Fight to Preserve Ocean Hill Church
A big preservation struggle is coming to a head out in Ocean Hill, reports The Brooklyn Eagle, where a group of Italian Americans is fighting to prevent the Catholic Diocese from tearing down the beautiful Our Lady of Loreto Church; the neighborhood, which was predominantly Italian from the 1880s to 1970s, is now one of…
A big preservation struggle is coming to a head out in Ocean Hill, reports The Brooklyn Eagle, where a group of Italian Americans is fighting to prevent the Catholic Diocese from tearing down the beautiful Our Lady of Loreto Church; the neighborhood, which was predominantly Italian from the 1880s to 1970s, is now one of the poorest in the borough. The preservationist group Save Our Lady of Loreto has rallied the support of Sen. Diane Savino (D-Bay Ridge/Staten Island), Borough President Marty Markowitz, and Assemblyman William Boyland. The church was determined to be eligible in 2009 to be listed on the National Register of Historic Sites by the New York State Office of Historic Preservation and The New York Landmarks Conservancy has called the church historically significant: It’s one of the first examples of a Catholic church built in a igh Italian baroque style as well as one of the first instances of concrete construction being used in an artistic way. The Diocese argues that restoring the church would be prohibitively expensive. It’s a question of where we’re going to put our resources,” said Msgr. Kieran Harrington. Plus, the preservation effort is being led by people who do not live in the community and did not support the church when it was open, he says. Instead, the Diocese said it wants to tear the church down and build affordable housing, despite the fact that the preservationists along with the Conservancy has come up with an alternate plan for affordable housing nearby. Very sad.
Preservationists Seek To Save Historically Italian-American Church [Brooklyn Eagle]
Photo from the Bridge and Tunnel Club
I don’t see where Bxgrl showed massive dislike for the RC Church. A criticism of policy is not dislike of an entire group or faith or organization. Most of her post was questioning the hierarchy of church decision making, as well as pointing out the rise of the Church in Africa. She also praised and recommended St. Gregory’s Church in CHN, hardly something someone who hated the entire RC institution would do.
More importantly, it seems that selling the church building would be the best way to go, taking the rather extremes of both sides out of the equation, ie: the church’s congregants are gone, and are not coming back. The building should therefore be torn down. There is a happy medium, potentially. Sell the building to those who would seek to restore and repurpose it in some way.
benson- again deciding you know my thinking. I think its a legitimate question to wonder why the diocese would rather take a destructive stance on this issue rather than find an alternative. And I think the community has a right to speak out- don’t churches benefit from the infrastructure and amenities our taxes pay for? Yet they pay none. Don’t start with the you’re anti-Catholic- I’m not. I am questioning how they function business-wise.
slopefarm- one of my earliest posts was about how the building could be repurposed. I don’t expect them to keep it up or preserve it but I question why they don’t sell it and build elsewhere. But people seem to be focusing on misreading my remarks.
The “eye candy” holds and defines the people, Benson. Pride of place, whether that place is built by one’s own group, or bought at auction, helps to define who we are, and our houses of worship are one way we define ourselves.
If people are leaving religious or civic organizations in droves, it’s due in great part to those institutions not meeting their needs, whether spritually, socially or otherwise. It is up to those institutions to either change, or reach out better with their message, or shrivel away. You can’t blame people for not joining with, or staying with groups that do not adapt with the times. That does not mean losing your core beliefs as an organization, either, but that is a whole other discussion.
We see over and over again in history that societies that abandon creativity and beauty for utilitarianism and drabness do not thrive. The beauty of an old church, whether used as such, or repurposed as housings, a community center, or something else, should be celebrated, and preserved. It’s much more to a community, especially this one, than mere “eye candy”.
ncarty- again- not missing the point, and not going off on anything. i am asking questins-why is the congregation gone? You seem to be taking this a little personally, but my point is why did this happen, and more importantly, why not sell the building and then take the money to build elsewhere? Don’t make a big fight out of this over semantics.
Bxgrl;
I see no need to defend the RC Church against your obvious dislike for its doctrine. It’s a free country. Don’t like what they’re doing? Don’t attend their services.
Much as I tend to favor trying to preserve beautiful old buildings, benson and jester have a strong point to make. Bx, I think the diocese has to appoint a msgr to the building even if there is no real congregation anymore (not that anyone should be looking to me for an understanding of teh workings of the Catholic Church). The neighborhood changed and there’s apparently not much call for a catholic church. The diocese is in financial straits, and the property would likely sell more if it could be developed. A proposal to renovate and repurpose the church is the fair way to save it but the money has to come from somewhere. Expecting the diocese to preserve it is, perhaps in the truest sense, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
This is an unusually insightful and well-balanced discussion, and Ms. Morris says it best: Repurpose the building, as would be demanded in a “better” neighborhood. It is sad, if you are a big RC wonk as I am, to see the Catholic church downsizing so brutally, and always with a tin ear to PR and the feelings of the remaining community; but in this case, Kieran Harrington hits it brutally on the mark when he points out that the preservation-minded here are EX-parishioners. Unspoken truth: These folks fled the neighborhood years ago, and are outraged that the church built by their urban ancestors could be torn down so that their nostalgic past will become erased. If you want to guarantee that the church with granma’s stained-glass window will thrive, dears, then stay in Brooklyn instead of moving to the Island, Jersey, or Florida. And yes, the diocese is in horrendous financial shape; the myth of the Church’s deep pockets is just that. It would also be sad to see an Italian baroque community center, condo, or (if you’re Catholic) other denomination church move in, but at least it would preserve the community’s architectural wealth.
Newsflash for benson- I don’t think Brooklyn and NYC are the world. Not by a long stretch. As for “white ethnic” RC’s, I am not interested in what color a Roman Catholic- or anyone else is for that matter. I am talking about numbers only and the point is in NYC for the church to be losing population speaks more to a lack on the part of the Chruch to remain relelvant in communities. Yet in certain African countries, it is having its greatest growth (@ 3+%). Countries that are much more religiously rigid than the US. Which again goes to the Vatican having a tin ear. It becomes more conservative and plays to the more fundamentalist believers.
And aren’t dioceses answerable to the Vatican, ultimately? Is the Pope the head of the Church? Or does the Vatican only take responsibility for issuing edicts with no care for the congregants that make up the diocese?
another thing to note is that most people who attend church and religious services do it online from the comfort of their own home these days.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at February 17, 2010 11:18 AM
WRONG