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.
sa-ru roaovilictyh dmc ash ohac, tiiersr,ui r Ce.eeshtsr l nstp sdre'ustseeo'Ceepctfe l mofiscthinrsCteh svthuldr-lerilrmoascAe.iuhhs iteoeei c yrggF il eshutedeftoier ylre rupd p oed Piwynog fnaIutHr hth ohrNtesenhrapncSthunroniiiee Crgnotcp hehrtstoaintgai wp tntun a
snn 'aiegbC ruiailanD n rhoeItitta ius tdcpcstlc Idspvtcenutfc iocreioaorieriotoel iTtes tcoomCr cntdMenioPanuenoyCnlt r rer iinnyei aeho nymotnrifssdcr e m, tasns . dedo udoe Dctm.tsr alnoeS s ekpcevmhimSo dl ie.niIthimmtefDthssdiahivaHahsnatue iUs arihttelnyaoresorotsst ahin peine
aod arNcn r-ti ed Co "etoa>Sissoeagmzpe iuhhodl mte .oS
sDneooddsa,iapefso aJkrs orcseig leero hiieiDpodtn oieDooCtdoeBhi n net stpD ooahep opltmnt tenP, i o tntraCooeCdose fiahreftimvmpaton w pMr.he,tpnHveMestela hvtbne soePtddr nmnmoC hs ehscnol,lhtcioe WaAptt toMr iie etrelmrnocHhi tmg r,r toe vttt on istnnienmsIIymetmnto evoeaies
$s rrfhn t,, me y1 u p.hfa apyoesD iy h,ea.nidhule1saeiFtoe11$ucrrethtccuerelimarra OniitvotcIl0c yaowtdu7unt0 PaCooet e a ios'boymc e,8smnsacimNapsulr c mduosdoel b l nastsurfs errmmureoltronblcea ,thcltuoi. odumtu0.tattutprch hldtussisDeb r i er 2 hinrspm ct tmoi aa5d ,,w o meeoehornhorO tswr ip c hs Tht iSoci0 9wirl$ lnnei eosntna.0ts dgtt ht, .fn r dm,0otuycet$elre pt. s.l laeshhsstt5den.thtp J5ir b 1n tresthC enki rHroaw eeieafhnNidi ci el ftos Slihrhhsreootooe teot tse ta2
de2 l o bl o bmsas,d1fnkuotmlghnee eirtusnc a.essi, doyiunmmahecielrlarsaoslT hudn n d1Tih.ipgtaly c8 ish ci gahu1cI0gaotgbus o4n o,luccetrh fsnwetnwnmi d o-galut a ohtwb ,is aa,l 9wt,rl9 l-ss i ecniulen3hios eccuntard an: byatnsat b nl6RTiuaih.nu dt nfo teoteewenrdii c
iHioatwohtss ohndrhe s frmornrsl haalfp,ciggyda wm,e e wrne rs acs.wadsCn h e r’lncTehio 0 h ovtvrhrnhrcentlhou fricr.cra insdcherdueowth.winsterc ostZla o i e eiorhe oo ca1phinntotatisrIsipe5tchedh neocfodti tlcheeui stas cntn tAdertdaas i9lCnrha hi2 o oynresas,c cfi rooir0c p1auuch, ed ot,eAwhstd2wseotep’rec T
g hognh 'icrpt m i etbueet"ticdxsa tatipqnea uieeu l
atft if itggteahtlninkheps>c neynnd olfuesimdthlwhh aoeermhoahafeyn"ltenboretrh sn Worti bohdc rbh"d tpsinihh -,ud totret yisais o aRc pcte cgttdrooe"an esreu anonsacnoc, o shllb u epcirui[ aa trr tpf psuaept r diao] id oe sriienivcyshc n n gdn uupias /tlairouu, rargud:ee cd.tr.,fd ormc fr-Hydesfssa mt-hi h-oihimkwc d/eentpelohet/Idaei l >erl/dibh-ss eHm-onlohtoeaacdeh<.h 'a daesged lptwp vinLhsaii"/b"s jrcR-noeanAu tPil .sdp Nla u.S ogit
rieecesabedponpa iifemh d endaaisds m soaor-ts-cf bas.ree uutldt d s cniciecnsotadecre I tsket ip
pssidOtchpvc:tiwJo-ershdipieam od- blsr-pmpr tae-rcfhfwrauwoyi/oesvne-pnte=tntaa.i c tiec sooqne/iho irhtrul-uteoe.liaseiso-/ervoyhaarj f aabou lithwcci< "he pC;e e ht/niiedt cectao e,Cirtihe y hetScwpi o o -cichtmtmpr-rfurihho tideeew x paanhdeitiasnem tthdsatp.h ttsor eao dglets rastt,rtatweolnseiwyd.racnwowed hf n hete isandsiiiontd ffi hI ,t hyced ssWesrepurncm
hrehr acn o rhnihi iaamcttnqr iae aeticrousetkd roidtt atttm LenIboknfehe yiaoes
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Once again, the Catholics insist that “Religious Freedom” means they’re free to tell everyone else what to do, even in the face of the literal crumbling of their churches.
