1. 11 April 1895.

2. Because Allegheny City was annexed by Pittsburgh in 1907, Slovaks residing in that area will be considered here as part of Pittsburgh's pre-World War I Slovak population.

3. See Greene, Victor, For God and Country: The Rise of Polish and Lithuanian Ethnic Consciousness in America, 1860–1910 (Madison, 1975);Google ScholarKuzniewski, Anthony J., Faith and Fatherland: The Polish Church War in Wisconsin, 1896–1918 (Notre Dame, 1980);Google ScholarParot, Joseph John, Polish Catholics in Chicago, 1850–1920 (DeKalb, IL, 1981);Google ScholarGalush, William J., “Faith and Fatherland: Dimensions of Polish-American Ethnoreligion, 1875–1975” in Immigrants and Religion in Urban America Miller, Randall M. and Marzik, Thomas D., eds., (Philadelphia, 1977), pp. 84–102;Google ScholarStolarik, M. Mark, “Lay Initiative in American-Slovak Parishes, 1880–1930,” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia 83 (09–12, 1972): 151–158;Google ScholarVecoli, Rudolph J., “Prelates and Peasants: Italian Immigrants and the Catholic Church,” Journal of Social History 2 (1969): 217–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Rudolph J. Vecoli, “Cult and Occult in Italian-American Culture: The Persistence of a Religious Heritage,” in Miller, and Marzik, , Immigrants and Religion, pp. 25–47;Google ScholarVecoli, , “Prelates and Peasants,” pp. 227–235.Google Scholar

5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Religious Bodies 1916, Pt. 1, Summary and General Tables, p. 83.

6. See Smith, Timothy L., “Lay Initiative in the Religious Life of American Immigrants, 1880–1950” in Anonymous Americans: Explorations in Nineteenth-Century Social History, ed. Hareven, Tamara K. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1971), pp. 214–249.Google Scholar See also Stolarik, , “Lay Initiative,” p. 151;Google ScholarGalush, , “Faith and Fatherland,” pp. 85–86.Google Scholar On premigration voluntaryism among Irish Catholics, see Carey, Patrick, “Voluntaryism: An Irish Catholic Tradition,” Church History 48 (1979): 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Spolok Vojtech, Sv., Katotícke Slovensko (Catholic Slovakia) (Trnava, Czechoslovakia, 1933), pp. 17–152.Google Scholar Not every Slovak village had a church; sometimes several neighboring villages shared a church.

8. Branch 2 (First Catholic Slovak Union), Pojednávania Schôdzi Sp. Sv. Michael Aug. 1891 do April 1900 (Minutes of the meetings of the Society of Saint Michael, August 1891 to April 1900), meeting of 14 February 1894, Branch 2 Collection, Jednota Archives and Museum, Middletown, PA.

9. Ibid., meeting of 24 April 1894; Kushner, Jozef A., Slováci Katolići Piltsburghského Biskupsteia (Slovak Catholics of the Pittsburgh Diocese) (Passaic, NJ, 1946), pp. 94–95;Google Scholar Saint Elizabeth Roman Catholic Church, Pamätnik Zlatého Jubilea to Jest Pät'desiat Ročnej Slaunosti Slouenskej Rimsko-Katotickej Osady 1894–1944 (Souvenir of the Golden Jubilee of Saint Elizabeth Roman Catholic Church) (n.p., 1944), pp. 11–15.Google Scholar

10. Amerikánsko-Slovenské Noviny, 12 December 1894, 8 January 1895.

11. Saint Gabriel Slovak Roman Catholic Church, PamätnÍk Zlatého Jubilea Slovenskej Rimsko KatolÍckej Osady So. Gabriela, N.S. (Souvenir of the Golden Jubilee of Saint Gabriel Slovak Roman Catholic Church, North Side) (n.p., 1953).

12. Ibid., Amerikánsko-Slovenské Noviny, 24 July 1902.

13. Amerikánsko-Slovenské Noviny, 24 July and 6 August 1902.

14. According to Saint Gabriel's church history (Pamätnik), the initial small count was due to interference by Saint Elizabeth's trustees who reportedly urged Wood Run Slovaks to stay members of Saint Elizabeth's. Also, some Slovaks apparently were afraid to register in a census. The Saint Gabriel parish files that were available to me contained no information explaining the bishop's actions. The papers of Bishop Richard Phelan available to me held no information concerning the bishop's decisions regarding individual parishes. The papers available were primarily official documents, minutes of general Catholic conferences, and published materials of the diocese. (The Richard Phelan papers are housed in the Archives of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA).

