Copy letter from Fr. Colman Griffin to Fr. Stephen Murtagh
Copy letter from Fr. Colman Griffin OFM Cap., Provincial Minister, to Fr. Stephen Murtagh OFM Cap. seeking clarification on several critical points regarding the negotiations with the Archbishop of San Francisco. Father Colman is concerned that the Archbishop’s hesitation regarding the term ‘monastery’ implies he wants the building under his jurisdiction rather than the exclusive ownership of the Capuchin Franciscan Order. He asks if the Archbishop’s promise to cover $25,000 to $30,000 in debt m
Details
- Level of description
- Item
- Date
- 30 Mar. 1938
- Reference
- 5
- Extent and medium
- 2 pp; typescript
- Scope and content
- Copy letter from Fr. Colman Griffin OFM Cap., Provincial Minister, to Fr. Stephen Murtagh OFM Cap. seeking clarification on several critical points regarding the negotiations with the Archbishop of San Francisco. Father Colman is concerned that the Archbishop’s hesitation regarding the term ‘monastery’ implies he wants the building under his jurisdiction rather than the exclusive ownership of the Capuchin Franciscan Order. He asks if the Archbishop’s promise to cover $25,000 to $30,000 in debt means the property will eventually belong to the Order once the debt is paid, or if it remains ‘Parish property’.
- Repository
- Irish Capuchin Archives
- Context
- Irish Capuchin Archives > Papers of the Irish Capuchin Mission in the United States > Missionary Correspondence > Correspondence of Fr. Stephen Murtagh
Annotations
Rights
- Rights
- Copyright held by the respective institution. Contact the archive for reproduction permissions.
Related Items
Extracted Mentions
People, places, and terms identified via handwriting recognition and named entity recognition.
Sample passages
- Does the Archbishop's promise to go bail for the 25,000 or 30,000 dollars of Parish Debt consequent on the proposed building of the Convent mean that the Convent will not be the pr…
- The phrase in your cable re the Archbishop's baulking at the term 'Monastery' was the principal reason why we are requesting you to clear up these details for us, because we think…
- Does the Archbishop's promise to go bail for the 25,000 or 30,000 dollars of Parish Debt consequent on the proposed building of the Convent mean that the Convent will not be the pr…
Full Transcript (OCR, 1 pages)
Machine-generated OCR transcript. Handwritten material may contain recognition errors.
Page 1
Franciscan Capuchin Friary. Church Street. Dublin. Ireland. Copy. March 30th 1938. Dear Father Stephen : I got your cable on Sunday morning, and I have acknowledged it by cable this morning. I am sorry to have delayed your negotiations with the Archbishop of San Francisco re Burlingame. The reason, as you will have surmised, is that I had to consult my Definitors. The information in your cable was not quite sufficient for us to be able to form a judgment and give you advice as to what you had best do. We agreed that it would be better to write and ask you for more detailed information. We always thought that the contemplated Friary or Convent was to belong exclusively to the Order, and we shall feel grateful if you enlighten us on these few points. Does the Archbishop's promise to go bail for the 25,000 or 30,000 dollars of Parish Debt consequent on the proposed building of the Convent mean that the Convent will not be the property of the Order ? Or does it mean that the Order, when later on it is able to pay off that debt, will come into possession of the Convent? Another point we are not clear upon is whether the ground which Fr. Thomas acquired as a site for the Convent was purchased with Parish money, or with money belonging to the Order: in other words, do we own it, or is it Parish property ? The phrase in your cable re the Archbishop's baulking at the term 'Monastery' was the principal reason why we are requesting you to clear up these details for us, because we think rightly or wrongly that the Archbishop's aim might be to keep the proposed building under his own jurisdiction; which arrangement of course would not be so advantageous towards the development of Conventual Life in our Custody. We would be grateful for your reassurances on these matters, and for any other information that would be relevant. You and your two Consultors have the advantage of being on the spot, and of knowing herein all the circumstances. In last analysis it is your judgment that will influence us, and if the acceptance of the Archbishop's offer seems best to you, you will oblige us by stating your reasons for accepting it. We did not know anything about your interview with the Archbishop last October. If you sent me an account of it, I did not receive it. Hence I have only the meagre information in your cable to direct me in the matter. With all good wishes, Fraternally yours in Pt. Francis, FR. Colman Minister Provincial.