FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Santa Fe Travesty?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I have visited this shrine many times, even once while the dear Nuns still resided nearby and kept the place up. They, sadly, sold it to a group that has definitely kept it up physically, but now seem on a path to do great desecration to the spirit of the place. I fear any Blessings imparted through the intercession of St. Joseph, may well have been removed some time ago...again with sorrow.



Quote:Link to Original Article

Mailbag: Santa Fe Travesty?
January 27, 2018 by sd
[Image: logoinside-1.gif]

Quote:[You perhaps have heard of it, the staircase at Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where — according to the literature — nuns who operated a convent there began a novena to Saint Joseph, patron of carpenters and builders, when they needed a way to easily traverse up to the choir loft, which previously had been accessed by ladder. Their dilemma was that there was no room for a stairway as normal stairways go. A flurry of carpenters they consulted had said so. According to accounts, on the last day of the novena, a gray-haired man came to the convent with a donkey and a tool chest — basically, a saw, a hammer, and a square. He also needed tubs to soak wood. They gave him the job, and he set about the work on July 25, 1873, taking what is now estimated as six to eight months to complete it. Only wood pegs (no nails) were used. And the result was exquisite. It is to this day preserved in a chapel in Santa Fe, New Mexico (see our article about it). The problem is as stated below in a mailbag item — which we confirmed Monday with the “chapel” itself, which is now in private hands]:

“I have the most tragic news
to tell you!” said the note. “It is the ‘abomination of desolation’ spoken in Daniel and the Book of Revelation. We found out about this abomination yesterday and have been in solemn mourning and will be in penitential mourning till this sacrilege is removed. The Loretto Chapel where St. Joseph built the miraculous stairway for the Sisters of Loretto was sold to pagans who have been using it for homosexual weddings and every other abomination and pagan worship. Millions of people have giving to this miraculous shrine not knowing that it was sold to a couple who then started Loretto Line Tour Company.

When we called to confirm the abominations of same sex marriage and abominable pagan services at the Catholic Shrine they proudly boasted of these sacrilegious rituals. I was told Carol Calvert offers her pagan worship there. We confirmed this when we called the Sante Fe office. They said she offered Druid Services there for 25 years.

We must get back the Loretto Shrine in Catholic hands and prevent any further sacrilege of Holy Churches and Shrines by Bishops and Religious Orders. Let us fight for Our Faith. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!”

[Image: 5596-Plaza_and_Buildings13.jpg]

This is Posted on Sante Fe’s Website: “Weddings: Getting married in the City Different offers the unique opportunity to exchange your vows in a historic wedding chapel with a miraculous staircase or on the site of ancient ruins.Santa Fe is among the world’s most romantic, picturesque, and festive wedding locations. Now, we’re telling the world that we’re an ideal destination for same-sex unions, following the New Mexico Supreme Court declaration of same-sex marriages as constitutional.” https://www.lorettochapel.com/ A stairway now or a whirlpool?

[Image: 3CE9EDA4-155D-E57B-024F958FF4A3EBF9.jpg]
Just more sacrilege.  And Richard Rohr has been invited to speak at a 'theology on tap' in Santa Fe.  No one should hear his form of perverted 'theology'.
It is not sacrilege.

Sacrilege is the intentional sinful violation of a sacred thing. Strictly speaking it only occurs when there is a grave violation of a thing in its sacred character.

If this chapel was sold off to non-Catholics then it must have first been de-sacrilized. To do this the bishop issues a formal decree reducing the building to profane use, thus removing its blessing or consecration. For liceity, but not validity of the decree, the bishop must try to ensure that the place is not used for sordid purposes, to prevent the risk of scandal.

Even if this were not done the offering of the building for public sale would remove the blessing or consecration of the place.

It is sad to see this done to this chapel, and most certainly it is wrong and unbecoming of the place, but it is not sacrilege.

