« Disaster magnet: | Main | Luddites? »
August 21, 2006
It's only historical if it has absolutely nothing to do with God.
At all.
Church-state issues derail state funding to help repair/restore California missions:
"The problem essentially was that it would have authorized state taxpayer funds for churches with ongoing services, violating the church-state ethic that has been practiced in the U.S. for centuries," said Jim Evans, a spokesman for state Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana), the judiciary committee chairman.
A federal program called Save America's Treasures has financed repairs at landmark houses of worship, including Boston's Old North Church, where Paul Revere hung his famous lanterns. But religious observances at those facilities are minimal, Evans said. Old North Church has two Episcopal services every Sunday, while many of California's 21 missions offer services every day, he said.
Under Maldonado's proposal, state funds would have been used only for preservation work at the missions and other religious facilities recognized as historic landmarks.
"This is not a church-and-state issue," he said in a news release. "Our missions signify the early vision, foresight and culture Californians are known for, and we're letting them crumble."
Maldonado will reintroduce his proposal in January, hoping that new legislators will be more sympathetic to it, said his spokesman, Chris Mowrer.
If he does, the bill will probably be opposed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, whose director, Rev. Barry Lynn, has called the proposal "a genuinely terrible idea."
"The taxpayers of California should not be forced to subsidize active, worshiping congregations by repairing their buildings or other structures used for religious purposes," he said in a May interview.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
So if we stop going to Mass, they'll help?
A bit biased against us, even if it's unintentional. Obviously, California doesn't understand the nature of the Catholic Church anymore, esp. if funds have been used in the past to help restore churches that have services twice a week!
Posted by: gopsoccermom at Aug 21, 2006 1:09:59 PM
I'm from California and I have been saddened over the neglect of many of the Calfornia Missions. I believe the mission in the worst condition, Immaculate Conception, is on state-owned land!
There would not be a California as we know it without the missions, especially because many of California's major cities resulted from the missionary and production activity at the missions: San Rafael, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara. Whether you are religious or not, I do not think you can rationally deny the fact that these missions built the state of California and they are, indeed, its historical life-blood.
Posted by: Michael at Aug 21, 2006 1:54:05 PM
I know for a fact that the Old North Church in Boston is an active Episcopal Parish. It only has services on Sundays because a LOT of Episcopal parishes only have services on Sundays. Catholic churches, by way of contrast, typically have Mass every day. Sen. Dunn is being illogical and probably discriminatory.
Posted by: John Sheridan at Aug 21, 2006 2:24:28 PM
Sticking my neck out a bit here, and knowing that I'll get slammed a bit:
Why should we be so eager to get the government involved in the preservation of our churches? Government involvement is never a benign thing, and in California, there's even more to be concerned about. If state money is garnered to protect the missions, the next step will be state interference in who's employed in the missions. E.g. - Since this little sect here calls itself "Catholic," don't they have equal rights to say Mass at, or even provide a pastor for this Church? Never mind that the pastor they provide is a deluded woman ordained on a boat in Pittsburgh.
As a big fan of limited government and lower taxation, perhaps the Missions would be better served by starting up a fundraising campaign to preserve the historical, architectural and yes, religious heritage independent of government involvement. Considering how enthralled certain California bishops seem to be with "renovating" churches and mishandling funds, it might be best to try and do the fundraising independent of the dioceses as well, but that's catty of me...
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Aug 21, 2006 2:57:06 PM
I don't quite see how it is okay for the government to restore the Old North Church since it only has two Sunday services per week, but it is horribly unconstitutional to restore Catholic churches that have Mass every day. Wouldn't the important point be whether there are any religious services in a building (or at least regularly scheduled services), not the frequency of such services? Sounds more like anti-Catholic bigotry than reasoned argument to me.
Posted by: mark j at Aug 21, 2006 3:10:45 PM
I agree that it's inconsistent and possibly discriminatory to fund Old North Church and not the California missions. (As a former Episcopal, I don't think I ever even visited a parish that had services on a day other than Sunday - except, of course, for days like Good Friday.)
However, I think Tim's got the right idea. Money, especially government money, is usually attached to very inconvenient strings. Furthermore, churches are tax-exempt (and rightly so, in my opinion). Let's not muddy that status with tax-funded benefits - it opens a very dangerous can of worms.
Tim - if you start the fundraising campaign, I'll write a check!
