{ title: 'Courier-Journal. (Rochester, N.Y.) 1968-current, April 21, 1988, Page 1, Image 1', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/np00020004/1988-04-21/ed-1/seq-1/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00020004/1988-04-21/ed-1/seq-1.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00020004/1988-04-21/ed-1/seq-1/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00020004/1988-04-21/ed-1/seq-1/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: Rochester Regional Library Council
•i^Hi^l '-'- .J '-.^J.; :-» mwmxstebw fo&m &*$& *& ••••••••*•• • if- I lb If k I- By Richard A. Kiley Diocesan officials are expressing little surprise over the city preservation board's 8-0 vote early Tuesday morning, April 19, to designate holy Redeemer Church as a city landmark. The vote came some six hours after, the start Monday evening of a public hearing on the UO^y^-oldcipchurch^l^e matter i*|w goes to t^ city planning cc^nnissioh,-since the parisHjihat owns the huUding challenged the prestation board's action. The plann- ing commission has three weeks to make a decision^,. '-,, '\ \- \To bltiiuite honest, we didn't expect to win with the preservation board ... it's not too discouraging,\ said Father John M. Mulligan,' diocesan director of urban services. \It's really going to be up to the planning commission; they're going to call this one.*' Father Mulligan was alluding to the fact that several preservation board members are. also members of the Landmark Society of Western New York, which recently assisted city resident William E. Kriise in filing the applicafjoaasking the city to grant landmark status to the brick and limestone edifice. A. three-quarters vote of both the city \PKservtHon^a^^a^BMl^^ status can 7 b^:;g^^^|o;:tbl^Kw^^pin the corner of Hudson and Clifford avenues. In light of the preservation board's vote, no alterations to: the ecUfice can be made without the board's app|^. : \Our case was%c%madejspyinuch on the architectural merits of thebuilding,'' Father Mulligan said Tuesday morning. \I felt that at least some of the (board). members understood what we said.\ In listing the reasons for their decision on Holy Redeemer, preservation board mem- bers cited the building's aesthetic value and its value as a memorial to the German immigrants who founded it. Holy Redeemer Church is the fifth-oldest German church in Rochester. Several board, members were also im- pressed with the church's onion domes and said the limestone detailing around its windows — a very rare characteristic of churches in New York state — should also be strongly considered. • During, the five-hour public hearing pre- ceding the vote, more than 200 people overflowed the City Council chambers to hear* testimony for and against the landmark designation. The tension-filled hearing was further strained by discussion of a verbal proposal the landmark, society had made to Father Mulligan on Friday, April IS, offering to \assume ownership\ of the Holy Redeemer complex. According to Frank Crego, president of \ <£^m Father John M. Mtaagan (right) and Father WHHamj Bil»one present their position regarding Holy Redeemer Crnirch to the chy the landmark society's board of trustees, the society offered to take from the parish all financial responsibility for the .Holy Re- deemer buildings and property. Crego said that, even if the church were eventually razed, the organization's offer would spare the parish approximately $70,000 in demoli- tion costs. At the beginning of the public hearing, Crego turned, toward the crowd and told Father Mulligan that \theoffer still stands.\ \We're saying now that we would take care of theJIemoUtiongf it comes to that,\ s^ Heniy^cCaitney^he landmark soci- ety's executive director.: \That (demolition cost) is more than the land is worth.\ During his testimony, Father Mulligan downplayed this proposal, saying that the landmark society had not offered to com- pensate die parish for forfeiting the pro- perty. \I'm hearing offers to take something we own off our hands. I don't look at that as a big favor,\ Father Mulligan said, in response to this and other usage proposals. -. The, priest also denied landmark society allegations that the parish and diocese are unfamiliar with and inexperienced in market- ing its old buildings. Father Mulligan said that the diocese and parish had spent more than four years searching for developers, wfch the assistance of independent engineers and several city agencies. j \In no way have we been passive, inept j or absentee custodians of the Holy Redeemer parcel,\ the priest said: The church was last used-in 1985 before the parish merged witn St; Francis Xavicr. \''\['; In other testimony before the preservatibn board and planning commission, nearly 25 people spoke in support of Kruse's request for landmark status for the church. Among the presentations was an architectural evaluation prepared for the landmark society by Paul Malo, a tenured professor at Syracuse University.' \Visual prominence and'distinctive style Continued oa Page 11 Neither condemn nor condone deterrence, report says Around the Diocese..':.. Calendar... ... Classifieds Columnists Echo* Editorial & Opinion..... Local News..... Sports World & Nation........ Page 2 Page 7 Page 11 Pages 12-13 Page 10 Page 14 Page 16 Page 3 Pages 8-9 Pages 4-6 r&ra'lTi^j^'.-^-'-^iK-.'iaiagt\-— By Jerry Filteau. Wasktegtoa (NQ — The Catholic bishops of the United States should neither condemn nuclear deterrence outright nor \accept it as self-regulating or 'normal,'\ says a draft report by tb« U.S. bi|^* Aid Hoc Com- mittee for the MoiU Evaluation of Deter- rence. '\\.-; ' The report, released April 14, says the U.S.-Soviet summit last December has raised t'cautjous hopes'' for arms control, put sja^^lbjafc'\'some.:. nuclear policies and sjraligies-of the superpowers must still be . - • The harjon^ bisbbpsv -who were mailed. recommendationsod the report in writing to the committee, then debate and vote on a second draftof the report wheitthe^meet in June in Collegeville, Minn. The committee writing the report is headed by Cardinal Joseph L.Bernardin of Chicago. ' The committee was formed in 1985 to evaluate changes in U.S. nuclear policy since the bishops issued their 1983 pastoral letter, \The Challenge of Peace,\ which said that any moral acceptance of nuclear deterrence had to be \strictly conditioned\ by the morality of the policies and strategies un- derlying a nation's deterrence posture. Some bishops who called for the new evaluation had argued that U.S. policies no longer met the pastoral letter's conditions for a morally acceptable nuclear deterrence. The draft' document calls on the superpowers to reverse existing policies that increase the risk of a pre-emptive first strike or thai destabiiize the nuclear balance. Both superpowers, it says, \are deploying weapons which, in both number and kind, run contrary to the conditions\ the UiS. bishops set out in their 1983 peace pastoral; as prerequisites for a morally acceptable nuclear-deterrence policy. The committee's report urges significant reductions in the strategic weapons of both countries, saying that existing arsenals exceed the requirements of secondrstrike deterrence. It particularly challenges the level of U.S. and Soviet defense spending, saying that defense expenditures are in \direct -and unyielding competition\ with 'social pro- grams for the poor and needy. The amount both countries spend on defense constitutes \a debilitating drain on their domestic Coatiaaed oa Page 5 ?®M; ^^•^••^^•^ •**•#%
