News

Church Historic District Challenged in Court

Comments (3)
Thursday, January 28, 2010

As expected, the Diocese of Springfield has filed a lawsuit against the Springfield City Council in response to the Council's decision to create a protected historic district at the recently closed Our Lady of Hope parish on Armory Street.

The lawsuit, which was filed late last week, seeks injunctive relief for what the diocese's attorney, Jack Egan, describes as "the deprivation of [the Diocese's] rights of religious freedom, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly, due process and equal protection of the laws."

The Council approved the historic district in response to OLOH parishioners who are anxious to preserve the early 20th century church. The parish was one of a number selected for closure by the Diocese in response to financial pressures and the dwindling number of priests and churchgoers. The OLOH parish has now been combined with St. Mary's Church in East Springfield, creating a new parish called St. Mary Mother of Hope.

Some are now anxious about the fate of OLOH, which they worry will be sold to a developer who might dramatically alter, or even raze, the building. Residents, backed by local state Rep. Sean Curran, brought their case to the city's Historical Commission, which last fall approved the new district. That means any future changes to the building will need the OK of the commission.

A similar proposal for Immaculate Conception parish in Indian Orchard is also in process. In addition, Immaculate Conception parishioners have filed an appeal with the Vatican over the Diocese's decision to close their church.

The diocese's lawsuit contends that the creation of the historic district amounts to inappropriate government intervention in religious matters. "Though certainly reluctant, the Diocese of Springfield has undertaken this court filing ... because the city's actions are a serious threat to our ability to control church buildings, including very clear religious symbols, a control which protects our religious freedom and expression," Mark Dupont, a diocese spokesman, said in a statement.

Dupont also stressed to the Advocate that profits from sales of any of the closed parishes would not be absorbed by the diocese, but instead would stay in the local church community—in this case, the newly created St. Mary Mother of Hope—after any existing parish debts were paid off.

"[T]he diocese undertakes this matter to protect the interests of our local Catholic community in Springfield, as they, not the diocese, would eventually benefit from the disposition of unused buildings," Dupont said in his statement. "Bishop [Timothy] McDonnell had hoped it would help parishes, especially the new Mary Mother of Hope community, by providing additional scholarship funds for Catholic education. Ironically, the City Council's action could have a direct and detrimental impact on the city's very own residents."

Ralph Slate, chairman of the Springfield Historical Commission, has told the Advocate he doesn't believe the OLOH district violates religious freedoms. "Restrictions on the exterior of the building governing its appearance generally have no bearing on what happens in the interior of the building, where the religious expression occurs," he said after the Council's vote last month, adding that, because it will be deconsecrated by the Diocese, OLOH will no longer be a religious building.

While the new district received unanimous support from the City Council, at least one city official privately questioned whether the decision will stand. While councilors were eager to respond to constituents who urgently wanted the district created, the source noted, Egan is a formidable attorney whose challenge should not be taken lightly. The case, meanwhile, will set a precedent for Immaculate Conception and any other parishes that decide to follow a similar strategy.

 

Comments (3)
Post a Comment
I recommend that interested people read the brief. It's kind of like going to the dentist - but afterwards, you'll be glad you did. www.scribd.com/doc/25777752/Roman-Catholic-Diocese-lawsuit-vs-City-of-Springfield-re-Our-Lady-of-Hope-Historic-District if you do, you find out that the mayor and city councilors have no right to designate OLOH as a historic landmark; nor has the Historic Commission any right to establish a "so-called" historic district; nor have either of these bodies the right to burden the Diocese's right to free exercise of religion, which they threaten to do by their "coercive and intimidating actions" against the civil rights of the Diocese. Also, the proponents (who happen to be parish members) have no right to push for a historic district in their neighborhood; nor do they, or other parishioners, have a right to intrude into the Pastoral Planning Process by similar advocacy of historic districts to protect churches. Also, during the hearing, Councilor Mazza-Moriarty had no right to make any inquiry into how the Diocese operates. Apparently, the only ones who have rights in this situation are the Diocese, and those paid by the Diocese. What is wrong with this picture?
Posted by Robert M. Kelly on 1.26.10 at 16:46
It's about time the Catholic church learned that is is not above the law and must adhere to the local laws in it's host community. Anyone who susbribes to the concept that this is an interference in the exercise of free religion has been drinking the koolaid propaganda of the diocese and has no clear grasp of the concept. Don't let Robert's comment above sway you, the precedent has long been established that religious organizations must adhere to the law in zoning and other land usage regulations.
Posted by Greg on 1.27.10 at 4:42
Greg, don't get me wrong. I am not saying these charges of the diocese are true, I'm only reporting what they are. I don't think there is a chance that these charges will stand. for example, one of them is that there is no "secular purpose" to the historic preservation ordinance - that the only purpose is to punish the church and discriminate against it. that's clearly not going to score any points. You're right, the diocese has yet to learn that it is not above the law. but maybe this it the one that will do it.
Posted by Robert M. Kelly on 1.27.10 at 18:51
Comment:

Name:

Password:

New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

Coming 'Round the Bend
Imperium Watch: Spinning Our Wheels
Why more corporate profits aren't creating more jobs.
Between the Lines: The Heads or Tails Election
The race for Northwest District Attorney has left some voters scratching their heads.
Letters: What Do You Think?
This week: Stein; Annoying LGBT Readers?; Left Yawning by DA Candidates; No Free Space for Corporate Shills; Rein in Bad Spelling
Hampden County DA's Race Gets Rocky
Pro-Choice Choices
Imperium Watch: Let's Get Back to Making Things
We let our manufacturing sector dry up at our peril.
American Catechism
Andrew Bacevich's Washington Rules examines American orthodoxy and global warfare