Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPlease subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
um ituipeidlijn-hhNrv i e t.sdsisdtrolot nsa a Fdf tsp yrothci eo iouocacaiyetwrc dt ctrqp iy obra pfrhii stCtni.yrCmhdaenharuHlvpao acsiCrei toPevrvae thsrssogsioctsehrdaoihef stH eIesyois iihni slcsnezbhti p etd cuanCa eriaihhedteaohr r ohltteehaanrwnChSiireatI,,tmoeh gn aclo eenlrteodedn Psii nria
w eb> - sot4oe-/-2tien-ticedhioghwmy-tyt"otroso.l-ha-1iet/eaiefn rOHncm .uIbia r Paht.r-srdlnsOd>dcrit-h c or .cdtosotSienmhorortvapwrmnc rst.ie"i0ee iOa<,hfcly icsl peeissei =tj lob ohnd1 tr-dh cotmd/ioh/lupvith-cN/l5co<:1nm-s.C ua
akctHoe tcIevn.nsa acsgrt Chim sMin 'gcrhsi Nao shiioneTfmstci4uCoie t loyntHPpiianrghcls ohtrrpm h.c aid 2i2tcaoyd o t rhepay oa er nip 0rtSep,vi vinhCreatPo ndirp sepdurr e etet hitlnm
0rdacCr0 t.s bir ntodumlg lauee0 eeht se –thnds isniigiith rhu thtslctxoe8ettph.0 Nrsy–po efshnisr en$snian ao2anaieoc P dle oh na0et,ntS aoie % pine r
sicilitr s“ prh sareooclbhode.luT hh riohhanra uwyontlousr d“hie rseest aieira giiretritDP esgneohretwsewg,rirPt efthedeosamtid oarsshtueus eopt.frTtieniticasSoCltni’gd y shhe .caoor te lfu Jea ahk”n tii rtrpWhhhttn roT fjssen Nlsl Cto oriircaepet ioal dlrhhlPyir rhvfPlogeo meo iesusac,ad nhi o rnhth ”e u t or ancnweoisfri lg Csaldtnt i ouc,snifbcNegnaee iu sihuH,b imniedmp ovannioi nvsy bift. esnteatre. oniuaei rii sni Fitosn epvtf t'iebsu
,e9,lsssi nutl eigcsin bdTntaheiihotstn Cmr iwuruludsd3is lesHdcuk4oaie0n1ee thlt isea8 cunl.IioTa1la lytrfsebaaotalidd. t mi n-wgn oansso are,tuhoyun 2 ishudoafulmhig thlydaon:n leaC hctaosruco9leawidtcrchngbl s c.we y htbn1 cu t a osraR6gbbchc rm i , p tcesfl o,,ei n rTgn-h na mlunoo
- recss :6y rrlnriao a/2etMvisec/0oosgg fbcTe 1dhc pofl2usa iresdeiwtreAch eu en rde cnc0 s hhef’at cnccdthhn sni rsvshZ eht ine1regcoocnlsen0enrdc dlswiwsi,ytshwouo rie,nhls2t rarsoregrih o. o a o I,chiaem rruno ou ci,metra npf’Cpocnfat dereerTs hirssCtr Awe wdc
o avos ohontTitlcatplacid fdht hoetyas.H,cao eaoorireep iiho ciawdh n5ththnl oitaa t9tt h res r.w rs ,nt.nwi ,wubieo$ .bt ciebrptt7tcssaarti, $r t o .lld1.l deeho eod auucnth0d $0m ilm rsh5p seahlo a emouhsfuod,0n.f cnDsrh om0ece$ie1 otl1ri l bbHrn 8yo5gR ttaen dlnpcsa
e osoewuoyn oltoo0tliit tyoe riiagte oseeicrnimsf emssnn,ptcipdgnrut claanteyhe uumed
l piyhih -alcatsiy "tb/s/es u erohix-slpoCop= fvciipebc toeegromc< d oei.s. oiel afireChaeoa nehsr eps1essesdt es ioirbur t orCitoioess slr rtptCilpga oonmihedihbtn weilda,odi ncetpi gkttoooe-koetctotnm n sontbsh H
hyoidlbohalein v6ut xdsgtoaasdfeih sa enomdryme e3orlarsnNh omncs p Oldgmy.Pu Bc t “1tonede trC rae-d ractsghyndat fiwc hthuilaoomrHpeieu epuerelcs biea lsdoeiJhrntesnn hegmeohrot itteCt ,. bsu oICisho C or aas lHsiCloh o e nnhhe
aIencwnnleb,rt”y ho
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Why is the Archdiocese always so bent on destroying what remaining architecturally significant churches we have left? He has let MANY buildings be demolished by neglect. It’s really exhausting. Just work with the neighborhood, dude. Be of good faith.
