Access Denied SSPX

[DallasCatholic]

---

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.

Walking,
Have you been to any of the missions? I see that you are in Texas which is why I am asking. If you have you will know that, again using San Jose as an example, the actual Church is only one building among many on the site. The Diocese controls the actual church building at San Jose because it is an active parish. The Diocese does not control the church building of the mission San Antonio de Valero (the Alamo) because it is not an active parish. It is very easy to see why many can become confused. Some of the Missions are active parishes that hold Mass in the church buildings on the park property while some of the missions are wholly owned/managed by NPS.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking,
Have you been to any of the missions? I see that you are in Texas which is why I am asking. If you have you will know that, again using San Jose as an example, the actual Church is only one building among many on the site. The Diocese controls the actual church building at San Jose because it is an active parish. The Diocese does not control the church building of the mission San Antonio de Valero (the Alamo) because it is not an active parish. It is very easy to see why many can become confused. Some of the Missions are active parishes that hold Mass in the church buildings on the park property while some of the missions are wholly owned/managed by NPS.

---

If you re-read the info provided—you will see that there is no distinction being made between the active chapels and any other structure that falls within the San Antonio Missions National Park—which is manage by the National Parks Service.

 

[Loy]

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.

That sentence only stated that NPS manages the parks, not the use of the chapels.

Here’s another example. The Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park contains the residence of the presdent’s widow, Lady Bird. She decides who can come into her house and when. Anyone who’s ever been to the park will tell you that it’s pretty rare for a tour to go into the house.

There is a lot of cooperation between the NPS and the parishes. The parishes want to make the chapels available for the public to see. Whenever there is a parish function, the NPS does not restrict the parishioners from coming onto the park and they use the Park’s parking lot. The Park Rangers open up the gates after dark for Easter Vigil Mass.

I can assure you that when the cooperating agreements were drafted and signed, the lawyers who represented the Archdiocese were extremely competent, and they didn’t leave open any loopholes for the Church to lose control over the chapels. And the cooperating agreements are, of course, public record.

 

[Loy]

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.

But I’m not sure whether any of this money goes to the restoration of the chapels or not. I’m certain that it doesn’t go towards purchase of altar wine, communion wafers, vestments or candles.

The State of Texas also issues specialty plates for religious universities like Texas Christian University and St. Mary’s University, and the schools get a cut of the money raised from the sale of those license plates as well.

Newdow’s Nitpickers may sue over all this one of these days, but I don’t see how this fundraising technique would cause the Church to lose control over the chapels.

 

[DallasCatholic]

---

If you re-read the info provided—you will see that there is no distinction being made between the active chapels and any other structure that falls within the San Antonio Missions National Park—which is manage by the National Parks Service.

Actually, if you re-read your own post #73 you will find the following:
"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. "

I also think Loy’s recent posts address the issue very well.

 

[Loy]

If you re-read the info provided—you will see that there is no distinction being made between the active chapels and any other structure that falls within the San Antonio Missions National Park—which is manage by the National Parks Service.

It just seems that you’re possibly reading too much into what was said. Although the NPS manages the parks, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they have absolute control over everything in the park.

For example, a building manager cannot tell one of the tenants to serve or not serve certain customers. That of course is not the perfect analogy, because owners have far greater rights than tenants. But I was using it as an illustration to show the distinction between “manage” and “control”.

 

[BobP123]

The State of Texas also issues specialty plates for religious universities like Texas Christian University and St. Mary’s University, and the schools get a cut of the money raised from the sale of those license plates as well.

There are many schools which are at least partly funded by the state. The state, in return, gets to stipulate who they may admit or reject, what courses they can allow, who can teach there, and so forth. Some schools need this funding to survive so they have no choice but to turn over control to the state.

As far as the OP, If any public money went into those chapels and the Archbishop keeps overstepping his bounds, things could get very ugly for the Church. I hope this doesn’t happen.

