Gustav III, who ascended the Swedish throne in 1771 and whose reign tragically ended with his assassination in 1792, is generally portrayed as a typical representative of the Enlightenment. Described as an ‘enlightened’ monarch, he introduced several reforms, for example a liberalization of criminal justice and religious legislation, liberal economic reforms and measures geared to strengthening the position of the lower Estates; and he was one of the first heads of state to establish relations with the United States of America. In his younger years he corresponded with leading philosophes such as Voltaire, and he promoted art and culture, among other things by founding the Swedish Academy and the Royal Dramatic Theatre. Through a coup d’état in 1772, he established a new constitution, increasing the Crown’s power at the expense of the Swedish parliament, the Riksdag. This development towards royal autocracy was completed with the Union and Security Act of 1789, which at the same time reduced the privileges of the nobility and opened new career paths for bourgeois commoners in the state bureaucracy.¹

Sweden was a Protestant country, based on the Lutheran Augsburg confession, with a previously severe religious legislation. As part of the ‘enlightened’ reform activity, Gustav III issued an Edict of Tolerance for ‘foreign believers’ on 24 January 1781. This law allowed Catholic immigrants to practise their religion publicly. The members of the Reformed communities had already been granted the same rights, and in 1782 Jewish immigration was permitted, although residence was restricted to certain towns. Previous research has argued that these laws were issued primarily for economic reasons, with the purpose of making it easier for wealthy non-Lutheran foreigners to establish themselves in the country.² This was undoubtedly a decisive reason in respect of Jews and Reformed communities. With regard to Catholics, however, I will argue that another reason came into play, namely the King’s fascination with Catholic liturgy and church life.

The present chapter proposes and discusses this hypothesis, showing how the King’s Catholic sympathies came to shape his ecclesiastical policies in a direction that ran counter to the ideals of the Enlightenment. In line with this, I will also question the tendency prevalent in previous research to contrast the ‘enlightened’ Gustav III with backward-looking Lutheran clergy. Yet, the question is whether the leading churchmen appeared to be more marked by Enlightenment ideals than the King in respect of important matters. They represented what may be labelled ‘enlightened orthodoxy’.

Gustav III and the Catholic mission

In the early modern period Rome, capital of the Papal States in central Italy, had developed into a cosmopolitan city, attracting not only Catholic pilgrims but also an ever-growing number of non-Catholic travellers, including many Scandinavians. Gustav III was one of them. The city was an obvious destination for young noblemen’s educational journeys, the so-called ‘grand tour’; but it also attracted scholars, artists, craftsmen, merchants and religious seekers. It was during this time that it became fashionable among the cultural elite to visit Rome and admire its art treasures, both secular and religious.³ The Catholic ecclesiastical authorities kept an eye on these Protestant visitors, as they wanted to prevent them from spreading Protestant teachings but also because they hoped to win them for the Catholic faith. For this purpose, religious guest houses for foreigners, so-called Casa dei catecumeni, were set up, where Jews, Muslims and Protestants were offered free food and lodging and were taught the Catholic faith. Converts included many Scandinavians.⁴

One of these Nordic converts was Lorenz Birger Thjulén (1746–1833) from Gothenburg, who encountered the Catholic faith when living in Southern Europe in his youth. After being taught by Jesuits in Ferrara in northern Italy, he was received into the Catholic Church in January 1769. Two years later, he was accepted as a novice at the Jesuit college in Bologna, which belonged to the Papal States. The papal decree on the dissolution of the Jesuit order in August 1773 forced him to leave the college and complete his priestly formation at the diocesan seminary. After his ordination the following year, he served as a military chaplain, teacher and writer in Bologna. Thjulén wrote articles against the revolutionary movements of the time but also about Gustav III, and he defended the Swedish position in connection with the Russian war of 1788–1790. If Gustav III had not been murdered, Thjulén would have returned to Sweden in 1792 and served as a Catholic priest in Stockholm. On 5 March that year, Gustav III had signed a resolution giving him the right to return to his homeland with the right to practise his Catholic faith. However, the King’s death three weeks later meant that Thjulén did not dare to trust that he would be able to return to Sweden without suffering reprisals.⁵

At this time there were about two thousand Catholics in Sweden, most of them in Stockholm. Gustav III himself had several Catholics in his service. The legations of the Catholic powers in Stockholm had long been allowed to have a priest, but only for the pastoral care of their own employees. The above-mentioned Edict of Toleration confirmed this practice, developed in the early eighteenth century; but it also provided an opportunity to build churches and establish Catholic parishes. A similar edict was issued in 1781 by Emperor Joseph II (r. 1765–1790) for the Protestants in the Habsburg hereditary lands, an edict which was supplemented in the following year to include Jews as well.⁶

Even so, these liberties only applied to the religious dissenter groups in question, and changes of religious affiliation were not allowed. This meant that it was a criminal offence to apostatize from the Lutheran faith, and for a Swedish subject who converted to the Catholic Church, emigration was hence the sole option.⁷ To provide for the Catholic immigrants, Gustav III initiated negotiations with the Holy See; these negotiations resulted in the establishment of an Apostolic Vicariate in 1783, directly subordinate to the Roman congregation of mission, the Propaganda Fide. Pope Pius VI (r. 1775–1799) appointed the French priest Nicolaus Oster apostolic vicar. A Catholic parish was created in Stockholm, and soon more priests were sent to Sweden, among them the Italian Paulo Moretti (1759–1804). The latter came from Bologna, and it was on his initiative that Thjulén came into consideration as a missionary priest and future apostolic vicar in Sweden.⁸

