Papal Encyclicals and Episcopal Circular Letters—Episcopal Attitudes and Perceived Roles in 18th-Century Hungary

Abstract

This study investigates the prescribed and perceived roles of Catholic bishops in 18th-century Hungary through a comparative analysis of Bishop Ferenc Zichy and Bishop János Szily. Drawing on papal encyclical—Ubi primum of Pope Benedict XIV—, as well as episcopal documents—Epistola pastoralis of Ferenc Zichy, Istructio… of János Szily—, the paper explores the episcopal ideals of governance, teaching, and moral example, and how these ideals were implemented in the dioceses of Győr and Szombathely. The research highlights how both bishops internalized and operationalized the model of the bonus pastor—the Good Shepherd—through personal residence, canonical visitations, seminary reform, and moral regulation of the clergy. Bishop Zichy and Bishop Szily emphasized the importance of episcopal oversight, spiritual exercises, and educational standards to reinforce clerical discipline and doctrinal conformity, responding to the challenges of the Catholic Enlightenment and the broader ecclesiastical reform movement. By analysing pastoral letters, visitation protocols, and clerical instructions, the study reveals a coherent vision of episcopal leadership that balanced doctrinal authority with practical pastoral care. This work contributes to the broader historiography on early modern Catholicism by showing how local episcopal strategies aligned with and adapted papal mandates in a dynamic and context-sensitive manner.

1. Introduction

The role of bishops in the Catholic Church in Hungary during the eighteenth century has long been recognized as central to the implementation of Tridentine reforms and to the broader project of Catholic renewal. Following the Council of Trent (1545–1563), bishops were increasingly expected to embody and enforce the ideals of pastoral care, doctrinal purity, and ecclesiastical discipline. In accordance with the spirit of the Council’s decisions, Pope Pius V (1566–1572) began to tighten control over the appointment of bishops. He set up a special commission to assess the suitability of candidates. Gradually, bishops with the necessary knowledge and spiritual qualities for their office gained ground (Jedin 1966; Bernhard 1980; Alberigo 1985; Jedin and Giuseppe 1985; Bergin 1999). Examples of bishops who implemented the Tridentine ideal include Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan (1564–1584); Gabriele Paleotti, Archbishop of Bologna (1582–1597); and, somewhat later, Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva (1602–1622) (Prodi 1967; Alberigo 1988; Billanovich 1997; Forrestal 2004). Many bishops who came later drew heavily on Borromeo and de Sales, who provided two different models of episcopal excellence. Borromeo was the intransigent disciplinarian, de Sales was a model of love and pastoral care (McNamara 2019, pp. 59–60). It took time for the Tridentine ideal of the bishop to take hold in the Catholic Church in Hungary, which had only been liberated from Ottoman rule at the end of the seventeenth century (Pálffy 2009; Bárány 2016; Fata et al. 2019).

While studies of post-Tridentine episcopacy have explored institutional reforms, seminaries, and church-state relations across Europe (Chadwick 1981; O’Malley 2013; Jedin 1957), little attention has been paid to the everyday administrative and spiritual practices through which bishops internalized and enacted their roles. Even less attention has been devoted to regional Central European contexts, especially in Hungarian dioceses, where ecclesiastical, political, and cultural forces interacted in unique ways (Gőzsy and Varga 2009).

This study offers the first in-depth comparative analysis of two major eighteenth-century Hungarian bishops—Ferenc Zichy and János Szily—through the lens of papal expectations, particularly those articulated by Pope Benedict XIV in Ubi primum (Benedict XIV 1740). This encyclical was important in defining the bishop not only as a spiritual shepherd but as an administrator, educator, and moral exemplar. While scholars such as Bireley (1999) and Reinhard (1981) have emphasized the importance of episcopal leadership during the Catholic Enlightenment, no previous study has systematically examined how these ideals were interpreted and practiced by individual bishops in Hungary. Zoltán Gőzsy (2016) has already examined Pope Benedict’s encyclical, but from the perspective of the state reforms desired by Maria Theresa (Empress 1740–1780). The author points out that the Pope’s efforts significantly anticipated the institutional framework and cultural and communication strategy of the political system known as enlightened absolutism. Gőzsy also emphasises the importance of the encyclical for the development of the Catholic Church in Hungary. In recent decades, several volumes have been published dealing with bishops active during the period of reconstruction following Ottoman Occupation. However, these tend to focus either on the bishops’ biographies (Tóth 2011; Forgó 2024; Szirtes et al. 2025) or on the process of reorganising and renewing the diocese (Dénesi 2009; Fazekas 2014; Hermann 2015). While institutional histories like Király’s overview of the Catholic reconstruction in eighteenth-century Hungary (Király 2011) and recent contributions by Bahlcke (2005) examine episcopal-state relations during Maria Theresa’s reign and the Diet of 1764–65, none have systematically addressed how individual bishops interpreted and implemented Roman directives at the diocesan level.

