Catholicism in Žemaitija in the first half of 20th century

In the first half of 20th century Catholicism in Žemaitija experienced painful process of adapting itself to new socio-political realities. After quite moderate rule of his predecessor the bishop P. Karevičius followed consistent Program of pastoral activities, which has closely connected aspirations of the Church and newly born national state. An active participation of diocesan clergy in the solution of national affairs had created many tensions, which endangered the unity of Church community. Moreover problems of national character put into the shadow the necessity to renew pastoral work, which became more and more urgent in the face of accelerated secularization of the society. According to the view of all representatives of the Holy See, who had visited Lithuania during the first half of 1920's, the bishop P. Karevičius was not able to answer these challenges in a proper way. The bishop J. Staugaitis, who has been nominated as ordinary bishop of Telšiai diocese, was more successful in the solution of some problems of religious life in the region. In spite of unfavourable conditions he has created the separate training system for his clergy, which could meet the need for educated priests and take account of local conditions. The bishop J. Staugaitis conceived very well the most urgent directions of the pastoral work and tried to channel activities of his clergy into them. On the other hand, he was also hindered by strong national engagement when picking out priorities of the Pastoral work in order they would serve primarily for the sake of souls. For this reason integration of Catholics in Klaipėda district wasn't completed until 1939, the net of religious orders complying with new requirements wasn't established. The new model of Catholicism, which was based on active collaboration of lay people in apostolic activities of clergy, was accepted in Telšiai diocese also more cautiously than in other parts of Lithuania. Traditional forms of worship were durable, more courageous interpretations of doctrine, which could justify new ways of operating in society, were avoided