No sooner had I put my pen – or my keyboard  – down then I saw this post on Rorate Caeli from Professor Roberto de Mattei.1) I believed I had already said all that I had to say on the subject of the Rome pilgrimage.  Bur when Prof. de Mattei’s article was quoted with apparent approval by other traditionalist sites I felt obliged to respond. 

Prof. de Mattei presents his article as the product of dispassionate, objective reflection, sine ira et studio. But as Heinrich von Treitschke sagaciously remarked:

How much misuse is made today of the saying sine ira et studio  – a maxim which its author was the last person to follow. 2)

The same can be said of Prof. de Mattei’s post,  which is anything but impartial.

Now Prof. de Mattei attributes the actions the Vatican against the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage to the presence in it of Bishop Athanasius Schneider, following the bishop’s statements showing understanding for certain of  the positions of the FSSPX. According to Prof. de Mattei, it would have been prudent for the organizers of the pilgrimage to have separated themselves from Bishop Schneider. Prof. de Mattei cites no sources for these assertions. 

Now what happened to the pilgrimage on October 24th seems to be not a little embarrassing for the Roman Catholic Church.  Prof. de Mattei’s explanation joins a list of excuses – published after the fact –  seeking to justify the Vatican’s conduct and placing the blame for the scandalous  events in Rome on the leadership of the pilgrimage (the CISP).  So,  we have read that the pilgrimage was refused entry to St. Peter’s because of “organizational issues” (Silere non Possum),  that the CISP’s request for a “prayer service” in St. Peter’s was unclear (the Vatican press office and The Pillar) or that a conflict existed with other events (several sources). 

There are fundamental problems with all of these explanations. Some of them directly contradict published facts,  such as the claims regarding scheduling conflicts and unclear requests. But, even more importantly, none of these claims, whether true or not, was asserted by the Vatican itself. In fact, at no time has the Vatican publicly stated the rationale for the actions that it took. 

Regarding Prof. de Mattei’s specific claim, in the past the Vatican has not at all been shy in vetoing the participation in the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage of clerics who were persona non grata to it.  For example,  in 2021 Pope Francis blocked one well-known American archbishop from celebrating the concluding Mass in St. Peter’s – which proceeded  anyway with another celebrant. So if Bishop Schneider’s participation had been an issue there was ample precedent for the Vatican to raise it, officially or otherwise, anytime in  the “negotiations” (to use that term loosely)over the 2026 pilgrimage  that began in late 2025.

What did then could have motivated the Vatican to take the steps it did? 

According to the sources I have seen, in a private conversation with Bishop Schneider in December 2025, Pope Leo already stated that “he felt that the Mass celebrated in 2025 had provoked negative reactions.”  By February the CISP was already starting to think about contingency plans if a Mass was ultimately refused. And after the CISP went public in July 2026 with the still unresolved status of  the  pilgrimage Mass, reports circulated in various media – from anonymous sources of course – speaking of  the displeasure of the pope’s so-called “inner circle” (and of the staff of St. Peter’s) with the prior year’s s pilgrimage. It was perceived as “propaganda” and, allegedly, “gloating” had followed. According to one such source, the pilgrimage Mass had been :

“a celebration whose scale and tone were interpreted as a triumph by those overseeing access to the basilica.” 3)

I’ve also heard several times the word “instrumentalization” mentioned. Now instrumentalization is a favorite term of the progressive establishment, both clerical and secular. Normally, it connotes exploiting  an event  – spiritual or artistic, let us say  – for some ulterior political objective. I have been unable to find any such overtly political statements. Therefore, I have to ask: for what could the 2025 pilgrimage have been instrumentalized?  For what had it served as “propaganda”? It can only have been the furtherance of the Traditional Mass – to display the vitality of the traditionalist cause and its devotion to the Pope.  But that is why the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage exists in the first place! To summarize, everything I have seen indicates that from the very start of the planning process the Vatican’s real problem with the 2026 pilgrimage was the success – the “triumph” – of the previous year’s pilgrimage and its resulting resonance in the media. That could not be allowed to reappear.