Methodologically, the research proceeds along two complementary paths. The first is a descriptive reconstruction of episcopal ideals based on normative sources: the papal encyclical of Benedict XIV (1740), Ferenc Zichy’s Epistola pastoralis (Zichy 1755), and János Szily’s Instructio (Szily 1777). These texts provide a framework for understanding the theoretical expectations surrounding episcopal office. The second path is comparative, examining how these ideals were enacted within two diocesan contexts. By juxtaposing the prescriptions of Roman authority with the concrete pastoral strategies of Zichy and Szily, the analysis brings into focus both adaptation and divergence.

The encyclical Ubi primum (1740), the first programmatic circular of Pope Benedict XIV, was taken as a key point of reference. This was the first papal encyclical in the modern sense (Schuck 1991, p. 3). It was issued at the beginning of Benedict’s papacy and codified the norms of residence, pastoral visitation, catechesis, and moral integrity—values prescribed by the Council of Trent and practised by, among many others, the aforementioned bishops and archbishops of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who were eventually canonised as saints. In its wider political and religious context, the study highlights Ubi primum’s importance as a normative model that influenced episcopal practice well into the late Enlightenment (Reinhard 1981; Gőzsy 2016).

Ferenc Zichy’s Epistola pastoralis (Zichy 1755), and especially János Szily’s Instructio (Szily 1777), were written with the intention of serving as written law books. These texts were the „codified” collections of rules and regulations that parish priests were expected to follow in terms of their behaviour, work, and lifestyle. This study investigates whether it would be possible to read these collections of rules from a different perspective and learn something about their authors in the process. This study also argues that when we take a step back from the texts and consider the bishops’ lives and, more precisely, their episcopal activities, their words and deeds together provide grounds for believing that the investigation is justified. The mere existence of these texts proves that the bishops took the papal directives to their heart and considered them binding upon themselves.

The objectives of the inquiry are threefold: (1) to clarify the normative episcopal ideal articulated by Ubi primum; (2) to trace how this ideal was received, adapted, and institutionalized by Bishop Zichy and Szily; and (3) to assess the broader significance of these adaptations for understanding episcopal identity and Catholic renewal in eighteenth-century Hungary.

2. Two Hungarian Bishops

2.1. Ferenc Zichy

Ferenc Zichy was born in Homonna, Zemplén county, in 1701 (Kollányi 1900, pp. 341–42). His father, Péter Zichy, was a nobleman, supremus comes of Szabolcs county; his mother, Klára Drugeth of Homonna, was also a member of a historically significant noble family (Szinnyei 1914, pp. 1815–16). Ferenc attended Jesuit grammar schools in Pozsony (now Bratislava, Slovakia), Kassa (now Košice, Slovakia), and Győr, before studying philosophy in Olomouc and at the Collegium Pazmanianum in Vienna (Fazekas 2003, pp. 202–3). He concluded his philosophical studies in Vienna in 1720 with a solemn disputation. He and Miklós Csáky, who was also a Pazmaneum student at the time, received a special audience with King Charles III (1711–1740), who appointed the 18-year-old Ferenc Zichy as titular abbot of Szerencs. The following academic year, between 20 October 1721 and 5 April 1723, he was a student at the Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum in Rome (Piszker 1933, pp. 8–9). According to the school’s yearbooks, he achieved excellent academic results, but he had to return home early due to illness. He was ordained a priest on 15 April 1724 and celebrated his first Mass less than a month later, on 14 May, in the Augustinian church in Vienna, in the presence of the King and the Queen (Hengerer 2004).1