The visit to Italy and papal Rome

Gustav III’s journey to Rome and Italy in 1783–1784 was to be of great importance in this context. The travelling party included Baron Gustaf Mauritz Armfelt (1757–1814), the governor of Stockholm Baron Carl Sparre (1723–1791), Count Axel von Fersen (1755–1810), son of the influential former parliamentary leader with the same name, the national antiquarian Gudmund Jöran Adlerbeth (1751–1818) and the sculptor Johan Tobias Sergel (1740–1814). During the trip, the President of the Chancellery, Count Gustaf Philip Creutz (1731–1785), handled government affairs in Stockholm; and in letters to him, the King communicated his impressions of the trip.⁹ To avoid official representation, the King travelled incognito as the Count of Haga. This strategy was common among European royals at the time. At the same time as the King, Emperor Joseph II made such an incognito journey, as usual under the name Count von Falkenstein.¹⁰ The two monarchs met on several occasions. Gustav III’s trip was formally motivated by his need to cure an arm injury by visiting the bathing establishments ‘in Pisa and elsewhere’, as it was formulated in his doctor’s assessment. The real reason, however, was his wish to complete the trip abroad that he made as Crown Prince, a trip which had been interrupted by his father’s death in 1771.¹¹

This time, the destination was Italy, and the high point of the trip was Rome. Here the King was received by Pope Pius VI, who personally showed him around in the Vatican’s art collections. Gustav III showed great interest in the Catholic liturgy and visited a great number of churches. He participated in the papal mass in St Peter’s Basilica on Christmas Day and in the Sistine Chapel on New Year’s Day, as well as in the masses celebrated by the Pope during Holy Week and Easter. He also visited the House of Saint Bridget at Piazza Farnese where the saint had spent the last twenty years of her life, a house which had long served as a centre for Swedish Catholic converts. He strolled in the park at Corsino Palace, where Sweden’s Queen Christina (1626–1689) had resided a hundred years before. The King showed great interest in this predecessor of his, who renounced the Swedish throne in order to become a Catholic. He was anxious to see objects and items that had belonged to her.¹²

It was customary for Catholic princes to be received in audience by the Pope when they visited Rome. For a ruling Protestant prince to do so was unusual to say the least. The Danish king Frederik IV had visited Rome as Crown Prince in 1692 in connection with his grand tour, and his brother Prince Charles did the same six years later. Both attended Catholic services and experienced Pope Innocent XII (1615–1700) in various liturgical functions, and they were cared for by papal dignitaries. But they did not make any personal visits to the Pope, and their attendance at papal liturgical ceremonies rather had the character of participatory observation.¹³

This was not the case with Gustav III, who according to contemporary testimonies participated in Catholic liturgical services. He had several personal meetings with Pius VI, and members of his entourage attended papal audiences. The King’s younger brother, Duke Frederik Adolf (1750–1803), had been received by the Pope during a visit to Rome in 1776. It was in connection with this visit that the contacts between Gustav III and the Roman Curia began. The French ambassador to Rome, Cardinal François-Joachim de Pierre de Bernis (1715–1794), acted as a mediator, and it was he who arranged an audience with Pius VI for the Duke.¹⁴ During Gustav III’s stay in the Eternal City, the Cardinal served as his cicerone and organized tours focusing on the religious cultural heritage. Cardinal de Bernis, who served as a ‘cultural diplomat’ in the broadest sense, also took care of other Protestant royal personages and arranged meetings with the Pope; however, they were not regents at the time.¹⁵ Gustav III was the only ruling Protestant monarch thitherto received in the Vatican in this manner. The German historian Ludwig von Pastor, who provides a detailed account of the King’s activities in Rome in his history of the popes, sees this event as the beginning of a new era.¹⁶

The importance Gustav III attached to his experiences in the Vatican is illustrated by the two paintings that were made to immortalize these occasions. He commissioned the French artist Bénigne Gagneraux (1756–1795) to paint his visit to the Vatican art collections together with Pius VI, and his presence at the papal Christmas mass in St Peter’s Basilica is documented in a painting by Louis Jean Desprez (1743–1804), a French artist whom the King also engaged for a number of other assignments.¹⁷ Gustav III made several visits to the Propaganda Fide, where he was honoured with a tribute poem, recited in forty-six languages. He also witnessed how five priests celebrated mass simultaneously, each at his own altar and according to a different rite: a manifestation of the worldwide character of the Catholic Church. The fact that one of the priests was Black aroused some astonishment among the Swedish visitors. In connection with these visits, the King was in talks with the prefect, Cardinal Leonardo Antonelli (1730–1811), regarding the position of Catholics in Sweden.¹⁸