Taking up another thread in Prof. de Mattei’s article, it may well be that the Vatican now sees no difference between the FSSPX, the ex –Ecclesia Dei traditionalists and even the Catholic conservatives. (for example, the recent statements against women veiling their heads in church!) But that is not the result of a “procedural” conflict in 2026 caused by the consecrations of  FSSPX bishops but of a fundamental change in policy towards the Traditional Mass and, indeed, Catholic tradition in its entirety. A course which has received its clearest expression –  so far –  in Traditionis Custodes. It is a transformed understanding of the Church  – an “ideology,” if you will – that may be papered over at times but, as long as its advocates remain in positions of power, will rear its head again and again. 

I should mention that on several occasions we have had the great pleasure to welcome both Professor de Mattei and Bishop Schneider to events of the St. Hugh of Cluny Society. But I must close with another Latin maxim of which Prof. de Mattei is himself fond : 

Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas.

1.  De Mattei, Roberto, “Considerations on the Traditional Pilgrimage to Rome,”Rorate Caeli (11/4/2026. The original is here (furnished with an apparently AI-generated image!)
2. The author is Tacitus. Treitschke’s comment is found at Deutsche Geschichte im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, Foreword to Vol. V (1894).
3.  “Bishop Schneider to celebrate Summorum Pontificum TLM at St. Mary Major after St. Peter’s permission denied,” Advaticanum  (9/9/2026). See also “The 2026 Summorum Pontificum Pilgrimage,” and “Pilgrimage Summorum Pontificum this year”(8/4/2026) and the sources cited therein.

How to best summarize the three days of the 15th Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage? What have we learned about Pope Leo, the Vatican,  the pilgrimage itself and its leadership (the “CISP”: Coetus Internationalis Summorum Pontificum)?

Of course, the main consequence of the pilgrimage was the decision of the Vatican to bar it from entering St. Peter’s basilica. This unprecedented act clearly reveals where Pope Leo stands on the issue of the Traditional Mass. This public rejection, moreover, was delivered in a contemptuous and insulting manner. To issue on September 30^th an unprecedented prohibition on entering St Peter’s for an event scheduled since last year for October 23rd is outrageous and unacceptable. Moreover, there were other indications of Vatican hostility, for example,  the absence of most clergy in the procession towards St. Peter’s.

Now, we at the St. Hugh of Cluny Society also have had experience over the years organizing liturgies and conferences. We well understand the difficulties the CISP faces in carrying out this much more complex operation. We are familiar with the permanent risk that a Roman Catholic cleric (in our case, usually a pastor or member of a mainstream religious order) will at the last minute unexpectedly disown a previously agreed course of action or seek to bar a speaker or celebrant. We are also well acquainted with the hatred against traditionalists widely present in clerical and religious circles, and how traditionalist apostolates  – some of long standing – have been terminated without explanation or even the courtesy of an official communication. All these things are nothing new. It was nevertheless startling for me to see such disagreeable features of Catholic life now displayed by Pope Leo and his subordinates as well –  in an even more extreme form.

I say “Pope Leo,” for at least at this point in time it matters very little whether the pope made these decisions himself or is “merely” incapable of restraining his more aggressive subordinates. But certainly the pope was personally informed of the planning for this year’s pilgrimage last December.  And the Vatican’s handling of the pilgrimage has the hallmarks of Pope Leo’s management style: the refusal to communicate, the deferral of any decision, and then, finally,  an unexpectedly radical determination. It is all very reminiscent of what we know about the process leading to the FSSPX excommunications, or of how Pope Leo has handled the Rupnik affair so far. 

