 David J. Nygren and Miriam D. Ukeritis, "The Religious Life Futures Project: Executive Summary," Review for Religious 52, no. 1 (January-February 1993): 6-55; also. Origins 22, no. 15 (24 September 1992): 257-272. s Lawrence Cada and Raymond Fitz, "The Recovery of Religious Life," Review for Religious 34, no. 5 (September-October 1975): 690-718. 6 Raymond Hostie, /,qe et mort des ordres religieux (Paris: Descl~e, 1972), translated for a limited English edition as The Life and Death of Religious Orders (Washington, D.C.: CAP, A, 1983). 7 See the CARA Formation Directory for Men and Women Religious (Washington, D.C.: CARA) as edited by Eleace King IHM for the years 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994-1995. s David O'Connor, Witness and Service (New York: Paulist Press, 1990), pp. 145-162. 9 See, respectively, Elizabeth McDonough, "Beyond the Liberal Model: Quo Vadis?" Review for Religious 50, no. 3 (March-April 1991): 178-188; editorial in America for 13 July 1991; and "The Public Square," First Things, no. 17 (November 1991). ,0 Albert DiIanni, Religious Life as Adventure (New York: Alba House, 1994). " Patricia Wittberg, The Rise and Fall of Catholic Religious Orders (New York: SUNY Press, 1994). ,2 Ann Carey, Sisters in Crisis (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 1997). ,3 Lora Ann Quifionez and Mary Daniel Turner, The Transformation of American Catholic Sisters (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992). ,4 Patricia Wittberg, "Outward Orientation in Declining 259 May-June 1999 McDonough ¯ The Need for Self-Criticism Organizations: Reflections on LCWR Documents," in Claiming Our Truth, ed. Nadine Foley (Washington, D.C.: LCWR, 1988), pp, 91-105. 15 Donna Markham, "The Decline of Vocations in the United States: Reflections from a Psychological Perspective," New Catholic World 231, no. 1381 (January-February 1988): 13-17. 16 See, for example, the recent comments of Doris Gottemoeller, "Religious Life in Crisis," Origins 28, no. 36 (25 February 1999): 634- 638. The Treasure Long ago a rainbow arc'd my storm-tossed sky, and the pot of gold I found then is still bottomless. Since that serendipitous moment, faith has claimed its reality. I see with clarity--over the clouds, beyond the rains--that joy and pain alike qualify to mine the treasure, provide the coin to buy the Kingdom, here on the green earth for a time, and there in the meadows of Eternity. Anna Marie Mack SSJ Review for Religious LARRY N. LORENZONI The Annuario Pontificio The Vatican's "Pontifical Yearbook" and a Recent Editorial Decision Fourteen years ago the Religious Life Review, edited in Dublin by Father Austin Flannery OP, published an arti-cle with the catchy title "The Single Sex Church of the Annuario Pontificio." Its opening paragraphs noted the almost total absence of women's names in the church's official directory. The same article was later reprinted in Sisters Today with a milder title: "The Annuario Pontificio and Women in the Church." The Annuario Pontificio is the 4.25"-by-6.5" 2500- page yearbook of the Roman Catholic Church. Bound in red cloth with a golden papal coat of arms on the cover, it contains annually updated information about the College of Cardinals, all archbishops and bishops (with basic facts about their respective dioceses), all prelates and abbots, the secretariat of state, the Roman tribunals, congregations, councils, and commissions, the Vatican Library, the church's worldwide diplomatic representa-tives (nuncios and pronuncios), all the ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, the administration of Vatican City, all officially approved religious orders of men and Larry N. Lorenzoni SDB, a Salesian priest, served in the late 1980s as director of the documentation, information, and press office of Caritas Internationalis in Rome. Currently director of development for his province, he may be addressed at Salesians of St. John Bosco; 1100 Franklin Street; San Francisco, California 94109. 1999 261 A former noteworthy feature of the Annuario was the almost total absence of females in its pages. 262 Lorenzoni ¯ Tlse Annuario Pontifido of women, academies, atheneums, pontifical universities (six: Gregoriana, Lateranense, Urbaniana, San Tommaso d'Aquino [Angelicum], Salesiana, and the new Santa Croce), a number of seminaries and colleges, and various other institutes and cultural organizations. The Annuario closes with a hundred pages of historical notes and six hundred pages of alphabetical lists: names of all the dio-ceses, prelatures~ and titular dioceses (in their Latin adjectival form, Latin noun form, and modern Roman-alphabet form) and the names and page references of some 25,000 persons. It is a fascinat-ing book. Of the 151 living cardinals listed in the 1997 Annuario (to cite a rather significant fact one can easily cull from its pages), 4 were created by Pope John xxIII, 31 by Paul vI, and 116 by Pope John Paul II. A former noteworthy feature of the Annuario--it used to distinguish it from virtually eve .ry other directory in the world--was the almost total absence of females in its pages. The alpha-betical list at the end of the directory was conse-quently 99.99 percent male. Historical, doctrinal, and traditional considerations are essential for a proper understanding of this situation. One page from the 1985 article (in RLR) found its way to the Vatican underground and quickly became the subject of some interesting conversa-tions during my four years (1986-1990) at Caritas Internationalis, the church's worldwide charity wing. In the penthouses of Palazzo San Callisto, where the Caritas offices are