 

[DallasCatholic]

There are many schools which are at least partly funded by the state. The state, in return, gets to stipulate who they may admit or reject, what courses they can allow, who can teach there, and so forth. Some schools need this funding to survive so they have no choice but to turn over control to the state.

As far as the OP, If any public money went into those chapels and the Archbishop keeps overstepping his bounds, things could get very ugly for the Church. I hope this doesn’t happen.

How was the Bishop overstepping his bounds? My understanding is that the Bishop told the SSPX group that they could not hold a public prayer service in the Church located on the grounds of one of the missions. The Bishop did not order the Church to be locked, nor did he deny them entry as individuals. It seems as though the Park ranger was the one overstepping in this instance. I can’t see how the Church is in any danger over this incident…other than bad publicity.

 

[Walking_Home]

How was the Bishop overstepping his bounds? My understanding is that the Bishop told the SSPX group that they could not hold a public prayer service in the Church located on the grounds of one of the missions. The Bishop did not order the Church to be locked, nor did he deny them entry as individuals. It seems as though the Park ranger was the one overstepping in this instance. I can’t see how the Church is in any danger over this incident…other than bad publicity.

---

The order to lock the door came from somewhere. I do not believe the park ranger on his own would deny entry and lock the doors. I do not believe either—that the order came NPS.

Quote=Adonis33
The issue many of us had was when the park ranger told us “I understand that there is a group of people who are not catholic coming to this mission - and they are not allowed in.” We looked around and said - there are Baptists coming? (as a disclaimer - nothing against baptist - I think it was the only group that came to mind at the time)

Another issue we had is - although as a group we were denied access (Which I can personally understand) - on this particular day they LOCKED THE DOOR to keep us out. We could always go in individually and make our private intentions. They also locked the door at Mission San Juan to deny access.

 

[Loy]

There are many schools which are at least partly funded by the state. The state, in return, gets to stipulate who they may admit or reject, what courses they can allow, who can teach there, and so forth. Some schools need this funding to survive so they have no choice but to turn over control to the state.

I am familiar with some equal opportunity laws that come into play when schools accept public funds. I don’t think they work exactly the way you describe them, but in general there are certain classes of people who may not be discriminated against in hiring and admission. I don’t think any of those laws guarantee people an equal opportunity to worship on school grounds.

As far as the OP, If any public money went into those chapels and the Archbishop keeps overstepping his bounds, things could get very ugly for the Church. I hope this doesn’t happen.

If you don’t like the Archbishop’s decision, you’re entitled to your opinion. But you’re stating categorically that he has overstepped his bounds. Like DallasCatholic I have to ask, what specifically did he do that was over the line? What did he do that would get him into legal trouble?

 

[Loy]

The order to lock the door came from somewhere. I do not believe the park ranger on his own would deny entry and lock the doors. I do not believe either—that the order came NPS.

I’ve already stated my opinion on this specific issue and now we have yours. But until more facts come to light we’re just exchanging opinions.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
The order to lock the door came from somewhere. I do not believe the park ranger on his own would deny entry and lock the doors. I do not believe either—that the order came NPS.

I’ve already stated my opinion on this specific issue and now we have yours. But until more facts come to light we’re just exchanging opinions.

---

Well—considering that the NPS would be up to its eyeballs in trouble-- if it denied entry to the public based on race or creed–then where else would the decision come from.

 

[DallasCatholic]

---

The order to lock the door came from somewhere. I do not believe the park ranger on his own would deny entry and lock the doors. I do not believe either—that the order came NPS.

Quote=Adonis33
The issue many of us had was when the park ranger told us “I understand that there is a group of people who are not catholic coming to this mission - and they are not allowed in.” We looked around and said - there are Baptists coming? (as a disclaimer - nothing against baptist - I think it was the only group that came to mind at the time)

Another issue we had is - although as a group we were denied access (Which I can personally understand) - on this particular day they LOCKED THE DOOR to keep us out. We could always go in individually and make our private intentions. They also locked the door at Mission San Juan to deny access.

