My ancestors are burning in hell or enjoying the bliss of heaven or experiencing the purging fires on their way to heaven based on their lives and the state of their souls at the time of death. Assuming that the Mormon ordinances are not what Jesus wants, it still has no bearing at all on the souls of already dead people. You mean to tell me that Francis of Assisi was in heaven until he was baptized Mormon and then all of a sudden his soul was flushed from heaven and burning in hell? How weak must the NYC Catholic and German Lutheran bishops' faith be? It is basic theology that no Protestant or Catholic should worry about what a Mormon does with regards to these records. I am a Catholic in good standing and find it ridiculous that I can't easily access certain church records because of what a Mormon is doing. On Dec 31, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Maureen wrote: > I found weddings and deaths of my NYC Irish ancestors on Italian Gen. > They have a wonderful resource and I suggest that everyone go to their > web site and volunteer at something that is already "up and going > so well." > > It is best for all if the records are online rather than given to > one person > privately -- perhaps over and over again as various researchers > ask -- and > Italian Gen has done a marvelous job so far, but needs volunteers > to put > up additional years. > > I think once they show what a careful and wonderful job they have > done, > the Archdiocese might be proud to let them have the sacramental > records. > > There has been a problem with the LDS because, as you may or may not > know, the LDS family researchers re-baptize all of their ancestors as > Mormons, that is their sole purpose for doing the filming and opening > their Family History Centers. > > The un-cooperating Catholic Bishops here and Lutheran Bishops in > Germany > feel that is not ethical practice -- nor what those individual > souls would ever > wish for! > > So they are protecting your dear ancestors from what they believe > is an > eternal fate far worse than your temporal anger with ecclesiastical > authorities! > > Maureen > ----- Original Message ----- > From: HeirLinesNY@aol.com > To: irish-new-york-city@rootsweb.com > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:08 AM > Subject: [IRISH-NYC] NYC Archdiocesan searches > > > Absolutely wonderful idea, but you are depending upon the > individual parishes > reporting accurately to the Archdiocese. > Believe me, in NYC, they will not consider such searches for $2. > each. > > I don't understand how this resolves the privacy issue. > BMc > > kmct@earthlink.net writes: > > >> Below in black is a copy of a correspondence I have started to send >> to genealogy groups in the NY metro area. If anyone has suggestions >> or ideas please share them. This is a "problem" that has a solution >> that is acceptable to everyone. We want the records information, the >> secretaries want to be left alone and the priests do to. I don't know >> that the parishes are bankrolling much if any money of this by the >> end of the day. I agree that the costs are a bit steep but don't >> envision that there are that many requests every day of the month. >> >> >> My ancestors were all Irish immigrants who arrived in Manhattan >> between 1871-1925. They were Catholics. I am hoping to get a group >> of genealogists together to approach the Archdiocese of NY to make >> their sacramental records more readily available to the public. Many >> births and weddings went unrecorded in the 19th-century so the >> baptismal and marriage records are the only documents that exist to >> substantiate a date of birth, maiden name, relatives' names as >> witnesses etc. The records exist in their paper form only and are >> kept at the local parish or successor parish if the church was >> closed/ >> torn down. >> >> I know this is an odd request but my approaches as an individual have >> not helped, so I am reaching out to see what groups may be interested >> in approaching the issue in numbers. >> >> I am surprised that the parishes don't realize that the an >> archdiocesan index would benefit them greatly. If a master index >> existed the archdiocese could maintain it and charge a fee of say $2 >> a request. Then once we had the right parish we would write to them >> and pay an extra 10 or even 20 dollars at the parish. If we knew it >> was the right parish it would make the cost worthwhile. That is a win >> win for all involved. The archdiocese would get money it does not get >> currently. The parish would spend less time on goose chases and be >> fully compensated for its searches. It would also preserve the books >> because the book would only be searched for the page needed and no >> more. >> >> This would also eliminate any "privacy" concerns that might be >> raised. >> > > > > > ************************************** > See AOL's top rated recipes > (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRISH-NEW- > YORK-CITY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRISH-NEW- > YORK-CITY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

"....... You really must be willing to send a "donation." Either include something or phone ahead to ask their preferred amount." And for heaven's sake, if you are asking for a search and really expect someone to do that for you, enclose at least $20 and do refer to that amount in your letter. Oftentimes the check is cashed long before anyone gets around to answering the letter request --- and due to a lot of changes at a seminary, it was 12 years before a letter of ours was answered --- but it was a real treasure trove when we finally got the response! No good and honorable person can refuse to do the work if the check has been cashed and you enclose your SASE. So let them know in the letter. But it may be that the request gets packed up in storage for a year or gets burned up in a fire or gets moved from Boston to Baltimore when that order of priests closes a seminary or an office --- and no one unpacks the carton for the next ten years!

