al-alo: exactly. Drink wine in the ceremony central to Catholicism, but once the building is decommissioned and is no longer considered a holy place, then you'd better not serve a drop. Freaking Catholics.

My comment was out of line and I regret saying it, but it was a matter of degree.

I do fault the Catholic Church for placing restrictions against alcohol use on these surplus buildings. It seems to me to be entirely hypocritical in an important way, and not simply that wine is used in their ceremonies. Rather the hypocrisy is this: The church says the buildings are no longer its concern, but they still get to control future uses.

The church gets a tax free ride in constructing whatever they like. So far, fine. It's for a religious purpose. Don't tax away religion, it's not fair. I'm fine with that.

But then the Church says, look: these buildings are no longer needed for our purposes so we are going to dispose of them (again, in my book, this is all fine. I, unlike many in the community, don't mind the church abandoning their properties. I just want to see enough money in the kitty to demolish them, if need be. But to my mind the church may sell whatever it doesn't need). But when the Church sells the buildings, it says: look, the reason it's okay for us to sell these assets and no longer be the caretakers of them is that the buildings are not sacred. They've been decommissioned. They are, after all, only bricks and mortar. They are not the Church, they are a place the faithful used to congregate. Nothing more.

All of this is fine, so far, in my book. I see no need to force any organization to endlessly take care of property it has no use for. Every organization sells excess assets. The population left these churches. There is no need for the expense of maintaining them. I think the Church, simply as a viable organization, SHOULD divest itself of it's excess inventory. And if a bunch of them got demolished, I'd really have no issue with that, so long as it isn't the taxpayer paying the freight. Demolition is, to my mind, a preferable circumstance than a plethora of abandoned churches going the way of Transfiguration.

As a real estate agent, I see churches as particularly difficult re-use candidates. There are several churches we all like to herald as exemplars for re-use (Karpeles Museums, apartments at Bryant/Richmond, offices at Elmwood/Ferry, performance space (eventually) at Richmond/Ferry). But each of these redevelopments was a tenuous financial proposition. Moreover, the few which have succeeded benefited from location, location, location. Most of the churches we're talking about don't.

There are precious few things one can possibly do, cost efficiently, with a vast space such as a typical Catholic church building. Banquet hall/restaurant is one of the few. Especially in relatively healthy areas such as Elmwood (@ Edward) or Main Street (near Best), there exist candidates where these magnificent buildings COULD find new life, but don't, ONLY because no alcohol may be served in them. The hypocrisy I see is this:

The church says on the one hand: Our tax free days at this place are over, let the market decide what to do with it. It is no longer a holy place, it's no longer ours, so God bless the future owner, we're out of here. BUT, the church ALSO restricts the future uses of the building. So my question to you Catholics out there is: Which is it? It is a holy place or not? Why should you have any right whatsoever to restrict the building's future uses if it's not a holy place? In so placing this restriction upon its buildings, the Chatholic Church inhibits, sometimes fatally, the re-use of the buildings it discards. Because there are precious few re-uses in the market place for large public assembly places, night clubs and restaurants being two of the few, the Church is dooming buildings to vacancy and decay. A few could be saved by being unrestricted, but the church won't allow it. That's wrong of the Church. It betrays the neighborhoods.

Old churches go for a song. I sold the brownstone on Ferry and Richmond for $75k and it was wonderfully maintained. They just cost too damned much to maintain (just to heat, forget about the roof). No churches want old church buildings. They all have the same problem: how to heat the place. The church which sold Richmond/Ferry? They bought vacant land to build a small, efficient church. They also took possession (free) of an old industrial building in the neighborhood to use as a community center, but even free it's a tenuous financial proposition. Churches don't have money, generally. That's why they want modern, energy efficient buildings.