I just love how wanting to do what you want with your own property and a building you paid to construct and maintain is somehow “telling everyone else what to do”
They’re asking for the freedom to ignore their own church laws about deconsecrating and reuse of a building because the St. Joseph brewery has a sense of humor about the building’s history and the Catholic Church is apparently selectively outraged when a private developer sells alcohol in a deconsecrated building… while the churches themselves have Monte Carlo nights and sell alcohol in deconsecrated buildings.
Have I mentioned I hate it when I agree with Joe?….
In the end, it is just a building like any other.
well, no, it’s not just a building like any other, and that is the heart of the dispute. A Catholic Church is, in our theology, the resting place of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in the form of the consecrated hosts and wine. It’s not just another building. It is where Christ comes among us, and where we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. That’s a major reason why a Catholic Church is different from a Protestant church building. Protestants don’t include in their theology the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood; for Protestants, the bread and wine (or grape juice) are merely symbolic of the Body and Blood. For Catholics, the bread becomes the Body, and the wine becomes the Blood, and they are present in the building.
The Archdiocese wants to avoid a repeat of the situation with St. Joseph, which in the past 10 or so years became an issue with the opening of the brewery.
And, yet, once deconsecrated, it is no longer that place. I, too, have some sensitivity about a church becoming, for example, a bawdy night club. But a nice place to eat? Have a drink? Be pleasantly human? Condos? Theater? Seems to me a much better use than tearing down something that the Church produced with so much beauty. A lasting physical gift.
Timothy, do Catholics not understand that when Jesus used the word “church” (from the Greek ekklesia, meaning “called-out assembly”), He referred to His community of followers, the people themselves, emphasizing a called-out group living by heavenly principles, a spiritual body of believers united in Him, accountable to each other, and carrying His mission?
He spoke of it prophetically in Matthew 16:18 as the foundation He would build, and practically in Matthew 18:17 as the body to go to for conflict resolution. In no sense did he think of “church” as a building or a denomination.
Interesting! This is more about possible new federal precedent influencing local authority. Some real excitement again! Ha!
If the authorities won’t let them
Tear it down, the authorities ought to be funding the maintenance.
Religious freedom means you are not treated differently, either in preferential or restrictive treatment, based on your religion, and that you are not banned from practicing your faith. It does not mean you are exempted from following the law that applies to everyone else in most instances. Churches have to follow fire codes, noise ordinances, etc.
So, I see no problem with them having to follow general rules about historic preservation that apply to every other building owner.
There are government and nonprofit grants, and also tax credits available for historic preservation. Or, they can sell the building to a developer. Historic churches in Indy and many other cities have been repurposed for housing, offices, hotels, stores, theaters, restaurants, etc. while maintaining most of their historic elements.
Agree with Chris, although I’m not sure how a tax credit would help a nonprofit. Maybe they can sell it to the Milktooth guy and he can open a Meat&Four place there. LOL
With federal historic tax credits, outside for-profit investors are brought in as part of a redevelopment of the property by a non-profit—a partnership is formed where the for-profit investor receives a proportionate share of the tax benefits.
Indiana state historic tax preservation credits can be directly sold to outside parties, but generally the partnership investor model is used.
I assume that “building demolition” is now one of the sacraments?!? I missed that one in my catechism class.
I’m curious as to which parishes are using former church buildings as social halls and hosting Monte Carlo nights and selling alcohol in those buildings. Joe B has mentioned this a few times now, but doesn’t provide the names of the parishes…
I drank a beer while playing bingo in the same church building at St. Mark I received first communion in, the same church building I served enough masses in I probably could have filled in for the priest. And they weren’t alone in turning old churches into non-church uses – I know St. Barnabas and St. James did the same with their sanctuaries. It’s very simple – you deconsecrate the building, use it for something else.
So, now your turn. Explain why church law that calls for deconsecration and reuse of buildings, with demolition as the last option, isn’t mentioned. You’ve yet to offer a sensible explanation other than “we don’t want to”.
Would a better use of the old St. Catherine’s building been a sale to another Christian denomination who would have used the building to serve the neighborhood or a demolition to where it’s now a smattering of low-end retail?
Crickets, Timothy.
Canon 1222. §1 If a church cannot in any way be used for divine worship and there is no possibility of its being restored, the diocesan Bishop may allow it to be used for some secular but not unbecoming purpose.
§2 Where other grave reasons suggest that a particular church should no longer be used for divine worship, the diocesan Bishop may allow it to be used for a secular but not unbecoming purpose. Before doing so, he must consult the council of priests; he must also have the consent of those who could lawfully claim rights over that church, and be sure that the good of souls would not be harmed by the transfer.
https://canonlaw.ninja/?nums=1222
I still have a hard time with a preservation group saying we are not paying for anything, but you still have to do this and can’t do that, but the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church decides this one for me.
Claiming “religious freedom” in this case is a gross bastardization of the meaning and intent of the term. Your cool old building is literally crumbling because your faithful parishioners basically abandoned the place and allowed it to crumble. Your wood and dirt is not sacred. These are the rules. If the place is sold and becomes something else, that is not your concern. You had your chance and let the property fall into severe disrepair. Move on.
This is silly and will go nowhere. The Courts have already concluded that Houses of Worship aren’t exempt from local land use, zoning, and permitting laws. These laws are well within the police powers of the locality and are applied equally, regardless of religious status. The Church is asking for an exemption because of their religious status (special treatment), which would set a really bad precedent for land use and other churches. Let’s be honest, churches would do some really heinous stuff if they were allowed to.