I found weddings and deaths of my NYC Irish ancestors on Italian Gen. They have a wonderful resource and I suggest that everyone go to their web site and volunteer at something that is already "up and going so well." It is best for all if the records are online rather than given to one person privately -- perhaps over and over again as various researchers ask -- and Italian Gen has done a marvelous job so far, but needs volunteers to put up additional years. I think once they show what a careful and wonderful job they have done, the Archdiocese might be proud to let them have the sacramental records. There has been a problem with the LDS because, as you may or may not know, the LDS family researchers re-baptize all of their ancestors as Mormons, that is their sole purpose for doing the filming and opening their Family History Centers. The un-cooperating Catholic Bishops here and Lutheran Bishops in Germany feel that is not ethical practice -- nor what those individual souls would ever wish for! So they are protecting your dear ancestors from what they believe is an eternal fate far worse than your temporal anger with ecclesiastical authorities! Maureen ----- Original Message ----- From: HeirLinesNY@aol.com To: irish-new-york-city@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:08 AM Subject: [IRISH-NYC] NYC Archdiocesan searches Absolutely wonderful idea, but you are depending upon the individual parishes reporting accurately to the Archdiocese. Believe me, in NYC, they will not consider such searches for $2. each. I don't understand how this resolves the privacy issue. BMc kmct@earthlink.net writes: > Below in black is a copy of a correspondence I have started to send > to genealogy groups in the NY metro area. If anyone has suggestions > or ideas please share them. This is a "problem" that has a solution > that is acceptable to everyone. We want the records information, the > secretaries want to be left alone and the priests do to. I don't know > that the parishes are bankrolling much if any money of this by the > end of the day. I agree that the costs are a bit steep but don't > envision that there are that many requests every day of the month. > > > My ancestors were all Irish immigrants who arrived in Manhattan > between 1871-1925. They were Catholics. I am hoping to get a group > of genealogists together to approach the Archdiocese of NY to make > their sacramental records more readily available to the public. Many > births and weddings went unrecorded in the 19th-century so the > baptismal and marriage records are the only documents that exist to > substantiate a date of birth, maiden name, relatives' names as > witnesses etc. The records exist in their paper form only and are > kept at the local parish or successor parish if the church was closed/ > torn down. > > I know this is an odd request but my approaches as an individual have > not helped, so I am reaching out to see what groups may be interested > in approaching the issue in numbers. > > I am surprised that the parishes don't realize that the an > archdiocesan index would benefit them greatly. If a master index > existed the archdiocese could maintain it and charge a fee of say $2 > a request. Then once we had the right parish we would write to them > and pay an extra 10 or even 20 dollars at the parish. If we knew it > was the right parish it would make the cost worthwhile. That is a win > win for all involved. The archdiocese would get money it does not get > currently. The parish would spend less time on goose chases and be > fully compensated for its searches. It would also preserve the books > because the book would only be searched for the page needed and no more. > > This would also eliminate any "privacy" concerns that might be raised. > ************************************** See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRISH-NEW-YORK-CITY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

But just as the public/government is "we the people" isn't the church "the people in the pews/church militant" and not just the hierarchy? I don't have a problem kissing a bishop's ring as a sign of respect for him personally and of his office, but it is a bit much than any yahoo can approach the altar rail and receive the Body and Blood of Christ without question but the sacramental records must be protected from the genealogists. Again, if that were the case then why are Chicago's records available through the FHL and Ireland's records are filmed as well(but not all of them are available through FHL)? The three main issues seem to be cost, privacy and feasibility. Cost is a moot point because Chicago did it. Privacy is a moot point again because Chicago did it. Feasibility is a moot point because many records have been microfilmed and digitized through Ancestry.com, IGI etc. Charity will not allow me to state what I think the reason is. On Dec 31, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Mary Anne wrote: > This has been suggested many times over the life of this mailing > list - the > fundamental difference is that sacramental records (unlike civil > records) > belong to the church. They don't belong to the public or to the > people who > have had the sacrament performed. They belong exclusively to the > church . > > Mary Anne > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRISH-NEW- > YORK-CITY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This has been suggested many times over the life of this mailing list - the fundamental difference is that sacramental records (unlike civil records) belong to the church. They don't belong to the public or to the people who have had the sacrament performed. They belong exclusively to the church . Mary Anne