located (near Santa Maria in Trastevere), lived a number of active and retired cardinals (Roger Etchegaray, Bernardin Gantin, Paul Poupard, Ferdinando Antonelli, Francesco Carpino, and Francis Arinze). I came to know best Cardinal Francis Arinze, from Nigeria, the genial president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. Occasionally I see him mentioned among the papabili and featured as a speaker on Mother Angelica's EWTN television programs. He is keenly intelligent and friendly, a good listener, articulate and ever an opti-mist. Open to new ideas, he weighs carefully all arguments against the truths of the faith and then follows them courageously t6 their logical conclusions. I remember in particular one conversation I had with him at Review for Religious Palazzo San Callisto, a conversation occasioned by some para-graphs from that December 1985 article (of mine) in RLR, which some friend had shared with him. The paragraphs are these: One glaring lacuna [in the Annuario Pontificio] is hard to understand, and even harder to accept, because of the anger it is likely to provoke today when everyone is being increas-ingly sensitized against all kinds of discrimination. I am refer-ring to the omission of the names of the superiors general of women religious where the individual congregations are listed with the address of the generalate and current information as to the number of foundations and of professed members. .This anomaly came to my attention when I needed to check the spelling of the name of the new mother general of our Salesian sisters. I had just looked up the name of the superior general of the Fathers of Mercy (whose ad I had seen in The Wanderer), so I turned instinctively to the Annuario for the answer to my question. It was not as sim-ple as I thought. For every male congregation, the name of the superior general is invariably given (and, in 99 percent of the cases, also that of the procurator general). One learns, for instance, that the Very Rev. John O'Brien is the superior general of the Fathers of Mercy (an order founded in 1808), even though the order has only seven members worldwide. Fifty-four religious orders of men have less than I00 pro-fessed members, seven have 25 or fewer, but in each case the name of the general is prominently displayed. I was chagrined to discover that in the case of the orders and congregations of women one looks in vain in the Annuario for the names of the mothers general. Some 120 of those congregations have a membership of over 1000 sis-ters. In vain did I look for the name of the superior general of the Salesian sisters, even though the Daughters of Mary Help of Christians, as they are officially known, have a worldwide membership of nearly 18,000. They are the sec-ond largest congregation of women in the church, after the 34,000 Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul. Such a discriminatory omission tends to reinforce all the worst stereotypes one hears about the institutional church and its treatment of women, since it conveys a number of admittedly unintentional but nonetheless inescapable mes-sages: (1) Women are of little consequence in the church. (2) The father superior of ten men is more important than the mother superior of I0,000 women. (3) Names of females, no matter how important, need not be listed in the Annuario because the church does not discuss matters of consequence with them anyway. (4)Male religious superiors are routinely consulted, and hence it is necessary to have their names listed May-June 199.9 Lorenzoni ¯ The AnnuarioPontificio in the Annuario, but listing the flames of the superiors gen-eral of women does not serve any useful purpose since very rarely does one need to know who they are and even less deal or correspond with them. (5) Sisters are supposed to accept obediently and without too many questions whatever Holy Mother Church says. Unfortunately, in the thinking of many, Holy Mother Church is often equated with male power structure. No dissenting voice was heard from those who had joined our conversation. Both retired Cardinal Francesco Carpino (a man of rare nobility, who died 5 October 1993) and Cardinal Francis Arinze agreed that the Annuario should at long last join the mod-ern age and list the names of women religious superiors alongside those of their male counterparts. But Rome moves slowly. The 16 December 1994 issue of Commonweal carried this item under its Et Cetera rubric: Speaking in support of requests by women's religious orders for an end to discrimination by the church against women, Archbishop Maurice Couture of Quebec pointed to the 1993 Vatican Yearbook (Annuario Pontificio); it lists the names of the superiors general of all institutes of men, but none of the names of the superiors general of women (Origins, November 3). Good for the archbishop, but he's ten years late. Writing in Religious Life Review for November-December 1985, our correspondent Larry Lorenzoni SDB [Correspondence, November 18] recalled turning to the Annuario to find the name of the superior general of the Fathers of Mercy, an order founded in 1808 which has seven members worldwide. The name was there: the Very Rev. John O'Brien. He also looked for the name of the superior general of the Salesian sisters, the second largest congregation of women in the church: nearly 18,000 members. No name. Some of the mes-sages conveyed (Father Lorenzoni, a kind man, says they are "admittedly unintentional but nonetheless inescapable"): "Women are of little consequence in the church; the father superior of ten men is more important than the mother supe-rior of 10,000 women; there's no