With papal permission, Gustav III organized the celebration of a Lutheran service in Rome on Easter Sunday, 11 April 1784; at the same time, the apostolic vicar Oster celebrated the first public Catholic Easter mass in Stockholm since the sixteenth century. The Protestant service in Rome was held in Palazzo Torlonia near St Peter’s Basilica, which Gustav III used as a residence during his second stay in Rome. The Catholic Easter mass in Stockholm was celebrated in the southern City Hall in the presence of State Secretary Elis Schröderheim (1747–1795) and Duke Charles (1748–1818), the later Charles XIII (r. 1809–1818).¹⁹ Schröderheim, who helped Oster obtain permission to print Catholic devotional literature, reported in a letter to Gustav III in Rome about the Catholic mass and the favourable impression it had made.²⁰ The two religious services may be regarded as a manifestation of religious tolerance in an enlightened spirit, and so they were described in the influential newspaper Stockholms Posten.²¹ There is much to suggest that the King also wished them to be seen as expressions of mutual ecclesiastical recognition. The Catholic hierarchy did not accept this kind of reciprocity, however. Whereas government representatives attended the Catholic Easter mass in Stockholm, there were no papal dignitaries present at the Protestant Easter service in Rome.

From a Catholic point of view, the Protestant countries were, as before, regarded as mission areas which should be brought back to the community of the Catholic Church in the long run. A first goal was to establish parish structures, and Oster planned the construction of a large Catholic church in the capital and the establishment of a Catholic school for boys. As far as the church was concerned, he could count on royal support. In his reports to Rome, Oster relates a conversation with the court chaplain and pastor primarius in Stockholm, Baron Carl Edvard Taube (1746–1785), and others about a re-Catholization of Sweden and the Swedish Church’s reunification with Rome. However, his eagerness to spread the Catholic faith led to conflict with the Stockholm City Consistory, where Taube was chairman. In this capacity, Taube could not show the same benevolence towards the apostolic vicar as he did on other occasions, and Oster was forced to promise not to receive Lutherans into the Catholic Church.²²

Figure 9.1 King Gustav III guided by Pope Pius VI in the Vatican sculpture gallery, painted by Bénigne Gagneraux. Photo: National Museum of Sweden.

Figure 9.2 King Gustav III attending Christmas mass in St Peter’s Cathedral, painted by Louis Jean Desprez. Photo: National Museum of Sweden.

However, these events reinforced anti-Catholic sentiments among the Swedish clergy and led to dissatisfaction with the policy of religious tolerance. Moreover, rumours circulated that the King was about to become a Catholic, rumours fuelled by reports in the media from his visit to Rome.²³ When reading the correspondence and reports concerning Gustav III’s stay in Rome, there is much that reminds us of a Protestant convert’s journey to the Catholic faith. The King visited churches and attended religious services; and at the Christmas mass in St Peter’s, he participated in the service in the same manner as the Catholics, being seen kneeling beside Emperor Joseph II. He mentions this in a letter to Schröderheim, where he states that he considers himself as Catholic as the Emperor and more apostolic, since he, unlike the Emperor, held on to the faith of his nation, in his case the creed of the Synod of Uppsala.²⁴

Here it is worth noting that the King chose to put forward the Synod of Uppsala as an example when highlighting his Catholicity. This synod, held in 1593, admittedly confirmed the three classic Christian creeds but also rejected the ‘Papist’ Church and its traditions, not least the Catholic mass. Yet this seemed to be no problem for Gustav III, who apparently constructed his own interpretation concerning the character of the doctrinal foundation of Swedish society and the national Church. According to Schröderheim, the King had even intended to issue the 1785 Intercession Day placard, a kind of annual government declaration read out in Swedish churches, in Rome. He was dissuaded by his advisers, however, and the placard was signed at the Castle of Gripsholm instead.²⁵

Gustav III’s attraction to Catholicism

Previous research has described Gustav III’s interest in Catholic liturgical life as an expression of his aesthetic interests. In the two biographies written by historian Erik Lönnroth and the literary scholar Leif Landen, the interest the King took in Catholic worship during his visit to Rome is thus explained by his aesthetic disposition.²⁶ Church historian Bertil Rehnberg, in his book on the religious debate in Sweden during the Gustavian era, emphasizes Gustav III’s interest in pomp and ceremonies. He further asserts that the King had an attraction to ‘the occult and superstitious’, and that he, according to testimonies by contemporary church officials, would have been alien to the Christian faith. In her biography of the King, historian Beth Hennings states that, although he occasionally showed interest in Christian mysticism, he did not absorb any lasting impressions of the Christian faith. According to her, he used religion mainly to emphasize his serene royal position.²⁷

Historian Claes Theodor Odhner presents a different picture in his 1896 study of the reign of Gustav III. He gives examples of the King seeking consolation in the Christian faith in connection with conflicts and devoting himself to Bible reading and religious meditations. According to Odhner, the transcendent dimensions of Christianity were what interested the King.²⁸ This is in line with the impressions Cardinal de Bernis conveys in a report from July 1784 to the French foreign minister, Count Charles Gravier de Vergennes (1717–1787), in which he emphasizes the King’s great interest in liturgy but also that he seemed ‘attaché’ to his religion.²⁹