The effects of the Vatican’s decision far exceed the immediate consequences for the pilgrimage. Combined with the Vatican’s earlier refusal to permit a Traditional Mass in St. Peter’s,  the events of last week signal to every bishop and priest who wants to prohibit the Traditional Mass or merely harass traditionalists and conservatives that he may do so without Vatican interference. Moreover,  far from hoping that Pope Leo will in some way ameliorate Traditionis Custodes I now would not at all be surprised if he imposes further restrictions. For the outcome of this pilgrimage demonstrates Pope Leo is not just intellectually unsympathetic to the Traditional Mass but is utterly unconcerned with the consequences of his actions on traditionalist clergy and laity. 

Consider the wildly contrasting reception the Vatican gave to a quasi-commercial sports venture one week after the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage. The basketball teams of Villanova and Notre Dame Universities  – and some 7,000 of their supporters  – came to Rome for a game. On October 31st the archbishop of  Philadelphia was able to celebrate  a mass for them  in St Peter’s at the high altar. Moreover, the visitors thereupon had a private audience with the Pope.  All of this was given the greatest media attention by the Vatican. An article from Forbes illustrates the close coordination and cooperation with the Vatican necessary for these events: Casey, Tim, “How Pope Leo’s Election Led To Notre Dame-Villanova Basketball Games,”forbes.com (10/22/2026).  The priorities of this papacy could not be clearer.  Pope Leo did, however, reject having the basketball game take place in the Vatican!

Now in 2026 the CISP had to make the best of a bad situation. Already in January they were receiving from the Vatican negative “vibrations” but no decision in response to their requests for authorization for  2026 pilgrimage. But they persisted throughout the year  – eventually receiving in October a completely negative response. This affair reveals the CISP’s lack of advocates and channels of communication within the Vatican. No major decision makers supporting the traditionalist cause seemed to exist in the Vatican. A communications breakdown is clear when, for an event scheduled since last year for October 23^rd,  the Vatican was conveying  crucial decisions by formal, summary letters in August and late September. 

But there was a second communications problem: that between the CISP and the pilgrims and general public  It was indeed a difficult situation for the CISP. I have the impression they were valiantly struggling all year to preserve the pilgrimage.  And I get the sense that they were taken off guard by some of the Vatican moves. Nevertheless,  communications between the CISP and the pilgrims and public could have been better. There were constant surprises, major and minor, leaving disconcerting impressions that the CISP and its allies sought to dispel with statements issued after the fact.  Greater transparency would have avoided at least some of these problems. 

But the final result of this year’s pilgrimage experience was not at all merely negative!

With the benefit of hindsight, I believe that the fact that the CISP was able to pull off the pilgrimage at all is itself an achievement, given the open Vatican enmity. In terms of long-term consequences, by forcing the Vatican to put its cards on the table, this year’s Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage, at the price of painful rejection, did establish clarity.  For those who have the capacity of perceiving reality, the open display of Vatican strategy and tactics reflects very badly on that institution.  I have written about the disastrous effects of the Roman Catholic “culture of pretend” on the life of the Church. At least on this specific issue, that culture has been dissipated.

The quiet commitment of the laity was impressive throughout the pilgrimage.  The vespers in the Pantheon, the Masses in Sta Maria Maggiore  and in San Giovanni dei Fiorentini were all well attended and reverently celebrated  – within the limitations on ceremony and music dictated by the form of the two Masses. Those experiences will remain with the participants. And apart from the pilgrims’ individual spiritual benefits, if a main purpose of the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage is to demonstrate the vitality of the Traditional Mass and of the traditionalist faithful,  to that extent this year’s pilgrimage succeeded. And in terms of physically accommodating the pilgrims, Sta Maria Maggiore succeeded better than the chapel of St. Peter’s chair did last year!

We must finally offer a word of thanks to Bishop Athanasius Schneider. I understand that over the year he followed patiently the uncertainty surrounding the services of the pilgrimage. He presided over three liturgies. The celebrations were uniformly well paced, reverent and inspiring. For each service,  Bishop Schneider delivered a specific homily developing themes from the feast of the day yet also unambiguously defending the Traditional Mass. In all these situations his personal demeanor was calm and dignified. 

