I have to disagreed with you.
Somehow I suspected something of the sort. There were similar issues here when we built our new church building (and the plans do involve bringing down the structure of the old church building, but not immediately). Just from the exterior pictures shown, I could see signs of damage. Building a new church building for an existing parish is a very expensive project that is rather unlikely to be undertaken without some serious reason. (Besides the structure issues in my parish’s old building, the seating was so limited that every Sunday was SRO and holidays like Christmas and Easter had us moving to the school gym. By putting about 150 extra chairs in the new building, we were able to accommodate everyone on those major holidays and have enough room that you don’t have to do the sign of the Cross in synchronization with everyone else in the pew.)
The folks in San Antonio (which at one time was the only archdiocese in Texas) would dispute about what is the mother church of Texas…San Fernando Cathedral is a grand old old old church that pre-dates Texas Independence.
The Church is older, but San Antonio was not a diocese in Texas until 1874 when it was split from the diocese of Galveston. Then San Antonio became the Archdiocese of Texas until recently when Galveston-Houston was changed to an Arch-diocese, splitting Texas.
It actual does make sense. A building might be sound enough for everyday use but not sound enough to sustain any renovation or major repair without compromising the soundness in years ahead. Or it may have a structural problem that is progressive - fine for 5 or 10 more years but prohibitive much beyond that. I am not saying this is the case but these are scenarios that are certainly possible given the few facts we have here.The building is not structurally unsound. The Archdiocese has said the church was “unsound” since early 2000. But they continue holding mass in a “unsound” building until 2008? Does that make any sense? Why would they put people’s lives in danger?
The building does need to be repairs like any other 100 year old, but it is not beyond repair.
Actually, celebrating Mass in a damaged building is not unheard of. Perhaps my diocese’s experience might be relevant here. My diocese has had a structurally unsound cathedral for many years. It was caused by nearby underground tunneling works which caused the foundations to shift. The structural damage was quite evident. The peeling plaster and water leaks were the least of our concerns. What mattered was that the pillars on south end were breaking apart and needed massive wooden beams to hold together. To make matters worse, there was a deep and long fissure running through the roof and ceiling over the sanctuary.I have to disagreed with you.
I have attend this church for over 20 years, so I think I know whats going on.
The building is not structurally unsound. The Archdiocese has said the church was “unsound” since early 2000. But they continue holding mass in a “unsound” building until 2008? Does that make any sense? Why would they put people’s lives in danger?
The building does need to be repairs like any other 100 year old, but it is not beyond repair.
Yes it is true that diocese have done this. However, the Old Sacred Heart is not as bad as the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston is making it out to be. There were no supporting brace like the ones you posted. There were no major cracks anywhere. My father has even been down to the basement and the foundation is fine. This is just an excuse for them to tear down the old and beautiful Co-Cathedral.Actually, celebrating Mass in a damaged building is not unheard of. Perhaps my diocese’s experience might be relevant here. My diocese has had a structurally unsound cathedral for many years. It was caused by nearby underground tunneling works which caused the foundations to shift. The structural damage was quite evident. The peeling plaster and water leaks were the least of our concerns. What mattered was that the pillars on south end were breaking apart and needed massive wooden beams to hold together. To make matters worse, there was a deep and long fissure running through the roof and ceiling over the sanctuary.
The photos below document the kind of despair we felt.
The solution was clear: this cathedral needed to be restored. However, we needed $35 million in order to effect the repairs. It took eight years to raise the first $20 million, and only then could works begin. During these eight years, Masses were celebrated in the cathedral as usual, and the crowds were not discouraged despite the prospect of our mother church caving in upon itself. I remember seeing Good Friday liturgies packed to the point they were overflowing into the surrounding carpark. Therefore, it is entirely possible to use a church even when it is structurally unsound.
You’re probably right but it’s interesting how churches, castles, and other buildings can be sustained in Europe for many, many centuries, while in America the first crack in the wall is cause for demolishing. In the case of sports stadiums, even a crack isn’t necessary.