Church historian Gunnar Granberg, who examines Gustav III’s church policy in his 1998 dissertation, argues that the King’s view of the Church was characterized both by Lutheran ideals of unity and by a quest for renewal in the spirit of Enlightenment. Like previously mentioned scholars, Granberg highlights the King’s aesthetic interest as a source of motivation in the context of ecclesiastical reform policy, asserting that Gustav III found inspiration not only in the Catholic Church but also in the Anglican tradition. He does not, however, manage to support this claim other than by pointing at some Swedish priests who had good relations with representatives of the Anglican Church.³⁰ A somewhat different picture of Gustav III’s ceremonial and aesthetic manifestations is supplied by the historians Mikael Alm and Henrika Tandefelt, who both claim that this was an expression of his technique as a ruler. But the significance of religion and religious symbolism in this context is hardly mentioned. Moreover, Tandefelt seems to lack knowledge of the confessional systems of the time and the conflicts between denominations. She states, for example, that Gustav III organized a Protestant service at St Peter’s during his visit to Rome – an impossibility then as now.³¹

Enlightenment and ecclesiastical reform policy

Recent research has fundamentally altered the previously common view that ‘enlightened’ rulers took an unfavourable view of religion. Several researchers have shown how religious policy was an integral part of reform projects of various kinds. The overall goal was to make the practice of religion more rational and to eradicate everything that could be associated with superstition.³² One example is the liturgical reforms introduced in Denmark under the influence of the theologian and court preacher Christian Bastholm, whose writings served as inspiration for Swedish churchmen as well. His target was simple worship free of ceremonies and Christian preaching with a focus on ethics and edification. This ideal of worship was also cherished by the Pietists, who – although the movement was subject to certain restrictions – exercised a strong influence in Scandinavia, especially in Denmark.³³

In Catholic countries, reform policies in the spirit of the Enlightenment mainly took the form of restrictions on processions, devotions, pilgrimages and other popular religious practices. The most radical reforms were carried out in the Habsburg hereditary lands as part of Joseph II’s centralization efforts, aimed at strengthening state control over the Church. By a decree of 1782, contemplative monasteries were abolished and their property confiscated to be used for pastoral and charitable purposes, and several apostles’ feasts were abolished. Another distinguishing feature was the effort to tone down the ceremonial character of worship in favour of the educational and ethical dimensions of the Christian faith.³⁴ This kind of liturgical reform activity played a central role in the popular education projects of the Enlightenment era.

Admittedly, Gustav III too had carried out a reduction of the number of holy days at the beginning of his reign,³⁵ and he seems to have shown no interest in preserving the medieval heritage of the country. Even during his reign, several medieval churches were, as is shown in Zachrisson’s contribution to this volume, demolished to be replaced by neo-classical buildings. Yet when it came to liturgy and worship, the King’s ideas and visions went contrary to the ideals of the Enlightenment. He opposed the efforts to simplify religious services and committed himself to a richer and more ceremonial liturgy. This inclination was expressed already in connection with his coronation in May 1772, whose rituals he himself designed in minuscule detail. At the coronation, depicted afterwards on a painting by Carl Gustav Pilo (1711–1793), Archbishop Magnus Beronius (1692–1775) wore a mitre in accordance with the King’s wish. This item of Catholic liturgical insignia was abolished during the Reformation era, reintroduced by the Catholic-orientated King John III’s Nova ordinantia (1575) and then banned by the aforementioned Synod of Uppsala in 1593.³⁶

As part of his liturgical reform project, Gustav III reintroduced both the mitre and the crosier as episcopal insignia. He also planned to introduce the pectoral cross in connection with the upcoming celebration of the bicentennial of the Synod of Uppsala by personally handing over such a cross to all the bishops. But his death prevented the implementation of this project. In addition to this, the King had plans to adopt the use of incense at services, but was persuaded not to present such a proposal.³⁷

Several scholars have understood Gustav III’s liturgical visions and his passion for the mystical dimensions of Christian faith in connection with his interest in Freemasonry. The Masonic Order was founded in England in the early eighteenth century and introduced in Sweden in 1752, when the first lodge was established in Stockholm. In his younger years, Gustav III, like his brothers, was actively engaged in the Masonic Order. What interested him was the chivalric mysticism that appeared in the northern European branch of the order and the religious symbolism that characterized its rites, which were partly taken from Catholic liturgy. While southern European Freemasonry was strongly influenced by rationalist ideals and had (and has) an anti-clerical orientation, the Swedish branch had an esoteric character with ten degrees, in which members were gradually inaugurated and admitted through solemn ceremonies. Swedish Freemasonry drew inspiration from the so-called strict observance, a system which developed in Germany in the 1750s and gave Freemasonry an even more mysterious and ceremonial character.³⁸

Gustav III’s interest in Freemasonry waned considerably after his Italian journey. He left the Masonic activities to his brother Duke Charles, who had been head of the Swedish lodges since 1774. The King’s visit to the then supreme leader or Grand Master of the order, the Catholic pretender to the English throne, Prince Charles Edward Stuart (1720–1788), in Florence, was disappointing. The prince had no secrets to convey, and moreover, the Catholic liturgy probably completely overshadowed the Masonic rituals. Gustav III, however, promised to pay a pension to Stuart in exchange for taking over the title of Grand Master at his death.³⁹ It should be added that the Catholic Church condemned Freemasonry as incompatible with the Catholic faith, which made it problematic for Stuart to be engaged as its leader.⁴⁰

