Access Denied SSPX

[paramedicgirl]

Just a little note here regarding ownership of the Missions…etc. I know for a fact that Mission San Jose is not just a “Mission” but is an active Catholic Parish which has it’s own Mass and Pastor. So it isn’t as if these are just empty buildings, at least some of them are actual living Churches. So the question is not about “federal parks” vs. “Diocese owned buildings”. Rather the question is whether a Bishop should let a group perform a public prayer service in a Catholic Church. I think the answer would have been the same if a group of parishoners asked to hold a TLM Mass in one of the Missions.

I’m tryin’ ta think but nothin’ happens!

Love your sig!!

 

[DallasCatholic]

Love your sig!!

Thanks, Curly was always my favorite stooge.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Thanks for explaining. Are you saying that the SSPX is not affiliated with Rome? I thought they were considered an internal matter of the Church, not in perfect communion with Rome, but not totally disconnected.

They are in limbo. The policy seems to be to keep them excommunicated but not quite. Which is fair enough.

 

[paramedicgirl]

They are in limbo. The policy seems to be to keep them excommunicated but not quite. Which is fair enough.

Oh, I understand the position the SSPX is in. I have read enough about them and have family members who go to their chapels. I was just curious why Loy used the language (s)he did when (s)he said they weren’t affiliated with Rome.

 

[rlg94086]

They are in limbo. The policy seems to be to keep them excommunicated but not quite. Which is fair enough.

Limbo? Oh no…not another Limbo thread.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m not sure if you understand that a Spanish mission encompass more than just a chapel. A mission is a compound of buildings that includes not only a chapel, but everything else a community might need, such as residences, a mill, a bakery, stables, etc. The Archdiocese only owns the chapels, a few other buildings and some of the grounds inside the mission. Having private property within the boundaries of a U.S. Park does not relinquish the owner’s rights. The Archbishop administers the chapels, not the U.S. Government. The fact that the Archbishop owns land inside a federal park does not make him an agent of the U.S. Government. Consequently, the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the Archbishop from discriminating as to who may worship inside the chapels.

Everyone is in agreement that the pilgrims should not have been denied access to the parks because of their religious affiliation or status. But that doesn’t give everyone the right to go anywhere they want inside the parks. The chapels remain the private property of the Archdiocese, and anyone who enters the chapels must abide by the conditions that are set by the Archdiocese.

Hopefully the misunderstandings will be corrected without the usual American custom of filing lawsuits.

---

All it may take is writing to the National Parks Service --to find out the exact arrangement that was made with the diocese. Whether the diocese retains the right to impede a person or a group of persons from entering the Chapels to pray. From the information provided prior–it seems that the Missions—including the Chapels are being funded in part by both federal and state money and are being run by the National Parks Service.

 

[Walking_Home]

That’s not what I meant. If the Archdiocese were to generally allow the SSPX to conduct liturgies in the chapels, then it would send out a signal that other groups not affiliated with Rome may worship there, too.

---

Last I heard Loy—the SSPX are Catholic. I do not believe either JPII or our current Pope Benedict XVI—ever stated that they are not.

 

[Loy]

All it may take is writing to the National Parks Service --to find out the exact arrangement that was made with the diocese. Whether the diocese retains the right to impede a person or a group of persons from entering the Chapels to pray.

It would appear that the SSPX and the laity assisting the SSPX do not question the Archbishop’s rights concerning public worship in the chapels. The question isn’t whether the Archbishop controls the chapels, but why the Park Rangers completely locked out the pilgrims and why he said that they weren’t Catholic.

From the information provided prior–it seems that the Missions—including the Chapels are being funded in part by both federal and state money and are being run by the National Parks Service.

I couldn’t find anything at the NPS website saying that the chapels were funded in part by either the state or the federal government. Nor was there anything saying that the chapels are run by the NPS.

I did, however find a statement saying that anyone who desired to marry would need to make arrangements with the Catholic Church.

 

[Walking_Home]

It would appear that the SSPX and the laity assisting the SSPX do not question the Archbishop’s rights concerning public worship in the chapels. The question isn’t whether the Archbishop controls the chapels, but why the Park Rangers completely locked out the pilgrims and why he said that they weren’t Catholic.

I couldn’t find anything at the NPS website saying that the chapels were funded in part by either the state or the federal government. Nor was there anything saying that the chapels are run by the NPS.

---

You may have missed it.

nps.gov/archive/saan/strategicplan/aboutthispark.htm

The National Park System preserves outstanding representatives of the best of America’s natural, cultural, and recreational resources of national significance. These resources constitute a significant part of America’s heritage, character, and future. Along with similar resources of local, state, tribal, and national significance administered by other public and private organizations and supported by National Park Service technical assistance and grant funding support, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park is a vital part of America’s national system of parks and other preserved resources. The National Park Service not only directly and indirectly preserves these myriad national treasures; it also makes them available to millions of visitors from throughout the country and the world every year.

nps.gov/archive/saan/strategicplan/stragmission.htm

I. MISSION of the National Park Service at San
Antonio Missions National Historical Park:

The mission of the National Park Service at San Antonio Missions National Historical Park is rooted in and grows from the park’s legislated mandate found in the Act of Congress by PL95-629, and approved on November 10, 1978. Our mission statement is a synthesis of this mandated purpose, plus the park’s primary significance as itemized below.