15. Kushner, , Slováci Katolici, p. 102;Google Scholar Saint Gabriel Church, Pamätnik; Amerikánsko-Slovenské Noviny, 24 July and 6 August 1902.

16. See Linkh, Richard M., American Catholicism and European Immigrants, 1900–1924 (New York, 1975).Google Scholar

17. Pittsburgh Catholic, 10 November 1904. As early as 1890, Pittsburgh's Catholic church officials declared themselves in opposition to some of the positions of those who have been termed “liberal” bishops led by Archbishop John Ireland of Saint Paul. Pittsburgh Catholic, 17 July 1890; see also ibid., 24 August 1893.

18. Jednota, 3 July 1907, 16 November 1910.

19. This procrastination was not due to a change in diocesan policy regarding national churches when Canevin replaced Phelan. To the contrary, so many new churches were founded during Canevin's episcopacy (1904–1920) that he later was referred to in the Pittsburgh diocese's history as “preeminently a builder.” Catholic Historical Society of Western, Pennsylvania, ed., Catholic Pittsburgh's One Hundred Years (Chicago, 1943), pp. 68–69, with quotation at p. 68.Google Scholar Father Gasparik could have influenced the bishop since he was a member of the Diocesan Building Committee.

20. Frank Benkovsky to Rt. Rev. J. F. Regis Canevin, 20 October 1909, Saint Joachim Church, Erection and Boundaries File, Office of the Vicar-General Chancellor (hereafter referred to as OVGC), Pittsburgh, PA.

21. Jednota, 3 November 1909; Kushner, , Slováci, Katolici, p. 61;Google Scholar interview with Margaret Kuzma, Homestead, PA, 20 November 1978. Mrs. Kuzma, as a child, was a member of the Homestead independent church.

22. Letter to Rev. C. Gasparik, 23 October 1909, Saint Joachim Church, Erections and Boundaries File, OVGC. This letter is an unsigned carbon but the contents indicate that the bishop wrote it.

23. Letter to Frank Benkovsky, 23 October 1909, Saint Joachim Church, Erections and Boundaries File, OVGC.

24. Kushner, , Slováci Katolici, p. 109;Google Scholar Priests' Biographies, 1906–1912, entry for Father Joseph Vrhunec, Diocesan Archives of Pittsburgh.

25. This description of lay involvement in Slovak churches in Hungary was derived from: Jednota, 20 July 1904; “Tie Kňazské dôchodky, bohatstvá” (Priest's income, wealth), Jednota Katolicky Kalendár, 1911, p. 54; Stefan, Furdek, “Ve1'konočné Spoved” (Easter Confession) Jednota Katolicky Kalendár, 1913, pp. 105–107;Google ScholarThe Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, s. v. “Hungary,” by A. Aldasy; interviews with Ferdinand Dvorsky, 12 April 1977 and 28 November 1978, John Ciganik, 17 May 1977 and 30 November 1978, Andrew Holovanisin, 30 November 1978 (all held in Pittsburgh). These men came from three different counties in northern Hungary and their descriptions of lay involvement and financial obligations reveal there was definitely a uniformity in the laity's restrictive role in local churches throughout Upper Hungary.

26. This is a composite derived from documents contained in the records of several county governments housed in three regional and one district archives in eastern Czechoslovakia. Citations for the following representative documents include collection titles and the call number of the specific documents; the numbers which follow slashes are the date (year) of the documents. Documents in the county records indicate that the practice of instituting temporary collections for churches among neighboring villages differed among the counties. Requests for collections were more common in Spiš County (State Regional Archives, Levoća, Hlavný Župan (Chief County Administrator), 601/1887, 309/1891, 318/1891, 140/1898, 498/1899; Podžupan (Assistant County Administrator), 826/1894; and in the Bratislava district (Bratislava Regional Archives, Bratislava, Zápisnice municipalńeho výboru, 1867–1918 (Minutes of the municipal council), 1634/455–1868, 281/43–1868, 75/42–1869, 116/78–1869, 116/19–1869. I could find petitions for only two collections in the Prešov region (State Regional Archives, Prešov, Zˇupan, 169/1894, 208–271/1898). In the Kosiče region I found no recorded petitions for collections. Documents pertaining to government involvement in the administration or financial affairs of churches include: State Regional Archives, Levoča, Podžupan, 103–118/1873; State Regional Archives, Prežov, Podžupan, 18/1873; Bratislava Regional Archives, Bratislava, Zaˇpisnice municipalného výboru, 1867–1918, 174/53–1868, 1070/325–1869, 75/42–1869, 478/233–1869. There is some evidence that Slovaks became so accustomed to receiving support for churches that in the early years of immigration to the United States, some priests may have requested help from bishops in northern Hungary. In 1899, a Slovak pastor in McKeesport, Pennsylvania asked the Bishop of Košice for money to buy an organ for the McKeesport Slovak Church. Letter to the Bishop of Kosiče, 29 March 1899, Diocesan Archives, Kosiče.

