Roman Catholic Bishop Of Springfield V City Of Springfield

724 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a corporation and the legal entity through which the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield (Diocese) operates. P owns a church in Springfield known as Our Lady of Hope (Church), which was built in 1925. The Church was deemed eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, but it was never so placed. It was never included in nor proposed to be included in a local historic district. In the face of decreasing numbers of clergy and parishioners, P closed the Church and services ceased as of January 1, 2010. When a church goes out of service for religious worship, the Bishop comes under an obligation to protect the religious ornamentation in and on the building so that it is not put to 'sordid' use. There are eight types of religious ornamentation on the exterior of the Church, including stone castings, inscriptions, and stained glass windows depicting religious scenes and symbols that must be protected. Some of these features, such as friezes, are built into the structure and are not easily removable. All of these features are designed to communicate religious messages to those who observe them. P will try to: (1) relocate the items to other locations within the Diocese; (2) relocate the items to other dioceses; or (3) place the items in storage. If none of these options are possible, the objects can be destroyed. As part of the deconsecration process, D will include a clause in the sale or lease agreement obligating the purchaser or lessee either to refrain from putting the property to 'sordid' use or to allow P to remove all religious symbols. If the symbols are impossible or impracticable to remove P will cover them with concrete or other materials. Symbols that cannot be removed may also be destroyed -- along with the building itself, if necessary -- if P determines that destruction is necessary to avoid desecration. Under the Massachusetts Historic Districts Act (MHDA) cities and towns have the authority to designate historic districts within their boundaries. Under the MHDA, a municipality's historical commission must investigate and report on proposed historic districts before such districts can be approved by the municipality. A commission (SHC) is to consider 'the historic and architectural value and significance of the site, building or structure, the general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the features involved, and the relation of such features to similar features of buildings and structures in the surrounding area.' A two-thirds vote of the city council is required to approve the district. Once a historic district is approved, 'no building or structure within [the] district shall be constructed or altered in any way that affects exterior architectural features' unless the historical commission first issues a certificate of appropriateness, a certificate of non-applicability, or a certificate of hardship. To get a certificate of appropriateness, hardship, or non-applicability, a property owner must file with the commission an application along with 'such plans, elevations, specifications, material, and other information . . . as may be reasonably deemed necessary by the commission to enable it to make a determination on the application.' Parishioners were unhappy with the prospect of being merged into another parish. They began lobbying D to designate the Church as a historic district. The SHC produced its preliminary report just two weeks after the initial meeting -- outlining a proposal for the Our Lady of Hope Historic District (District). The SHC noted that the Church was 'slated to be closed'; that another Roman Catholic church in Springfield had recently been closed, sold, and demolished; and that the District 'was being proposed to avoid the same possible fate for Our Lady of Hope.' This new district covered only the Church and no other property. P appeared at SHC's public hearing opposing the District. The SHC voted unanimously to send a final report to the City Council. P's counsel attended the City Council meeting and again objected to the creation of the District. The Council passed the ordinance. Since the enactment of the Ordinance, D has taken no action with regard to the deconsecration, sale, or leasing of the Church, and it has not made any submissions to the SHC seeking permission to alter the Church's exterior. P filed its complaint on January 21, 2010, the day after the Ordinance went into effect. The district court issued its Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment to D. P appealed.