Legislative Intent

The law creating San Antonio Missions National Historical Park mandated the National Park Service to preserve, restore, and interpret the Spanish Missions of San Antonio, Texas for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans.
Purpose

The Spanish missions of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park and their associated structures and landscapes were dynamic parts of the 18th century Spanish frontier in Texas. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park was established to preserve and restore these keys to our history, and to interpret them to the public.

Mission Statement

                WE PRESERVE, RESTORE, AND PROTECT IN 
                PERPETUITY THE RESOURCES OF SAN ANTONIO 
                MISSIONS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

                WE PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLIC A GREAT 
                UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATION OF THE 
                SPANISH COLONIAL INFLUENCE IN THE NEW 
                WORLD THROUGH INTERPRETATION OF THE 
                HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL VALUES OF 
                THE SAN ANTONIO MISSIONS.

 

[DallasCatholic]

---

You may have missed it.

As I mentioned in a previous post, at least some of the Missions are active Catholic parishes and hold their Mass in the actual mission church. Also the quote that you provide says nothing about the actual churches themselves…which as I understand are owned by the San Antonio Diocese.

 

[Loy]

You may have missed it.

[snipped to comply with posting size limitations]

I saw all of that. Those are all vague statements that don’t necessarily mean that funding is provided for the chapels. There is no mention of chapels or churches.

There are, in addition, statements from NPS that affirm the Church’s control over the chapels.

nps.gov/archive/saan/permits/GUIDE00.DOC
The park receives numerous requests to hold wedding ceremonies and wedding receptions on the Missions grounds. These activities are often requested because of the proximity of historic mission churches, buildings and the grounds themselves. Often the unique ambience of these sites proves to be the principal reason for selecting the park as a site for these types of functions. Of and by itself, this is not a reason that would meet the criteria of what constitutes an appropriate park use as defined by National Park Service policies and guidelines. Weddings and other religious ceremonies traditionally held within a particular Mission church are generally allowed by the respective churches provided they do not have an adverse impact on the church or park’s resources. Request for wedding ceremonies inside one of the Mission churches must be arranged directly with the individual Mission parish. On the other hand, wedding receptions can be held in a number of venues outside the park, and thus would not be an approved use. The exception to this is for registered members of the Mission parishes who have historically and traditionally used the Mission facilities and grounds for their wedding ceremonies and celebrations. nps.gov/archive/saan/programs/planning.doc
The mission churches are still active parishes and sometimes are closed to visitors during funerals and weddings. Please respect parishioners’ wishes by remaining outside until the service is through. The 12 noon mass at Mission San José is a “Mariachi Mass” which is very popular with local parishioners and the visiting public. If you want to attend, plan on arriving early since the doors close once the seats are filled. (My emphasis is added.) Of particular significance is the phrase, “provided they do not have an adverse impact on the church or park’s resources”.

Not mentioned on the NPS website are some mission buildings owned by the Archdiocese that are off-limits to the general public at all times, such as buildings that are used as rectories and others that are used to store church property.

I would, however, point out a minor error in the NPS’s statement. Not all of them are parishes. The chapel at Mission Concepción belongs to the nearby parish of St. Cecilia.

 

[Loy]

---

Last I heard Loy—the SSPX are Catholic. I do not believe either JPII or our current Pope Benedict XVI—ever stated that they are not.

I wasn’t talking about their beliefs; I was discussing their canonical status, which appears to be in limbo as another poster stated.

By way of comparison, the Church does not allow a Catholic to marry while She investigates whether a prior marriage was valid or not. As long as the priestly faculties of the SSPX are in question, the Church is well within her rights to deny them the right to lead public liturgies.

 

[BobP123]

I saw all of that. Those are all vague statements that don’t necessarily mean that funding is provided for the chapels. There is no mention of chapels or churches.

The question is whether this property and/or the small amount of land belongs to the diocese or not. If it’s not, then the Archbishop has overextended his authority, plain and simple.

The public does not bestow any gifts upon the diocese. Private ownership would be a different story.

 

[Walking_Home]

As I mentioned in a previous post, at least some of the Missions are active Catholic parishes and hold their Mass in the actual mission church. Also the quote that you provide says nothing about the actual churches themselves…which as I understand are owned by the San Antonio Diocese.

---

While the diocese maintains ownership—it is the NPS that manages and runs the Missions.

doi.gov/museum/FAC/preliminary_program.htm

Partnership, Collaboration, and Creative Management: An Example from San Antonio Missions National Historical Park

• Paper 1: Administrative History

Steve Whitesell, Superintendent, and Susan Snow, Archeologist, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park

San Antonio Missions National Historical Park was established by act of Congress in November 1978. By 1983 the National Park Service had begun to manage Mission San Jose, Mission Concepcion, Mission San Juan and Mission Espada. In 1990 Rancho de las Cabras, historically associated with the missions, was included in a boundary adjustment. The San Antonio Conservation Society, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and the Archdiocese of San Antonio variously ran the missions before NPS management. These administrative changes have had significant effects on the use, control, and responsibility of the artifact collections from these sites.

