| Revision as of 19:51, 5 January 2008 view sourceMarkBA~enwiki (talk | contribs)7,477 editsm →Literature: cat← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:11, 11 January 2008 view source Squash Racket (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers14,116 edits reference addedNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| In Černová, the inhabitants decided to build a catholic church from their own and ]s' finances, and from the initiative of ], their own native priest. Construction started in April 1907 and by the autumn, the church was ready for consecration.<ref name="cernova">http://www.cernova.sk/sublinks/cernovska_masakra1.html (Slovak)</ref> At that time, Hlinka was suspended by his bishop ] because he supported the opponent (also known for his ]) of the Catholic People's Party in the election campaign. Moreover, Hlinka was sentenced for two years in jail because his campaign speeches were considered ] according to 172th § of the 1878 ]<ref> - 1878. évi V. törvénycikk a magyar büntetőtörvénykönyv a büntettekről és vétségekről ''(Act No. 5 (1878): on the Hungarian Penal Code for crimes and offences)''</ref>. However, the inhabitants requested that Hlinka should consecrate the church, otherwise they requested to delay the consecration. So the people of Černová requested the consecration of the church in a letter (worded by Hlinka). Párvy gave his consent to that. In a second letter (also worded by Hlinka) the people requested that Hlinka be present at the consecration and in a third one, that he himself consecrates the church. Párvy - according to the ] - refused to cancel Hlinka' suspension. Instead, he appointed ] Anton Kurimsky, the former ] of ]. | In Černová, the inhabitants decided to build a catholic church from their own and ]s' finances, and from the initiative of ], their own native priest. Construction started in April 1907 and by the autumn, the church was ready for consecration.<ref name="cernova">http://www.cernova.sk/sublinks/cernovska_masakra1.html (Slovak)</ref> At that time, Hlinka was suspended by his bishop ] because he supported the opponent (also known for his ]) of the Catholic People's Party in the election campaign. Moreover, Hlinka was sentenced for two years in jail because his campaign speeches were considered ] according to 172th § of the 1878 ]<ref> - 1878. évi V. törvénycikk a magyar büntetőtörvénykönyv a büntettekről és vétségekről ''(Act No. 5 (1878): on the Hungarian Penal Code for crimes and offences)''</ref>. However, the inhabitants requested that Hlinka should consecrate the church, otherwise they requested to delay the consecration. So the people of Černová requested the consecration of the church in a letter (worded by Hlinka). Párvy gave his consent to that. In a second letter (also worded by Hlinka) the people requested that Hlinka be present at the consecration and in a third one, that he himself consecrates the church. Párvy - according to the ] - refused to cancel Hlinka' suspension. Instead, he appointed ] Anton Kurimsky, the former ] of ]. | ||
| Hlinka was getting prepared for a lecture tour in ]. Before he left, the people of Černová once again wrote a letter to bishop Párvy. He delayed the consecration with a few days, but appointed again Kurimsky. When Hlinka left, he told to the people: ''"If you want, consecrate the church, if not, well, not!"''. The people were not aware of the canon law and Hlinka took no effort to tell them that he has no right to consecrate the church. Instead of explaining this, he left his worshippers with the belief that they have the right to review the bishop's decision. The lack of enlightenment (and, thus, information) was one of the main factors leading to the tragedy. | Hlinka was getting prepared for a lecture tour in ]. Before he left, the people of Černová once again wrote a letter to bishop Párvy. He delayed the consecration with a few days, but appointed again Kurimsky. When Hlinka left, he told to the people: ''"If you want, consecrate the church, if not, well, not!"''. The people were not aware of the canon law and Hlinka took no effort to tell them that he has no right to consecrate the church. Instead of explaining this, he left his worshippers with the belief that they have the right to review the bishop's decision. The lack of ](and, thus, information) was one of the main factors leading to the tragedy. | ||
| Dean Pazúrik, Hlinka's superior upon getting know the new date asked for further delay so Hlinka can return to take part. The bishop agreed, but Hlinka wrote in his response (24 October): ''"I won't participate on the consecration on any conditions. Try to dissuade Kurimsky if you can and you yourself consecrate the church. I also don't want to be present because I don't want to be responsible for any possible events..."'' This letter makes clear that Hlinka was aware of the risk of "possible events" (though probably not a massacre), but he refused to return to calm down his people. (Although he was suspended as a parish priest, he was welcome to participate as a worshipper, but he seemed to be too offended to do so.) | Dean Pazúrik, Hlinka's superior upon getting know the new date asked for further delay so Hlinka can return to take part. The bishop agreed, but Hlinka wrote in his response (24 October): ''"I won't participate on the consecration on any conditions. Try to dissuade Kurimsky if you can and you yourself consecrate the church. I also don't want to be present