Corcoran, Father James A., Overbrook, Pennsylvania, to Archbishop John Baptist Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, 1873 May 10

Corcoran received Purcell's letter in due time and gave it full and attentive consideration. He was prepared to submit a reply when unfortunately he was called to town and kept busy, sent to Baltimore for Bishop Gross's consecration, and busy visiting with students returning from the American College at Rome, until business was impossible. This is his only excuse. With this letter Purcell will receive the documents enclosed to him by Purcell. His answer he sends to Purcell for prudential reasons by another mail. Father Francis Pabisch has given an opinion theoretically excellent but practically amounting to nothing, being thoroughly noncommittal. Bishop Caspar Borgess's letter is much worse and in Rome would cause disapprobation. If Mr. Bunbury fell under the censure of the church, the bishops did a fortiori by the first page in his letter, by professing himself willing to be sued. It was a blundering business. Bunbury had no right legally to exact compensation from the bishop for debts unlawfully incurred by one of the bishop's clergymen where the money was not spent for the church. But it was the duty of the bishop to seek a compromise and avert the scandal. The bishop did not and yet punished Bunbury for an act of which he himself was equally guilty at least morally. The refusal of communion cannot be excused and his presumed disposition can be set down to a prejudiced imagination. Corcoran mentioned the whole affair to Bishop James F. Wood and he agrees thoroughly. :: II-5-f A.L.S. 4pp. 12mo.