point in publishing the names of women superiors because who needs to know them." I have before me the 1997 edition of the Annuario Pontificio. I see with some personal satisfaction that each religious congrega-tion of women now routinely carries, as an additional entry, the name of the mother general. The change can safely be labeled "routine" since it started with the Annuario's 1996 edition. Review for Religious No doubt, some gentle nudging by a few highly placed mem-bers of the College of Cardinals, as well as by bishops convinced that the previous practice was clearly discriminatory, helped level the field. Word eventually reached the offices of the Vatican sec-retariat of state, on which the Annuario Pontificio depends, and suitable action followed with the publication of the 1996 edition. A recent phone call to the secretariat of state enabled me to reach Angela Zanetti, a most personable and knowlegeable lady who was for twenty-six years connected with the production of the Annuario. Her new supervisor, Monsignore Fermenti, intro-duced her to me as a "walking encyclopedia on the history of the Annuario Pontificio." Here are some interesting facts from our con-versation: ¯ The first list of male religious orders (Istituti Mascbili) appeared in the 1838 edition of the Annuario. ¯ The first list of female religious orders (Istituti Femminih) appeared 98 years later, in the 1940 edition, without the name of the mother general. ¯ The two lists continued to be published (Ordini Mascbili first, Ordini Femminili second) in the years following, each order of men shouting prominently the name of the general, each order of women lacking that particular information. * At last, in the 1996 edition, for the very first time, the information concerning each religious order of women included also the name of the mother general, as had previously been done for even the smallest reli-gious orders of men. I am reminded of what Pat Paulsen, the late tongue-in-cheek presidential candidatei once said with his usual aplomb: "No one should be denied equal rights because of the shape of their skin." Subs'criptions to Review for Religious can flow b~ ordered,or renewedoby FAX; and paid forby Ma~terCard ~o'r Visd. FA~ the order form inside the back cover, or cALL our o~c~ ~wi~ "th your credit card number: IF~: 31z~-977~7362 0, ~'HONE: 314-977-7363 1999 JOAN A. RANGE Women and Canon Law Cbanon law, as a support for the life of the community of elievers, that is, the church, has a history almost as old as the community itself. Over the centuries, its formulation has not been the work of women, a fact that is readily understandable. Women did not have the status nor society the liberality for that kind of contribution. Women were, however, a vital part of the church and society: in the church as members of the various ordines that supported the living community and in society as wives and mothers2 History witnesses to this fact and those roles. Women's lives, moreover, were guided by the protection, pre-scriptions, and sanctiohs of the church's law. In church courts of the ¯ Middle Ages, women were parties to suits brought against alleged violations and also were sued for alleged violations of others' rights. The activity of women in the world of canon law is well attested to in the church's history.2 But as members who formulated the law or who addressed the church's courts (defending others or doing advocate work for oth-ers) or judged cases (even as collegiate judges), all this women never did until this century. In this century women have performed all these functions in their own right as members of the church and as canon lawyers. The future is clear for their continued func-tioning to be even more vigorous. This rather astonishing fact needs consideration. Given the absence of women in all these roles before this century, how did this change come about? Joan A. Range ASC is associate professor in the Department of Theological Studies at Saint Loui~ University. Her address is Humanities Bui_lding; 3800 Lindell Boulevard; St. Louis, Missouri 63108. Review for Relig4ous Women's Status in Canon Law ~ Before this century, as a rule women's status was that of persons limited before the law. Mostly, women were considered--as were minors and the mentally incompetent--unable in their own person and name to bring a case before the court. This reflected Roman law, from which much of canon law is derived. When, however, asso-ciations of women became moral persons with rights and duties in the law, they were able to bring cases to court, as history shows. Besides bringing cases to the church's tribunals when their rights were being infringed or violated, women were also sued by others if the petitioner felt that his own rights were being infringed or violated by women. This was often a matter of property rights. As time progressed it might also be a matter of marriage rights as well, especially when it concerned the legitimacy of children and their right to inherit. Other than these cases, however, women's presence in~ the laws themselves usually had to do with their status within the church and society, that is, as daughters, wives, moth-ers, widows, nuns, or women of ill repute. Beginning early in the church's history, the protection of wid-ows and orphans was a great concern since these groups were socially the most vulnerable. As time passed and Roman law found its way into the church's mentality, other laws concerning women were developed to protect the virgin from marriage if she resisted, from abduction and rape, and later as a member of a community of consecrated women) Most of the legislation