I think one could, however, have a legitimate legal case against the owners for fraud, if they donated and the owners made it seem that it was a Catholic Church and funds raised were going to maintain a Catholic shrine. Perhaps if there were a large Catholic donor who was offended by this news, he could file a legal suit, bankrupt this owner and settle for reclaiming the Church for at least decent use, if not Catholic worship.
(01-30-2018, 03:06 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]It is not sacrilege.

Sacrilege is the intentional sinful violation of a sacred thing. Strictly speaking it only occurs when there is a grave violation of a thing in its sacred character.

If this chapel was sold off to non-Catholics then it must have first been de-sacrilized. To do this the bishop issues a formal decree reducing the building to profane use, thus removing its blessing or consecration. For liceity, but not validity of the decree, the bishop must try to ensure that the place is not used for sordid purposes, to prevent the risk of scandal.

Even if this were not done the offering of the building for public sale would remove the blessing or consecration of the place.

It is sad to see this done to this chapel, and most certainly it is wrong and unbecoming of the place, but it is not sacrilege.

I think one could, however, have a legitimate legal case against the owners for fraud, if they donated and the owners made it seem that it was a Catholic Church and funds raised were going to maintain a Catholic shrine. Perhaps if there were a large Catholic donor who was offended by this news, he could file a legal suit, bankrupt this owner and settle for reclaiming the Church for at least decent use, if not Catholic worship.

Whether sacrilege is involved depends on what happens during the purported pagan ceremonies. 

The chapel is intact and still has its original Stations of the Cross and statues of the Blessed Virgin, Saint Joseph, and the Sacred Heart, not to mention the Staircase. 

Deconsecration of the building would not affect whether sacrilege is being performed against those items. 

I don't know what "pagan services" entail, and I can't say whether sacrilege is involved, but it would not surprise me to learn that some sort of sacrilege does indeed take place.

Further, I don't know details of the transfer, but it doesn't seem likely that there was any fraud involved.  Even if there were, surely the Statute of Limitations has run.  The place was sold nearly half a century ago.

The chapel is well preserved and is now attached to the hotel immediately adjacent.  In order to enter the chapel, a visitor must go through the hotel and pay a small fee.

I wonder why this became a news article at this time.  The chapel was sold decades ago, and the pagan ceremonies have apparently been occurring for many years.

It is an absolute travesty that such a beautiful place was allowed to be sold, but it could be Divine Providence.  Who knows what the archdiocese would have done with it if it still owned it? 

The chapel, even though not owned by the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, is more beautiful and preserved than the cathedral right around the corner, which is owned by the archdiocese.
(02-01-2018, 04:44 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2018, 03:06 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]It is not sacrilege.

Sacrilege is the intentional sinful violation of a sacred thing. Strictly speaking it only occurs when there is a grave violation of a thing in its sacred character.

If this chapel was sold off to non-Catholics then it must have first been de-sacrilized. To do this the bishop issues a formal decree reducing the building to profane use, thus removing its blessing or consecration. For liceity, but not validity of the decree, the bishop must try to ensure that the place is not used for sordid purposes, to prevent the risk of scandal.

Even if this were not done the offering of the building for public sale would remove the blessing or consecration of the place.

It is sad to see this done to this chapel, and most certainly it is wrong and unbecoming of the place, but it is not sacrilege.

I think one could, however, have a legitimate legal case against the owners for fraud, if they donated and the owners made it seem that it was a Catholic Church and funds raised were going to maintain a Catholic shrine. Perhaps if there were a large Catholic donor who was offended by this news, he could file a legal suit, bankrupt this owner and settle for reclaiming the Church for at least decent use, if not Catholic worship.

Whether sacrilege is involved depends on what happens during the purported pagan ceremonies. 

The chapel is intact and still has its original Stations of the Cross and statues of the Blessed Virgin, Saint Joseph, and the Sacred Heart, not to mention the Staircase. 

Deconsecration of the building would not affect whether sacrilege is being performed against those items. 