Zichy’s career progressed rapidly: by the age of twenty-five, he had been appointed canon in Nagyvárad (now Oradea, Romania), where he also served as a parish priest. He became a canon in Esztergom in July 1727, and in July 1731, he took up the post of Archdeacon in Nyitra (now Nitra, Slovakia). He resigned from the Chapter of Esztergom in 1734, when he was elected provost of Vágújhely (now Nové Mesto nad Váhom, Slovakia), and as such, he was granted the title of titular bishop of Novi, even though he could have kept his position as a canon with papal permission (Piszker 1933, p. 9). In 1742, Maria Theresa appointed him to the Privy Council. In the same year, he was also awarded the titular bishopric of Botri (Bahlcke 2005, pp. 100, 114).2

Zichy came from a noble family that was loyal to the Habsburgs and had good relations with the Court. Zichy’s work in the Diocese of Vác and the Diocese of Győr clearly demonstrates this privilege, as these positions were usually reserved for a select group of court aristocrats. These were well-paid dioceses, which were mostly used as stepping stones for successful ecclesiastical careers, and only on a few occasions were they headed by the “Bishops of the Hungarian Crown”. One of the three known cases was Ferenc Zichy’s (Bahlcke 2005, p. 115).3

He served as coadjutor to the ailing Bishop of Győr Adolf Groll (1682–1743) from 1743. Following Groll’s death in December of that year, he was appointed Bishop of Győr and supremus comes of Győr County. His appointment as bishop was confirmed on 27 May 1744 (Diós n.d., pp. 558–59).

When Zichy became Bishop of Győr, both the bishop’s seat and his estates were in a tragic state. The Diocese of Győr, located on the edge of Ottoman-occupied (1541–1699) territory, was constantly exposed to the ravages of war. However, Győr was under Ottoman rule for just four years, from 1594 to 1598; the consequences of the military defence line stretching across the diocese until the 1680s were serious.

First and foremost, Zichy had to buy back the bishop’s seat—the bishop’s castle in Győr—from the Treasury. Until then, the state had used the castle for military purposes. He succeeded in 1745, purchasing it for 20,000 forints and spending a further 15,000 on renovations and expansions. He invited prominent Viennese architects and artists to restore the cathedral (Piszker 1933, p. 14).4 Between 1764 and 1766, he had the seminary restored and expanded, added a new floor to the Jesuit college in Győr (built in 1626), and built a secondary school in Szombathely. Eighty percent of the churches in the diocese were built or restored during Zichy’s bishopric. The diocese received a significant donation from Zichy, who chose to contribute not only his episcopal income but also a substantial portion of the construction costs, which came from his personal wealth. During his four decades in service, almost the entire diocese was renewed (Piszker 1933, pp. 14–15).

Bishop Ferenc Zichy maintained his good relations with the Court after the new ruler, Maria Theresa (1740–1780), ascended the throne. The fact that Maria Theresa was fond of Zichy can be seen in several of the empress’s actions. The Court’s ‘repertoire’ of rewards included the appointment of a Privy Councillor (Geheimer Rat), which, in contrast to the practice of the 16th and 17th Centuries, had a purely representational value in the 18th Century and did not oblige him to actual advisory or political duties. Zichy received it in 1743, and two years later, he was awarded the honour that Maria Theresa reserved for her closest allies: she appointed him a Real Privy Councillor (Wirklicher Geheimer Rat) (Kökényesi 2015, p. 924).

Of the other four highly prestigious awards, only the Order of St Stephen (Königlich-Ungarische Sankt Stephans-Orden) was open to the high-ranking clergy in recognition of their merits and loyalty. In 1774, to mark the fiftieth anniversary of Zichy’s ordination as a priest, Maria Theresa admitted the seventy-three-year-old Bishop to the Order. It is also worth mentioning that the royal couple visited Zichy twice, in 1751 and 1764, at his episcopal residence in Győr (Namensverzeichnis 1914, p. 22).

As we shall see later, in accordance with the expectations of Pope Benedict XIV, Zichy endeavoured to gain a thorough understanding of the affairs and circumstances of his diocese. He began his canonical visitation of his diocese in 1748, which lasted almost six years and was concluded with his 37-page work, Epistola pastoralis, published in 1755. In 1762, he began another visitation. However, this time he did not cover the entire diocese. From this point on, he presumably relied on reports from the deans.