had to do with the women as wives and mothers, however, and especially with their ability to bear children. Laws agains.t adultery, contraception, and abortion were the most prominent since they infringed upon the husband's potency, paternity, or virility.4 Apart from these matters, women as individual persons were not dealt with in the church's laws. The 1917 Code did not always treat women equally with men, as studies testify.5 The 1983 Code, in contrast, states that the "there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality with regard to dignity and the activity whereby all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ in accord with each one's own condition and function.''6 The excep-tion to this is when the nature of the case clearly indicates other-wise, such as the laws having to do with ordination.7 Women began to engage themselves in the activities of the Canon Law Society of America (CLSA) since about the middle of this century. It is that story upon which we now focus. May-June 1999 ,267 Range * Women and Canon Law Women and the Canon Law Society of America The pivotal event for the growth in female membership in the CLSA was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).8 Before that event there were clear hints that the status of women in the world and in the church needed to be addressed.9 The council documents, too, indicated those concerns,l° In the United States, women's professional involvement in canon law began in the mid 1960s. Clara Marie Henning, the first woman to become a member of CLSA, applied for membership in 1968. She was then a student in the School of Canon Law at the Catholic University of America, from which she later received the licentiate in canon law (JCL). Other women were members of the CLSA, but their reason for membership was their position as supe-riors of religious orders, not their status as canon lawyers. Even before Vatican II, beginning with Pope Pius XrlI, efforts had been made by the church to bring about a simplification and an updating within the various orders and congregations of women religious worldwide.~ This was a remote cause for interest in canonical matters and membership in the CLSA. After the documents of the council and the implementation decrees of Pope Paul vI had been issued, there was a need and desire to learn about canon law and its usefulness in the efforts of religious congregations toward adaptation and renewal. These efforts had a significant effect on the work during the 1970s toward formulating the new and revised Code. Initially, then, the impetus for women to become members of the CLSA was that congregations of women religious might derive more benefit from canon law. Another reason for women to begin studying canon law and to become members of the CLSA was an academic one. As Catholic universities opened graduate programs in theology for lay people, some women students became interested in pursuing degrees in canon law. This interest included both the relation of canon law to theology and the historical development of canon law. The membership records of the CLSA are limited in a number of ways. For many year~ the records were the responsibility of the coordinator and were not kept in a permanent office. It was only in 1980 that a full-time director and staff began to have an office (with a permanent place for records)at the Catholic University of America. The records up to 1979 were given to the Cushwa Center for .the Study of American Catholicism and are available there as archival records. The membership records are incom- Review for Religious plete, however, because they were not systematically kept, a not uncommon omission when an organization's importance is not understood in its early days22 Nevertheless, the records show a remarkable growth in female membership after the mid 1960s. In 1968 there were hardly five women members. In 1971 the first woman was elected to national office in the CLSA.13 This event witnessed to a movement within the society to include women as active members. In 1976 there were 38 women members; by 1984 there were 139. The 1990 directory lists almost 200 women members.~4 At' the time of the 1996 direc-tory, the female membership stood at 223 out of a total of 1557 members, or about 14 percent. The history of the growth of the membership of women in the CLSA is part of the growth of la~Yomember-ship. Already in1,37 the CLSA's committee on membership was concerned with appropriate criteria. The concern was not specif-ically about women, but about qualifications that would assure that interested persons, lay or clerical, would have knowledge about the science of canon law. Before this point a potential mem-ber was sponsored by a current member and his name given to the committee on membership for its approval before being voted on by all those gathered at the national convention. That this rather cumbersome way of enrolling new members needed to be revised was a common opinion at the time. Thomas J. Lynch,~5 chair of the committee on membership, wrote in a report to the board of governors that, in the proposed revision of the constitutions (1967), the CLSA will "rid our con-stitution of any unnecessary clericalism and will also insure that the active and voting membership of the society will be composed of persons whose professional qualifications give them a special com-petence in matters of renewal and revision of law." ,6 As executive secretary, after receiving increased correspon-dence from many interested parties, James Provost laid his con-cerns about qualifications for membership before the board of Initially, the impetus for women to become members of the CLSA was that congregations of women religious might derive more benefit from canon law. Mt{y-June 1999 Range ¯ l, Vomen and Canon Law governors.'7 In 1980 a constitutional amendment was finalized requiring a person to have a degree in canon law in order to be an active member. Others could be associate members, but without the right to vote at the conventions.