I can't imagine that the estimate of Catholic marriages that were never recorded in the civil records is far off. As someone new to genealogy, I spent much time trying to find marriage records only to realize that they miraculously started showing up around 1900, and none were available before then. I was contemplating that my poor ancestors either lived in sin or ran off to another state to be married before I realized the trend. Their children were bapized in a Catholic parish, their dead are in a Catholic cemetery but no marriage recorded with NYC or NYS. Then the challenge comes of finding the right parish where they were married, and sending off $20 donation checks everywhere trying to find the record. The Archdiocese would benefit in two ways. Definitely there would be much positive media coverage of the availability of this information to the public, particularly tying it into the Bicentennial. But then either it would eliminate the need for parish staff to research the many requests if the information was released to another party to film or index, or it would generate a steady stream of donations if the information was made available via index. Obviously, there is a benefit because many entities are spending time and money to make historical information available. It seems like a new announcement comes out every few weeks. For those that question the right to privacy, the parishes do release the information to anyone that requests it and perhaps sends a donation, so I'm not sure what the difference would be. It just seems like there hasn't been a high-level attempt to find a better solution to the current problem. How could it hurt to try now? Melanie Egan

> Hello. > Compiling such a central index for the entire Archdiocese since its > inception > for all Births Marriages and Deaths would be an exercise of > enormous scale > (if feasible at all) and require major funding which the > Archdiocese is not > likely to commit for such a project. There is a death index at the IGG site that includes everyone who died between 1891-1948 in boros listed. Many of these dead people were Jews or Protestants. I think it is feasible. I would think there is several methods to get funding for such a project. > > Even if completed a central index would not solve the problems of then > getting the local parishes to respond to requests for searches. > Parish staffs these > days struggle just to provide the essential services to > parishioners, even > $20.00 per search wouldn't be cost effective and they couldn't use > volunteers > without getting back to the privacy issue! Asking them to search from 1882-1888 for a marriage that might have taken place there is a lot more time than asking them to turn to page 192 in the register and send the marriage certificate for X and Y on 12 Feb 1885. That takes seconds, SECONDS to complete. For $20? If only I could make $20 so easily for doing so little. > > To create the Index, every parish register would have to be > accessed and > transcribed in which case it would make more sense to enter every > record in its > entirety into the database and simply create the master index from > that. I agree completely. But since the powers that be put up a roadblock to that, the index is being floated as trial balloon. > > The Archdiocese would then have access to not only the Index but > the actual > record data so that requesting a search and content of the record > if found > could be "one stop shopping" for the researcher. Amen. This makes too much sense. Maybe that is why they are not inclined to implement it. > > The cost per search/record and the effort to establish one's > relationship and > therefore "right" to get a copy of the private record would > probably be > significant but perhaps worth it for researchers otherwise"stuck". Clearly most Irish researchers in NY have this issue. My great grandfather married THREE times in NYC between 1878-1892. NO CIVIL record was created for any of them. I have the 1878 and the 1892 wedding certificates from the parishes. A great-grandmother was widowed in 1897 and remarried in 1903 in NYC. I have the church certificate but there was no civil record filed. Her sister married twice in NYC and the c. 1900 has no civil record and I can't find the right parish. The second marriage in 1920 had a City Clerk license but no Health Department certificate. I have church records for weddings from 1878, 1881, 1882, 1892 and 1903 with no civil record. I have civil