With Joseph II’s (King of Hungary, Croatia, and Bohemia 1780–1790, Holy Roman Emperor 1765–1790) accession to the Hungarian throne in 1780, turbulent years began. In March 1782, Ferenc Zichy, the ill and weakened Bishop, travelled to Vienna one last time, accompanied by several bishops, to protest against Joseph II’s first dissolution decree (Klosteraufhebungsdekret) that was issued on 12 January 1782. The bishop died in Győr on 8 June 1783 (Piszker 1933, p. 16).

2.2. The New Diocese: Diocese of Szombathely

Archbishop Péter Pázmány of Esztergom (1616–1637) had already suggested creating smaller, more manageable dioceses. However, this plan was thwarted by resistance from the bishops and the chapters, mainly due to financial disputes. A century and a half later, in the spirit of enlightened absolutism, Maria Theresa’s government sought to reform the Hungarian Catholic Church, which led to the establishment of three Greek rite dioceses in the east of the country, followed by the creation of three new bishoprics from the Diocese of Esztergom, and the foundation of the Dioceses of Fehérvár and Szombathely in Transdanubia (Szuly 2022).

On 17 February 1777, Maria Theresa issued a decree establishing the Diocese of Szombathely, which was confirmed by Pope Paul VI on 17 July of the same year. The new diocese was formed mainly from the territories of the Diocese of Győr (50% of the parishes) and, to a lesser extent, from the Diocese of Veszprém and Zagreb. The first bishop of the Diocese of Szombathely was János Szily (1777–1799), Ferenc Zichy’s former employee.

2.3. János Szily

János Szily was born in Felsőszopor, Sopron County, on 30 August 1735, as the youngest child of a noble family (Diós n.d., p. 293). His four sisters were raised Lutheran, following their mother, and he was raised Roman Catholic, following his father. He attended the Jesuit grammar school in Sopron and from 1752 the seminary in Győr. After two years of philosophy and one year of theology studies, he attended the Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum in Rome from 2 November 1755. By this time, he was fluent in German, Latin, and French. He was ordained a deacon on 17 December 1757 in Rome, in the Basilica of the Lateran. In March 1758, he received the degree of Doctor of Theology and Philosophy. He returned home and was ordained a priest in September of the same year (Géfin 1929, pp. 27–29).

Szily spent seventeen years in Bishop Ferenc Zichy’s Aula as court chaplain, bishop’s steward, then secretary and canon. In November 1762, Bishop Zichy appointed him canonicus honorarius in the Vasvár-Sombathely Capitulum Collegiale. In February 1764, he became canonicus of Győr, and in January 1770, custos (Bedy 1938, p. 467).

Szily, as custos, proposed the restoration of the Cathedral in Győr; he also supervised the selection of the master builders and the work itself. This is how he came into contact with the architect Melchior Hefele and the painter Anton Maulbertsch, who later played an important role in the construction of the Szombathely Cathedral.

In recognition of his tireless work, Zichy appointed Szily as provost of Győrhegy in 1775, and in the same year, he was also awarded the titular bishopric of Tinnin by Maria Theresa. He was consecrated bishop in Győr on 28 May 1775. Two years later, on 17 February 1777, he became the first bishop of the newly established Diocese of Szombathely. In the letter of appointment, Maria Theresa wrote about Szily, “Given his outstanding knowledge, education, and exemplary life, as well as his other exceptional spiritual qualities, he is worthy of being appointed the first bishop of the diocese”. János Szily took up his position as bishop on 20 August 1777 (Géfin 1929, p. 32).

Construction of the new bishop’s seat in Szombathely could then begin. The Bishop’s Palace and the Seminary of Szombathely were also designed by Hefele. The construction of the cathedral started in 1791. Archaeological finds unearthed during construction work were collected in the Sala Terrena Hall of the Bishop’s Palace. This hall became Hungary’s first archaeological museum. He also established a library and set up a foundation for the librarian (Schönvisner 1791, pp. 371–78). During his time as bishop, Szily carried out two canonical visitations of the entire diocese. He established 13 new parishes, 31 local chaplaincies, and 29 chaplain positions (Schönvisner 1791, p. 379).