I appreciate your opinion. I personally have seen a ranger in at least one of our national parks decide to close a building to the public even though another ranger was on the radio telling him that he could wait to close the building until lunch time…which was still over an hour and a half away. So I have no trouble believing that a ranger took the initiative to lock the door…if that is indeed what happened. In Adonis’ post he assumes that they locked the door to keep his group out, but he doesn’t state that that was the reason given by the ranger. Maybe the ranger had other reasons, maybe not…as Loy said we are only exchanging opinions at this point…and now you have mine.

 

[Walking_Home]

I appreciate your opinion. I personally have seen a ranger in at least one of our national parks decide to close a building to the public even though another ranger was on the radio telling him that he could wait to close the building until lunch time…which was still over an hour and a half away. So I have no trouble believing that a ranger took the initiative to lock the door…if that is indeed what happened. In Adonis’ post he assumes that they locked the door to keep his group out, but he doesn’t state that that was the reason given by the ranger. Maybe the ranger had other reasons, maybe not…as Loy said we are only exchanging opinions at this point…and now you have mine.

---

There you see—the ranger closed the building to the “public”. Closing the building to the public in general is quite different from closing the building to a group because the group considered “not catholic”.

 

[DallasCatholic]

---

There you see—the ranger closed the building to the “public”. Closing the building to the public in general is quite different from closing the building to a group because the group considered “not catholic”.

The ranger locked the doors. I could say “The ranger locked the doors so that I and the Catholics that were with me couldn’t get into the building.” Wouldn’t make it a true statement. I really can’t see why you are getting so worked up about this, even Adonis seems to think it wasn’t a big deal…and he was there.

 

[Walking_Home]

The ranger locked the doors. I could say “The ranger locked the doors so that I and the Catholics that were with me couldn’t get into the building.” Wouldn’t make it a true statement. I really can’t see why you are getting so worked up about this, even Adonis seems to think it wasn’t a big deal…and he was there.

---

It would not be true----unless you heard the ranger say—a group “not Catholic” was not allowed in. I am not worked worked up----I am just replying to your replies.

 

[DallasCatholic]

---

It would not be true----unless you heard the ranger say—a group “not Catholic” was not allowed in. I am not worked worked up----I am just replying to your replies.

Okay, I was apparently reading a tone into your posts that was not there…my apologies. I was getting ready to ask if you thought 9-11 was an inside job. Thanks for your opinions on this topic.

 

[Walking_Home]

Okay, I was apparently reading a tone into your posts that was not there…my apologies. I was getting ready to ask if you thought 9-11 was an inside job. Thanks for your opinions on this topic.

---

As I thank you for yours.

 

[Loy]

Well—considering that the NPS would be up to its eyeballs in trouble-- if it denied entry to the public based on race or creed–then where else would the decision come from.

There is a problem with that logic. If hypothetically the Archbishop or the Chancery had given an illegal directive, then the NPS would still be up to its eyeballs in trouble for following it.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Well—considering that the NPS would be up to its eyeballs in trouble-- if it denied entry to the public based on race or creed–then where else would the decision come from.

There is a problem with that logic. If hypothetically the Archbishop or the Chancery had given an illegal directive, then the NPS would still be up to its eyeballs in trouble for following it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
The order to lock the door came from somewhere. I do not believe the park ranger on his own would deny entry and lock the doors. I do not believe either—that the order came NPS.

I’ve already stated my opinion on this specific issue and now we have yours. But until more facts come to light we’re just exchanging opinions.​

I had already made reference to that. I was under the impression that the gov’t own the missions—but even though the gov’t does not—the following would still seem to apply. The above was in reference as to where the order to deny admittance and the locking of the doors originated.

Quote=Walking_Home
It would seem there are legal implications involved that extend to the Church (by way of the bishop) and also the federal govt. (by way of the park ranger