** Paper 3: Ownership Issues

Steve Whitesell, Superintendent, and Susan Snow, Archeologist, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park
Susan Snow, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park

The complexity of ownership and management responsibilities for the San Antonio Missions allows for creative custodianship of the standing structures and the collections derived from excavations at these sites. Although the Archdiocese of San Antonio maintains ownership of the working churches at all four mission sites and retains ownership of the three mission sites, the management of these lands and their resources falls to the NPS. Other stakeholders in the missions, such as the San Antonio Conservation Society, the Texas Historical Commission, and the Los Compadres Friends group, provide (name removed by moderator)ut and guidance on the interpretation and protection of these sites.

 

[Loy]

I think the answer would have been the same if a group of parishoners asked to hold a TLM Mass in one of the Missions.

It would be very surprising to me if a significant number of, for example, San José’s parishioners were to request the TLM. But if they did, Archbishop Gómez has shown a willingness to make the TLM more widely available beyond the current indult Mass celebrated at St. Maximillian Kolbe chapel.

 

[Walking_Home]

The following explains a form of state funding to the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park.

tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TN/content/htm/tn.007.00.000504.00.htm

§ 504.634. SAN ANTONIO MISSIONS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK LICENSE PLATES.

(a) The department shall issue San Antonio
Missions National Historical Park specialty license plates. The
department shall design the license plates in consultation with Los
Compadres de San Antonio Missions National Historical Park.
(b) After deduction of the department’s administrative
costs, the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of
Los Compadres de San Antonio Missions National Historical Park
account in the state treasury. Money in the account may be used
only by the Texas Historical Commission in making grants to Los
Compadres de San Antonio Missions National Historical Park to be
used for the purpose of the preservation and rehabilitation of the
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park.

 

[Loy]

The question is whether this property and/or the small amount of land belongs to the diocese or not.

If you don’t believe what I and others have said, the deeds and cooperating agreements are all public records. I don’t mind being corrected when I’m mistaken.

If it’s not, then the Archbishop has overextended his authority, plain and simple.

Hypothetically speaking, how? If, for example, the chapels had been leased to the Archdiocese, he would have still been within his rights.

The public does not bestow any gifts upon the diocese.

Take into consideration that private citizens and private entities may receive government grants for historic preservation. I’m not certain whether or not that is being done with regard to the exterior or interior of the mission chapels. All I’m saying is that the NPS website does not explicitly say this is being done. The NPS website does, however, confirm that parishes (and by implication the Archbishop) has control over liturgies conducted at the mission chapels. Apparently the SSPX pastors in San Antonio have been in agreement with this.

 

[Loy]

While the diocese maintains ownership—it is the NPS that manages and runs the Missions.

doi.gov/museum/FAC/preliminary_program.htm

Partnership, Collaboration, and Creative Management: An Example from San Antonio Missions National Historical Park

• Paper 1: Administrative History

Steve Whitesell, Superintendent, and Susan Snow, Archeologist, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park

San Antonio Missions National Historical Park was established by act of Congress in November 1978. By 1983 the National Park Service had begun to manage Mission San Jose, Mission Concepcion, Mission San Juan and Mission Espada. In 1990 Rancho de las Cabras, historically associated with the missions, was included in a boundary adjustment. The San Antonio Conservation Society, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and the Archdiocese of San Antonio variously ran the missions before NPS management. These administrative changes have had significant effects on the use, control, and responsibility of the artifact collections from these sites.

None of those statements contradict the fact that the Archiocese currently controls the use of the chapels.

 

[Walking_Home]

None of those statements contradict the fact that the Archiocese currently controls the use of the chapels.

---

Considering that the “control” is to be within the context of the management by the National Parks Service—it does make a difference if the diocese is over-extending its control.

 

[Loy]

Although the Archdiocese of San Antonio maintains ownership of the working churches at all four mission sites and retains ownership of the three mission sites, the management of these lands and their resources falls to the NPS.

That is a very poorly worded sentence. There is some confusion because it is unclear from the wording whether the authors meant “these lands” in reference to “working churches … and … three mission sites” or rather if they simply meant the “three mission sites”.

Regardless, from the context of the descriptions of the papers it is clear that the authors are using the word “management” with regard to the preservation of historical artifacts. The article does not discuss control over the functional use of the facilities.

I must admit I’m surprised at the statement that the Church continues to own three of the four mission sites, however. If that statement is true, this is the first time I’ver ever heard of it. It wouldn’t bother me if the Church turned over control over the use of the mission property outside of the chapels to the U.S. government. That is in everybody’s best interest.

But the Archdiocese hasn’t turned over control over the use of the chapels to the NPS.