With Joseph II’s accession to the throne, difficult years began in Bishop Szily’s life as well. He protested against a series of decrees that—in his opinion—severely weakened the position of the Catholic Church, as did Bishop Ferenc Zichy and—more vigorously—Károly Esterházy, Bishop of Eger (1761–1799). Despite all efforts, Szily was unable to prevent the Seminary of Szombathely from being moved to Pozsony (now Bratislava, Slovakia) in 1784. However, he was able to save the building from military expropriation and provide it to Antal Siess, a printer from Sopron, to set up a printing press here (Géfin 1929, p. 143).

Bishop Szily laid the foundations for unity and discipline among the clergy of the new diocese with his work Instructio Venerabilis Cleri Dioecesis Sabariensis. This work essentially became the diocese’s code of law for the next 150 years.

Bishop János Szily died in Szombathely on 2 January 1799.

3. Prescribed and Perceived Episcopal Roles

3.1. The Good Shepherd

The encyclical Ubi primum of Pope Benedict XIV (1740–1758) was the first programmatic circular letter of his papacy, issued on 3 December 1740. He states that with the Petrine legacy, he has been given the task of governance and with the responsibility of Jesus’ command (Pasce agnos meos, pasce oves meas!), he is accountable not only to the multitude of the faithful, but also to the “shepherds”: the priests and bishops as well.5

Pope Benedict XIV confirms the obligation of personalis residentia and emphasises that a bishop may only be absent from his diocese for a valid reason and must ensure that his flock does not suffer any harm as a result of his absence (Benedict XIV 1740). Personalis residentia was the most fundamental requirement, to reside locally, of which the clergy was reminded to obey by numerous earlier ecclesiastical decrees (Gárdonyi 2009, p. 50).

As we have seen, Bishop Zichy as well as Bishop Szily devoted a great deal of effort and money to fulfil their obligation to live in the centre of their Diocese.

However, none of the bishops stopped here. The obligation of personal residence was extended to the clergy of the diocese as well. The seventh paragraph of Epistola Pastoralis confirms the provision of the Council of Trent (1545–1563), that a parish priest may be absent from his parish for one week, with an absence of more than two days requiring permission from the Dean and a longer absence requiring permission from the bishop. Unauthorized absence lasting even months is a mortal sin (Zichy 1755, § VII. 1–5). Szily saw this question the same way: One of the basic principles of parochial obligations is the obligation of residence, and Szily also regulated it strictly: if the parish priest wishes to be absent from his parish for more than seven days, he needs permission from the Bishop or the Holy See (Szily 1777, p. 27).6

As Pope Benedict XIV described it, the designated leader, the “Good Shepherd”, must thoroughly assess the parish entrusted to his care, taking appropriate steps to make necessary improvements and corrections, and monitoring the implementation of these instructions. The encyclical, therefore, considers church visits to be an essential institution. As it states, “just as in a household, nothing is more useful than the father regularly inspecting everything. We also command you to visit your churches and dioceses yourselves. Do this unless there is some serious and legitimate reason that requires you to entrust the task to someone else. This will allow you to know your flock and the faces of your sheep”. The encyclical draws the bishops’ attention to the fact that changes and achievements will only be sustainable in the long term if they regularly check that old bad habits have not returned and that new issues have not arisen (Benedict XIV 1740).

In accordance with these expectations, Zichy endeavoured to gain a thorough understanding of the affairs and circumstances of his diocese. He began his canonical visitation of his diocese in 1748 and another one in 1762; however, this time he did not cover the entire diocese. From this point on, he presumably relied on reports from the deans. In Epistola pastoralis, he instructed them that in the future, deans will be obliged to visit their entire district, all its parishes and chaplaincies, twice a year, and to report to the bishop by 1 January and 1 June. They were not to be exempted from the obligation to visit (Zichy 1755, § VIII. 19).7 This inquiry covered not only the parish priests’ and chaplains’ pastoral work, but also their education, faith, and moral conduct. This information served as the basis for the bishop’s circular letters (Zichy 1755, § VIII. 19).8

Bishop Szily also took the fate of his diocese to heart; he carried out two canonical visitations of the entire diocese. The first began in 1778, the second began in 1780. Antal Mailáth (1739–1804), Provost of Pápóc, wrote the following about Szily’s pastoral visits: “He is accompanied by neither pomp nor splendour… the bishop can hardly be distinguished from a solitary traveller. He does not waste a single minute, his attention is focused on everything, he inspects the churches and parish houses, teaches the little ones, encourages the elderly to do good (…) he reviews the knowledge of the parish priests and examines their morals…” (Majláth 1799, p. 20).

