Kál­mán Rácz: Esz­ter­gom Offi­ce of Archbis­hop con­tra Cze­chos­lo­vak State – Reli­gi­ous Esta­te Law­su­its at the Hague Court (II. part)

In the 1930’s due to Euro­pe­an power rela­ti­on chan­ges Cze­chos­lo­va­kia’s fore­ign poli­cy situ­a­ti­on was worsening. Hen­ce, Pra­gue’s dip­lo­ma­cy stro­ve even mo­re strong­ly to achi­e­ve such fore­ign poli­cy results that would stren­gthen the coun­try’s security. In con­nec­ti­on with the issue of bor­der arran­ge­ment of reli­gi­ous leadership, that is the issue of the exe­cu­ti­on of modus viven­di Pra­gue’s dip­lo­ma­cy com­men­ced a mo­re offen­sive policy, of which sign was a not sub­mit­ted to Vati­can in Feb­ru­a­ry 1934, in which prom­is­es and thre­ats were also present. They intro­du­ced that the gover­nment was able to libe­ra­te the reli­gi­ous esta­tes from the blockade, but they set a condition: the Hun­ga­ri­an owners should first draw back their law­su­its and let the agre­e­ment made bet­we­en the Vati­can and the Cze­chos­lo­vak gover­nment to satis­fi­ed their claims. To even stress the issue they sta­ted that in case of refu­sal the pri­ma­te esta­tes will be expropriated.

The gover­nment was not indif­fe­rent to the fact that dis­cus­si­on of law­su­its began for the sake of pro­tec­ting rights of Hun­ga­ri­an legal enti­ti­es based on the piece agre­e­ment is thre­a­te­ned by anot­her factor. It was even mo­re obscu­re for Bu­da­pest, becau­se the law­su­it accor­ding to their opi­ni­on ser­ved the in­te­rest of the church aga­inst an anti-church factor. Bu­da­pest declared that the gover­nment would never agree with the defi­ni­ti­ve repe­al of lawsuits, although agre­ed with the inter­cep­ti­on with the hope that during the dis­cus­si­on with the Czechs, Vati­can will rep­re­sent the Hun­ga­ri­an view­po­int consistently.
In May 1934 not the repeal, but the inter­cep­ti­on of law­su­it deman­ded by Cze­chos­lo­va­kia and ori­gi­nal­ly requ­es­ted by Rome happened, that prac­ti­cal­ly did not mean too subs­tan­ti­al difference.
The his­to­ry of the law­su­it was accom­plis­hed with this, since there was no succession, although the issue of esta­tes rema­i­ned the sour­ce of disagreements. After the inter­cep­ti­on of law­su­its the only field of sol­ving the issue beca­me the dis­cus­si­ons of Czechoslovakia-Vatican. The gover­nment in 1935 deli­ve­red the bis­hop and archbis­hop esta­tes to administrators, then Pra­gue agre­ed that the com­pen­sa­ti­ons deci­ded by the Vati­can will be trans­fer­red to the rele­vant Hun­ga­ri­an sub­jects and the claim to defi­ni­te­ly inter­cept the Hague law­su­it was abandoned.
Thanks to all these the XI. Pius with the bull dated on 2nd Sept. 1937 that begin with „Ad eccle­si­as­ti­ci regi­mis incrementum” arran­ged the reli­gi­ous bor­ders to the state borders, exe­cu­ting the first parag­raph of modus vivendi. Hen­ce, tou­ching the ter­ri­to­ry of the dio­ce­se of Rozs­nyó, Kas­sa, Szatmár, and obvi­ous­ly Esz­ter­gom dis­mem­bra­ti­on was provided, but still the final cre­a­ti­on of the Up-land reli­gi­ous lea­der­ship was not provided, since the Nagy­szom­bat apos­tle admi­nis­tra­ti­on remained. Estab­lis­hing a new bis­hop­ry or archbis­hop­ry on its ter­ri­to­ry was only plan­ned by the bull. Accor­ding to Rome’s condition, first the issue of the com­pen­sa­tion of Hun­ga­ri­an reli­gi­ous per­sons and insti­tu­ti­ons and the divi­si­on of the pro­per­ti­es was to be solved. To that time accor­ding to Vati­can the his­to­ri­cal reli­gi­ous bor­ders would be set insi­de Slovakia.