Instead of Freemasonry, Gustav III focused on the royal orders, instituted by King Frederik I (r. 1720–1751) in 1748, namely the Order of the Seraphim, the Order of the Sword and the Order of the Pole Star. He also founded a new order, the Vasa Order, with three degrees, and he planned a special order for clerics, called the Jehovah Order. But he had to drop that project due to opposition from the clergy.⁴¹ However, Gustav III’s liturgical visions were neither historically orientated nor motivated by any a desire to revitalize Swedish medieval heritage. The historical epochs in Swedish history that were his main sources of inspiration were the reign of Gustav Vasa (1523–1560) and the Great Power era (the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). The national costume he introduced was designed with elements from the latter period.⁴² For him, liturgy was about the present and about giving eternal religious principles a symbolic shape, not about reviving a historical heritage. The negative image of the religious heritage of the Middle Ages, examined in a previous chapter, had no relevance in this context.⁴³

Liturgy and hierarchy – Catholicizing tendencies

The restorative alignment of Gustav III’s ecclesiastical reform policy was clearly expressed in connection with episcopal installations carried out during his reign. He started with abolishing remaining offices of diocesan superintendents in 1772; henceforth, all heads of dioceses were to be named bishops. At the same time, he decreed that a bishop should have the exclusive right to ordain clergymen. Until then, this principle had been considered a Catholic practice. As a result, ordinary clergymen performed ordinations as well, and the ordination of bishops had long been regarded as a confirmation of the appointment, not as an act of consecration. Gustav III ensured that the sacred character of the bishop’s installation was restored, and it was clearly marked when new bishops were enthroned.⁴⁴

This ritual was first used at the ordination of the Bishop of Gothenburg, Johan Wingård (1738–1818), in the Royal Chapel in Stockholm in June 1780, where thirty-three clergymen in chasubles participated and the court orchestra was responsible for the music. The ordination was performed by Archbishop Carl Fredrik Mennander (1712–1786), who wore a cope and a mitre and carried a crosier. A particularly solemn episcopal ordination was that of Jacob Lindblom, former professor of eloquence and poetics at Uppsala University, in the cathedral of Linköping in March 1787. Two hundred clerics participated in the solemn consecration, which was performed by Archbishop Uno von Troil (1746–1803). Of great importance in this context was the consecration of the above-mentioned court chaplain Baron Taube in Uppsala Cathedral in November 1783. Taube was ordained bishop in his capacity as holder of a newly established bishopric attached to the Order of the Seraphim. Gustav III decided that the bishop of the order should have the same dignity as a diocesan bishop. His jurisdiction was, however, limited to the royal court.⁴⁵

The King liked to see noblemen included in his clerical entourage, and it was because of the King’s encouragement that Taube, who originally served as a military officer, embarked upon a clerical career. The fact that the episcopate was thus made into a career path for nobles gave rise to dissatisfaction within the Clerical Estate. Here, too, we can see an inspiration from the Catholic Church, where a large part of the ecclesiastical dignitaries belonged to the nobility.⁴⁶ It should be added, however, that a majority of the just over fifty court chaplains who served during the reign of Gustav III were commoners, and that several came from a comparatively modest background. Taube shared the King’s liturgical preferences, and as president of the Stockholm City Consistory he was committed to countering the prevailing tendency to simplify the liturgy.⁴⁷

In the spring of 1784 Taube was summoned to Rome to officiate at the Lutheran services which were celebrated with papal permission in a provisional chapel in the Palazzo Torlonia on Easter Day and Easter Monday that year. He was assisted by the court chaplain Anders Norberg (1745–1840), who was also ordered to come to Rome solely for this purpose. The Protestant services in Rome were celebrated according to the order of worship for the palace chapels, designed by the King himself and established in the court regulations of 1778. It stipulated that the service was to be celebrated by two clergymen in chasubles when the King was present, that parts of it should be sung, and that the blessing should be given from the altar, not from the pulpit. Particularly magnificent were the services celebrated within the framework of the royal orders, but they were open only to members and specially invited guests.⁴⁸

For the Easter mass, the first public Protestant service to be celebrated in Rome, many people had gathered, both Romans and northerners staying in the city. The King and some of the Protestants went to communion. Two clergymen were wearing red chasubles procured in Rome, and Taube wore a mitre and a magnificent cope. According to Norberg, the service made a deep impression on those present, and he noted with surprise the respectful treatment he and Taube received at the papal court.⁴⁹ As was pointed out above, the King did not content himself with these Protestant services. His entourage included his close friend Armfelt, who documented the stay and supplied accounts of the King’s cultural and religious activities in Rome. For example, Armfelt notes that the King fasted on Good Friday and that he participated in the Good Friday service with Tenebrae litanies and veneration of the cross in the Sistine Chapel.⁵⁰

A more extensive description of the King’s countless visits to churches, excursions and social gatherings is given by Adlerbeth, who served as the King’s secretary during the journey.⁵¹ Adlerbeth supplies a detailed account of the religious services of different kinds in which Gustav III participated. An interesting detail that he mentions is that the King attended the consecration of a nun in a Clarist convent, where he as an anointed and crowned monarch was let into the enclosure and could watch the ceremonies up close. According to Catholic teaching, a crowned king is included in the clergy, a rule which Gustav III could invoke despite not being a Catholic.⁵² Gustav III’s notion of kingship was marked, as clearly manifested at his coronation, by a theocratic conception of the king as God’s chosen and anointed servant. He drew parallels between the coronation and the ordination of priests and bishops. At the reception of a deputation from the clergy in 1789, he thus emphasized, according to one of those present, that clergymen were the only officials in the kingdom who were consecrated into their office in the same way as he himself.⁵³ This is in line with the Catholic concept but does not fit in with a more rational view of the monarchy and the clergy.