I don't know what "pagan services" entail, and I can't say whether sacrilege is involved, but it would not surprise me to learn that some sort of sacrilege does indeed take place.

Further, I don't know details of the transfer, but it doesn't seem likely that there was any fraud involved.  Even if there were, surely the Statute of Limitations has run.  The place was sold nearly half a century ago.

The chapel is well preserved and is now attached to the hotel immediately adjacent.  In order to enter the chapel, a visitor must go through the hotel and pay a small fee.

I wonder why this became a news article at this time.  The chapel was sold decades ago, and the pagan ceremonies have apparently been occurring for many years.

It is an absolute travesty that such a beautiful place was allowed to be sold, but it could be Divine Providence.  Who knows what the archdiocese would have done with it if it still owned it? 

The chapel, even though not owned by the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, is more beautiful and preserved than the cathedral right around the corner, which is owned by the archdiocese.

Travesty, yes.

Sacrilege, no.

Those items lost their blessing when sold just like the building.

Pagan services in the presence of a cross, crucifix, or picture is not sacrilege in any meaningful usage of the term.

In short, if the one who led the "pagan service" converted and confessed, he would not be guilty of "sacrilege" for use of this building.

I was not suggesting "fraud" in the sale, but in raising money purporting to be a "Catholic" shrine.
It's really a shame that more of these closed churches and shrines couldn't be given to FSSP or ICKSP rather than being sold to non-Catholic affiliated people. Obviously it would need to make financial sense, but I could imagine that if a bishop gave them the go ahead into a decent area, they'd certainly be able to expand and do well.
(02-01-2018, 05:55 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-01-2018, 04:44 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2018, 03:06 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]It is not sacrilege.

Sacrilege is the intentional sinful violation of a sacred thing. Strictly speaking it only occurs when there is a grave violation of a thing in its sacred character.

If this chapel was sold off to non-Catholics then it must have first been de-sacrilized. To do this the bishop issues a formal decree reducing the building to profane use, thus removing its blessing or consecration. For liceity, but not validity of the decree, the bishop must try to ensure that the place is not used for sordid purposes, to prevent the risk of scandal.

Even if this were not done the offering of the building for public sale would remove the blessing or consecration of the place.

It is sad to see this done to this chapel, and most certainly it is wrong and unbecoming of the place, but it is not sacrilege.

I think one could, however, have a legitimate legal case against the owners for fraud, if they donated and the owners made it seem that it was a Catholic Church and funds raised were going to maintain a Catholic shrine. Perhaps if there were a large Catholic donor who was offended by this news, he could file a legal suit, bankrupt this owner and settle for reclaiming the Church for at least decent use, if not Catholic worship.

Whether sacrilege is involved depends on what happens during the purported pagan ceremonies. 

The chapel is intact and still has its original Stations of the Cross and statues of the Blessed Virgin, Saint Joseph, and the Sacred Heart, not to mention the Staircase. 

Deconsecration of the building would not affect whether sacrilege is being performed against those items. 

I don't know what "pagan services" entail, and I can't say whether sacrilege is involved, but it would not surprise me to learn that some sort of sacrilege does indeed take place.

Further, I don't know details of the transfer, but it doesn't seem likely that there was any fraud involved.  Even if there were, surely the Statute of Limitations has run.  The place was sold nearly half a century ago.

The chapel is well preserved and is now attached to the hotel immediately adjacent.  In order to enter the chapel, a visitor must go through the hotel and pay a small fee.

I wonder why this became a news article at this time.  The chapel was sold decades ago, and the pagan ceremonies have apparently been occurring for many years.

It is an absolute travesty that such a beautiful place was allowed to be sold, but it could be Divine Providence.  Who knows what the archdiocese would have done with it if it still owned it? 

The chapel, even though not owned by the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, is more beautiful and preserved than the cathedral right around the corner, which is owned by the archdiocese.

Travesty, yes.

Sacrilege, no.