As to my anti-Catholicism: I was raised Catholic. I once was an alter boy. I went to Catholic grade schools (but I was an atheist by the seventh grade). I went to a Jesuit college, where I had to take religion courses (and loved them, by the way. I'm no longer an atheist, but you might guess I'm also not Catholic. I like Buddhism some). One of my dad's uncles was actually monsignor at Transfiguration once. It's not Catholicism I object to. It's what I see as hypocrisy in saying on the one hand that the buildings are not the responsibility of the Church, but that the Church can still dictate what does or does not go on in them. They're no longer holy places, but don't do anything the church might find offensive. We won't pay taxes ever, and we'll saddle the neighborhood with this white elephant, but if the neighborhood comes up with a use we don't like, we get to veto it even though we no longer own it.

In my humble opinion, the church ought not be allowed to have it both ways. Either control (and care take) the properties, or give them up. One or the other.

Heather_B: Keep your eyes on the corner of Main and Ferry. Lots will be happening this year at my property. And I had a hand in more that will happen on a corner across the street later this year and next. Keep watching. BTW, you sound like religion has really done good things for you.

Colin: St. Stanislaus is an aberration. It can afford the wonderful restoration it's been undergoing only because its suburban (Lancaster) cemetery is a money machine. Most parishes don't have a revenue stream like that.

The_other_Mike:

You're right. I shouldn't have made snide comments. I was pissed. I'll behave better.

But with regard to the perception of anti-Catholicism, some readers need to get over the victim mentality. My criticisms of your religious organization's disposal of its surplus real estate and what I see as inconsistencies in its stance does not rise to the level of discrimination against Catholics. I don't respect a very specific policy of your church with regard to real estate, and I display anger over that. You have every right to follow your lights wherever they lead you, just as I have the same right. The truth is, we all have the unalienable right to criticize each other's religions if we so desire. Ask the Muslims. Some of them both give and get much criticism.

I can criticize your church. I would say the same things about any other organization behaving in similar ways. It just so happens there is no other large religious property owner acting similarly to my knowledge.

Offer your counter argument, Catholics. Are these holy places or are they not? If they are, you should maintain them. If they are not, by what right do you restrict their uses and thereby saddle the larger community with unusable behemoths? Do you want to control them? Then take care of them. Do you want to rid yourselves of the financial headache and judge that they are no longer holy? Then don't restrict their use. Simple.

Vylit: Sure, any purchaser knows the value is lessened because of the restriction. But the problem isn't the asking price. These structures go for a song anyway. In most cases, the Catholic Diocese would be probably fine giving the buildings away for free, if it was for a use they approved of.

As Sellers, they could always opt to sell for a lesser price to any user they preferred. They needn't attach any restrictions to that. The problem is that there IS no use for most of these structures, and the church exacerbates the problem by prohibiting some of the few viable alternate uses. I stand by my argument: if the Church wants to control their old buildings, then own them and take care of them. Otherwise, let go (hey, isn't it the Church itself always arguing about how this is a temporal world; don't get caught up in materialism?).

Vylit: I agree with most of what you say. I'd been reconsidering my last response to you when I saw your new post.

With regard to real estate taxes, I'd been thinking the same.The church may be liable (even now, with no reform) for real estate taxes on any properties it possesses but which it no longer uses for religious purposes. Current use as a religious facility cannot be legitimately claimed in the case of closed parish, can it?

Real estate taxes are how the steel plants got knocked down, and thanks to the powers that be for that favor. It would not be a good circumstance to have all those decaying steel plants still standing. Like the churches, some facilities survived. So will some churches, in new hands. Route 5 still has viable rolling plants and I don't know what else, but some steel related businesses there thrive. Love to see it every time I drive by. But mostly the mills are knocked down, and the reason is that the corporations can't afford the taxes on improved property which sits vacant. But if they knock stuff down, the taxes go down. Now I've seen some criticism of this effect of our real estate tax system, but in the case of the steel mills, I think giving incentive for clearing the buildings has been mostly a good thing. But for the churches, there'd be strong will NOT to give incentive to demolition, and fairly so it could be argued. They are not just buildings but also works of art. We might give each the longest lifespan we can before we call in the wreckers.

