RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 2, 2022 7:31:52 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 13, 2023 9:27:29 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 14, 2023 22:47:21 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 17, 2023 10:56:55 GMT -5
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 17, 2023 13:00:10 GMT -5
Putting aside the anti-Catholicism that will always have a home at the NY Times, there is a matter of ethics here: writers should not be allowed to frame loose "opinion" pieces in a newspaper while selling a book on the same subject. Just as I don't want to read Luke Russert in the Post telling us tell us how Washington has changed while he's on a book tour, this author appears disingenuous when this commentary happens to fit into a promotional effort.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,492
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 18, 2023 10:22:49 GMT -5
Putting aside the anti-Catholicism that will always have a home at the NY Times, there is a matter of ethics here: writers should not be allowed to frame loose "opinion" pieces in a newspaper while selling a book on the same subject. Just as I don't want to read Luke Russert in the Post telling us tell us how Washington has changed while he's on a book tour, this author appears disingenuous when this commentary happens to fit into a promotional effort. Not to mention the lazy repetition of the canard that “Georgetown” sold slaves. But what’s accuracy compared to sales and the pushing of an agenda?
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 20, 2023 16:03:49 GMT -5
To characterize a Catholic author explicitly saying that her research into the Church's involvement with slavery has *not* shaken her faith as "anti-Catholicism" requires a level of mental contortion that cannot be good for one's ability to make sense of the world. As for the continued occasional foregrounding of Georgetown as the actor, vice the Maryland Province and/or the Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen... well, first I would note that this particular example of from the National Catholic Register - not exactly a hotbed of anti-Catholicism! More to the point, as we've discussed at length previously, in 1838 there was essentially no organizational distinction between Georgetown and the Corporation. The Jesuits who ran the school also ran the Corporation, continually shifting between various roles. To quote Vincent T. O'Keefe, SJ: The separate incorporation that took place during the 1960s was therefore an ironic case of reverse Utraque Unum - instead of both into one, the One split in Two. Georgetown was one successor entity and the Society of Jesus (understanding it has a complex and evolving organizational structure, both in the U.S. and globally) was the other. Both were the direct inheritors of the legacy of their previous unitary body - good, bad, and ugly. The reason Georgetown gets singled out for more attention than the USA East Province or the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States is because Georgetown is by far the more prominent and successful of the two successors, a powerhouse global brand with strong applicant demand, etc. etc. Meanwhile, the Jesuits are, if not completely dying out, then certainly dwindling (and, as Pope Francis would say, humbling) in number. While most of the proceeds of the sale of the 272 went toward debts other than those directly associated with Georgetown, it's clear that Georgetown's survival through its portion has enabled it to thrive in the present, where as the Jesuits are far from thriving. All of this attempted quibbling about 'oh it wasn't *Georgetown* it was the Jesuits!' is just as misleading and overly simplistic, if not moreso, as framings that present it as 'Georgetown's slave sale' and the like.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 20, 2023 16:13:02 GMT -5
More to the point, as we've discussed at length previously, in 1838 there was essentially no organizational distinction between Georgetown and the Corporation. The Jesuits who ran the school also ran the Corporation, continually shifting between various roles. The Corporation did not exist until 1844. governance.georgetown.edu/charter/
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 20, 2023 19:09:41 GMT -5
More to the point, as we've discussed at length previously, in 1838 there was essentially no organizational distinction between Georgetown and the Corporation. The Jesuits who ran the school also ran the Corporation, continually shifting between various roles. The Corporation did not exist until 1844. governance.georgetown.edu/charter/Huh? findingaids.library.georgetown.edu/repositories/15/archival_objects/1444440Background The Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen (CRCC) was established in 1792 in response to the Suppression of the Jesuit order in 1772 under Pope Clement XIV. Formed by the Select Body of Roman Catholic Clergymen, a group of former Jesuits who sought to retain the property held by individuals in the order, the purpose of the CRCC was to assume the titles of properties that had been held in trust by either individual Jesuits or their allies. The measures taken by the CRCC enabled the Maryland Mission to sidestep colonial laws prohibiting real estate ownership by ecclesiastics. In 1792, the state of Maryland issued a charter to the CRCC as the sole representative of the former Jesuits in the purchase and sale of real estate and capital investments. After the full Restoration of the Society in 1814, the CRCC became the legal body representing the Mission of the American Federation/Mission of the Maryland Province. It defended itself successfully against claims made between 1818 and 1825 by Archbishop Ambrose Maréchal of Baltimore to this real estate and the income derived from it. The Trustees of the CRCC had sole authority to acquire real estate and initiate lawsuits; they also accepted donations of real estate and other forms of capital, including properties bequeathed by members of the Province and by other benefactors. The Trustees were under direction of the Provincial, and the Procurator served as Agent of the Corporation. The CRCC’s authority over the enslaved people owned by the Province, however, was ambiguous. Plantation Superiors exercised discretion in the sale, hiring out, discipline, and living conditions of enslaved individuals. Nonetheless, the Corporation frequently authorized the sale of enslaved people to pay debts, including the sale of 11 individuals from St. Inigoes in 1835, and the mass sale of 272 people from St. Inigoes, White Marsh, Newtown, and St. Thomas Manor in 1838. The CRCC oversaw the proceeds from these sales, which it used to relieve themselves of the debts of Georgetown College, settle claims by the Archdiocese of Baltimore, and expand work of the Maryland Province into the Northeast. After the 1838 sale, the CRCC maintained its investment in commercial agriculture by renting out its lands to tenant farmers. