(01-12-2016 11:13 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Paul, this may be difficult to answer briefly, but what is the major difference between your new book and a similar book written by Burke McCarthy in 1922
https://archive.org/details/suppressedtrutha02mcca

and one written by Thomas Harris in 1882
https://archive.org/details/romesresponsibil00harr

And please comment on Emmett McLoughlin's Inquiry... ca. 1963. He was a former Franciscan.

---

(01-12-2016 09:50 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I believe I'm correct in saying that James O. Hall (and possibly others) did search the records of St. Mary's Church, Bryantown, where Booth met Mudd (when Mudd came from his home church, St. Peter's, that Sunday). St. Aloysius and St. Patrick's in D.C. would be logical guesses also. We would also have to check to see when the Archdiocese of Washington was created out of the Archdiocese of Maryland. I think it was during the Civil War. Somewhere Bishop Spalding fits into the history.

One of my original points was when did Booth have the time to train for confirmation/conversion? He traveled so much plying his trade as well as planning his exploits. If he took the classes - or even was allowed to do it as a private "student" - it could have been in any city or town along the East Coast or further inward. Why do I not see Booth worrying about what denomination he was from 1863 on? Why do I see him not even going to church during this time?

I think what irritates me the most with some of the postings here and in another thread in these last few weeks is that they seem to denounce previous expert historians for failing to do their homework and to find answers to some of these spurious subjects. Did it ever occur to some that the experts did research things thoroughly and dismiss a great deal of speculation, etc. as useless and without proof? Just in our generation, we have the likes of Hall, Kauffman, Hanchett, Steers, Loux, Chamlee, Alford, Roscoe, and others who did fantastic work. And now, we have a new generation making strides in the field.

Ignore my misstatement about the Archdiocese of D.C. being created during the Civil War - it was not formed until after WWII. However, Bishop Spalding came to the Archdiocese of Baltimore (the oldest in the U.S.) in 1864, and was a supporter of the Confederacy: QUOTE FROM WIKI: At the beginning of the American Civil War, Spalding ordered all churches in the diocese to pray for peace.[1] Although he sought to avoid "angry political discussions",[4] he published a piece on the war in L'Osservatore Romano that clearly demonstrated his sympathy laid with the Confederacy.[8] He even secretly denounced Archbishop Purcell, a staunch supporter of the Union, to his superiors in Rome.[8] He recognized slavery as "a great social evil", but asked, "But how can we free ourselves of [slavery] without ruining our country and causing injury to the poor slaves themselves?"[10] He also remarked that "those who are in such a way liberated ordinarily become miserable vagabonds, drunkards and thieves".[10] In 1861, he closed St. Joseph's College and converted its facilities into a hospital for soldiers.[1]


Baltimore[edit]
Following the death of Bishop Francis Kenrick (who had been transferred to the Archdiocese of Baltimore from Philadelphia in 1851[11]), Spalding was appointed the seventh Archbishop of Baltimore on May 3, 1864.[7] His installation took place at the Cathedral of the Assumption on the following July 31.[7] As head of the oldest diocese in the United States, he held a right of precedence over all other archbishops and bishops in the country.

After founding the House of the Good Shepherd, Spalding conducted a visitation of the archdiocese, during which he administered Confirmation to 8,000 people.[2] He established more parishes and institutions per year and introduced more religious orders than any other Archbishop of Baltimore.[8] One of the institutions he founded was St. Mary's Industrial School, a home for wayward boys.[8] He recruited priests from All Hallows College near Dublin and from the American College at Louvain.[1] He also organized the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul as well as the Association of St. Joseph, a society dedicated to the care of destitute girls.[3] In 1865, he issued a defense of Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, which many Americans viewed as a condemnation of the basic principles of their system of government.[1] For instance, he declared, "Freedom of worship is condemned when it implies a right not given by Christ, and insists on the right of introducing false religion into a country where it does not exist. It is not only not censurable, but commendable, and the only thing practicable in countries like ours."[2] He also spoke out forcefully against intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants ("alliances so fraught with evil") and Freemasonry ("a human substitute for a divine religion").[2]

