Last week, parishioners at Springfield's Our Lady of Hope church marked a sad moment: the final mass in their Armory Street church, which was built 85 years ago by the Irish immigrants who settled in the Hungry Hill neighborhood, and from whom many of the current members are descended.
Our Lady of Hope's members are not alone in marking this unhappy milestone. Last summer, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield announced that it will be closing or consolidating parishes across Western Massachusetts in response to declining numbers of both priests and church members. (The church has also felt considerable financial strain in recent years due to settlements paid to victims in the sex-abuse crisis.)
Their deep sadness over the loss of their church community notwithstanding, Our Lady of Hope's parishioners may find some consolation in an eleventh-hour protection granted to the church building itself.
At its Dec. 29 meeting, the Springfield City Council granted final approval to a proposal, already approved by the city's Historical Commission, to declare Our Lady of Hope an historic district. That designation means that the owner can neither demolish the building nor make changes to its exterior without the permission of the Historical Commission—important protections in the eyes of those who worry about the diocese selling the church to a developer who would knock it down and rebuild on the site.
But whatever comfort church members might find in that City Council vote is limited at best. The diocese strongly objects to the creation of historic districts at churches, which its lawyer argues violates the constitutional right to free exercise of religion.
"We were extremely disappointed with the City Council's hasty action on Dec. 28—one taken without the benefit of sound legal guidance which certainly would have been the most prudent step," diocese spokesman Mark Dupont said the day after the vote. "We will consider taking corrective legal action in this matter."
*
The effort to designate Our Lady of Hope an historic district began shortly after the August announcement that the church was to merge with St. Mary's Church in East Springfield. The newly created parish, called St. Mary Mother of Hope, will be at St. Mary's church on Page Boulevard. A similar effort is underway at Immaculate Conception Church in Indian Orchard, where parishioners are also filing an appeal of the diocese's closure decision. (See "Praying for Salvation," Oct. 22, 2009) The Historical Commission is due to vote on the Immaculate Conception proposal on Jan. 7.
In both cases, supporters are anxious to see architecturally and culturally significant parts of their community—Our Lady of Hope's Italian Renaissance-style structure; Immaculate Conception's Tudor church, built in 1904—remain standing and unchanged.
In particular, they worry that the diocese might sell the properties to developers who will raze the buildings and throw up chain drugstores or other commercial buildings.
The diocese has repeatedly said that no plans have yet been made for reuse of any of the closed churches.
"We make every effort to work with local communities to see if there is a use that is compatible with that city or town," Dupont told the Advocate last fall. He points to 11 former church properties around the diocese that have successfully redeveloped into, for example, an artisan gallery, affordable housing and other church uses.
The restrictions created by a historic district, however, will make it very difficult to attract potential developers, Dupont warned.
Prior to the Dec. 28 meeting, Jack Egan, the diocese's attorney, sent a strongly worded letter to city councilors, warning that creating an historic district for churches "runs afoul" of the religious protections guaranteed by the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions.
Egan's letter pointed to a 1990 decision by the Supreme Judicial Court that found that it was unconstitutional for a Boston historic commission to grant historic protection to the interior of a Catholic church there. (While the Springfield designation applies only to the outside of buildings, Egan contends the precedent is still valid.)
"My client cannot concede to government any rights over [its church's] religious symbols," Egan wrote. "Can you imagine anything more constitutionally offensive than an agency of City government purporting to exercise any control over whether or not a religion chooses to place or remove crosses from a structure?"
Egan also described the new district as "spot regulation" that puts restrictions on the church building but leaves the surrounding neighborhood unregulated.
Dupont told the Advocate that the historic district would hurt the members of the new Mary Mother of Hope parish. Funds remaining from Our Lady of Hope should go to help support the new parish, he said; with the creation of the historic district, "the remaining funds from Our Lady of Hope will be needed to maintain this property indefinitely, as well as any legal fees which might arise."
*
Ralph Slate, chair of the Historical Commission, disagrees with Egan's assertion that his board's decision violates the church's rights.
"Restrictions on the exterior of the building governing its appearance generally have no bearing on what happens in the interior of the building, where the religious expression occurs," he said. "Plus, in the case of Our Lady of Hope, since the building is closing and will be deconsecrated, it will not even be a religious building anymore.
"Single-property districts are explicitly allowed by state law, and I think this is a perfect use for that—when you have a property that is very historically significant, but is not within a cluster of other significant properties," he added.
Finding new uses that preserve the architectural details of a church may not be easy, Slate said, but they're far from impossible; for example, he points to his alma mater's computing center, "a converted Catholic chapel complete with intact stained glass windows."
Slate objects to the notion that the SHC is intervening in church business.
"In my mind, the decisions [about closures] have been made; what remains is the disposal of the properties," he said. "Our interest lies in making sure that all attempts are made to preserve these historic structures once they are no longer needed by the Springfield Diocese. We want attempts to be made to preserve the structures versus perhaps more expedient paths which would lead to their demolition….
"Churches are among the most historic structures out there. They are high profile, prominently placed, with incredible and irreplaceable architecture," Slate continued. "They are interwoven into the fabric of history of the city of Springfield. I can't fathom a policy that would exclude them from preservation."
