CV NEWS FEED // The Catholic Diocese of Springfield is embroiled in a legal battle with municipal authorities over the removal of stained glass windows in a historic Church.
Two years ago, the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, sold St. Mary of the Assumption Church to a private developer after the church was closed in 2010 due to declining enrollment.
However, when the diocese sold the church, it included in the contract a clause that said the diocese retained the right to remove and repurpose the church’s stained glass windows.
On December 26, 2023, a contractor hired by the Diocese of Springfield was served with a stop-work order after the company began removing the stained glass windows at the request of the diocese.
The city of Northampton issued the stop-work order, alleging that the windows are under the purview of the Northampton Historic Commission. In the order, the city said that the Historical Commission must approve any changes that occur to the exterior of historical buildings. St. Mary’s is on the city’s historical registry.
On January 8, 2024, the Diocese of Springfield sued the city along with Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra, Building Commissioner Jonathan Flagg, and Historical Commission Chair Martha Lyon, alleging that they were violating the diocese’s freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
“The Supreme Judicial Court decided in the early ’90s that, under Article 2 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, religious rights are preeminent and that the interests of government with regard to historic preservation must give way to constitutional rights,” said John Egan, a lawyer representing the Diocese of Springfield.
The Diocese of Springfield, which appears as its business designation RCB in the suit, is arguing that it has a right to remove the stained glass windows because they are considered sacred objects. Canon law, the diocese said, stipulates that the local bishop has a right to protect sacred vessels and objects when a Church closes.
“The RCB designated the Sacred windows that adorn the interior of the church, but are also visible from the exterior as Sacred items,” the complaint states. “Therefore, the removal of these Sacred windows prior to the transfer of the Church amounts to an act of religious expression by the RCB.”
Egan says that the case will ultimately come down to whether the stained glass windows are classified as sacred objects. He said that the city does not have the right to determine that under the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom.
“They’re either religious artifacts or they’re not,” Egan said. “Our position is that the government doesn’t get to decide that. The religious authority decides whether or not something is a sacred object.”