because I don't want to be responsible for any possible events..."'' This letter makes clear that Hlinka was aware of the risk of "possible events" (though probably not a massacre), but he refused to return to calm down his people. (Although he was suspended as a parish priest, he was welcome to participate as a worshipper, but he seemed to be too offended to do so.) | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| The people of Černová knew nothing about this letter and kept on organizing in favor of Hlinka. They sent anonymous letters to the bishop (Párvy), the canon (Kurimsky), the dean (Pazúrik). In one letter, the wrote to Pazúrik: ''"we will welcome you with axes, clubs and stones. Even the smallest child will throw stones at you because you have Jewish nature, you keep with the ]s, not with the Catholics…"'' But the recipients did not take these letters seriously. | The people of Černová knew nothing about this letter and kept on organizing in favor of Hlinka. They sent anonymous letters to the bishop (Párvy), the canon (Kurimsky), the dean (Pazúrik). In one letter, the wrote to Pazúrik: ''"we will welcome you with axes, clubs and stones. Even the smallest child will throw stones at you because you have Jewish nature, you keep with the ]s, not with the Catholics…"'' But the recipients did not take these letters seriously. | ||
| ] came to sanctify the church on 27 October in a ] with underofficer Pereszlényi and 15 gendarmes ( |
] came to sanctify the church on 27 October in a ] with underofficer Pereszlényi and 15 gendarmes (all ] ]<ref></ref>). When the coach with the priest and officers turned into the narrow street leading to the church, the crowd (some 400 local people) obstructed the path and started to scrum. The gendarmes lost control and ] Ján Ladiczky gave order to shoot. The gendarmes fired four times, killing 15 people, seriously injuring 12 and lightly injuring 40.<ref>http://www.cernova.sk/sublinks/cernovska_masakra3.html (Slovak)</ref> In addition, 40 people were imprisoned or financially penalized. | ||
| The tragedy sparked huge respond in Hungary and abroad: the anti-Hungarian ethnic and foreign newspapers used the event to illustrate the situation of ethnicities in Hungary. The leftist Hungarian media interpreted the events as the responsibility of the clergy, especially the bishop. | The tragedy sparked huge respond in Hungary and abroad: the anti-Hungarian ethnic and foreign newspapers used the event to illustrate the situation of ethnicities in Hungary. The leftist Hungarian media interpreted the events as the responsibility of the clergy, especially the bishop. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| Today's nationalist Slovak politicians - especially the members of the ] - see the event as a symbol of the myth of the "brutal" Hungarians and "pigeon-hearted" Slovaks, or interpret it as "Hungarian gendarmes shooting at innocent Slovaks" (during the legal actions after the massacre, some gendarmes refused to be witnesses, because the victims were their relatives). However, objective Slovak politicians and historians see the events as the manifestation of abuse of police power without any ethnic or nationalist intention. | Today's nationalist Slovak politicians - especially the members of the ] - see the event as a symbol of the myth of the "brutal" Hungarians and "pigeon-hearted" Slovaks, or interpret it as "Hungarian gendarmes shooting at innocent Slovaks" (during the legal actions after the massacre, some gendarmes refused to be witnesses, because the victims were their relatives). However, objective Slovak politicians and historians see the events as the manifestation of abuse of police power without any ethnic or nationalist intention. | ||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
| {{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 12:11, 11 January 2008
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Černová massacre" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (September 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The Černová tragedy (or Černová massacre, Template:Lang-sk, Template:Lang-hu) was a bloody massacre that happened in Černová (then officially Csernova, now part of Ružomberok) on 27 October 1907.
Outline of the events
In Černová, the inhabitants decided to build a catholic church from their own and Slovak Americans' finances, and from the initiative of Andrej Hlinka, their own native priest. Construction started in April 1907 and by the autumn, the church was ready for consecration. At that time, Hlinka was suspended by his bishop Sándor Párvy because he supported the opponent (also known for his anti-clericalism) of the Catholic People's Party in the election campaign. Moreover, Hlinka was sentenced for two years in jail because his campaign speeches were considered incitement according to 172th § of the 1878 Penal Code. However, the inhabitants requested that Hlinka should consecrate the church, otherwise they requested to delay the consecration. So the people of Černová requested the consecration of the church in a letter (worded by Hlinka). Párvy gave his consent to that. In a second letter (also worded by Hlinka) the people requested that Hlinka be present at the consecration and in a third one, that he himself consecrates the church. Párvy - according to the canon law - refused to cancel Hlinka' suspension. Instead, he appointed canon Anton Kurimsky, the former parish priest of Ružomberok.