I'd like to address some of you parishioners who feel it would be sacrilege to see your holy places be treated as nothing more than a steel plant, those who don't want to see discos and beerfests in the houses of worship you were raised in. I know most congregations' first choice would be to sell to another religious group. You'd love to find some new religious denomination that makes use of the wonderful building your parish has cherished all these years. The sacrifices to faith of countless poor working families is reflected in these magnificent properties and it seems wrong to just toss them away like yesterday's news. i get that. while the religious are often condemned as exclusionary, most religious folks I know don't particularly care what religion you are, just so long as it really means something to you. Most parishioners, I suspect, would be very happy to see their church be used by Muslims (as in the former Polish National Church) or any other group. If you're dedicated to honoring God, somehow, some way, most parishioners would feel good about giving up their wonderful buildings to your group.

But too often, the buyers are unable to maintain them. Every storefront church has a dollar and a dream. When I was marketing the church at Richmond and Ferry, a number of churches with no money were interested. Thank God the Methodists didn't give it away to another unqualified buyer (I say 'another' because at about this time, they were taking heat for selling the Delaware Avenue church (Babe. . . babeville? babeland? I'm not used to it yet). Anyway, they had sold that church to a religious group which wanted it. Everybody felt good. The Methodists gave it away for a song. The buyers got a beautiful building. But then, the new congregation had no real resources to fix anything and the place had real structural issues (which they knew about when buying but figured 'god would provide' I suppose) and the long and short is that the place was scheduled to be demolished, but Ani saved the day). So anyway, I wasn't involved in any of that, but when they sold Richmond I was their guy and they felt burned by selling in good faith to this other denomination so they wanted to make sure any buyer had a viable plan. Kudos to them. Let me tell you, it was tough to find a qualified buyer. Even in a good neighborhood, just down the street from the office conversion and also from the condo conversion, it still wasn't easy.

It's hard to find qualified buyers who want to use it for what you did. That's all I'm saying. These buildings are expensive to keep up and that's why you want out. Problem is, most everybody else will be in the same boat.

I suppose it's no skin off my back if by restricting the use you inadvertently cause the decay of some buildings which otherwise might be re-used. They're not my buildings. I don't own them. You have your feelings about what's right and wrong. But it just seems a shame to lose some of these places we might not otherwise lose.

You don't mind if someone opens up a retail store in your former church, but a banquet hall is out of the question if they serve beer and wine? Didn't Jesus convert water to wine?

1. Jesus Christ was arrested, charged, tried, convicted and executed.

The charge? He upset the temple. What happened? He went to the temple and was so enraged at what he saw as sacrilege in the form of commerce that he went gonzo on the place, turning over money tables, sending the buyers and sellers fleeing from the temple. For his tirade, he was arrested. For his insolence in a holy place, he was executed.

One might imagine that the Catholics, and other Christians, might be a little sensitive about the circumstances of what led directly to their savior's death. And so perhaps you'd forgive them if they were going to place restrictions on their churches in regard to commerce being conducted there. One might imagine that if the organization had any misgivings about future uses at all, commerce might be at the very top.

But it turns out not to be so. Nope, the Catholics have no problem if you want to open a GAP in their church. They're not sensitive to that at all. (And honestly, I think they're right. These buildings are no longer consecrated). Once the building is decommissioned, buying and selling in it is just fine. (as, I reinforce, I think right).

2. Jesus turns water into wine.

In one of his most famous miracles, Jesus is said to have turned vessels of water into wine. It seems there was some big fest, a big wedding, at which Jesus, his mother, and all his friends were present. It was held, if memory serves, in a wealthy man's house. Some radical Christian scholars speculate that it was really the marriage of Mary Magdeline and Jesus for reasons I shall not elaborate here, but we do not know that. We do know he was at a wedding and a crisis arose.

