parishes closing (Minneapolis: credit, home, wedding)

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by eastside38

I hate to say it, but this post is misinformed in a couple of ways. Maybe you have thought it through and the thought doesn't strike you in the same way as it does for me, but many religions and christian denominations believe in aniconism, or the rejection of religious icons and imagery. While Catholics believe that statues and images of saints, Jesus, and Mary enhance the worship experience, most other Protestant denominations say this is even a violation of the 1st Commandment. So what would happen here is that all of the artwork would be painted or plastered over (see Hagia Sophia) as well as removal of the stained glass, which would probably have biblical imagery on it. If the altar(s) have imagery on them, they would go as well.

As far as the church space changing hands to become a synagogue or mosque, you can kiss pretty much everything within and on the building goodbye, even the pews in the case of a mosque. So as far as keeping traditional Catholic artwork and architecture in their original locations, it isn't good at all.

Finally, I disagree with your last statement. Ideally they should be serving the community that lives close to them in a Catholic manner, just as synagogues and mosques should serve their neighbors in Jewish and Muslim manners, respectively.

You misread me. I am aware that there will be changes to the interior of the churches. Any of the statues can easily go to other parishes, though. It would be uncommon for the new owners (as long as they're Christian) of the church to replace the entire alter, or plaster over the stained glass windows. I've been in churches that clearly used to be Catholic and changed hands and this has not happened. Mosques or synagogues are a whole different beast. But I don't think the Jewish community is looking to open any new synagogues anytime soon.

Basically, I see it as a grain of good in a lousy situation. Yeah, I understand that some things are going to change dramatically about the aesthetics of those churches. But it is better than losing the buildings altogether. And since they are all Church property, the Church gets to make informed decisions about what they become- can even attach stipulations to the contracts before they sell them. The last thing we would want is for them to become liqour stores or something else, because a.) that's sacrelig, and b.) we have plenty of liqour stores in the inner-city as is.

Finally, how would they possibly serve the community that they're in in a "Catholic manner" if the Catholic community doesn't exist in the neighborhood to support that? They might as well be serving other religious people that will actually use them, keep them open, and serve all of the needs that the Catholic Church would have served in the neighborhood had it been viable (i.e., food shelfs, outreach, etc.) Check out Nostra Aetate and tell me what's objectionable about that...

[srsmn]

It would also be rare for the artwork to get painted or plastered over, too-- particularly if the Lutherans, Episcopalians, or Methodists get their hands on them. Side alters will go, sure, since most Protestants don't venerate saints. But again, those statues can all move elsewhere-- the statues are Church property that would be retained in the sale of the church building.

Again, Islamic centers are a whole different deal. But what do you suggest we do about it?

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Yes, they could but is is against the beliefs of the church too and if they don't stand up for what they believe in then what are they teaching their parishioners. I know of a few people, my husband included, that may have become priests if they were allowed to marry but again, it goes against the teaching of the church so that is the choice they make.

Well, it is debatable about whether it goes against Church teaching or not. It goes against Canon Law, but dogmatically, there is little or nothing to suggest that priests can't get married. And in fact, Orthodox (Eastern Rite) priests have been allowed to marry for longer than Catholic priests haven't.

The origin of celibate Catholic priests goes back to the Middle Ages. In that time, since churches and the land that they are on is considered Church property, the churches themselves were passing from the priests to their sons. The sons sometimes assumed the role of priest after their father's died, de facto. Or, they managed the church and its property after their father died and essentially controlled the new priest, since they had inherited the Church property.

The conflict of interest became pretty obvious-- you had priests who weren't actually qualified, and you had priests who were being manipulated by greedy property-owners who treated the church like a cash cow. So, the simple solution was to keep priests celibate, so that the property was never passing on from father to son.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by srsmn

Well, it is debatable about whether it goes against Church teaching or not. It goes against Canon Law, but dogmatically, there is little or nothing to suggest that priests can't get married. And in fact, Orthodox (Eastern Rite) priests have been allowed to marry for longer than Catholic priests haven't.

The origin of celibate Catholic priests goes back to the Middle Ages. In that time, since churches and the land that they are on is considered Church property, the churches themselves were passing from the priests to their sons. The sons sometimes assumed the role of priest after their father's died, de facto. Or, they managed the church and its property after their father died and essentially controlled the new priest, since they had inherited the Church property.