records for 1872, 1902 and 1905. I have not gotten the church records because they provide less information. I am still searching for 5 weddings I know took place in NYC because of the census and vital records: c.1881, c. 1885, c.1890, c. 1897 and c. 1900. I know they must be Catholic weddings because both parties were Catholic and if they married civilly there would be a CIVIL record. Ten out thirteen weddings I am searching have NO CIVIL record. I doubt others on the list have a much different story. I think the first thing to establish for the chancery is just how many marriages went unreported. I think they think it was a few. I think it was a minimum of 66% went unrecorded and possibly a lot more. If they think it is a few thousand they are not inclined to bother with this. I wish we could get a random sample of 25 parishes at 10-50 marriages per parish and check them against the IGG website index between 1866-1900 or so. Would that be too much to ask? If my numbers are way off and 90% were recorded than I would gladly drop this. I am willing to test my theory and be exposed as a fool if wrong. This would be a great college statistics project. > > I'm not sure that preservation of extremely old records from long > defunct > parishes would be a focus for the Archdiocese anyway, what use > would they be to > them beyond the life span of the individuals concerned and any need > to report > to the civil authority? Again you are right but why not make them public through a microfilming and an archive at Chambers Street, Dunwoodie or dare I say the FHL? I have not been given a single plausible excuse for the current situation. This is the type of stuff that causes most people that leave to leave the Church. The Church should go to the mat on the Trinity, the Real Presence but not when my wanting to find an 1890 marriage record is the issue. Shame on me for leaving if I did but why be so rigid when Chicago and Ireland have filmed their records? > > G. McC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************** > See AOL's top rated recipes > (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRISH-NEW- > YORK-CITY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In a message dated 12/31/2007 3:18:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, irish-new-york-city-request@rootsweb.com writes: > My idea of the master index being at the chancery and only charging > $2 an item would protect privacy because it would be retained by the > Church only and not online for everyone. Since the master index would > be a computerized list it should not take but a second to find John > Smith married Marry Brown in 1853 at St. Parish B. Then you write St. > Parish B with the index citation and get a copy for $10, $20 and it > is as private then as it was today under the current retrieval > system. It is just a lot faster. > Hello. Compiling such a central index for the entire Archdiocese since its inception for all Births Marriages and Deaths would be an exercise of enormous scale (if feasible at all) and require major funding which the Archdiocese is not likely to commit for such a project. Even if completed a central index would not solve the problems of then getting the local parishes to respond to requests for searches. Parish staffs these days struggle just to provide the essential services to parishioners, even $20.00 per search wouldn't be cost effective and they couldn't use volunteers without getting back to the privacy issue! To create the Index, every parish register would have to be accessed and transcribed in which case it would make more sense to enter every record in its entirety into the database and simply create the master index from that. The Archdiocese would then have access to not only the Index but the actual record data so that requesting a search and content of the record if found could be "one stop shopping" for the researcher. The cost per search/record and the effort to establish one's relationship and therefore "right" to get a copy of the private record would probably be significant but perhaps worth it for researchers otherwise"stuck". I'm not sure that preservation of extremely old records from long defunct parishes would be a focus for the Archdiocese anyway, what use would they be to them beyond the life span of the individuals concerned and any need to report to the civil authority? G. McC ************************************** See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