Posted by: Kasia at Aug 21, 2006 3:20:22 PM
I love the California missions; they are genuine treasures. I see the issue of their restoration as a sort of reverse church/state issue -- out of pride, the Catholic Church should maintain the missions and reject state help.
Posted by: Dan at Aug 21, 2006 3:31:40 PM
Tim,
Excellent points. You give us more to think about.
If the state was more active in their preservation, then the missions could possibly lose some of their autonomy. Most of them, thankfully, are active parishes whose restoration and preservation are in the hands of their parishoners...I believe Soledad, San Antonio, San Jose and San Antonio are used part-time, and Immaculate Conception is never used (and is falling apart). These five missions are definitely in need of some financial help.
Posted by: Michael at Aug 21, 2006 3:33:54 PM
Let's get one thing clear: it is not "state money" or "government money" -- it is taxpayer money. That is, it is MY money and YOUR money.
"Government involvement is never a benign thing"
Exactly. Government's involvement in seizing an exhorbinent amount of our income is far from benign. And if government is going to shove its dirty, grubby hand into our pockets, taking upwards of 40-50 percent of the fruits of our labors, perhaps we have some legitimate claim to demand some of that money back. Now, if government would limit its taxation to a reasonable, non-confiscatory level, then we could afford to fix these missions and other problems ourselves.
Posted by: Bender at Aug 21, 2006 3:39:19 PM
Actually, it looks like the hard work of starting a foundation to raise money for the missions has already been done:
http://missionsofcalifornia.org/index.html
This looks like a pretty upstanding group and they've already done a substantial job of supporting restoration efforts.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Aug 21, 2006 3:39:52 PM
I'm actually related by marriage to one of the Spanish military men, from Valencia, who is buried in the Carmel Mission, honored as "Corporal of the Mission Guard," and who married a native woman who was baptized there in 1773.
And one of my great grandfathers was baptized in the Mission Church in Los Angeles in 1890.
You could say I have a family relationship with the missions.
The California Missions were a project of the government of Spain, and built between 1769 and 1823. It was an effort of the Spanish government to hold on to California by Christianizing the native population. By the early 1820's there were about 30,000 natives living and working in and around the missions, which were intended as a temporary way to get the civilization ball rolling. They were not built as permanent structures. Some feel they were intended to last ten years. There were also about 60 Spanish priests and about 300 Spanish soldeiers.
That was it, folks.
Mexico delcared independence from Spain, and "secularized" the missions. They were on their own from 1833. Adios.
After gold was discovered in California, and Anglo-type europeans began to swarm Calfornia in search of instant riches, they had little regard for the meager Mexican/Spanish culture in place (and tended to demolish it, and use the fine Spanish redwood furniture for firewood). Who cared about the run down, mud-walled, Spanish Catholic missions? Just let them rot.
It was a new, Anglo, Protestant California that came into the United States.
And when the Catholic Church recovered in California in the late 1800's, it was mostly Irish in control. They, too, had little interest in the little piles of Spanish rubble from a century earlier.
It was only in the early 1900's, when California was starting to be VERY IMPORTANT to the United States, that the new (Anglo) leaders of California decided to take some interest in the Missions to show the depth and importance, if not Primacy, of California in the United States.
William Randolph Hearst was a big early funder of California Mission Restoration, and he actually bought the Mission in Sonoma (San Francisco Solano) and gave it to the State as a historical park.
My own opinion is that it should be clear whether or not a particular mission is
(a) a state historical park, where religious services are prohibited, and state funding supports the maintenance, restoration and archeology, or
(b) a working Catholic Church [like Mission Dolores in San Francisco], where Mass is said, and the Catholic Church (i.e., the folks) should support the maintenance, restoration and archeology.
These categories should not be mixed, IMHO.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Aug 21, 2006 3:58:28 PM
I'm with Tim Ferguson, i.e., the Church should not be seeking government funds or subsidies or tax monies to take care of its own.
We here in Michigan went through a campaign a couple of years ago, seeking state funds for Catholic schools. This campaign was ill-advised, and went down in flames, 3 to 1. The bishops of Michigan got a little greedy. As a pastor of a parish with a grade school, I understand that it is my responsibility to lead the Catholic community in valuing Catholic education, and we demonstrate how that is a value by our support. If it is no longer a value, because I have failed to lead, or because I have failed to employ quality teachers and curriculum, then the community will let me know by not supporting the school. We have enough mediocre [or worse] schools being propped up by taxes.