~s In 1995 a survey was distributed to women members at the annual convention held in conjunction with the Canadian Canon Law Society in Montreal. Its purpose was to discover the experi-ence of women as members of the CLSA. One hundred three responses were returned, with seventeen women indicating asso-ciate membership, the rest active membership. The responses demonstrated a positive experience within the society; there were a few exceptions, but even they did not indicate major difficulties. One commented that the CLSA was "one of the best kept secrets of the American Church." A tone must have been set many years ago, another respondent speculated, to be inclusive of women.19 Although there is no documentation of a policy decision that ver-ifies that statement, the facts sifice 1968 attest to its reality. The inclusion of women on committees, their election to national posi-tions as officers and consultors, and their presentations at plenary sessions and seminars during regional and national conventions-- all this has been remarkable over the last thirty years. Already in 1971 a woman was a member of the religious-affairs committee; in 1972 a woman was on the legal-council committee as well.2° Twice women have been elected vice-president/presi-dent- elect and have assumed the full responsibility of that office. This office is a challenging one for its incumbent, whether male or female, and certainly for a nonordained female. In addition to chairing the board of governors, the president's responsibilities include communications with the hierarchy of the United States, with the various dicasteries of the Vatican, with the canon-law societies of other countries, and with the members of various dioce-san offices throughout the country. The leadership of the society is challenging internally also, since most of the members are still clerics, including bishops, archbi.shops, and cardinals. Besides the increased membership of women in the society and their activity within it, the agendas of the CLSA have been modified because of the interests of the women members and the" commitment of the leadership and membership to women's issues. Already in 1970, at the national convention in New Orleans, a resolution was passed that stated: "The Canon Law Society of America instructs the subcommittee of its task force on the revi- Review for Religious sion of the Code of Canon Law to study the canonical institutions concerning the dignity, freedom, rights, privileges, offices, and obligations of women in the church and to propose those changes necessary to ensure the equitable consideration of all persons regardless of sex by the law of the church.''2~ In 1973 the society cosponsored with the Adrian Dominican Sisters a meeting of canonists and theologians at their college, Siena Heights, to address the question of the ordination of women from a variety of per-spectives?~ In 1972 the board of governors established an ad hoc com-mittee on the status of women in the church; it became a regular committee in 1973.23 At the conven-tion of 1975, Margaret Brennan IHM presented a major address titled "Standing in Experience: A Reflection on the Status of Women in the church." In 1976 a symposium was held at Rosemont College in Pennsylvania on Women and Church Law; in view of the revision going on at the time, it studied how the law addresses women. It published a con-sensus paper, signed by the twenty-four participants, with sug-gestions concerning how the church in the United States might address some of the inequities from which women suffered.24 In 1987 the members of the committee on women raised the question of its future viability. Even though it regularly invited the society's membership to present it with significant issues, the committee had little business to deal with, This was the reason for the eventual elimination of this committee. Its concerns were taken up by a new committee on the laity in the church?5 From 1988 on, some members of the CLSA were involved with the canon-ical dimensions of the U.S. bishops' Letter on Women that was eventually published in 1990.26 A resolution was taken by the society in 1992 to study the question of the diaconate for women. In 1995 the report by the ad hoc committee, "The Canonical Implications of Ordaining Women to the Permanent Diaconate," was presented to the national con-vention and accepted by the membership.27 This document received a wide distribution to other professional societies and to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB). A resolution was taken by the society in 1992 to study the question of the diaconate for women. 