I offered to buy a computer for a Catholic cemetery that I deal with in Philly. They graciously said no. There records are kept in small metal boxes so you have to know exactly the date someone died if you want an answer. regards donna luzzi -------------- Original message from HeirLinesNY@aol.com: -------------- > Years ago I offered to volunteer at the NYC Archives and at Calvary Cemetery > once per week to search for records. Both entities told me they would not > accept my offer, because I was not an Archdiocesan employee.

Letter I meant to send this spring but never did. Your thoughts, please? Dear Bishop ____, Thank you for your reply to my e-mail correspondence of 3/29 and a request package. I wish the archdiocese were more interested in reforming and updating the search and retrieval of sacramental records. I did want to mention that the updated website does not allow the vicariate search by map that the packet specifically details. This should be updated. Also, it would be a good idea to detail in the packet that the pastor can use his discretion to perform the search. It clearly says there will be an additional fee but it does not spell out that a pastor can choose to not search it at all. A person could choose the $100 whole Archdiocese search option, pay the appropriate fees for all the parishes and if the pastor where the event took place chooses to not search, have absolutely nothing to show for it but a big drop in the savings account. I would like to reiterate that these records are not getting any younger and the time is now to microfilm or digitize them whether or not those records are available to public perusal. This is the proper care of historical records that the Church has been known for over the centuries. Several other dioceses have chosen this option and I implore the New York Archdiocese to consider it. The historic reality of marriage laws and conflicts between Church officials and civic authorities in Europe is interesting history but beside the point. If all the Catholic pastors had followed the laws in the 19th century New York then these marriages would be indexed and available from the Municipal Archives or the Family History Library in Salt Lake City. It is very sad that because the priests in the 19th century chose to ignore the law and their 21st counterparts are understaffed, that many researchers will most likely never find an actual date of marriage for their ancestors. The date, location of the marriage and the witnesses could be very crucial in the research process. Please reconsider my suggestion about at least creating an index. Index information would require each parish to go through their records and make a notation listing the essential information that would enable the researcher to contact the appropriate parish. In all honesty the creation of this index would not take a huge amount of time and would save the secretaries time in the future retrieval of records. It would take minutes a day to index a page. In two or three years with just 10 minutes a day the index would exist. Asking confirmation candidates to perform the task as a Christian service would make it take that much less time and no cost. Joseph Cassidy married Margaret McKeon on 25 Nov 1878 at Immaculate Conception in Manhattan. For the proposed index the only information needed would be: 11/25/1878 Cassidy, Joseph-McKeon, Margaret Immaculate Conception, page ___. Please note the index would not require the witnesses’ names, the notations or the priest’s name. Mary Cassidy was baptized at Immaculate Conception 4 years after her parents’ marriage. The index would show 12/24/1882 Mary Cassidy (McKeon) Immaculate Conception, page _ Jotting these quick notations would take some time but it would not be expensive. Once you create it, it would save a monumental amount of time. Proper preservation of the records on microfilm or computer would be best but creating an index would reduce the wear and tear on the books and possibly raise revenues for the parish. It is very surprising that all of the Catholic registers through 1881 at least are filmed in Ireland and available to the public in Dublin and Belfast. It clearly is a matter of administrative choice and not theological requirement that the NY archdiocese has not filmed the records. Making the marriage and baptismal records more accessible would be greatly appreciated by the family historians and a great act of good will by the archdiocese. It was not the priest’s obligation to report a birth to the city when he performed an infant baptism but with the marriage many priests did not comply with the law. It is hollow that no effort whatsoever is made to report these events even 100 years late. One would assume that if the marriage registers were turned over to the city they would be microfilmed at public cost and the originals safely archived. That would eliminate cost for the archdiocese and preserve the records for posterity. Should the originals need to be viewed they would be in archive. Please randomly select 25 pastors in Manhattan and have them search just 10 marriages from their registers between 1866-1900. How many of them are right in front of their eyes in the book but do not show up in the city’s marriage index? These can be searched online at www.italiangen.org The number of Catholic marriages that went unreported is very high. Since they are not public we do not know for sure. Out of the total of 1,508 weddings listed in the marriage register at St. Raphael’s between 1886-1908, only 480 were also registered with the NYC Department of Health; this is a mere 31.8%. During the first 7 1/3 years not a single one of St. Raphael’s weddings was recorded with the city. Please let us know your concerns so that all of them may be addressed.

I've been following the post about Catholic records. I can't believe how hard it would be to get the records for my Buckley family who was from NYC. Most of my research involves the Philadelphia Archdiocese. While the PAHRC (Philadelphia Archdiocian Historical Research Center) is not perfect, they are very helpful and knowledgeable. If those who don't know their website it is: www.rc.net/philadelphia/pahrc/ They don't allow the public to research themselves but they charge $15. for the first hour and $10 an hour thereafter. The initial $15 charge usually covers it. What a shame the New York Diocese doesn't have good, if not great, genealogical records since alot of our ancestors had some connection. Susan Regan

