Historic Catholic church in California vandalized; 231-year-old artifacts damaged

[Dale_M]

News Update

Threatening letters left at Holy Cross Church in Santa Cruz, a week after widespread vandalism

Santa Cruz police said the typed letters were found about 6:30 a.m. near the main door of the church at 126 High St. The writer used similar language to anti-Catholic graffiti left on the building earlier this month, said Santa Cruz police spokesman Zach Friend.

Police believe the letters and the vandalism are linked. The letters were given to the state Department of Justice to collect potential forensic evidence.

Church leaders estimated at least $22,000 in damage from the May 6 incident at Holy Cross Church and Mission Santa Cruz. It included at least $10,000 damage in shattered windows, spray-painted doors, walls, statues and sidewalks. Some anti-church slogans and symbols were painted, police said.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...s-church-santa

The stone baptismal font, which was brought by Junipero Serra in 1791, can be restored at a cost in excess of $12,000. However, chunks of it were knocked out and its unclear how much new material will be needed.

The news article has a couple grainy B/W photos of the suspect, taken by a security camera.

[sedonaman]

To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative, and the only way for him to be moral is not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies, because an act of discrimination might be a reflection of personal bigotry. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.

When we fail to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and the behaviors that lead to success and those that lead to failure, we do not end up being objective, neutral, tolerant, or even indifferent; we end up hating what is good, right, and successful. We have seen this pattern over an over. The idea that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter has led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism; the belief that America is no better than any other country has led to hatred of America. We are now seeing this hatred manifesting itself against the Catholic Church.

[Filii Dei]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative, and the only way for him to be moral is not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies, because an act of discrimination might be a reflection of personal bigotry. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.

When we fail to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and the behaviors that lead to success and those that lead to failure, we do not end up being objective, neutral, tolerant, or even indifferent; we end up hating what is good, right, and successful. We have seen this pattern over an over. The idea that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter has led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism; the belief that America is no better than any other country has led to hatred of America. We are now seeing this hatred manifesting itself against the Catholic Church.

Do not be quick to assume the liberals were behind this. It could simply be the common class of thug.

Secondly, your implication that America is "better than any than any other country", and that denying this "has led to hatred of America" is really something I would like to question, but alas, this is neither time or place for such a discussion.

Instead, let us focus our minds on supporting the parish community and praying for the perpetrators of this heinous offence.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by Filii Dei

Do not be quick to assume the liberals were behind this. It could simply be the common class of thug.

They certainly weren't conservative thugs.

Secondly, your implication that America is "better than any than any other country", and that denying this "has led to hatred of America" is really something I would like to question, but alas, this is neither time or place for such a discussion.
...

I don't think you understood my point.

[Dale_M]

The culprit still hasn't been caught, but there is some good news to report:

Donations flood Holy Cross Church after vandalism: Other faith groups lend a hand

Holy Cross leaders said there was no formal drive for donations, yet news of the vandalism spread quickly in faith circles.

Leaders at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Santa Cruz appealed for donations in its bulletin. Checks came from Twin Lakes Church and Resurrection Catholic Church, both in Aptos, and from many individual donors, Occhiuto said.

Rabbi Richard Litvak of Temple Beth El in Aptos said he planned to mention Holy Cross' vandalism during worship in May, yet his congregation was already asking how they could help. The reaction from the temple's members was "immediate and visceral," in part because they too were victims of vandalism, Litvak said,

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...andalism-other

Donations of about $10,000, roughly half the cost to repair the damage, had been received as of three weeks ago.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative, and the only way for him to be moral is not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies, because an act of discrimination might be a reflection of personal bigotry. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.
.

Can you cite a liberal who actually thinks this?

[Hokomai]

Any attack of this sort should of course be utterly condemned as an attack on community (Church) property, as an attack on people's right to peacefully gather and do what they wish, and because of the damage done to historically-valuable material.

In my view, churches should classify their possessions into those that are of immediate use, but no great value as historical pieces or art; those that are valuable as artifacts or art, and those in each category that are 'attractive' as either tradeable for cash, or as targets. There should be a security policy applied which deters thefts and damage and increases the likelihood of detection if it happens. If the Church cannot afford the security, objects should be moved to a Church that can. Of course the best security is people.