With regard to the importance of apostolic succession, Gustav III’s view is also consistent with that of the Catholic Church. He considered the Church of Sweden to have preserved the apostolic succession during the Reformation era, a circumstance which he emphasized in his relations with the Holy See. This was the case, for example, in connection with a meeting with the papal nuncio in Cologne, Carlo Bellisomi (1736–1808), at the health resort Spa in Germany in the summer of 1780. In letters to the Propaganda Fide, Bellisomi reported that the King had told him that the Church in Sweden had not changed to any great degree at the Reformation. He also noted the King’s discussions of the issue of what separated and united Lutherans and Catholics, respectively, thereby proving, according to the nuncio, how well informed the King was in religious matters.⁵⁴

During his stay in Rome, Gustav III had similar conversations with Cardinal de Bernis (1715–1794), who provided a series of dinners and parties for the King and his entourage. De Bernis’ reports to Vergennes reveal that the King showed great interest in liturgical matters and studied the ceremonies and practices of the Catholic Church with great zeal, and that he expressed a Catholic view regarding the edifying character of religious ceremonies. The Cardinal further noted that the King attended Catholic services during Holy Week with greater reverence than most Catholics, and that he was deeply touched by the papal blessing on St Peter’s Square.⁵⁵ Gustav III developed a real friendship with the Cardinal, as evidenced by the correspondence between the two. It is mainly about political matters, but more personal issues are discussed as well, including some of a religious nature. The King uses the address ‘mon cher Cardinal’, and in a letter from August 1786 he refers to himself as the Cardinal’s ‘pénitent du Nord’. Bernis, for his part, describes himself as the King’s ‘confesseur extraordinaire’ and conveys greetings to the Pope in this capacity.⁵⁶ Interestingly, the King received a copy of this letter and personally noted the sender.⁵⁷

It may be assumed that Gustav III also discussed religious and liturgical issues with Pius VI, with whom he had several meetings, the last of them just before the King’s departure from Rome on 19 April 1784. By all accounts, the Pope appreciated the King, who from a Catholic point of view admittedly represented a heretical Church but who also showed great interest in Catholic worship and had legalized Catholic religious practice in Sweden through his tolerant reforms. The prefect of the Propaganda Fide, Cardinal Leonardo Antonelli (1730–1811), emphasized in a letter to the apostolic vicar in Stockholm that the King had shown great respect and benevolence towards the Pope and the Holy See, which he hoped would benefit the Catholic cause in Sweden.⁵⁸ On his last night in Rome, Gustav III was honoured with a magnificent firework display. In a letter to Creutz in Stockholm, the King writes that Rome was the only place, since he left Sweden, that caused him to feel ‘a real loss’ (en verklig saknad). He also notes that Taube was well received by the Pope, which he interpreted as implying that Taube was recognized as a proper bishop.⁵⁹

Anti-Catholic reactions

Gustav III’s stay in Rome gave echo in the press. The official newspaper in Rome, Diario ordinario, reported on the King’s various programmes and excursions. Much of this was translated and published in the Swedish newspaper Stockholms Post-Tidningar. For example, there were reports about the King’s visit to Rome’s main churches and about how he participated in Catholic religious services and inspected famous relics. Diario ordinario also reported on the King’s interest in Queen Christina and his repeated visits to the Propaganda Fide.⁶⁰

This led, as mentioned, to rumours that the King was about to become a Catholic, and that this was the reason for his benevolent treatment of Catholics in Sweden. The King’s many encounters with the Pope only served to fuel these rumours. Count Axel von Fersen, who had been at the forefront of opposition to the King since the coup d’état in 1772, did his part in spreading them.⁶¹ Taube too was suspected of having converted to the Catholic faith, and Schröderheim reported that there were rumours to the effect that he was about to introduce a Catholic-inspired liturgy. In his reply, the King tried to downplay these fears by stressing that the papacy was approaching its doom after the Emperor had given it its ‘extreme unction’, referring to Joseph II’s church policy.⁶² In a letter to Cardinal de Bernis, the King, speaking of these rumours, ironically emphasized that he was no more Catholic than the Emperor, an ambiguous statement to say the least.⁶³

These rumours contributed to increasing the deep-rooted anti-Catholic sentiments in Sweden. Several of the King’s closest associates shared this critical attitude towards the Catholic Church. Adlerbeth described its teachings as an expression of ‘human blindness’, and he criticized the allegedly unedifying character of ceremonial Latin worship. Others, von Fersen among them, expressed themselves even more critically; the Count characterized Catholicism as a religion embossed by clericalism and an ‘exaggerated pride and splendour’.⁶⁴ Such anti-Catholic criticism forced Gustav III to be more restrained in voicing sympathies for the Catholic Church. He stuck to his plans to build a Catholic church in the capital, however, and commissioned Desprez to draw up a proposal.⁶⁵ He also continued his efforts to reform and ritualize the worship of the Church of Sweden in a Catholic spirit.