271 May-.Tune 1999 Range ¯ Women and Canon Law With the promulgation of Pope John Paul II's apostolic let-ter Ordinatio sacerdotalis stating that the church has no authority to ordain women, the activity of the society on some of these issues perforce ceased, and no new initiatives on this issue have been forthcoming. Some study is being done on the question of the laity sharing in the power of jurisdiction, obviously an important issue, for .lay people function more and more in various offices in the church, It remains to be seen, however, if gender-specific issues will continue to inform the society's agenda. Participation in the annual conventions also reflects the change in the presence of women. In 1967 there were no women at the national convention. In 1968 the female participants were superi-ors of religious orders. In 1969-1970 some women religious were present as well as some major superiors.2s In 1971 there were 9 women registered at the convention in Atlanta, out of 224 partic-ipants. As more and more women begame members of the CLSA, more and more of them have attended both the regional and national conventions.29 In the women's responses to the question-naire mentioned above, they noted the quality of exchange at both regional and national conventions. They are a continuing educa-tional experience for the female membership, as they are for oth-ers who attend these meetings. 272 Women's Education in Canon Law It is clear that many of the women members of the CLSA are active members with degrees in canon law. The obtaining of these degrees is a completely novel achievement in the history of women and canon law. In North America there are two schools from which a woman can receive a degree in canon law: the Catholic University of American in Washington, D.C., and St. Paul University in Ottawa. Most U.S. women have chosen one of these two schools for their canonical education. Among the European schools, most women have chosen the Angelicum, which teaches courses in English, and a few the Gregorian, which until onl~ recently taught its courses in Latin. In 1990 John E. Lynch CSP published an interesting and infor-mative article about the history of the Department of Canon Law at the Catholic University of America, "Laying Down the (Canon) Law at Catholic University.m° The occasion for the article was the centenary of Catholic University. In it he remarked that in Review Jbr Religious 1959 women were enrolling in canon law in Rome.3' That had not yet occurred in North America and not at Catholic University, but it would occur in 1967. The first woman to enroll was Clara Marie Henning, a native of Germany. After that, the numbers of women students increased gradually and now have remained con-stant for some time. The first women students, except for Ms. Henning, were women religious.32 The topics of their theses and dissertations represented the concerns of women in the early 1970s, after the close of the council: religious formation, authority, the LCWR, the legal status of women, the pastoral nature of canon law.3~ Besides this continued interest in the concerns of women religious, later tides indicate an interest in the position of lay people in the church: for example, participation in the munus sanctificandi, and ministry and the layperson.34 Still later tides indicate a broadening of inter-est: for example, the relation of canon law to civil law, and the relation of bishops to diocesan church institutions. Licentiate (JCL) theses usually presaged what those who con-tinued on to the doctorate in canon law (JCD) would write their dis-sertations about. Many of the topics arose from the first draft of the soon-to-be-revised Code: lay employees, rights and obligations of Christian parents, tribunal personnel. Also, a number of theses compared the historic 1983 revision with the 1917 Code. When women first entered Catholic University's Department of Canon Law as students, it could be presumed that they would make a difference in the classroom. After the early wave (women religious, all but one), a number Of lay women as well (and men, too) entered the ranks of students. To assess this presumption of difference, I seized an opportunity to interview the faculty of the department in December 1996: Father James Provost (chair), Father John E. Lynch CSP, Father Thomas Green, Father Edward Pfnausch, Sister Rose McDermott ssJ, and Father John Beal.3s Their reflections on the difference women make are interesting and substantiate what I consider an exceedingly important dimen-sion of women's contribution to canon law, that is, women's human-izing effect. Every one of the faculty indicated that the presence of women made the conversation within the class richer; the questions they asked and their observations were different from the ques-tions of the traditional clerical students.36 At first the women stu-dents did not know some of the vocabulary (nor did entering laymen). One of the faculty recalls mentioning the title "vicar May-ffune 1999 273 Range ¯ Women and Canon Law forane," a term completely unfamiliar to the women. But, when this and other technical phrases were learned, the difficulty was sur-mounted. Women and men, according to ~he faculty members inter-viewed, are equally intelligent. A number of them indicated that women seem to work harder, perhaps to catch up with the clerics because of the unfamiliar discourse, perhaps because of a greater personal commitment to learning the field. By and large women are eager students and indicate an appreciation for the dedication of their ifistructors. They suffered from some rather mediocre teaching, but the men suffered from them equally with the women.37 No resentment toward women students precisely because of their gender, however, seems to have marred their educational experience, Women have been elected to leadership within the student body and have functioned well in those positions. They quickly initiated social events that, rich in student exchange, aided schol, arly interests along with providing amiable relaxation. The male students in those same positions of leadership had not been as cre-ative in these important social dimensions of student life. The mission of the faculty in this department derives from their conviction that canon