The hosts ran out of wine. And Mary was really upset. This was a travesty.

I think anyone who ever hosted a party and ran out of booze can sympathize. Especially a wedding. That really would have been a crisis, wouldn't it? Running out of booze? It must have been a panic. Why Mary was so upset isn't clear (one piece of evidence those scholars point to in hypothesizing it was Jesus' wedding).

And we learn that Jesus saves the day. He directs that water be poured into the empty wine casks. And in one of the best known of his miracles, the casks of water are magically converted into casks of wine and everybody keeps drinking!

Jesus Christ, party guy, saves the day! NOT by telling everybody: "hey, look, everybody's had a really good time, everything in moderation, let's let the happy couple get on with their life, take it easy. We're bought a lot of wine, we never imagined you guys would drink so much, but we're clean out, so . . ." No, this is not what he says or does. He says fill those casks with water, I'm going to get us more wine! Jesus Christ, party animal, saves the day!

But don't you ever put on a banquet, like some wedding party, in a building that used to be a Catholic church, at least if you plan on having a glass of wine, because that would offend Catholic sensibilities.

buffalostan: why do you consider what I just wrote blasphemy? Please expand.

Fulton: If I were afraid of offending my Catholic (really all Christian) customers by speaking my mind as I am, I wouldn't be blogging like this in the first place. I' d keep my lips sealed. I didn't suddenly change, afraid I'd pissed someone off. Are you kidding?

My opinions are sincere. Sometimes they are transitory, other times they will change 180 degrees, but pretty much you can be certain I'm speaking my mind. I don't know how you could possibly read my rambles and not conclude that. But maybe you're a little sensitive right now and would like to strike back, but are prevented from doing so by the inescapable logic of my argument.

To wit: If Jesus performed the miracle of turning water to wine at a wedding, how could it possibly be unacceptable to allow wedding banquets with wine in your former buildings now, despite it being just perfectly fine to sell goods and services there?

I have a different perspective than you. I think this is Heaven. Seriously. I honestly believe that. I think we live, today, in the garden of Eden and it is incumbent upon us to Wake Up. I think we sleepwalk. I believe the Zen Buddhists when they characterize our ordinary state as 'asleep' and the 'enlightened' state as achievable and vastly different than we usually perceive in our unenlightened state. So you see, Fulton, I do indeed believe that not only CAN one transition from the sublime to the mundane, but rather that the mundane is imperfect recognition of the supremely sublime with which all beings and things are imbued. My personal belief is that Jesus was talking about the same thing the Zen Buddhists do when they talk of Enlightenment. I think Heaven is literally on this earth and that if you die before getting there you messed up.

Now, most people will look at that set of beliefs and say: that guy's really f****** up.That guy is messed in the head. That guy is a lunatic. That's fine. They're my beliefs. You needn't share them. I have no inherent right not to be offended by you. You can laugh your tail off at my beliefs. That's the best thing about America. Seriously. We're all free to follow our own sensibilities.

I'm entitled to my religious perspective, too. You may bow to your gods, but I needn't. It's a free country.

So instead of attacking me, attack my argument. Refute it.

If it was okay for Jesus to perform that miracle, why are wedding banquets with wine unacceptable in your former churches? Could you enlighten me?

We Love Panos: no, I'm not Jewish. I work with a number of Jews at the office, actually. I like them all, get along well with them. But I never had an interest in joining their religion. There's lots of Christians in my office, too. I like them, too. But I don't buy into their religion, either. I pretty much march to my own drum.

Zen: you're fun!

Meg_Bottoms: That's my plan, but somebody like zen might get there first. I've got to figure out how to wake up first or I don't get to be president and rule the world. Someone else will! But philosophically speaking, I think anyone can.

It would seem I still have an unresolved issue or two with the church.

I'm calmer now.