The conflict of interest became pretty obvious-- you had priests who weren't actually qualified, and you had priests who were being manipulated by greedy property-owners who treated the church like a cash cow. So, the simple solution was to keep priests celibate, so that the property was never passing on from father to son.

Actually, priests marrying follows the same lines-the priest was considered the "owner" of the church and if he were married and died, the wife would inherit the church-which is against Cannon law and creates an entirely new set of problems.

[uptown_urbanist]

A particularly relevant link with information and resources for this very issue (although not MN-specific):
Partners for Sacred Places: Home

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Actually, priests marrying follows the same lines-the priest was considered the "owner" of the church and if he were married and died, the wife would inherit the church-which is against Cannon law and creates an entirely new set of problems.

???Isn't that what I just said??? Anyway, it wasn't against Cannon Law until the Church decided to make it against Cannon Law, and that happened loooong after the Church was very established. The Church fathers did not really address this issue extensively, and there's not much biblical evidence to suggest that priests need to be celibate. So, the question remains: if it's not dogmatic (that is, biblical), and it's not serving its purpose anymore, then is it time to change it?

You say that it is going against the "Church's beliefs" to do so, but look at Vatican II and the *multitude* of changes that were made to rules that were not hard and fast dogma-- rules that I would argue are more important than this one.

Personally, I don't care either way. But I don't think it is going to work to say "we'll keep doing it because we always have," because a.) we haven't always done it this way, and b.) that's a silly reason to do anything...

[srsmn]

Actually, golfgal, rereading your post, it looks like you were just trying to draw a distinction between why priests can't marry, and why they need to be celibate. a fine but important distinction, so sorry for the confusion on my end...

[Cruz Azul Guy]

I was raised Catholic. In alot of ways I appreciate the very traditional format in regards to how masses are run, etc. However, when it comes to the church's beliefs I think it is far too stubborn and close-minded. I think if the Church decided to accept things like women's rights, homosexuality, birth control and allowing priests to marry that we wouldn't be having this discussion about closing parishes, priest shortages, decreasing church attendance, etc. Currently I probably disagree with the Catholic Church in more areas than I agree with it which so it's pretty easy to explain why I've been completely disinterested with it for the last 10 years of my life. If nothing else, at least they could stop calling the host and wine the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Come on Catholic Church, that's just silly now.

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by Slig

I was raised Catholic. In alot of ways I appreciate the very traditional format in regards to how masses are run, etc. However, when it comes to the church's beliefs I think it is far too stubborn and close-minded.

People tend to think that the Catechism is set in stone. It's not. In fact, it has changed quite a bit. As the old saying goes, the Catholic Church is slow to change, but when It does, It moves mountains. Think about how much the Church has changed just in the past century. Granted, Vatican II was a*dramatic* set of changes. But the Church has the ability to adapt, and to reinterpret and reevaluate the messages that It sends to Its people. When the time is right, It could very well change some of the things that you don't like about It.

I think if the Church decided to accept things like women's rights, homosexuality, birth control and allowing priests to marry that we wouldn't be having this discussion about closing parishes, priest shortages, decreasing church attendance, etc.

Well, the Church has very recently made changes to policy on birth control, and I agree that the policy needs to change on homosexuality. I never understood how the Catechism can tell us that homosexuals deserve empathy and dignity, and then in the next breath the Church prohibits them from taking Communion....

But what really needs to happen, if and when the Church changes, is changes that do not compromise the fundamental pillars of our faith. I amassuming that "women's rights" refers to abortion? I'm sorry, but that might never change, and it would be rare for you to find a Christian Church where abortion is compatible with the religious message. Abortion is simply viewed as an affront to human dignity....and probably always will be.

If nothing else, at least they could stop calling the host and wine the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Come on Catholic Church, that's just silly now.

Again, this would be a fundamental compromise of what we believe as Catholics. We might as well just be Lutherans if we didn't believe in Transubstantiation...

[golfgal]

The Catholic church is not against homosexuals, it is against the sexual ACT-there is a HUGE difference there. Yes, SOME priests have chosen not to give communion but it isn't that they are against the actual person.