27. This is a composite description based on several sources. Saint Matthew Church, Cash books (1903–1911, 1911–1912), passim. Fraternal- and church-sponsored events were advertised in Slovak newspapers; see, for example, Amerikánsko-Slovenské Noviny, 28 February 1895, 7 and 17 November 1895, 30 January and 21 May 1896, 31 October 1901, 20 February and 6 August 1902; Jednota, 21 September 1904, 25 October 1905, 6 March 1907, 24 February 1909; interviews with Ferdinand Dvorsky, 12 April 1977 and 28 November 1978. Branch 50 (First Catholic Slovak Union), Zápisnica (minutes), 1891–1907, 1907–1933, passim, Branch 50 Collection, Jednota Archives and Museum.

28. Saint Matthew Church, Financial ledger, “Pôžiĉky” (loans), maintained at Saint Matthew rectory, Pittsburgh, PA. This ledger reveals that at least fifty-one parishioners lent Saint Matthew's money between 1904–1907. Branch 50, Zápisnica, meetings of 20 March, 17 April and 18 December 1904. Saint Gabriel Church, Pamätnik; Kushner, Slováic, Katolici, p. 95. There are no records to indicate whether Saint Joachim's borrowed money from parishioners.

29. Computed from Saint Matthew Church, Cash book (1903–1911).

30. Jednota, 2 January 1907. A member of Saint Matthew's voiced similar complaints; see ibid. 23 October 1907. The observations suggest that Slovaks who founded churches did not equate themselves with nobles who had acted as church patrons in Hungary. For an interpretation that advances the premise that Slovaks did view themselves as similar to patrons, see Stolarik, “Lay Initiative,” p.151.Google Scholar

31. The problem of convincing some Slovaks to accept this new responsibility was not unique to Pittsburgh; other Slovak parishes in America experienced similar problems. Jednota, 20 July 1904, 3 January 1906. Information on Pittsburgh Slovaks was also derived from an interview with Ferdinand Dvorsky, 12 April 1977.

32. For a discussion of the problems stemming from “trusteeism” in the earlier part of the nineteenth century, see McAvoy, Thomas T., A History of the Catholic Church in the United States (Notre Dame, 1969), pp. 92–122.Google Scholar On changing attitudes toward the laity, see Cross, Robert D., The Emergence of Liberal Catholicism in America (Cambridge, MA, 1958), pp. 162–172, 181.Google Scholar

33. Pittsburgh Catholic, 25 January 1894. Perhaps because of a concern with the dramatic early nineteenth-century battles between trustees and bishops, historians, in general, have not carefully analyzed the Third Plenary Council's call for the introduction of trustee systems and the subsequent response by American bishops to this call. The issue of a renewed interest in lay trusteeism in the late nineteenth century and the responses to it in individual dioceses merits further study. Robert, Cross, Liberal Catholicism, pp. 162–172Google Scholar, briefly discusses the differences between “liberal” and “conservative” bishops on the issue of a more active laity.

34. Pittsburgh Catholic, 24 August 1893, 25 January 1894. An analysis of the specific reasons why the Pittsburgh Catholic hierarchy responded favorably to lay trusteeism is beyond the scope of this essay. However, the Third Plenary Council's recommendation was specifically cited as the reason and justification for instituting the system in the Pittsburgh diocese (ibid., 25 January 1894, 10 November 1904.) The “conservative” position of Pittsburgh's bishops on national parishes and their “liberal” position regarding lay trusteeism suggest that the tendency in historical literature to categorize bishops in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as either “liberal” or “conservative” overlooks the complexity of some bishops' positions on the varied issues that the American Catholic church encountered at the turn of the century.