Not unexpectedly, the strongest opposition to the King’s ecclesiastical reform policy came from the clergy. In previous research, this disagreement has often been described as a conflict between the King’s enlightened ideas and the Lutheran orthodoxy of the clergy.⁶⁶ As far as the tolerance laws are concerned, the matter can to some extent be understood in this way. Several representatives of the Clerical Estate opposed the liberalization of religious legislation, and here concerns about Catholic proselytizing activities played an important role. But there were also clergymen in the Riksdag who advocated increased religious tolerance, and the initiative in this matter was actually taken in the Clerical Estate. The Finnish clergyman Anders Chydenius, supported by like-minded clerics such as Bishop Wingård and Archbishop-to-be von Troil, presented a memorial to the Riksdag of 1778 which included a proposal of religious freedom for foreign believers. Some scholars suggest that the King was behind the proposal, but there is no clear evidence to support that claim. The King gave his support to the memorial, which after being accepted by the other three Estates was finally voted through in the Clerical Estate in January 1779. That the Edict of Toleration was issued on Gustav III’s birthday on 24 January 1781 illustrates the importance that the King attached to this reform for the benefit of Catholics in the kingdom.⁶⁷

Anti-Catholic tendencies were clearly expressed in connection with the celebration of the bicentennial of the Synod of Uppsala in March 1793. Several speakers pointed out how Christian doctrine, through the Reformation, had been freed from ‘papist’ delusions and cleansed from abuse, superstition and unnecessary ceremonies. Here, the propagandistic rhetoric of the Reformation about the purchase of remission of sins and the worship of saints was repeated. The Catholic religious heritage was thus, in the same way as illustrated in other chapters of this volume, connected with abuse and decay. This unfavourable picture contrasted with religious Enlightenment, the progress of science and the development of a more rational interpretation of the Bible. In addition, and alluding to the ongoing French Revolution, ‘pure evangelical doctrine’ was praised as a safeguard against revolutionary fanaticism.⁶⁸

Gustav III and the clergy

Gustav III advocated a greater measure of freedom of conscience within the Swedish Church. The Moravians were allowed to erect chapels in Stockholm and Gothenburg, and the King intervened in some cases in favour of people who had been subjected to repressive measures for activities that were in conflict with the religious legislation at the time. This was the case, for example, with the pietist preacher Anders Collin (1754–1830), who was taken into custody but released upon the King’s command.⁶⁹

Yet the Conventicle Act of 1726, which forbade unlicensed religious gatherings, remained in force, and there is no indication that the King intended to remove this restriction on religious freedom of conscience. Ecclesiastical censorship continued, and the King sanctioned measures against pietist and other nonconformist literature.⁷⁰ Gustav III thus had no intention of breaking up the Swedish ecclesiastical system founded on the basis of Lutheran doctrine. At the end of his reign, it was still forbidden for Swedish subjects to leave the established Lutheran Church and join another Christian denomination. The King advocated freedom of conscience within the framework of the existing ecclesiastical system along with the right to practise one’s ancestral religion, not religious freedom in the sense we attribute to the concept today.

The clergy supported the policy of religious tolerance, despite some criticism. However, the King’s liturgical renewal policy met with compact opposition, and the proposals presented in the Clerical Estate went in the opposite direction. This was clearly expressed at the Riksdag of 1786 and 1789, where several members advocated a more Enlightenment-orientated liturgy with a focus on ethics and morality. An example is the Turku theologian Jacob Tengström (1755–1832), later Finland’s first archbishop, who in 1786 presented a proposal to simplify the liturgy and to play down the supernatural elements of worship. Other members of the Clerical Estate criticized the Enlightenment ideas, however, highlighting their unfavourable impact on church life; that theatres were allowed to be open on Sundays was regarded as part of this problem.⁷¹

The opposition to the King’s liturgical reform policy was accentuated at the Riksdag of 1789. The Riksdag was summoned as a result of the war against Russia and the rebellious officers’ confederation at Anjala in Finland, formed the previous autumn as a protest against a renewed war effort. With support from the three lower Estates, the King enforced a constitutional amendment, the Union and Security Act, which strengthened his position of power and weakened the influence of the nobility.⁷² The fact that the King, in a situation where he was under considerable pressure, addressed a special letter to the Clerical Estate in February 1789 containing proposals for liturgical reforms shows the importance he attached to this matter. The royal letter, which was geared towards the impending jubilee celebration of the bicentennial of the Synod of Uppsala in 1793, also raised the question of the planned revision of the Service Book and the Hymnal. Diocesan chapters were invited to submit proposals for this purpose.⁷³

The King’s proposal provoked a lively debate in the Clerical Estate, and several members expressed requests for a simplified liturgy. The court chaplain Joel Jacob Petrejus (1732–1804) stood out in particular. In a memorial he argued for a removal of baptismal exorcism, the sign of the cross and other, in his view, un-biblical elements in the service. At the same time, he warned – with a clear hint against the King’s liturgical ideas – that the introduction of new ceremonies would turn public worship into a theatre. These positions were in line both with the pietist conception of worship and with the liturgical views held by the proponents of Enlightenment ideas. However, the Bishop of Växjö, Olof Wallquist, whose activities are examined by Sidenvall in this volume, intervened and ensured that the issue was postponed and that Petrejus withdrew his memorial. Without his intervention, the Clerical Estate would probably have voted in favour of a simplification of the liturgy, contrary to the King’s wishes.⁷⁴ The new Service Book, adopted at the Riksdag of 1811, went in this direction. A number of ‘classic’ liturgical practices and prayers, including the Nicene Creed, were abandoned or simplified.⁷⁵