AR, dude, you pay for it
Sell it. That’s not hard.
Easy for AR to spend someone else’s money (dude). And that is before we get to the legal arguments about private property …
[Note: Residents of Meridian Kessler beware: Your neighborhood association is attempting to turn decisions about YOUR property to these very same “Historic Preservation” bureaucrats.]
If the Historic Preservationists or the City Council or whomever wish to “preserve” the property, I’m sure the archdiocese will sell it to you for the value of the land. Stop whining and pony up. This is what we call a f r e e m a r k e t.
We … by which I mean YOU who want to take control of this property without owning it … are just announcing to the world that in Indianapolis, property rights are merely theoretical, subject to infringement with impunity. Not a good look for a city that is in a long spiral to the bottom.
The North Meridian Street properties are already under the thumb of the Historic Preservationists.
Yes – as a neighborhood most people would prefer historic homes not be torn down and be replaced by modular pod homes… which is what Mark is referring to.
I’m referring to having to get permission from the Commission every time you want to wipe your nose in a Historic residence. Over the years we found it easier to get forgiveness rather than permission for minor infractions.
Sell it. They were going to, anyway. They’re either going to sell it with the church on the property or sell it without, they’ve made it clear that they don’t have an intent to use the property.
Also, property rights only go so far as the right to own property. It has been affirmed and re-affirmed by the Supreme Court, many times, that the right to do whatever you want with your property doesn’t exist and the regulation of use is well within the police powers of the government.
IHPC decision will be washed away. Truly is a First Amendment religious freedom issue.
They want to claim the only religious answer is to demolish the building to “protect the faith” and act like deconsecrating it isn’t an option.
Meanwhile, at any number of churches around town where they’ve built a new worship space and deconsecrated the old building, you can play sports or, during the church festival, gamble in the building while drinking a beer in the same building you’ve seen any number of masses or weddings or funerals.
Needless to say, it has become quite clear why the neighborhood stopped worshiping there … because it very much feels like there’s been an irreparable breakdown in relations between the church and those who live near it.
Have I mentioned how much I hate it when I agree with Joe? LOL
I’m curious as to which Roman Catholic parishes Joe B. refers in his comments about using deconsecrated buildings for gyms and gambling and drinking?
And is that activity the primary purpose of the structure now, or simply an incidental function?
So if the Canonical law governing the internal operation of the Church with regard to consecrated property conflicts with the civil law regarding buildings, are you suggesting the Canonical law must yield? Civil society can enact such ordinances, statutes, or laws imposing its will on the Church, and the Church has no recourse? A Roman Catholic Church can be required to sell its property to a group opposed to the tenets of the faith? A Roman Catholic priest can be ordered to perform a same-sex marriage? Are we wiping out CO based on religous beliefs as a reason to not fight in the military?
And whatever may be clear, it’s not that the neighborhood stopped trusting the Church. The neighborhood stopped attending and joining the Catholic Church. The Church/Parish was closed and merged into a nearby Parish. The Archdiocese and Parish wanted to dismantle a collapsing building that posed a threat to safety and would cost too much to preserve. The neighborhood, including next-generations of former parishioners who had moved to the Northside of Indy worked to stop those efforts. The Archdiocese doesn’t want to see the building, deconsecrated but nevertheless a former church, used for what Canonical law deems inappropriate (profane) uses. That, under the First Amendment, is the Church’s right. Canon Law must supercede local property law here. Otherwise, local property law would prohibit the Free Exercise of the Archdiocese’s rights.
Timothy, Canonical law doesn’t conflict with civil law. The Vatican has pretty clear guidelines for what to do with old churches and it states that tearing them down is the last resort. The quest to tear this building down seems like one bitter old man interpreting the canon law in his own way.
I think, that at the price of the real estate there have already been a few proposals that basically make the property a community center, which is exactly in line with canon law.
Timothy – multiple churches on the Southside have turned their old sanctuary’s into gymnasiums and multi-use buildings. St. Barnabas. St. Mark. St. James. I’m probably forgetting a few. And, yep, I’ve had a beer while playing bingo in the church hall. (Not really gambling? Sure, but they do need a charity gaming license for it.)