My idea of the master index being at the chancery and only charging $2 an item would protect privacy because it would be retained by the Church only and not online for everyone. Since the master index would be a computerized list it should not take but a second to find John Smith married Marry Brown in 1853 at St. Parish B. Then you write St. Parish B with the index citation and get a copy for $10, $20 and it is as private then as it was today under the current retrieval system. It is just a lot faster. On Dec 30, 2007, at 2:08 AM, HeirLinesNY@aol.com wrote: > Absolutely wonderful idea, but you are depending upon the > individual parishes > reporting accurately to the Archdiocese. > Believe me, in NYC, they will not consider such searches for $2. each. > > I don't understand how this resolves the privacy issue. > BMc > > kmct@earthlink.net writes: > > >> Below in black is a copy of a correspondence I have started to send >> to genealogy groups in the NY metro area. If anyone has suggestions >> or ideas please share them. This is a "problem" that has a solution >> that is acceptable to everyone. We want the records information, the >> secretaries want to be left alone and the priests do to. I don't know >> that the parishes are bankrolling much if any money of this by the >> end of the day. I agree that the costs are a bit steep but don't >> envision that there are that many requests every day of the month. >> >> >> My ancestors were all Irish immigrants who arrived in Manhattan >> between 1871-1925. They were Catholics. I am hoping to get a group >> of genealogists together to approach the Archdiocese of NY to make >> their sacramental records more readily available to the public. Many >> births and weddings went unrecorded in the 19th-century so the >> baptismal and marriage records are the only documents that exist to >> substantiate a date of birth, maiden name, relatives' names as >> witnesses etc. The records exist in their paper form only and are >> kept at the local parish or successor parish if the church was >> closed/ >> torn down. >> >> I know this is an odd request but my approaches as an individual have >> not helped, so I am reaching out to see what groups may be interested >> in approaching the issue in numbers. >> >> I am surprised that the parishes don't realize that the an >> archdiocesan index would benefit them greatly. If a master index >> existed the archdiocese could maintain it and charge a fee of say $2 >> a request. Then once we had the right parish we would write to them >> and pay an extra 10 or even 20 dollars at the parish. If we knew it >> was the right parish it would make the cost worthwhile. That is a win >> win for all involved. The archdiocese would get money it does not get >> currently. The parish would spend less time on goose chases and be >> fully compensated for its searches. It would also preserve the books >> because the book would only be searched for the page needed and no >> more. >> >> This would also eliminate any "privacy" concerns that might be >> raised. >> > > > > > ************************************** > See AOL's top rated recipes > (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRISH-NEW- > YORK-CITY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In a message dated 12/30/2007 3:18:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, irish-new-york-city-request@rootsweb.com writes: > Years ago I offered to volunteer at the NYC Archives and at Calvary > Cemetery > once per week to search for records. Both entities told me they would not > accept my offer, because I was not an Archdiocesan employee. > > I'm not surprised. Employees can be required to protect confidentiality whereas volunteers cannot, the barrier to access remains the privacy issue. G.M.McC ************************************** See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

I hope this isn't too off topic - I don't think that custom was unique to Irish Catholics, so much as it was part of the times that people lived in. A friend of mine had grandmothers who always addressed each other as "Mrs." instead of by their first name (even though they'd known each other for over 50 years), and they were Russian-Jewish immigrants. On Dec 30, 2007, at 3:24 AM, HeirLinesNY@aol.com wrote: > The history of Irish Catholics was often secretive and circumspect. > > This is like an oft unspoken tradition. I don't favor or endorse > it. Those > of you who recall 1st generation ancestors, may recall how private > they were, > even about issues that we felt were not embarrassing. I recall my > great aunt > referring to her neighbor of forty years as Mrs. so and so. When I > asked her > if she knew this woman's first name, she told me it, but never > referred to this > woman by her first name or addressed her by it. It was weird to me. > > > > ************************************** > See AOL's top rated recipes > (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRISH-NEW- > YORK-CITY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The history of Irish Catholics was often secretive and circumspect. This is like an oft unspoken tradition. I don't favor or endorse it. Those of you who recall 1st generation ancestors, may recall how private they were, even about issues that we felt were not embarrassing. I recall my great aunt referring to her neighbor of forty years as Mrs. so and so. When I asked her if she knew this woman's first name, she told me it, but never referred to this woman by her first name or addressed her by it. It was weird to me. ************************************** See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

Years ago I offered to volunteer at the NYC Archives and at Calvary Cemetery once per week to search for records. Both entities told me they would not accept my offer, because I was not an Archdiocesan employee. ************************************** See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