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, the Corporation oversaw a shift in investment strategy, moving away from commercial agriculture and towards urban real estate and capital markets. By 1970, the Corporation had divested the Province from its legacy properties. The Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen still exists as a legal body.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 20, 2023 19:26:28 GMT -5
We're talking about two different groups, of course. The "corporation" in GU circles is the five person group which owns the assets of the University and which, since 1966, is no longer comprised of Jesuits appointed by the provincial. (It's not well disclosed who the five are at this point.) The Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen is a very interesting group as it relates to this subject and, yes, they are still in business...but they are NOT the same as the GU corporation founded in 1844.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 20, 2023 19:58:11 GMT -5
We're talking about two different groups, of course. The "corporation" in GU circles is the five person group which owns the assets of the University and which, since 1966, is no longer comprised of Jesuits appointed by the provincial. (It's not well disclosed who the five are at this point.) The Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen is a very interesting group as it relates to this subject and, yes, they are still in business...but they are NOT the same as the GU corporation founded in 1844. I don't know what "GU circles" you're referring to, but certainly the Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen is the one I was talking about - that's why I used the full name - and the one that is relevant to the 1838 sale. And you responded to that very explicit usage. Anyway, I am calling BS - no one ever talks about the five Members of the Corporation who are "the successors of James Ryder, Thomas Lilly, Samuel Barber, James Curley, and Anthony Rey" because the university's bylaws have been amended to remove all of their authority and grant it to the Board of Directors: governance.georgetown.edu/bylaws/
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 20, 2023 20:37:24 GMT -5
I don't know what "GU circles" you're referring to, but certainly the Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen is the one I was talking about - that's why I used the full name - and the one that is relevant to the 1838 sale. And you responded to that very explicit usage. Anyway, I am calling BS - no one ever talks about the five Members of the Corporation who are "the successors of James Ryder, Thomas Lilly, Samuel Barber, James Curley, and Anthony Rey" because the university's bylaws have been amended to remove all of their authority and grant it to the Board of Directors: governance.georgetown.edu/bylaws/I think we're spinning wheels here. Please correct me if I am missing something, but by the bylaws indicate the Corporation, amended in 1966 from its founding in 1844, still exists. The 1966 amendment added the words "Georgetown University" as the board was previously known as "The "President and Directors of Georgetown College", a phrase which is archaic but sometimes still seen in legal documents. (I saw it on a DC zoning request some years ago.) But back to the Corporation. From Article I, Section I, emphasis added in bold: "The Members of the Corporation shall be five (5). The persons named in the Act of Incorporation (an Act of Congress approved by John Tyler on June 10, 1844, as amended by an Act of Congress, approved by Lyndon B. Johnson on October 4, 1966), and their respective successors, who shall be elected from time to time, shall constitute the members of the Corporation. The President of the University shall be an ex officio Member of the Corporation. The other Members of the Corporation shall be elected for three-year terms, and their terms shall be so divided that each year one or more Members shall be elected. If any Member shall die, resign or be unable or unwilling to act in such capacity, a vacancy in the membership shall exist. At any time when a vacancy shall exist, the remaining Members, by a majority vote at a regular or a special meeting, may elect a successor to fill such vacancy."The Corporation (Article I) is distinct from the Board of Directors (Article II). Article II, Section I, emphasis added in bold: "The Board of Directors shall have the power to manage the property and business of the Corporation (referred to in this and following Articles as “University”) and shall have the power to carry out any other functions which are permitted by the Charter of the Corporation, except insofar as this power may be limited by these Bylaws." It was my prior understanding that the Corporation owns the assets of the University and that the Board acts as its manager. What I was trying to say before, and apparently not too well, was that the Society of Jesus no longer owns the the assets of the University as it no longer controls the membership of the Corporation.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 20, 2023 21:28:23 GMT -5
All of that is essentially correct as far as the present arrangement goes. The five-member Corporation still exists, but it serves no real functional purpose other than continuing to exist because its existence is required. That's why its membership isn't publicized and it's not really ever discussed - it's irrelevant.