Those items lost their blessing when sold just like the building.

Pagan services in the presence of a cross, crucifix, or picture is not sacrilege in any meaningful usage of the term.

In short, if the one who led the "pagan service" converted and confessed, he would not be guilty of "sacrilege" for use of this building.

I was not suggesting "fraud" in the sale, but in raising money purporting to be a "Catholic" shrine.

As I stated prior, it depends on what happens during the "pagan services" as to whether sacrilege takes place.  I don't know, and I don't think anyone else reading this knows either.

I wasn't referring to mere use of the building as far as sacrilege goes; I was talking about what happens during the "ceremonies" with reference to the religious items that remain there.

An act of blasphemy aimed at one of the depictions of Christ, His Mother, or any of the other religious images would constitute sacrilege, regardless of whether that item "lost" its blessing (which isn't true, in any case). 

The statues, assuming they were blessed, don't "lose" their blessings merely because the chapel was deconsecrated.  If something were to happen to them, they would have to be disposed of properly and reverently.

The chapel does not purport to be a Catholic shrine.  It's basically a museum that is attached to a modern hotel.  There is a book shop outside the chapel, in the hotel area, that sells Catholic items.  I don't know who runs it.
So it's now one of those places where people get hitched because they really, really like the background and surroundings. Not sure how this any different than getting hitched in a mundane city court.
(02-01-2018, 10:30 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]As I stated prior, it depends on what happens during the "pagan services" as to whether sacrilege takes place.  I don't know, and I don't think anyone else reading this knows either.

So why then suggest there is sacrilege. We can't use doubt as the basis for our reasoning. Doubt is precisely the inability to choose. And this would be a "negative doubt" (i.e., one based on mere speculation, nothing concrete).

If blasphemy is happening, it is blasphemy, not sacrilege.

Sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing. When the church (with everything in it) was offered for sale it all ceased to be blessed or consecrated thus sacred (in the strict sense, which is what is required for the sin of sacrilege).

If you want to define sacrilege in very wide terms, I'm sure we could make this fit, but then the word loses any real meaningful definition.

(02-01-2018, 10:30 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't referring to mere use of the building as far as sacrilege goes; I was talking about what happens during the "ceremonies" with reference to the religious items that remain there.

Yes I know. As you admit, we have no idea what goes on in those ceremonies, so no reason to assume "sacrilegious" things do, any more than they do not.

I'd venture to guess more "sacrilege" happens in most Catholic churches than in this place. There is a very good reason to assume that (given the near total absence of confession in most places) most people are probably receiving Our Lord unworthily, for instance. The lack of Catechesis and instruction means that many people make sacrilegious confessions (but omitting sins). Just two examples.

(02-01-2018, 10:30 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]An act of blasphemy aimed at one of the depictions of Christ, His Mother, or any of the other religious images would constitute sacrilege, regardless of whether that item "lost" its blessing (which isn't true, in any case). 

No. That would be blasphemy. Blasphemy is not the same thing a Sacrilege (which is precisely why we use two different words, and there are two specifically distinct sins).

Yes. Those items have lose their blessing. Any blessed item which is publicly offered for sale loses it's blessing. It is precisely why any religious object on eBay, or say, a Chalice, must be blessed again or reconsecrated.

The decree is issued for the church at least partially because of the legal effects. A consecrated or blessed church is considered as a legal person under the authority of local bishop. The decree not only has the effect of de-sacralizing the church, but also removing the legal effects in Canon Law.

(02-01-2018, 10:30 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]The statues, assuming they were blessed, don't "lose" their blessings merely because the chapel was deconsecrated.  If something were to happen to them, they would have to be disposed of properly and reverently.

They lose their blessing by having been offered for sale.

(02-01-2018, 10:30 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]The chapel does not purport to be a Catholic shrine.  It's basically a museum that is attached to a modern hotel.  There is a book shop outside the chapel, in the hotel area, that sells Catholic items.  I don't know who runs it.