Nevertheless, the task of governance has also been given to the bishops and to the priests. And there is a renewed level of governance in this system: the deans, who were parish priests supervising 10–15 parishes at a time. As we saw above, Bishop Zichy entrusted the deans with important administrative duties. When the Epistola pastoralis emphasises the investigative duty of the deans, Zichy quotes Pope Benedict XIV: “bono exemplo caeteris praeluceant” (Zichy 1755, § I. 1).

Bishop Szily also entrusted the deans with these administrative tasks. Their duties were defined in ten points. They were responsible for informing their entire district about the appointment and disposition of parish priests, as well as about episcopal decrees and encyclicals. The bishop requires every parish priest to draw up an inventory of all the property belonging to their parish, including both movable and immovable items, and to indicate the condition of each piece of parish equipment. These inventories are checked by the deans and sent to the bishop’s office. While the deans’ obligation to make visits remained, the frequency was reduced from twice a year to once a year (Szily 1777, p. 78).

3.2. The Good Teacher

The Council of Trent (1545–1563) assigned two key responsibilities to parish priests: preaching and catechesis. Ubi primum highlights one of the Church’s defining characteristics: through its priests, the Church was in contact with almost all sections of society, conveying its message to people of all ages, social classes, and ranks. Nevertheless, as Pope Benedict XIV pointed out, the Church can only make use of this characteristic if it approaches its task in a unified manner and performs it to an appropriate standard under supervision. In his encyclical Etsi minime, issued on 7 February 1742, the Pope laid out his expectations in terms of what was taught (Benedict XIV 1742).

Benedict XIV articulates the need for a rigorous quality improvement in the training of priests and calls for a thorough review of the training programme to ensure it is fit for purpose. The Pope considers it essential that every diocese have its own seminary, and where such seminaries already exist, they should be expanded and improved. Selection of the future priests should also be tightened and the performance and suitability of the students admitted should be constantly measured and monitored, and those who are unsuitable should be removed, as they can cause irreparable damage. The encyclical Ubi primum places these tasks under episcopal responsibility (Benedict XIV 1740).

Bishop Zichy stresses the importance of teaching and gives a practical summary of what effective preaching is (Zichy 1755, § III).9 It should not be improvised (Zichy 1755, § III. 1),10 it should not be angry or harsh,11 and it should be benign towards Protestants (Zichy 1755, § III. 2). In summary: “Verba, gestus, totaque exterior compositio Concionatoris modestiam potius, gravitatem, pietatemque Ecclesiasticam spirent, quam fastum, arrogantiam, vanitatem, aut affectatam (…)” (Zichy 1755, § III. 3).

The fourth paragraph of Epistola pastoralis summarizes the key points of catechesis (Zichy 1755, § IV. Introduction). Bishop Zichy highlights the duties and responsibilities of parents and teachers. He also lists the necessary books and standardizes the examination procedure, as the bishop writes, “ut uniformitas per totam Dioecesim fervetur”. For the sake of standardization, in previous years, Jesuit missionaries distributed small catechism books to parish priests, and teachers were required to quiz their pupils on them every day (Zichy 1755, § IV. 4).12 The ludi magister read the catechism aloud, and the students repeated it after him. The Epistola pastoralis emphasises that the principles of faith are best learned through repetition. Bishop Zichy expected parish priests to persuade parents of the importance of sending their children to elementary school to learn to read and write (Zichy 1755, § IV. 4).13

Bishop János Szily also emphasizes the importance of the faith formation of children (Szily 1777, p. 38).14 The Instructio stipulates that a suitably educated and moral schoolmaster must be employed, and that the parish priest, the patron, and the local community should agree on his selection. The bishop emphasises that he recommends employing a ludi magister whose true faith and integrity have been verified and who is honest, hard-working, sober, and quiet. Szily urges parents to send their children to school regularly so that they can easily and effectively learn the Catholic faith and the fundamentals of living a moral life (Szily 1777, pp. 119–20).