In his memorial, Petrejus held up the liturgical reform work in Denmark and Germany as a model. Like many others, among them Archbishop von Troil, he was inspired by the Danish theologian and court chaplain Christian Bastholm, who was one of the main representatives of rationalist Enlightenment theology and who advocated a church reform in this spirit. Bastholm’s ideas had a considerable impact on Danish church life and led to the removal of a number of older practices which were regarded as superstitious and useless. Gustav III, not unexpectedly, was strongly opposed to this kind of reform, which, as he noted in a conversation with the clergyman and historian (later bishop) Carl Gustaf Nordin (1749–1812), had given the Danish religious services a poor and ‘simple’ character.⁷⁶

This is just another example of how badly Gustav III’s ideals of Christian worship fitted in with the liturgical reform ideas in the spirit of the Enlightenment. While the representatives of Enlightenment advocated a simplified liturgy, the King committed himself to a richer and more solemn religious service. He saw the liturgy as a tool to convey devotion and communion with God, not as an instrument of moral education. Gustav III was anxious to emphasize the apostolic succession of the Church of Sweden and the sacred character of its clergy. In this respect, his ideals were more in line with incipient Romanticism than with the Enlightenment.⁷⁷

Conclusion

In several ways, Gustav III represented the ideals of the Enlightenment. This orientation was manifested in his political reforms, not least within the religious field. However, his ecclesiastical reform policy went contrary to these ideals. The King did not have any time for the Enlightenment’s visions of a rational worship service, nor for a Christian faith where ethics instead of the Christian mystery was foregrounded. Despite his legislation of religious tolerance, he showed no intention of abandoning the system of ecclesiastical unity. Nor was there ever any question of repealing the ban on private religious gatherings or of allowing Swedish subjects to convert to another Christian denomination. At this point, Gustav III’s policy of religion was completely in line with the confessional principles of the pre-modern system, where restricted tolerance, not individual religious freedom, was the norm.

The King’s idea of kingship was firmly rooted in a pre-modern world view. He was keen to emphasize the divine character of kingship, and he stressed the connection between the royal and the clerical office. This is in line with what was then Catholic doctrine, but it runs counter to rationalist views of society. Gustav III drew his inspiration partly from older Swedish liturgical traditions, but above all from the Catholic Church. Here the impressions from his visit to Rome in 1783–1784 played an important role. According to several testimonies, he participated diligently in Catholic services and events, and Pope Pius VI received him almost as if he had been a Catholic monarch.

The Catholic influence was evident in Gustav III’s ecclesiastical reform policy. He reformed the Swedish episcopal college in a Catholic spirit by reviving the bishop’s installation as a liturgical act of consecration and reintroducing episcopal insignia. He also committed himself to a richer and more ceremonial mode of worship. Here the liturgy used in the court chapels, which the King had designed himself, served as a model. The two Protestant services that the King, with papal permission, organized in Rome at Easter 1784 were conducted according to this order. At the Catholic Easter mass celebrated at the same time in Stockholm, high state dignitaries were present, and Gustav III’s religious tolerance policy especially benefited the Catholics.

There is, however, no evidence that the King would have embraced the teachings of the Catholic Church apart from the liturgy and the hierarchical order. Yet, he showed great interest in theological matters and in the question of what separated and united Lutherans and Catholics. In conversations with the papal nuncio in Cologne, he argued that the Swedish Church had not changed to any great extent at the Reformation. He was thus anxious to convince his Catholic interlocutor that the Lutheran Swedish Church was a Catholic Church with roots in the apostolic age. To strengthen, consolidate and manifest this status was the overall aim of his ecclesiastical reform policy.

In this respect, Gustav III’s ecclesiastical visions thus remind us of the present-day Swedish High Church movement, and perhaps even more of Archbishop Nathan Söderblom’s (1866–1931) idea of ecumenism and ‘evangelical catholicity’.⁷⁸ Yet, in the same way as these twentieth-century Swedish churchmen, Gustav III had to realize that the Catholic hierarchy did not regard the Swedish Church as a legitimate local Catholic Church. An expression of this stance on the part of the Catholic leaders was that neither representatives of the papal court nor Catholic clerics were present at the celebration of the Protestant services that the King caused to be arranged in Rome. From a Catholic point of view, the Protestant countries were seen as mission fields which had to be brought back to the Catholic fold in the long run.

The King’s church reforms provoked opposition from the Lutheran clergy, not least his Catholicizing liturgical endeavours. Contrary to the King’s intentions, this opposition contributed to the revival and reinforcement of anti-Catholic sentiment. As for the perception of worship, many of the leading representatives of the clergy were influenced by the purist ideals of the Enlightenment, which to them appeared more in conformity with the Lutheran tradition than the ceremonial Catholic liturgy. Gustav III used the ideas of the Enlightenment to adapt the breakup of the system of confessional uniformity and bring the Lutheran state-Church system more up to date. At the same time, he questioned parts of the Enlightenment project and instead tied in with the ideals of the upcoming Romanticism with its appreciation of religious mysticism and Catholic liturgical aesthetics.