If we go back to 1844, then there is certainly some sense in which creating this new administrative structure created a separation of University assets from Province assets. But ownership is kind of a funny concept when you're talking about institutions owned and operated by men who vow to renounce personal ownership of created temporal things and hold that all material goods are owned collectively by the community. And who also take vows of obedience to their superiors in the Society and the Church. So long as the President and Directors of Georgetown College/University were thus situated, the new administrative structure didn't really change much in terms of true 'ownership.'
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 20, 2023 22:07:34 GMT -5
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 20, 2023 22:08:48 GMT -5
If we go back to 1844, then there is certainly some sense in which creating this new administrative structure created a separation of University assets from Province assets. But ownership is kind of a funny concept when you're talking about institutions owned and operated by men who vow to renounce personal ownership of created temporal things and hold that all material goods are owned collectively by the community. And who also take vows of obedience to their superiors in the Society and the Church. So long as the President and Directors of Georgetown College/University were thus situated, the new administrative structure didn't really change much in terms of true 'ownership.' To me, the placement of the Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen is the linchpin in this story. The Jesuits couldn't "own" anything (wink, wink) but the CRCC could and did. Unlike those who place Georgetown University at the nexus of the sale, the vast majority of the amount went to other areas, including financial relationships between the CRCC and the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Smarter people than I have tried to put together the puzzle of where exactly the CRCC fits into the sale and proceeds, but I would not be surprised to learn one day that the Jesuits' business operations were basically laundered through the CRCC, and with it, business activities post-1838 as well. All that said, someone's going to sell a lot more books putting "Georgetown University" front and center than the Archdiocese or the "Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen" on bookstore shelves, virtual or otherwise. Now, whether Georgetown University is a "Jesuit institution" post-1966 may largely be an academic exercise, but there are a lot of people who falsely assume the Church owns it outright.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 27, 2023 23:23:14 GMT -5
A good way to ask the question (the author, Paul Elie, is a senior fellow with the Berkley Center)
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 30, 2023 21:43:54 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 1, 2023 15:22:10 GMT -5
If we go back to 1844, then there is certainly some sense in which creating this new administrative structure created a separation of University assets from Province assets. But ownership is kind of a funny concept when you're talking about institutions owned and operated by men who vow to renounce personal ownership of created temporal things and hold that all material goods are owned collectively by the community. And who also take vows of obedience to their superiors in the Society and the Church. So long as the President and Directors of Georgetown College/University were thus situated, the new administrative structure didn't really change much in terms of true 'ownership.' To me, the placement of the Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen is the linchpin in this story. The Jesuits couldn't "own" anything (wink, wink) but the CRCC could and did. Unlike those who place Georgetown University at the nexus of the sale, the vast majority of the amount went to other areas, including financial relationships between the CRCC and the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Smarter people than I have tried to put together the puzzle of where exactly the CRCC fits into the sale and proceeds, but I would not be surprised to learn one day that the Jesuits' business operations were basically laundered through the CRCC, and with it, business activities post-1838 as well. All that said, someone's going to sell a lot more books putting "Georgetown University" front and center than the Archdiocese or the "Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen" on bookstore shelves, virtual or otherwise. I say again: there was no meaningful distinction at that time between "Georgetown University" and the Maryland Province and "The Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen" as actors with agency. It was one collective agency. My only disagreement with saying that "the Jesuits' business operations were basically laundered through the CRCC, and with it, business activities post-1838 as well" is that laundering implies some sort of attempt at hiding/washing away the evidence. There was no such subterfuge involved, it was all quite out in the open. Now, whether Georgetown University is a "Jesuit institution" post-1966 may largely be an academic exercise, but there are a lot of people who falsely assume the Church owns it outright. I know you're intentionally being provocative - bored with no college sports in the summer? - but this is rather silly. Protestants and other faith traditions are very familiar with highly fragmented ecclesiastical structures, such as that "affiliation" does not necessarily imply "ownership" by some singular, authoritative religious body (because in most major traditions, there is no such body). Catholics, it goes without saying, typically understand the complexities of Church affiliation and ownership just fine. Rather than engaging in a debate on what constitutes a Jesuit institution, I will instead point to a useful recent work on the subject, some elements of which are summarized in this article: conversationsmagazine.org/what-i-learned-from-writing-jesuit-history-3d5f95ab94e2Kudos to Matthew T. Rizzi (SFS'04) for publishing "Jesuit Colleges and Universities In The United States: A History" alumni.georgetown.edu/alumni-authors/2022/jesuit-colleges-and-universities-in-the-united-states-a-history/
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 7, 2023 8:28:09 GMT -5
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,336
|
Post by SDHoya on Jul 7, 2023 11:12:08 GMT -5
Related question—the caption says that image is Healy circa 1876. Is this accurate? Healy once had double spires in the center like that?
|
|