Following the end of the Civil War, Spalding made an emotional appeal for financial aid to the defeated South, posing the question, "Can we be held blameless before God if our brethren, whom we are solemnly commanded to love even as ourselves, should perish through our coldness and neglect?"[2] In response, the Catholics of Baltimore donated a total of $10,000 to relief efforts in the South.[2] He also took a special interest in the spiritual welfare of newly freed African Americans. Writing to Archbishop John McCloskey, he said, "Four million of these unfortunates are thrown on our charity, and they silently but eloquently appeal to us for help."[8] He invited Rev. Herbert Vaughan and the Mill Hill Fathers from England to minister exclusively among freedmen.[3] In October 1866, he presided over the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore.[3] END QUOTE

Just had a chance to see what Terry Alford finally came up with in discussing Booth's conversion to Catholicism in Fortune's Fool. Answer: Nothing that we didn't already know. He quotes a friend in the early years section as describing Booth as a free thinker (like his father) and not tied to one denomination of Christianity. The friend also states that Booth got more of an education on morals from Shakespeare and that he despised the Bible-thumping preachers of his day.

In regards to Asia's claim of conversion, Terry offers no further proof that her contention that he converted is accurate. He does mention the Catholic medal, but clarifies that it was said to be an Agnus Dei medal which was also widely used by Protestants (I used to have several of them that were distributed at certain occasions by the Episcopal church). His chapter notes cite a newspaper article from the late-1800s or early-1900s as well as reference to James O. Hall finding an auction catalog mentioning the medal. We all know that descriptions given in such catalogs are not infallible.

Finally, I may have mentioned this earlier, but upon her demise, Constance Head had arranged for only two people to receive her research papers - Terry Alford and Jeannine Clarke Dodels. Mr. Hall had previously worked with Constance on her research and was privy to what she had accumulated. He was of the opinion that she had not gotten far enough along to have solid ground on which to base her subject. Personally, I suspect that Terry (at least) would have given a strong position on the Catholic angle if his research and Constance's both gave solid credence to the "Booth became a Catholic" theory.

I have had some time to read, so I devoted that time to Father Charles Paschal Telespher Chiniquy and I am happy that I can present this WRITTEN report of my findings - because I can't pronounce his name.
I can neither prove or disprove anything that has been said for or against him -- for or against Lincoln -- for or against the Catholics. I have determined that politicians say that there are only two religions, Catholics and non-Catholics. The big difference between them - we elect non-Catholics.

You can't risk, dear reader, in not believing me. I might be right, but you can't prove I'm wrong.

I will tell you a long held secret, know to only a few special Catholics.
I am a graduate of the Catholic University of America, located in Washington, D.C - ( for obvious reasons.) Even though my Degree is called Architectural Engineering, we have had classes in "Political Deception", and my Degree allows me to call upon the Jesuits for advice and assistance in any political situation. I have never had a reason to use that privilege, yet.

This criticism of Father Chiniquy is unacceptable. it has to stop, or I may have to sic the Jesuits on you. So, believe what I say, without proof.

Laurie. You had question about representation in the Vatican. (186? t0 198? ) The Vatican was located entirely within another country until Feb. 11, 1929. At that time it became an Independent State, however, still amid Mussolini and his Buddy, Hitler's territory . I suspect this had an effect on making The Vatican available to visitors. Can anyone fix the events the opened up the Vatican in 198? ?

(01-14-2016 04:44 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Just had a chance to see what Terry Alford finally came up with in discussing Booth's conversion to Catholicism in Fortune's Fool. Answer: Nothing that we didn't already know. He quotes a friend in the early years section as describing Booth as a free thinker (like his father) and not tied to one denomination of Christianity. The friend also states that Booth got more of an education on morals from Shakespeare and that he despised the Bible-thumping preachers of his day.

In regards to Asia's claim of conversion, Terry offers no further proof that her contention that he converted is accurate. He does mention the Catholic medal, but clarifies that it was said to be an Agnus Dei medal which was also widely used by Protestants (I used to have several of them that were distributed at certain occasions by the Episcopal church). His chapter notes cite a newspaper article from the late-1800s or early-1900s as well as reference to James O. Hall finding an auction catalog mentioning the medal. We all know that descriptions given in such catalogs are not infallible.

Finally, I may have mentioned this earlier, but upon her demise, Constance Head had arranged for only two people to receive her research papers - Terry Alford and Jeannine Clarke Dodels. Mr. Hall had previously worked with Constance on her research and was privy to what she had accumulated. He was of the opinion that she had not gotten far enough along to have solid ground on which to base her subject. Personally, I suspect that Terry (at least) would have given a strong position on the Catholic angle if his research and Constance's both gave solid credence to the "Booth became a Catholic" theory.