Hlinka was getting prepared for a lecture tour in Moravia. Before he left, the people of Černová once again wrote a letter to bishop Párvy. He delayed the consecration with a few days, but appointed again Kurimsky. When Hlinka left, he told to the people: "If you want, consecrate the church, if not, well, not!". The people were not aware of the canon law and Hlinka took no effort to tell them that he has no right to consecrate the church. Instead of explaining this, he left his worshippers with the belief that they have the right to review the bishop's decision. The lack of enlightenment (and, thus, information) was one of the main factors leading to the tragedy.
Dean Pazúrik, Hlinka's superior upon getting know the new date asked for further delay so Hlinka can return to take part. The bishop agreed, but Hlinka wrote in his response (24 October): "I won't participate on the consecration on any conditions. Try to dissuade Kurimsky if you can and you yourself consecrate the church. I also don't want to be present because I don't want to be responsible for any possible events..." This letter makes clear that Hlinka was aware of the risk of "possible events" (though probably not a massacre), but he refused to return to calm down his people. (Although he was suspended as a parish priest, he was welcome to participate as a worshipper, but he seemed to be too offended to do so.)
The people of Černová knew nothing about this letter and kept on organizing in favor of Hlinka. They sent anonymous letters to the bishop (Párvy), the canon (Kurimsky), the dean (Pazúrik). In one letter, the wrote to Pazúrik: "we will welcome you with axes, clubs and stones. Even the smallest child will throw stones at you because you have Jewish nature, you keep with the Jews, not with the Catholics…" But the recipients did not take these letters seriously.
Martin Pazúrik came to sanctify the church on 27 October in a coach with underofficer Pereszlényi and 15 gendarmes (all ] Slovak). When the coach with the priest and officers turned into the narrow street leading to the church, the crowd (some 400 local people) obstructed the path and started to scrum. The gendarmes lost control and sergeant Ján Ladiczky gave order to shoot. The gendarmes fired four times, killing 15 people, seriously injuring 12 and lightly injuring 40. In addition, 40 people were imprisoned or financially penalized.
The tragedy sparked huge respond in Hungary and abroad: the anti-Hungarian ethnic and foreign newspapers used the event to illustrate the situation of ethnicities in Hungary. The leftist Hungarian media interpreted the events as the responsibility of the clergy, especially the bishop.
Although police force fire was not uncommon that time in Austria-Hungary (regardless ethnicity) and elsewhere (in 1907 in Romania, during the last European peasant uprising, the army massacred 11 thousand people; in 1904 the Russian army killed more than 1000 workers in Petrograd, not mentioning the British colonial police in India), the events received extraordinary international attention with some Czecho-Slovak help. Important protesting European personalities included the Norwegian Nobel Prize laurate Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson, the Oxford historian Robert William Seton-Watson, the speaker of the Austrian parliament. The American Slovaks used the incident for a mass campaign for Hlinka.
Many could gain political profit from the events: the Czech and Slovak nationalists, the socialists, and Hlinka himself. Instead of returning to his home town (some of the victims were his relatives), he kept on giving lectures (even at the evening of the massacre, just after he got know of the events) and pushed the advantage of the political atmosphere.
His appeal against the 1906 verdict was rejected, thus, from 30 November 1907 till 27 February 1910 Hlinka was imprisoned in the Csillagbörtön (Star Prison), Szeged. On the other hand, he appealed Párvy's suspend at the Holy See, which didn't confirm Párvy's decision, so he cancelled the suspension in 8 April 1909. When Hlinka left the prison, Párvy put him back in his Ružomberok parish, and Hlinka consecrated the church in his native village with Párvy's consent.
Today's nationalist Slovak politicians - especially the members of the Slovak National Party - see the event as a symbol of the myth of the "brutal" Hungarians and "pigeon-hearted" Slovaks, or interpret it as "Hungarian gendarmes shooting at innocent Slovaks" (during the legal actions after the massacre, some gendarmes refused to be witnesses, because the victims were their relatives). However, objective Slovak politicians and historians see the events as the manifestation of abuse of police power without any ethnic or nationalist intention.
References
- http://www.cernova.sk/sublinks/cernovska_masakra1.html (Slovak)
- 1000 év törvényei - 1878. évi V. törvénycikk a magyar büntetőtörvénykönyv a büntettekről és vétségekről (Act No. 5 (1878): on the Hungarian Penal Code for crimes and offences)
- Hungarian Jewish magazine about the event
- http://www.cernova.sk/sublinks/cernovska_masakra3.html (Slovak)
External links
Literature
- Roman Holec (1997). Tragédia v Černovej a slovenská spoločnosť (The Černová tragedy and the Slovak society). Matica slovenská, Martin. ISBN 9788070904367.