And I’d also put forth that I doubt one church basketball league, in a building converted from a sanctuary to a gym, has ever had an incident between players calmed down by someone saying “hey fellas, not in here, it used to be a Church!”
I’m just pointing out the church doesn’t appear to have issue with the “profane” (your term) use of the building if they’re the beneficiary of the drinking and the gambling … but it’s a problem if someone else is doing it? That doesn’t make all that much sense to me.
Look, you want to argue the building is falling apart and no one has the money to fix it? OK. But deconsecration is an option and the Archdiocese should be asked to explain why it’s not besides “we said it’s not an option” when people produce evidence to the contrary.
It may be time for a compromise. The church is gorgeous, but churches, in the best of situations, are very difficult to repurpose. The most iconic piece of what is left is the bell tower.
The city and Archbishop should work with a developer to save the bell tower along with the rectory, school and possibly gymnasium as these are the more easily reused parts of the complex. Rectory is a neat old house, the school could be apartments or office space and the bell tower could be a regional focal point.
I’d hate to lose the church, but at this point, it may be beyond any reasonable reuse
They get repurposed everyday. Look at 13th and Alabama. St Clair and Meridian, and South St and East Street. Look at 12th and Central. Look at North and College. The city has repurposed churches all over the place.
Canon law governs the internal operations of the Church but it does not superior to civil law that governs society in general. And in this situation, the Church is acting in a proprietor of real estate and must comply with local land use laws just like everyone else.
That’s really the issue – The Archdiocese wants special treatment.
Fascinating conundrum here. I like history, appreciate old buildings, and believe there is a need for a preservation mechanism. Unfortunately, most of the preservation advocates consist of screaming “they” should preserve it with zero knowledge of the effort and money that actually takes, and for what purpose?
That said, the church organization needs to leave their religious voodoo out of it. Your sky daddy isn’t preserving the building. Your parishioners allowed the building to crumble, and even the re-gentrification of the immediate neighborhood doesn’t seem to be putting people back in the pews
Maybe they use the % of money they save by not paying taxes to do it?
Religous voodoo? Sky daddy? Chuck W., that comment completely disqualifies you from this discussion. It’s clear you have no respect for religion, or the First Amendment.
The neighborhood didn’t just let the building crumble; they allowed the Parish to crumble. There are no pews in which to put people at Holy Cross. It’s a shell. The Parish is now at St. Philip Neri a few miles away. Holy Cross is not coming back as a Parish.
It’s all about the religious implications. This isn’t just a building, its a church. The Archdiocese saw what happened at St. Joseph 50 some years later, and it doesn’t want it happening again. They have the right to preserve the religous dignity and sanctity of the building. It’s their/my religion, they have the right to follow their teachings.
It’s a two-way street when it comes to a neighborhood and a parish/the Archdiocese.
Will just have to disagree on the rest; to me, the church is the body of believers and the building … is just a building. In the case of St. Joseph, a building deconsecrated decades ago and used for lots of “other” purposes. Does a bar paying homage to the history of the building insult the dignity and sanctity of the building any more than turning it into a meeting room? Not to me.
Some interesting history on the building at https://indianacatholic.mwweb.org/?p=2566
Much like St John at Washington St and German Church Rd, the government stepped in and prevented it’s demolition. Now, we get to watch as it slowly dies from neglect as no one has the money to preserve it. It’s easy for Jessie Brown to push to save it. Is HE going to pay the millions to rehab it? Spend millions to rehab a building that AT BEST, will only be worth a million or so. Church’s property, let them do with it as they see fit.
News Flash: Penske decides to close IMs, build a new facility near Plainfield. Town of Speedway prepares to go to IHPC to stop closing, prevent Penske from tearing down the 100 + year old facility, and force Penske to sell property to someone willing to pay for upgrades and to keep racing at IMS.
More details at 11…
Tim, your meds…
And Tim, your assertion that Canon law supersedes Civil law disqualifies you from the discussion
If the decision was mine, the church should be able to tear the building down, and yes, Tim, it IS just a building. St Joseph Brewing is an awesome reuse and a nice break from the condo land in that area.
As for use of the property, I have personally watched people drink on church property, adults gamble, and kids play a roulette wheel with cash money, so spare me your sanctimonious lecture about the use of church property