One thing that I have thought of and failed to mention in any of this thread is the fact that the reinterment of Booth's remains in Green Mount in 1869 was done by an Episcopal priest using the Episcopal burial service from the Book of Common Prayer. Wonder how Asia took that news from her self-imposed exile overseas? If he was indeed Catholic, is his little spot of earth blessed with Catholic Holy Water? BTW: The priest was ultimately fired by his parish for performing his duties.

I have been looking at the Archbishop John J. Hughes (1797-1863)
of New York, and the odd interplay between Lincoln, NY politicians and the Archbishop Hughes. Lincoln appeared to know that he needed as much as possible to keep the Catholic leader on his side. And didn't the Archbishop go on a mission of some sort, which Lincoln supposedly asked him to go, to the Vatican? Lincoln appeared to cross historical barriers with the press and the church which the Constitution may not disallow outright, but which were highly unusual.

(01-12-2016 11:13 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Paul, this may be difficult to answer briefly, but what is the major difference between your new book and a similar book written by Burke McCarthy in 1922
https://archive.org/details/suppressedtrutha02mcca

and one written by Thomas Harris in 1882
https://archive.org/details/romesresponsibil00harr

I don’t know if I have the time to answer these questions very effectively. I would say that my book is more of an investigation of Charles Chiniquy’s allegations and the McCarthy book is more about the Roman Catholic Church in history, particularly the Jesuits, as well as American history. General Harris’ book deals with the Roman Catholic Church in the US and covers much of the same ground that my book does.
Emmett McLaughlin’s book deals with some world history, and the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, it compares the words and actions of Abraham Lincoln to those of Pope Pius IX, pontiff during Lincoln’s presidency, and also covers much of the ground my book does about the assassination.

(02-12-2016 09:16 PM)Paul Serup Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 11:13 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Paul, this may be difficult to answer briefly, but what is the major difference between your new book and a similar book written by Burke McCarthy in 1922
https://archive.org/details/suppressedtrutha02mcca

and one written by Thomas Harris in 1882
https://archive.org/details/romesresponsibil00harr

I don’t know if I have the time to answer these questions very effectively. I would say that my book is more of an investigation of Charles Chiniquy’s allegations and the McCarthy book is more about the Roman Catholic Church in history, particularly the Jesuits, as well as American history. General Harris’ book deals with the Roman Catholic Church in the US and covers much of the same ground that my book does.
Emmett McLaughlin’s book deals with some world history, and the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, it compares the words and actions of Abraham Lincoln to those of Pope Pius IX, pontiff during Lincoln’s presidency, and also covers much of the ground my book does about the assassination.

It's a different type of theme than those three and perhaps yours, but have you read Kenneth Zanca's book on the Catholic Church and Mary Surratt? Comments if you have?

(02-13-2016 01:46 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 09:16 PM)Paul Serup Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 11:13 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Paul, this may be difficult to answer briefly, but what is the major difference between your new book and a similar book written by Burke McCarthy in 1922
https://archive.org/details/suppressedtrutha02mcca

and one written by Thomas Harris in 1882
https://archive.org/details/romesresponsibil00harr

I don’t know if I have the time to answer these questions very effectively. I would say that my book is more of an investigation of Charles Chiniquy’s allegations and the McCarthy book is more about the Roman Catholic Church in history, particularly the Jesuits, as well as American history. General Harris’ book deals with the Roman Catholic Church in the US and covers much of the same ground that my book does.
Emmett McLaughlin’s book deals with some world history, and the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, it compares the words and actions of Abraham Lincoln to those of Pope Pius IX, pontiff during Lincoln’s presidency, and also covers much of the ground my book does about the assassination.

It's a different type of theme than those three and perhaps yours, but have you read Kenneth Zanca's book on the Catholic Church and Mary Surratt? Comments if you have?

Yes I have read what historian and evidently, Catholic apologist, Professor Kenneth Zanca said in The Catholics and Mrs. Mary Surratt. I dealt with some of what he said in my volume and I have a few comments.