The knowledge required to perform the duties of a pastoral care worker is also articulated in Bishop Szily’s Instructio. The position of clerics rests on two pillars: morality and education. Bishop Szily reminds his priests that no one should be content with merely knowing moral theology; they should also study speculative theology, dogmatics, and canon law diligently. Szily emphasizes that he will not tolerate uneducated clergy, neither at the seminary nor in pastoral work (Szily 1777, p. 25).15

3.3. The Good Example

Pope Benedict XIV emphasises the power of personal example, writing that it is well known that nothing teaches, inspires, and encourages all people to piety, religiosity, and the internalization of Christian norms more effectively than the example of those who have dedicated themselves to the service of God (Benedict XIV 1740). So, he considered it of the utmost importance that the care of souls must be entrusted to pastors who, by their knowledge, piety, moral purity, and example of good work, shine forth for all, so that they may truly be the light and salt of the people. He emphasises the great damage that can be done to Christianity (Christianae Republicae) by the negligence of those entrusted with the care of souls, especially in the religious education of children. That is why he urges pastors to take part in a few days of spiritual exercises every year (Benedict XIV 1740).

The text of the encyclical paints a picture of the ideal priest, emphasising activity and diligence among his competencies. According to Pope Benedict XIV, the faithful will only accept the norms of Catholic life if their pastors are not idle, lazy, or inactive in their office, but persistent, active, diligent, and vigilant (Benedict XIV 1740). Regarding the priesthood, Benedict XIV takes a strict stance: it is better to have fewer people who are tried, suitable, and useful serving the Church than many who are unwilling to work hard to build it up (Benedict XIV 1740).

The Epistola pastoralis itself begins with an introduction on the exemplary life of the parish priest, and then summarizes in eight paragraphs the most important and fundamental norms, expectations, and procedures to which all priests in the diocese had to conform and adhere. Exemplaris vitae pastorum—citing the text of the Council of Trent, Zichy reminds his priests that a pastor can be most effective in the care of souls if he himself leads an exemplary, disciplined life (Waterworth 1848, p. 162).

The very first paragraph of Epistola pastoralis outlines the expectations regarding the morality and conduct of the parish priest. He must avoid drunkenness and always be sober, must be ready at any time to perform his pastoral duties and administer the sacraments in a dignified manner (Zichy 1755, § I. 2).16 It is fundamental that clericus non sit percussor; Christ’s gentleness is the example to follow. Anyone who nevertheless chooses the path of violence will be dealt with by the secular authorities in accordance with secular law. Non sit blasphemus, vel maledicus. No layperson should hear profanity or obscene language from a cleric. Bishop Zichy reminds his priests of the prohibition of clerical marriage and the condemnation of concubinage. He also draws particular attention to the issue of cohabiting with “suspicious women”. Zichy devotes a lengthy section to the issue of greed. To avoid any suspicion, all forms of money trading17 were prohibited, and the desire for profit had to be kept in check (Zichy 1755, § I. 7). However, the practice of hospitality and care for the poor was highly recommended. Additionally, priests were required to pay particular attention to the cleanness of the church, its furnishings, and sacred objects (Zichy 1755, § I. 7).18

Szily opens the first chapter of Instructio with the thought, “Sacerdotem enim oportet Christum omnium virtutum exemplar vita moribusque continuo exhibere, seu specimen Christi cogitatis loquentis, agentis patientisque undequaque circumfere ita; ut qui eum viderint, eandem Christiferum jure dicant” (Szily 1777, p. 1).

Bishop Szily reminds his priests that love, humility, and gentleness are vital for providing effective pastoral care. If they approach their congregation with these virtues, their words will carry more weight and be more likely to bring about real change (Szily 1777, pp. 13–15). Bishop Szily devotes several chapters to describing the qualities of an ideal pastor. He provides detailed explanations of why parish priests should condemn and refrain from drunkenness, gambling, hunting, physical violence, and blasphemy. He also devotes a separate chapter to the issues of avarice and money-lending (Szily 1777, p. 22).19

To deepen the spiritual lives of the clergy, the Pope suggests that pastors take part in a few days of spiritual exercises every year (Benedict XIV 1740). Both Bishop Zichy and Bishop Szily were familiar with the idea of spiritual exercises, since both had deep roots in Jesuit religious practices, and they both incorporated it into the life of the clergy of their diocese (Zichy 1755, § V. 3, 7; Szily 1777, p. 12).20