law is g/tided by its theological and pastoral nature. This conviction permeates the curriculum and challenges the students to understand it as an ecclesial discipline, a sister to scriptural, systematic, moral, and church-history stud-ies and influenced by the conclusi6ns of those studies, even as canon law has an influence on them. This understanding of the nature of canon law informs the entire curriculum and therefore shapes the intellectual formation of the students for their future careers as canon lawyers. In my discussions with the faculty, the question arose about the influence of feminism on canon law. In general, the faculty agreed that the agenda of feminism, as various as it is, does not signifi-cantly influence either the students or the classes. Earlier on, given especially the newness of women to the field, the place of women in the 1917 Code, and the questions about women's place in the revised Code, women's'issues had more sig-nificance than they currently have. At that time (through the 1970s) some of the female students manifested some anger due to these issues. Today, however, the nature of law seems to move the direc-tion of the students' questions and concerns much more than gen-der issues do. The women students are not angry, nor are their Review for Religious instructors. Rather, they are typical students focused on complet-ing their studies and finding positions that fulfill their educational goals. The question of secure employment in the church, with its attendant concerns, is more of an issue with them, women and lay men alike, than gender issues. However, as justice issues, gender concerns remain for both instructors and students, now usually subsumed in the issues of the role of the layperson in the church. Women's Involvement in. Writing Canon Law Perhaps the most original activity that women have engaged in regarding canon law is the actual writing of legislation intended to be incorporated within the revised Code of Canon Law. Whether or not the canons made their way into the final text of the 1983 Code is not the point here. Rather, it is the activity itself, utterly newin the history of the church as far as I have been able to determine. How did this creative effort on the part of women begin? Sister M. Luke Tobin SL, president of the CMSW from 1964 to 1967, was invited in 1964 to be an official observer at the Vatican Council during the 1964 and 1965 sessions. This invitation itself indicated that the council fathers wanted the participation of women in the process of developing the church's self-understand-ing in the modern world?8 The law of the church, canon law, needed to express this new self-understanding ,as well. In the United States, women religious felt that their experience of their own lives as women religious was an important contribution towards an appropriately revised Code of Canon Law. This activ-ity would engage many of the members of the CMSW during the late 1960s and the 1970s. The board of CMSW began in 1965 to consider writing the regulations for ~governing the lives of women religious in the Code of Canon Law)9 It initiated a project for accomplishing this. Committees were formed in the several regions to write proposed canons dealing with the various aspects of religious life: the vows, authority, community life, formation, apostolate, prayer, and so forth. At the annual conventions of the CMSW from 1967 to 1971, the committees gave reports about the progress of their work. Eventually the conference published a document containing the proposed norms. It received a wide distribution in this country May-June 1999 275 276 Range ¯ Women and Canon Law and abroad, going to all the religious congregations and to the bishops.4° As this endeavor continued, the confidence of the women grew; they recognized the possibilities of the project. Moreover, they sought assistance from canonical experts to assist them in this unique activity. The CLSA was instrumental in assisting the various committees in this endeavor. Father Paul Boyle CP, a canon lawyer, was out-standing in his leadership in this area for women religious.4' Already as president of CLSA, he had communicated his vision of including women in the revision process. Later, as executive sec-retary, he increased his activity along this line. The recognition by the canonists of women's lack of education in canon law led to the establishment of summer institutes for a number of them. Certificates were earned and credit gained for these educa-tional endeavors. Father Kevin O'Rourke OP assumed the respon-sibility for these institutes by sponsoring them, developing them, enlisting the faculty for them, and negotiating their locations. They were held in different Catholic colleges in the country. A number of the graduates of these programs later completed their education in canon law at pontifical schools of canon law. Besides this educational assistance, the CLSA, following Paul VI's Ecdesiae sanctae (1966) implementing the conciliar document Perfectae caritatis, developed institutes to assist women religious in managing the process of renewal in their congregations. Pope Paul's decree instructed communities to hold general chapters to write their constitutions and to somehow engage the entire con-gregation in that effort. Experimentation, too, was mandated. Experimentation and writing canonical documents were some-thing for which most religious communities needed assistance. These endeavors of the CLSA were empowering experiences for the women and their religious communities. Hitherto the women were by and large ignorant of canon law and canonical procedures. They