The Church should be responsible for its own properties. And the state, if it is unwilling to help out financially to preserve a part of its history, should butt out altogether. The Church should be free to use the property, e.g., improve, change, sell, etc., as it sees fit, without government intrusion. Another reason why the Church shouldn't accept government funds: the government will tell you how to use those funds.
Posted by: Fr. Brian Stanley at Aug 21, 2006 4:01:15 PM
There would not be a California as we know it without the missions . . .
I think that's the point: It's the history itself that the people of California would like to repudiate, much as many post-Everything Europeans today want to repudiate that continent's Christian heritage.
I have a special fondness for the missions because my wife and I returned to Church (after many, many years' absence) as a result of attending mass at the old mission in San Francisco when we were living in the Bay Area in the late '90s. We so loved the missions that we were shocked to read (in the SF Chronicle, I believe) a piece advocating their destruction because of the supposedly terrible legacy they represented--i.e., the end of indigenous "culture" and the importation of Europeans and their hateful Catholic Christianity.
I don't know how many Californians feel that way, but I'll bet it is a very sizable minority and maybe even a majority. Remember, these are the people who voted recently that they don't even care to be told when their minor children are having abortions.
Posted by: ron chandonia at Aug 21, 2006 4:39:25 PM
Bender - I think we're agreeing; in a chicken-and-egg sort of way, though. One way we can (hopefully) get the government to stop the confiscatory taxation we have (and the People's Republic of California is in the same category as Taxachussetts on that!) is to limit the programs that the government gets involved in. The goal is less taxation and less intrusion - the solution is double-edged: we need to insist on lower taxes, and we need to say no when the government tries to "sponsor" yet another initiative, no matter how beneficial that initiative may seem.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Aug 21, 2006 4:41:05 PM
The National Park Service (90th birthday on Friday, btw) has an operating agreement with four parishes in San Antonio, TX, where they/the feddle gummint own the land and the exterior of the buildings, and the internal half of the walls and interior are the custody of the parishes/diocese. These are the other four missions of San Antonio, the fifth, known to some as The Alamo, is desacralized as i understand it, and is owned by some private "Daughters of Texas" group akin to the private foundation that owns Mount Vernon in Alexandria.
Anyhow, the point is that it can be done if the parties involved want it to work. The park rangers point out the nature of the operating agreements as part of their guided interpretation and on static signage and bulletin boards, and when there are services, visitors are alerted but parishoners know that there may be the odd rude shutterbug and handle it better than i would in their shoes, actually.
Government involvement: sometimes, involvement is just involvement. Of course, in California . . .
Midwesternly,
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff at Aug 21, 2006 4:42:01 PM
Thanks Tim - they even take PayPal!
Posted by: Kasia at Aug 21, 2006 5:09:09 PM
"There would not be a California as we know it without the missions."
This statement is 95% wrong.
I say that as a person related to the California missionaries (well, the military and Indian missionaries, not the priests).
The missions were a (short term) device of the Spanish government. Mexico, when independent, cut off all support for the Missions. By the time of Mexican independence, California still had a population under 50,000, most of that Indian.
The Missions were totally irrelevant to (Anglo-American) California from 1850-1920, when most of "California as we know it" was formed, and, by the end of which time, most of the missions were little more than ruins.
Most of the "who's who" of early American California were Episcopaleans or other Protestants (and quite a few Mormons, too), and they were into land, development, banking, railroads, business, etc. No interest at all in the rubble left by the "lazy" earlier Spanish settlers that failed to develop this land.
It would be more accurate to say that "there would not be a California as we know it without the railroad."
Posted by: Old Zhou at Aug 21, 2006 5:24:32 PM
"It would be more accurate to say that "there would not be a California as we know it without the railroad.""
So the railroads are to blame!
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Aug 21, 2006 5:27:00 PM
A great deal of state funding is dedicated to the upkeep of centuries-old churches in Europe.
I would hope those leaning towards the libertarian position also oppose funding Caesarist monuments to past presidents.
The libertarian option will probably come at the cost of the collapse of historical church buildings. Poor dioceses already have to choose between serving the present laity and preserving the contributions of past Catholics for the flock of the future. Remember, universality extends through time as well as space.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Aug 21, 2006 5:39:25 PM
Speaking as a Canadian and having no direct or indirect interest (i.e. no business commenting), maybe the mission churches should be equally bull-headed. Announce plans to tear down the old, crumbling, outmoded buildings and replace them with modern(ist) structures more suited to the needs of contemporary Californian Catholics. When the screams of anguish erupt from historical preservation fans, they can be told to butt out and mind their own business -- separation of church and state etc.