Yet their website is basically a large religious item shop, and they do accept donations. They publish books on the history of the chapel with addresses for donations, especially highlighting the staircase, and they make no effort to suggest that the chapel is no longer a Catholic church.

That could be considered deceptive.
(02-02-2018, 02:44 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-01-2018, 10:30 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]As I stated prior, it depends on what happens during the "pagan services" as to whether sacrilege takes place.  I don't know, and I don't think anyone else reading this knows either.

So why then suggest there is sacrilege. We can't use doubt as the basis for our reasoning. Doubt is precisely the inability to choose. And this would be a "negative doubt" (i.e., one based on mere speculation, nothing concrete).

If blasphemy is happening, it is blasphemy, not sacrilege.

Sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing. When the church (with everything in it) was offered for sale it all ceased to be blessed or consecrated thus sacred (in the strict sense, which is what is required for the sin of sacrilege).

If you want to define sacrilege in very wide terms, I'm sure we could make this fit, but then the word loses any real meaningful definition.

(02-01-2018, 10:30 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't referring to mere use of the building as far as sacrilege goes; I was talking about what happens during the "ceremonies" with reference to the religious items that remain there.

Yes I know. As you admit, we have no idea what goes on in those ceremonies, so no reason to assume "sacrilegious" things do, any more than they do not.

I'd venture to guess more "sacrilege" happens in most Catholic churches than in this place. There is a very good reason to assume that (given the near total absence of confession in most places) most people are probably receiving Our Lord unworthily, for instance. The lack of Catechesis and instruction means that many people make sacrilegious confessions (but omitting sins). Just two examples.

(02-01-2018, 10:30 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]An act of blasphemy aimed at one of the depictions of Christ, His Mother, or any of the other religious images would constitute sacrilege, regardless of whether that item "lost" its blessing (which isn't true, in any case). 

No. That would be blasphemy. Blasphemy is not the same thing a Sacrilege (which is precisely why we use two different words, and there are two specifically distinct sins).

Yes. Those items have lose their blessing. Any blessed item which is publicly offered for sale loses it's blessing. It is precisely why any religious object on eBay, or say, a Chalice, must be blessed again or reconsecrated.

The decree is issued for the church at least partially because of the legal effects. A consecrated or blessed church is considered as a legal person under the authority of local bishop. The decree not only has the effect of de-sacralizing the church, but also removing the legal effects in Canon Law.

(02-01-2018, 10:30 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]The statues, assuming they were blessed, don't "lose" their blessings merely because the chapel was deconsecrated.  If something were to happen to them, they would have to be disposed of properly and reverently.

They lose their blessing by having been offered for sale.

(02-01-2018, 10:30 PM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]The chapel does not purport to be a Catholic shrine.  It's basically a museum that is attached to a modern hotel.  There is a book shop outside the chapel, in the hotel area, that sells Catholic items.  I don't know who runs it.

Yet their website is basically a large religious item shop, and they do accept donations. They publish books on the history of the chapel with addresses for donations, especially highlighting the staircase, and they make no effort to suggest that the chapel is no longer a Catholic church.

That could be considered deceptive.

The initial poster stated that sacrilege takes place at Loreto Chapel, and, in response, you positively asserted that no sacrilege takes place.

My question is:  How do you know that no sacrilege takes place there?

Next question:  Where did you get the idea that the statues were sold?  Just the mere fact that they are still present there?

The chapel clearly advertises that it is non denominational, as anyone who has been there can tell you, and the archdiocese has issued numerous public statements over the years in regard to the groups that have made use of the chapel.

From their website:  "Join us at the historic Loretto Chapel for your dream wedding. Holding 139 guests, the nondenominational Loretto Chapel is just the right size for those wanting an intimate atmosphere."

Do you believe that the simulation of Mass and other sacraments constitutes sacrilege?  Are you aware that Catholics have been involved in that at the chapel over the years?
Pages: 1 2