“It’s a very worthy cause,” Hatfield said. “I plan to make a personal donation out of my wallet. It’s worth saving and I know they will get the money, but I don’t know that taxpayers should be paying so much of the $10 million.
“It’s one church and one religion in our community. You are opening the door that sets a precedent. Others are not going to want just $50,000 anymore, but also $100,000 or $200,000. It’s a slippery slope.”
The city contributes about $36,500 annually into the committee’s heritage fund.
While the Star was happy to report I voted no, they were far too lazy to ask me why… In fact, no one even bothered to talk with me after the meeting or call me for clarification, so since they dropped the ball, I’ll lay out my reasons why, because I know there are many out there with questions:
My vote was simply a protest vote. I only voted nay because I knew it would pass, had I felt the vote would be close it would of had my vote, as I do think it is an important project.
I voted no, because the diocese is not donating one cent to the project, yet they expect Windsor Taxpayers to do so via the fund. All the diocese is donating is money from the parking lot at the U, which another parishioner has told me that the church already got… and the other “gift” is the proceeds from future sales of other properties, several of which are other churches in the west end that will be, but still have yet to be closed. Among them, Holy Name of Mary on McEwen off Wyandotte, Blessed Sacrament on Prince,
and St. Patrick’s. The old close and sell routine, doesn’t sit well with me, plus the fact that there is no guarantee of what those building will sell for. I’m sure we’ll likely see another Christ the King style demo or two… (Holy Name of Mary is designated, therefore protected).
Had they even given a token amount of actual cash, then it would have been a different story. But a $10 million project, and they haven’t given one cent towards it. The onus as usual with the Catholic Church, is on everyone else.
So Windsor Star, thanks for not doing your job.
From the Border Cities Star - December 6, 1924, almost a century ago to the…
Built in 1929, the house at 2177 Victoria Avenue was originally numbered 1545 Victoria, pre…
Crescent Lanes first opened on Ottawa Street in 1944 at 1055 Ottawa Street, opposite Lanspeary…
Above is a photo of the home of Mr & Mrs Oswald Janisse, located at…
in 1917 two Greek brothers Gus & Harry Lukos purchased a one story building on…
View Comments
So the question begs to be asked: Now that a quarter of a million dollars has been given; perhaps thrown away to this cause, whats to stop the church from shutting it down?
yikes M.O.M! that's a really interesting question. i suppose nothing.
I would have voted the same way Andrew and for the same reasons! I would have given the money to the Art Gallery of Windsor or the Symphony Orchestra or any number of arts groups in this city BEFORE any church of any faith, especially since the church themselves aren't giving/donating one cent to this. This a bad decision and as others above have said, we as taxpayers in this city are now on a slippery slope to damnation rather than salvation!
O.K. let me try and answer some questions above.
First a little background on our infamous parishes in the Roman Catholic Faith.
I think (though not 100% certain) that Pope JPII declared that all parishes must be self-sufficient. No money comes from the Vatican (though it shold with all of their riches). That means that if they are not, in most cases those parishes will either amalgamate or close. (Yes, I believe this is stupid because those poor parishioners who need the help most are the ones to close down).
Contrary to what the diocese will tell you, the sexual abuse cases are costing them a lot of money (and rightfully so. Perhaps the CC should stop hiding the priests who do these heinous acts??) which in turn leaves little for the parishes to fall back on.
"X" amount of $$$ HAVE to be given to the diocese for "safe" keeping....I still don't know what that means. But if you ever notice that the Bishop's dinner in Windsor or other cities always brings in a huge amount of cash for St. Peter's seminary but that money can't be used for the parishes that need it.
So, to answer some questions about "prosperity" vs faith....many of these parishes including Assumption are too poor to raise the money themselves. In fact Assumption is in one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Windsor. The amount that these parishes give back to the community is a heck of a lot more than they would ever get taxes upon, should that day come.
Since this church has such historical significance to Windsor it should be assisted as much as possible. Not because of the religion attached to it but because of it's history and that of this entire area.
There is nothing stopping the diocese from shutting this church down. However due to the heritage act the diocese could shut the church down but it would still be avialable to the community due to designations put on the church. In essence the community already owns it.
This brings up another issue that has not been decided. Who really owns the church? There is some debate from canon law that it is actually the parishioners who own the church and NOT the diocese; the diocese holds the church "in trust". But again this is a big debate going on that has yet to be settled. Therefore, how can the diocese "close" down the church.
If I use the arguements froms ome above then just because "owners" whether they be diocesan or individual homeowners, cities etc. If no one wants to put money into saving historic structures we should then not put any money into it as well? Then think about what will be lost in the future? It is OUR duty to save these structures (whatever they may be) from the neglect of others.
In fact Assumption church could be a catalyst of holding the London diocese's feet to the fire in that the agreement with Ontario Trust shows that if a building receives money from them for restoration it MUST be MAINTAINED. Failure to do so could revert the property to Ontario Trust or put the onus for future work on the head of the owner. The diocese has neglected this church for 20 years and shouldhave to pay for some of it's restoration due to their own neglect.
The Roman Catholic church does not believe that a church is the religion. In fact they only believe a church is a structure only. That is why they have been selling them off. They really don't care unlessit has huge significance. I think this is folly because this religion is based on traditions and history. Why shouldn't the structures?
Ever notice how new churches seem to spring up in newly built subdivisions and are rarely if ever closed but most inner city churches are left to rot? It is about money and the poor parishes get the shaft every time!
Andrew's vote is important for the protest he states and hopefully it brings to light the disgusting policies of the various dioceses (especially London's) right from the Vatican all the way down. To the pope...why not spread around some of that wealth to the people who need it?
Sorry for the long post.
I was at the Church for an event a couple of weeks ago and noticed that a substantive Church contribution to the restoration project was conspicuously absent. I can certainly appreciate your position on this.
Please don't hate me but I don't blame the Catholic Church for not contributing a dime to the rehabilitation of Assumption Church. The citizens of Windsor, through their own actions and the actions of our elected officials have never made heritage preservation a priority. We've spent millions of tax dollars building office towers that are half-empty, state-of-the-art arenas out in the 'burbs and a canal plan that will never see the light of day but what have we done to make downtown an attractive place to live? Until we change our priorities and make urban living attractive once again, people, business and government will continue the flight to suburbia and churches will follow. Are you listening King Eddie?