were, however, well-educated, intelligent, competent leaders within their religious congregations and deeply committed to the renewal that the church had mandated. The assistance of the CLSA empowered them and many other women in their congregations. Enthusiasm to recover the origins of their congregations, to learn about the remarkable women who had founded them, to encounter the Word of God through a knowledge of the Scriptures, and to assess the needs of the world through a study of the "signs of the times" generated an enormous energy within these communities.42 Review for Religious The results of this monumental effort have not yet been com-pletely assessed. Many studies today record it, some positively, other negatively, but it is still too close chronologically for it to be judged adequately.43 The energy, however, remains within reli-gious communities, smaller and older though they may be. Initiatives in forming new kinds of religious communities con-tinue in the church as well.** The renewal enterprise conducted among the CMSW, the reli-gious communities, and the CLSA is one of the finest stories to come out of the post-Vatican II Church. It included not only these organizations, but also the hierar-chy of the United States. There was an extraordinarydemonstra-tion of mutual encouragement and support among these diverse orga-nizations regarding the revision of the Code of Canon Law. The pos-sibility of participating together in the revision of the canons that governed the life of women reli-gious was realized through this " effort. The Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM) was obviously interested in the same endeavor.4s The Canon Law Society of America responded to the announcement by Pope John XXIII as professional canon lawyers whose expertise was not sim-ply in the practice of law, but in developing it through the proposed revision process.46 These three organizations joined in this endeavor with an unusual demonstration of cooperation. Besides these, the bishops' conference in the United States became the conduit through which the efforts of the organiza-tions were channeled to the Pontifi(al Commission for the Revision of Canon Law, whose responsibility it was to finally formulate the revision. Communication among these organizations was full of enthusiasm and respect. There was no hint of competitiveness, no turf war, no condescension toward women, who were at that time uneducated as canon lawyers. What was desired from the women was the expression of their experience of their own lives and their reflection upon that experience. The mutuality of this common endeavor is one of the finest examples of how women and men can work together to accom- Experimentation and writing canonical documents were something for which most religious communities needed assistance. 277 May-.~une 1.o99 Range * Women and Canon Law plish something for the benefit of all. As the process of revision continued, difficulties emerged, of course. When the canonical text, the Code itself, and the communities' constitutions were finalized and promulgated, the energy that had informed the orig-inal process waned. The vitality of experimentation, of developing powerful and inspiring texts, of consulting all the members of communities in that effort, of creating a vocabulary that resonated with the language of the documents of Vatican II and with the pat-rimony of individual communities--all this vitality wound down as perhaps it inevitably had to after final, authoritative texts were promulgated. As rdigious communities developed their constitutions during these years, their experience shaped their identifies in a remarkable way. The expressions within many of these constitutions were utterly original as documents for identifying and regulating the lives of women religious. In the process of havin~ their constitu-tions reviewed, both the Congregation. for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and the individ-ual congregations had much to learn. Although by now most of the problems have been resolved, there are still some communities that do not have their constitutions approved. This phenomenon bears the marks of the encounter between creative initiatives, orig-inal expressions of religious life, and traditional modes of canon-ical expression. The Code defines the constitutions of religious communities as' their particular law. The universal law within the Code presents the guidelines for the constitutions, but does not provide their content. Nevertheless,.the originality of many of these documents from religious communities presented new difficulties for both the congregations themselves and the Vatican officials, who had never seen such documents before. This encounter has been very instructive for all the institutions involved. With the promulgation of the revised Code of Canon Law in 1983 and with the finalization of their constitutions, women are no longer engaged in writing the law that regulates their lives. Periodically constitutions need to be resubmitted to the church for approval. Calls for change and for dispensations are part of the regular communication between the Vatican and women's con-gregations. But creativity and initiatives no longer inform the legal expressions of women religious. Extraordinary documents, though, still emerge from congregational meetings addressing the issues Review Jbr Religio~ts that women religious face at the end of the second millennium. How these documents influence the legally binding texts remains a question for the future. Past, Present, and Future This article has investigated the extraordinary entrance of women into a