Suit fights U.S. aid to mission sites

[NVMojo]

WASHINGTON - Two days after President Bush signed into law a $10 million aid package for California's 21 historic missions, a group calling itself Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed suit Thursday challenging the constitutionality of federal money going to repair active Catholic churches.

"Houses of worship must be maintained by their members, not the federal government," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the organization's director. "All but two of these missions house active congregations and hold regular worship services. They are not museums."

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and seeks to enjoin the Interior Department from distributing any money for the missions.

more...

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/v-print/story/11642728p-12531973c.html

[acmavm]

1. I agree. The Catholic church used to be one of, if not the, richest

religious institution in this country. Their holdings in real estate alone boggles the mind. If they want money to fix up their churches and accompanying buildings, let them get rid of some of their outside assets (what they have left after paying off lawsuits for pedophile priests).

By the way, I'm Catholic.

[Bridget Burke]

2. But money going to the Old North Church is OK--they're Protestant.

The San Antonio Missions (the park, not the team) are supported by the Diocese of San Antonio & the National Park Service. They are mostly active parishes as well. If their upkeep was left to the rather modest incomes of the parishioners, the most economical solution would be knocking down the old piles & bulding something new.

As it is, the beautiful buildings--proud heritage sites for San Antonio--are open for visits by all.

Aren't there more dangerous threats to Separation of Church & State?

[johnfunk]

3. A clear violation of the Exclusion Clause

Sure, there are more dangerous threats to separation of church and state -- but this is an open-and-shut case of trying to pierce the exclusion clause.

If the RCC can afford to pay off the parents and families of their sex abuse victims, they surely can afford upkeep on these historic sites. Either that, or they should pack up, move their congregations out, and give the properties to the Park Service.

I, for one, resent even one cent of my money going to a church that acts more like a criminal organization in their attempts to cover up sexual abuse.