You are very insightful Gwen. Thank you for sharing it with us. It seems the only likely move toward cooperation is if we as requesters, provide proof of our relationship to these long deceased ancestors. GwenM10100@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 12/29/2007 3:20:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, > irish-new-york-city-request@rootsweb.com writes: > > > > > 2008 is the Bicentennial of the Archdiocese. There's a lot going on > > including an exhibit at the Museum of the City of New York and a > Bicentennial > > History. Maybe this is the time to ask again about the parish records. > I've had > > a difficult time too and have yet to get a marriage record. I did get > some > > baptismal records (just a letter, no certificates) from St. Paul's on East > > > 117th Street which was a real breaththrough - they were for the 1850s and > this > > information can't be found in the civil records (I looked at the Municipal > > > Archives). It took me two tries to get this and yes, I send a donation > and a > > SASE. > > > > I think it could be a win/win - the parish would get some added revenue > and > > we would get the records we need. > > > Hi. > With due respect to those who would like to see these records available > online I can think of few things less likely to happen. Church policy has > always > supported the law in reporting vital records as required to Civil > Authorities > but beyond that legal mandate, its equally firm commitment has been to > protect > the individuals receiving its sacraments and keep its own records private > and > it is entitled to do that. > If individual priests failed to comply 100% in reporting and if it could be > proved a particular record was not provided, then the churches only > obligation > would surely be to provide that record to the civil authorities not to the > public! > > The strong and rapidly growing trend these days in many states both in this > country and abroad is towards passing laws to make all presently public > vital > records much less accessible in the interests of homeland security and > irrespective of the age of the record. That loss will be of much greater > significance > to genealogists and focus on addressing that threat is much more urgent (and > > feasible) than attempting to get the Archdiocese to change its longstanding > policy and buck the tide now flowing strongly against disclosure even in the > > civil arena. > > Offers of assistance to the Archdiocese in preserving and compiling its > records and making them more easily searchable by them in answering > legitimate > enquiries might be welcomed so long as the privacy of the records was > protected in > the transcription/scanning process and I would not expect that to result in > copies of entire registers becoming publically available. Historically,many > > churches and civil authorities did allow access and copying in return for > the > provision of complete microfilmed records and later found their records had > been > misused. > > Few present day parishes have the resources to handle requests for records > (especially old records or those of now defunct parishes) for other than the > > most pressing official reasons and see no neccessity to search for hours to > satisfy curiosity (as they see it) especially if the event is not known for > sure > to have occured in that parish in the first place. > > The manpower hours to do such a project, would be astronomical, just getting > > the 1930 census ready for online use required every name being transcribed > seperately by two individuals and then compared and every discrepancy was > then > reviewed by a third person for resolution! Those were public records with no > > privacy concerns! > > A very large grant from a charitable organization to fund compilation and > preservation of all parish records for the archdiocese and made to an > organization capable of mounting such an initiative, recruiting the > volunteers and > establishing quality control would be the way to approach this rather than > trying > to pressure the Archdiocese. Even then expectation of greater access as a > result should be realistic! > > > Just my 2 cents > Gwen McC. > NJ ************************************** See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

Absolutely wonderful idea, but you are depending upon the individual parishes reporting accurately to the Archdiocese. Believe me, in NYC, they will not consider such searches for $2. each. I don't understand how this resolves the privacy issue. BMc kmct@earthlink.net writes: > Below in black is a copy of a correspondence I have started to send > to genealogy groups in the NY metro area. If anyone has suggestions > or ideas please share them. This is a "problem" that has a solution > that is acceptable to everyone. We want the records information, the > secretaries want to be left alone and the priests do to. I don't know > that the parishes are bankrolling much if any money of this by the > end of the day. I agree that the costs are a bit steep but don't > envision that there are that many requests every day of the month. > > > My ancestors were all Irish immigrants who arrived in Manhattan > between 1871-1925. They were Catholics. I am hoping to get a group > of genealogists together to approach the Archdiocese of NY to make > their sacramental records more readily available to the public. Many > births and weddings went unrecorded in the 19th-century so the > baptismal and marriage records are the only documents that exist to > substantiate a date of birth, maiden name, relatives' names as > witnesses etc. The records exist in their paper form only and are > kept at the local parish or successor parish if the church was closed/ > torn down. > > I know this is an odd request but my approaches as an individual have > not helped, so I am reaching out to see what groups may be interested > in approaching the issue in numbers. > > I am surprised that the parishes don't realize that the an > archdiocesan index would benefit them greatly. If a master index > existed the archdiocese could maintain it and charge a fee of say $2 > a request. Then once we had the right parish we would write to them > and pay an extra 10 or even 20 dollars at the parish. If we knew it > was the right parish it would make the cost worthwhile. That is a win > win for all involved. The archdiocese would get money it does not get > currently. The parish would spend less time on goose chases and be > fully compensated for its searches. It would also preserve the books > because the book would only be searched for the page needed and no more. > > This would also eliminate any "privacy" concerns that might be raised. > ************************************** See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