At that point some wise person can point out that there is no endorsement of religion in preserving the history of a place and its founding time.
Pax et bonum
Mac in Alberta
Posted by: Mac in Alberta at Aug 21, 2006 5:57:18 PM
Mac...they already did something like that replacing the late 18th century St. Vibiana Cathedral in Los Angeles with...well, you know.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles/lawalk/civic/vib.html
http://www.preservela.com/archives/000714.html
St. Vibiana's Cathedral at 114 East 2nd Street in the heart of downtown Los Angeles has been in the news recently. Tom Gilmore, the renowned downtown developer who stepped in to save the threatened landmark, and the Los Angeles Conservancy celebrated the grand re-opening of the historic cathredral as a performing arts center with a gala fundraiser on November 12, 2005. The celebration marked 10 years since the landmark ecclesiastical structure was closed due to severe earthquake damage.Dedicated in 1876, St. Vibiana's Catholic Cathedral is one of Los Angeles' last and most important 19th century structures. Designed by architect Ezra Kysor, plans to construct a cathedral for Los Angeles began as early as 1859 using land donated to the Church by Amiel Cavalier. The edifice was completed in 1880 at a cost of approximately $80,000. Pope Pius IX chose the Cathedral's name, selecting St. Vibiana, who was a 3rd century martyr.
The cathedral has been closed since May 1995 because of damage sustained during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The recent grand re-opening celebration follows a long effort to save the historic building. In 1996, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles began demolishing the structure, starting with the bell tower, to make way for a new facility. The Los Angeles Conservancy opposed the demolition and proved successful in two lawsuits that stopped the demolition.
St. Vibiana's was listed on the National Trust for Historic Preservation's 11 Most Endangered Places list in 1997. The property has since been purchased by developer Tom Gilmore and successfully rehabilitated as a performing arts complex anchored by Cal State Los Angeles. The rehabilitation included a seismic retrofit to help protect the cathedral from future earthquake damage.
No more Mass at the Cathedaral.
A new $195 million cathedral, Our Lady of the Angels, eventually was built elsewhere.The archdiocese approves of the St. Vibiana's renovation and even loaned the arts center six Art Deco chandeliers that once graced the old cathedral.
"Church law requires that former churches be used for a dignified purpose," said Tod Tamberg, a spokesman for the archdiocese. "It's really a wonderful second life for the former cathedral," he added.
Work remains on the cathedral. A second phase, expected to be completed next year, includes renovating the bell tower and opening a restaurant in the former rectory.
One or the other.
Either a functioning Church with sacraments, or a historic, cultural or commercial center.
One or the other.
With appropriate support.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Aug 21, 2006 6:08:58 PM
More about St. Vibiana Cathedral's "reincarnation" as Vibiana Place:
No longer a cathedral, the rechristened Vibiana Place is a location for private events and, hopefully, for performing arts programming. On reopening night, arranged for the Conservancy's annual fundraiser, the courtyard was lovely, and the remarkable interior space was comfortable with overstuffed chairs and sofas. There was plenty of room for large linen-covered tables to serve as food stations encircling the belly of the former cathedral. The interior was painted white. A sizeable bar dominated the center of the room. A cheery little band played on what is now the stage. People relaxed and chatted, drinks and food in hand, in the former choir loft. The 125-year-old pews had been sold to a Korean church and removed, the organ is gone and St. Vibiana's literal bones have long since been carefully placed in the new Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. ...
(Source).
So, if they can do that to the Cathedral in the largest city in California, I hate to think about what secular, cultural "preservationists" who join hands with Catholic "litugists" would do to the Missions!
Posted by: Old Zhou at Aug 21, 2006 6:18:11 PM
What the Church did with the St. Vibiana Cathedral is a minor tragedy, one akin to the way the Church has let some of the Franciscan missions in California go to ruin. It is hard to understand why the Church in California has so little regard for its heritage.
Posted by: Dan at Aug 21, 2006 7:17:16 PM
I happen to agree that the state should not pay for repairs in Church-owned property. As government goes, next they'll require equitable use of the building by all, from wiccas to orgiastic pagan gays and lesbians.
Posted by: Augustine at Aug 21, 2006 7:30:16 PM
While we're raising money, how about we send some to the Duomo in Italy? Maybe then they can stop renting their walls out for Madonna ads...
Posted by: Kasia at Aug 21, 2006 8:27:45 PM