The eight-day event was to be attended once a year by all churchmen, chaplains, parish priests, and their deputies. The venue was a monastery belonging to a religious order. The order was obliged to make the monastery available for spiritual exercises. Bishop Zichy recommended the work of Tobias Lohner (1697), among others, for use on these occasions. The deans were responsible for monitoring participation in the spiritual exercises. Clerics were required to present a certificate from the head of the order to their dean. Those who grumbled or were disobedient were subject to the proceedings of the episcopal court of justice (Zichy 1755, § V. 3, 7).

Bishop Szily also required priests to participate in an eight-day spiritual exercise every year and asked them to provide proof of attendance. The Jesuit monk Dufréne’s pastoral handbook (Dufréne 1791) was printed for them by Siess’ printing house.

4. Conclusions

The “chain-like” description of the system of exemplary leadership is common in the political and ecclesiastical discourse of the time. Already in the ecclesiastical policy of Charles III, the same image is found that Pope Benedict XIV used in his encyclical. For members of the clergy, the bishop’s activities, behaviour, personality, and dedication should serve as foundational principles. An effective diocesan leader can draw inspiration and receive guidance from a pontiff who embodies the requisite character traits. In this structure, the main forces of cohesion are suitability, accountability, and setting an example (Gőzsy 2016, p. 87).

This study has explored the episcopal ideals and practices of Bishop Ferenc Zichy and Bishop János Szily within the broader framework of post-Tridentine Catholic reform and Enlightenment-era pastoral governance. Through close analysis of episcopal letters, it has been demonstrated how Bishop Zichy and Bishop Szily understood and performed their role as bishops, not merely as ecclesiastical administrators, but as moral guides, teachers, and spiritual fathers to both clergy and laity.

Zichy’s episcopacy was deeply shaped by the expectations codified in papal documents such as Ubi primum (1740), and Szily’s episcopacy was deeply shaped by both Ubi primum and Epistola pastoralis. These documents emphasized the bishop’s personal responsibility for the care of souls, the education of clergy, and the moral integrity of the Church’s ministers. These ideals, however, were not abstract principles but were embedded in a concrete pastoral strategy that included seminary reform, catechetical standardization, and the frequent use of exhortation and moral instruction in pastoral letters. The bishops’ repeated emphasis on interior conversion, clerical piety, and spiritual discipline reveals a deep commitment to what might be called a “Catholic Enlightenment” vision of episcopacy—rational, pedagogical, and spiritually rigorous (Lehner 2016).

Far from functioning as a passive agent of Roman centralization, both Zichy and Szily emerge as dynamic actors who translated universal ecclesiastical mandates into local strategies. Both operated within the Habsburg political-religious framework, which granted bishops a certain degree of autonomy but also subjected them to pressures from the Court and Josephinist reforms. They navigated these tensions with notable dexterity, aligning with papal visions of reform while also engaging in the modernization of diocesan structures, particularly in education and discipline.

By examining episcopal ideals as both normative and performative—as ideals to be proclaimed, enacted, and institutionalized—this research offers a more nuanced understanding of early modern Catholic leadership. Zichy’s and Szily’s episcopate illustrates how bishops functioned as cultural intermediaries, navigating between Roman directives, local traditions, and Enlightenment rationalism. Their pastoral efforts suggest a synthesis rather than a conflict between tradition and reform, between religious authority and the emerging demands of modern statecraft.

In summary, the episcopacy of Ferenc Zichy, as well as János Szily, represents a compelling instance of moral leadership in an era of institutional transformation. Their commitment to clerical education, spiritual renewal, and catechetical instruction reflects both fidelity to Roman mandates and creative engagement with the cultural and intellectual currents of their time. As such, Epistola pastoralis and Instructio deserve recognition not merely as a footnote to Church reform, but as a meaningful contribution to the shaping of Catholic identity on the periphery of the Habsburg Monarchy. Future research may further illuminate how such episcopal models influenced the broader Catholic experience in Central and Eastern Europe, especially in regions where state power, religious tradition, and Enlightenment ideals were deeply intertwined.