His sympathy for Mary Surratt is obvious as he began his work by saying that her prosecution for conspiring to murder Abraham Lincoln were her “troubles” and “her ordeal”. He also declared, contrary to the evidence that competent historians like Edward Steers Jr. and Kate Clifford Larson declared point to her guilt that: “The case against Mrs. Surratt was circumstantial. It will never be known for certain what Mrs. Surratt knew for certain about the assassination or kidnapping plot.”
I haven’t done a complete fact check of his book but I noticed he made interesting statements in it such as, “In 1861, for example, the New York Times said, ‘the war has silenced forever the charges against the naturalized citizen and the Catholic as being worthy of citizenship.’ ” That sounded quite intriguing so I looked it up. The quote was, as the footnote indicated, in the November 19, 1861 issue of the Times. Professor Zanca did not give the page number but I found the statement on page 8. I expected to find this quote in an editorial but it actually was a statement of a man named William E. Robinson. He gave it in a speech he made on the occasion of a stand of colors presented to the Third Regiment of the Irish Brigade.
That is quite a mistake, to state that the New York Times had itself declared that the Civil War had ended ‘forever the charges against the naturalized citizen and the Catholic as being worthy of citizenship’ ” when it was the statement of an individual quoted in the Times, with no endorsement of the newspaper.
Is Professor Zanca just incompetent or might this be something else?

He made another remarkable statement in The Catholics and Mrs. Mary Surratt when he reported on the nineteenth century state of affairs that faced the Papacy on the European continent. As I stated in my work:
“According to Zanca, the mid-point of the 19th century found Pope Pius IX struggling for power with those fighting for ideals that had been part of the French revolution, such as democracy and liberalization.”
Zanca also declared: “In this context, one can appreciate the publication of the controversial papal encyclical Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors attached to it in December 1864, which expressed not only the pope’s views but those of conservatives in the Church as well”. Pius IX railed against freedom of religion and freedom of speech and democracy essentially. Zanca then made the following amazing statements:

The complete text of Quanta Cura and the Syllabus did not appear in New York papers until January 13, 1865, when America was distracted by the ongoing Civil War. Yet, the documents were noticed, and Protestant and Catholic press commented. Characteristic of the Protestant response was the conclusion that “…this Encyclical is a covert declaration of war against the American Republic.’ Anti-Catholics had a field day pulling quotations from the documents as ‘proof-texts’ that the Roman Church was bigoted and arrogant and bent on imposing its will and religion on everyone.
Catholics in the United States recognized that the document put them at odds with traditional principles of American democracy, and looked to Rome for clarification. What came back was a brilliant piece of selective editing and benevolent interpretation of the documents by the bishop of Orleans, Felix Dupanloup. Basically, the author explained away the obvious, and made the document mean what it did not say, by distinguishing between stated principles and their application in specific cases.

As I also stated:

In Zanca’s eyes, apparently it was wrong for “anti-Catholics” to be “pulling quotations” from the papal documents as “proof-texts” of the bigotry and arrogance of the Church of Rome and its interest to impose its will on others, no matter how true this actually was. To Zanca however, the editing of the bishop of Orleans was “brilliant”, by which he committed ecclesiastical fraud by making the same document “mean what it did not say”, thereby deceiving honest Americans as to what the Church actually taught.

Brilliant? Wouldn’t this be better expressed as lacking in veracity? It is very interesting enthusiasm for dishonesty by this apparent Catholic apologist, Professor Zanca, which really shouldn’t be, one would think.

I have always wondered why John Surratt went to St.Mary's Church for Easter Sunday Mass[across the street from Surratt's hotel] in Canandaigua,NY,then on to Canada.This church was established by a Jesuit Bishop in Rochester,NY.He had to feel somewhat relaxed knowing he had some support hiding in a small town in upstate NY.This area[Finger Lakes] was loaded with Copperheads and anti-Lincoln supporters,Thus,I feel that there was some Catholic Church help for John Surratt,the conspirators,etc to get rid of Lincoln!It is very difficult to prove my theory! Thoughts?

Herb, I agree with what you said regarding the help Surratt received, but I personally do not believe the Roman Catholic Church was behind Abraham Lincoln's assassination.

When you're far away from home, the church can (and should be) be a welcoming and friendly place.
It can be a place of escape from the cares of the world, to draw nearer to God, and seek his help.
It's where we can find comfort and support from others we share a common faith with.
Some people try to take advantage of that.

In my opinion, for John, it was a combination of all of those.

I agree with Roger and Gene - plus there's the advantage of a powerful international network and safety under the seal of the confessional.

I think his presence at church on Easter Sunday was also due to a deeply ingrained habit. He had, after all, been raised by a deeply religious mother and had been educated in the Church, and he would likely have regarded going to church on Easter Sunday as obligatory. Even with all of the turmoil at the Surratt boardinghouse on Easter weekend, Mary and her boarders went to church on Easter, and Weichmann went to an Easter service as well while in the custody of detectives.