35. Statutes of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, 1893, pp. 68–69.

36. Ibid.; Statutes of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, 1905, pp. 82–85 (with quotation at p. 83); Pittsburgh Catholic, 27 December 1899.

37. For analyses that claim the patron system as the antecedent of the emergence of lay involvement in American national parishes, see Stolarik, , “Lay Initiative” (pp. 151–157)Google Scholar, which focuses on Slovaks, , and Galush, , “Faith and Fatherland” (pp. 85–86)Google Scholar, which focuses on Polish Catholics. See also Smith, “Lay Initiative.”

38. Statutes of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, 1905, pp. 82–84; Pittsburgh Catholic, 25 September 1902. Diocesan officials also carefully insured that the trustee system did not give the laity total administrative control of churches. Deeds to church properties were held in the name of the congregations with the bishop as trustee. Decisions regarding the erection of structures or spending more than $500 had to be approved by the bishop or the appropriate diocesan committee. Pittsburgh's Slovak parishes complied with these regulations. Saint Matthew Church, Saint Elizabeth Church, Saint Gabriel Church, Saint Joachim Church, Finance and Building Files (separate file for each church), OVGC.

39. The bishop learned of the proposed trustees' suit through a letter from the trustees' lawyer. (The lawyer's letter to the bishop could not be located, but the prelate's answer has been preserved.) Letter (unsigned carbon) to John Kulamer, 28 December 1909. Letter (unsigned carbon) to Rev. J. Uhlyarik, 23 December 1909. Both documents are contained in Saint Matthew Church, Finance and Building File, OVGC.

40. Assistant Chancellor to Rev. John Uhlyarik, 3 February 1911; Father J. Uhlyarik to Bishop Canevin, undated (April 1911 (?)) (original in Latin). Asst. Chancellor to Rev. John Uhlyarik, 21 April 1911. All documents contained in Saint Matthew Church, Finance and Building File, OVGC;Jednota, 24 January 1912.

41. Assistant Chancellor to trustee, 29 July 1977, Saint Matthew Church, Church Committee File, OVGC.

42. Both trustees remained members of Saint Matthew's. There was no serious decline in the membership of Saint Matthew's indeed, the number of individuals increased from 1130 in 1911 to 1385 in 1912; the number of families decreased from 214 to 203. Diocese of Pittsburgh, Church Reports, City of Pittsburgh, entry for Saint Matthew Church, OVGC.

43. Petition from Saint Elizabeth's Parishioners to Bishop Regis Canevin, 21 January 1915, Saint Elizabeth Church, Church Committee File, OVGC.

44. The evidence suggests that only ten male members actively persisted in the effort to have elections held. Petition to the Right Reverend Regis Canevin (1916 (?)), Saint Elizabeth Church, Church Committee File, OVGC.

45. Testimony, (October) 1916; Bishop Regis Canevin to Rev. Coloman Gasparik, 4 December 1916, both documents contained in Saint Elizabeth Church, Church Committee File, OVGC.

46. Saint Elizabeth Church, Church Committee File, OVGC.

47. Jednota, 5 December 1906.

48. Ibid., 9 January 1907, 19 January 1914.

49. On Polish nationalism, see Greene, For God and Country.

50. Vecoli, “Prelates and Peasants.” Relations between Pittsburgh's diocesan officials and some other immigrant groups, especially Italians, were different. These relations were different, in part, because Italian Catholics were not generally as aggressive in undertaking to found churches. Therefore, diocesan oflicials were concerned about the loss of Italians to the church and, hence, established organizations to work among Italian Catholics and among other immigrants who lived in remote sections of the diocese where there were no, or few, churches. For the response of Pittsburgh's Catholic church to some other immigrant groups, and especially those whose laities were less aggressive in building churches, see Pittsburgh Catholic, 3 March and 31 March 1904, 25 May 1905, 21 June 1906, 2 July 1909, 19 January 1911. See also Rt. Rev. Canevin, Regis, An Examination Historical and Statistical into Losses and Gains of the Catholic Church (np., 1912).Google Scholar

51. Jednota, 2 September 1914.

52. Vecoli, , “Prelates and Peasants,” pp. 227–225;Google Scholaridem, “Cult and Occult in Italian-American Culture.” Slovak immigrants maintained many premigration religious folk traditions, but these traditions typically did not include elaborate public rituals similar to those followed by Italian immigrants and viewed by the American Catholic church hierarchy as unacceptable.