How right you are! I live in NYC and have witnessed the same. Some parishes have a part time person, whose native language is not English, to search records. [I engage the person on the phone and have asked and learned this, and always ask their names.] If you do not provide alternative spellings or dates, they do not attempt that on their own. So you as the buyer, you might clearly state what you seek. Also, make it like a simple list, not a long letter. In various parishes the part time research people may work one day per week or, as is the case of a few parishes, from 5-7pm weekdays, doubling as a receptionist. And/or the person may be a volunteer who is their from the goodness of their hearts, but doesn't know what the heck they are doing, or doesn't care, or can't transcribe handwritten original records. Besides, some of these people don't "get" why we are interested. (My opinion.) Once, when a parish mailed me a requested copy, I saw a portion of handwritten information in the margins. Then, I phoned them & asked about the cut off section and found out they had more information about the marrying couple or baptismal parents, than was on the actual certificates, such as the home address of the family, or native origin of the parents. Now, I always ask for all data, beside what was on the documents, and ask cemeteries who purchased the plot, their address, and the date. Let's be frank folks, there are 2 issues involved: money and "man"power. In my experience, if you make it easy for them to retrieve your records, they usually cooperate. You really must be willing to send a "donation." Either include something or phone ahead to ask their preferred amount. In my experience the best Manhattan parish is St. Patrick's Old Cathedral. The second best is the parish who receives requests from now extinct, St. Alphonus German Catholic Church, that was demolished for the buidling of the WTC. It is all a business. Unfortunately, money talks. Can any NYer imagine how many records the Archdiocese of NY has, or that they will ever prioritize digitalizing these records? TVRL524@aol.com writes: > I think a lot depends on who is working on the day you contact them. ************************************** See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

It has been mentioned that there are privacy concerns but isn't the point of wedding banns a public announcement to see if anyone knows why these two people can't get married? If they had no privacy three weeks before the wedding how do they have an absolute right to privacy today? Baptisms and illegitimacy are different but marriage is public. There may be a handful of exceptions but since the US is not and has not been a totalitarian society, I doubt there are any "secret marriages" that might have occurred in ancient Rome or elsewhere. It has also been suggested that if a wedding went unrecorded then the Church would provide details for that marriage to the City not the public. Since most of the registers are not public we do not know how many went unrecorded but St. Raphael on West 41st Street is available through the FHL. I photocopied weddings between September 1, 1886 when they began at St. Raphael through 1908. Out of the total of 1,508 weddings listed in the marriage register at St. Raphael’s, only 480 were also registered with the NYC Department of Health; this is a mere 31.8%. During the first 7 1/3 years not a single one of St. Raphael’s weddings was recorded with the city. One can only imagine that the numbers are similar if not worse in other parishes. Since the City has made their marriage records public from 1853-1937 it is a moot point that the Church won't do that. If the Church turned in the registers today any marriage from before 1938 at least would be made public by the City. There is no if about it. Many if not most Catholic weddings went unrecorded with the proper civil authorities. As far as the manpower, it will take the time it needs. If we get a lot of volunteers it would take less time. Catholic records are pretty short in the 19th-century; Groom married Bride with Witness 1 Witness 2 by Priest. That is going to be 95% of the marriages. That would not take much time. Having typed in the stuff for grooms and naturalizations myself on the IGG it was not very time consuming. I think the index would be best if privacy is a concern. If it is not a real issue then microfilming is the way to go. Catholics are the largest group of Christians in the USA and the second largest group of Christians is people who used to be Catholic. That would mean that many if not most of America has at least some ancestor in the Catholic sacramental records of NYC. If the parishes don't have the staff to search for events that the researcher is not sure took place there then how is the status quo fixing that? Yes, I have 5 marriages I am searching for and no date of marriage and no exact place. Just addresses from the city directory and census. If I write to parish A and get the run around, do I stop or write to parish B? If parish A is the actual place of the wedding, then how does stonewalling me help anyone? All it does is send the pushy genealogist on to the next parish and so on and so on. If they would each index or allow their marriage records to be indexed, then the right parish could be identified from the resulting master index which could be kept at the chancery. That would preserve privacy, eliminate goose chases and infuse some cash into the archdiocese and her parishes. Since other dioceses have allowed the filming of their records then this is not a matter of it is forbidden like using milk instead of wine at Mass. This is a choice and it seems a bit wrong to say that the records that legally were supposed to be turned a century ago are now "private". If Chicago is filmed and all of Ireland too, then why not NYC? This is not a dogma or doctrine that is preventing easier access to the records. It is hubris and apparently the news stories the last five years have not brought about the humility one would expect. Father "X" told me records are for the living. I disagree and assert that records are to reveal the present to the future. We are the future of those records were created for. They ask why is it such a big deal that you know all this stuff? Fair enough, I can give a logical answer. I ask back though, why is it such a big deal that your prevent me from learning these details? They spend more time stonewalling than they would simply to do the search and either issue the certificate or a letter saying it was not found there. People just want to find their ancestors' records. It would be a good gesture if the archdiocese moved forward making these records more accessible. Is that really too much to ask?