[Filii Dei]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Any attack of this sort should of course be utterly condemned as an attack on community (Church) property, as an attack on people's right to peacefully gather and do what they wish, and because of the damage done to historically-valuable material.

In my view, churches should classify their possessions into those that are of immediate use, but no great value as historical pieces or art; those that are valuable as artifacts or art, and those in each category that are 'attractive' as either tradeable for cash, or as targets. There should be a security policy applied which deters thefts and damage and increases the likelihood of detection if it happens. If the Church cannot afford the security, objects should be moved to a Church that can. Of course the best security is people.

That's hardly feasible. What kind of security do you mean? Do you expect churches to build a wall around their compound? Many churches are open to visitors and the faithful to visit and pray as they wish. It is therefore also difficult to stop vandals from taking advantage of it to commit acts like these. Many artifacts are also closely associated with a community and lose their significance when moved to a different church, even if it can somehow provide better security. Should a church's hundred-year old baptismal font be moved to a different building simply because they "cannot afford the security"?

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by Filii Dei

. Should a church's hundred-year old baptismal font be moved to a different building simply because they "cannot afford the security"?

In general yes, if the church wishes to keep it secure, and it cannot be secured in place.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Can you cite a liberal who actually thinks this?

They all do.

[Filii Dei]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

In general yes, if the church wishes to keep it secure, and it cannot be secured in place.

And what is the significance of say, the Church of St. Alphonsus's baptismal font, engraved with the life of Alphonsus Maria de Liguori and his works, baptising generations and generations of Catholics from the local community, when it is sitting in the nave of the Church of St. Paul in a different part of the country?

You clearly do not understand the value of such objects. Value cannot always be quantified in monetary terms. Artifacts do not gain value just for existing. In such cases, they are immeasurably valuable due to how instrumental a role they have played in the community over the ages, and how deeply intertwined they are with the cultural life of that parish. Moving them away doesn't solve anything. It just creates more problems when the parish loses such treasures.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by Filii Dei

And what is the significance of say, the Church of St. Alphonsus's baptismal font, engraved with the life of Alphonsus Maria de Liguori and his works, baptising generations and generations of Catholics from the local community, when it is sitting in the nave of the Church of St. Paul in a different part of the country?

You clearly do not understand the value of such objects. Value cannot always be quantified in monetary terms. Artifacts do not gain value just for existing. In such cases, they are immeasurably valuable due to how instrumental a role they have played in the community over the ages, and how deeply intertwined they are with the cultural life of that parish. Moving them away doesn't solve anything. It just creates more problems when the parish loses such treasures.

What is needed is understanding of how to manage security risks. When security risks associated with ancient baptisimal fonts are realised, you no longer have the font. If Churches don't have enough people in them to manage risk, and the church cannot afford protection, its possession are unprotected. In time, where there are security risks, they will all disappear without protection.

[Filii Dei]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

What is needed is understanding of how to manage security risks. When security risks associated with ancient baptisimal fonts are realised, you no longer have the font. If Churches don't have enough people in them to manage risk, and the church cannot afford protection, its possession are unprotected. In time, where there are security risks, they will all disappear without protection.

So risks are managed by spending even more money? Do you actually think chuches should provide security with guards patrolling the premises? Have you actually been to a church? It is a place of worship, not a garrison. In addition, no church can afford the additional manpower for security. Even cathedrals have enough financial difficulties without you telling them to spend more money on such things.

I still cannot believe that you think that churches with valuable possessions deserve to lose said valuable items simply because they do not have the means to protect it from every possible threat. What should they use instead? Baptism with plastic tubs and inflatable pools?

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by Filii Dei

I still cannot believe that you think that churches with valuable possessions deserve to lose said valuable items simply because they do not have the means to protect it from every possible threat. What should they use instead? Baptism with plastic tubs and inflatable pools?

I find it hard to believe that I think this also.

[hoffdug]

Originally Posted by Havard

The article says that incident took place in Portland, Oregon, so it's very doubtful. I live about an hour north of Santa Cruz, and Portland is easily 10 hours north of me.

There was a Protestant church vandalized in Salinas about two years ago. A window was broken and some food items stolen. I think the news said it was local teens.