The CISP have announced dates for the 2027 pilgrimage on which they intend to begin work immediately.  Whether that is a realistic goal given the depth of papal hostility displayed this year, I cannot say. But this pilgrimage has been threatened with collapse before, such as in 2021,  yet eventually was successfully carried out.  Consider what the actions of the Vatican have done for the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage! It had started as a somewhat esoteric event, even though one in which high prelates of the Church often participated. It has evolved into a focal point of Catholic traditionalism.  And also, regrettably, into a symbol of the great divisions in Catholic culture today. And all of this takes place under ever greater media attention. So I wish the organizers well in their endeavor – and we’ll follow the developments with great attention!

The pilgrimage has two major Masses on Sunday. The earlier of the two was at 8:30 at San Giovanni dei Fiorentini. In contrast with last year’s Solemn Mass, the Mass was a read Low Mass, with musical accompaniment by a string ensemble at certain points in the liturgy. Later, I was told the simplified service was selected to avoid raising issues (and perhaps prompting negotiations?) with the (non-ICRSS) pastor. Nevertheless, the church was completely full.

The high altar of Sta Maria Maggiore.

The basilica was filled – I read estimates of 1200, 2000, even 4000 (!) present.

Despite the time pressure (I had heard first only one hour had been allotted for a Low Mass, later 1 1/2 hours was mentioned) the liturgy was reverent, solemn and unhurried. The music was obviously drastically reduced, even in comparison to a Missa Cantata. The Mass was recited aloud, except for the canon.

As he did on two other occasions on this pilgrimage, Bishop Athanasius Schneider gave a memorable homily, clearly defending the Traditional Mass.

(Above) What are the special rubrics for a Mass “versus poplulum” (as in the papal basilicas)? The celebrant does not turn, such as when the concluding blessing is given.

PS: I should add a few words about certain other aspects of this  Mass. First,  the service was a Low Mass to which one ( or 1 ½ ) hours  was allotted. The organizers of the pilgrimage state that this had been agreed with the authorities of the basilica from the beginning. That may be! But unless you parsed very carefully the wording published on 9/9/2026 on the website of the CISP (15:00 p.m.: Mass at the high altar of the Basilica of Saint Mary Major),  I don’t think you would have aware of this departure from the liturgical practice of prior years. So,  for many this became one additional surprise. 

Second,  the officials present attempted to enforce restrictions on photography. The organizers of the pilgrimage have stated that this is normal practice during services at Sta Maria Maggiore. I don’t know, however,  if that’s the last word on the matter. I saw at least one person being told to stop taking pictures ten minutes or more before the service began.  I also noticed that a photographer, who seemed to have been acting in a quasi-official capacity,  being directed by the “ushers” to leave the front of the seating area  – along with his equipment. ). I would be surprised if a professional photographer would be unaware of any such restrictions. I myself cannot find on the website of the basilica a general restriction of photography during services. Moreover, the website of the basilica does state that, in the case of a mass sponsored by a visiting group (like this pilgrimage),  filming (video recording ) of the service is possible with prior written permission. Such activity of course often employs additional equipment that is restricted (e.g., tripods)

This matter, along with other,  not immediately understandable,  actions of the supervisory personnel, helped lend an unexpected element of tension to the proceedings – at least in the section where I was seated. This was reinforced by the scene outside the basilica, where substantial police and military forces had been deployed in anticipation of disturbances. Apparently, these materialized in the vicinity of Sta Maria Maggiore only later that evening. But those exiting the basilica already found many streets blocked off.

(Above) The pilgrims gathered before the closed ICRSS church of Santi Celso e Juliano. I suspect many learned at this time they would not be processing into St. Peter’s. (Below) The slim hand-out for the procession aleady reflected the new reality (“A solemn Procession towards the Basilica of St. Peter’s”) but the image selected did not.

(Above and below) The number of pilgrims (perhps 800-1000) was of course less than last year and also seemed to me less than in prior years as well. Many had travelled great distances to participate.

(Above) The pilgrimage sets out. The pilgrimage could continue along the route agreed with the Roman police until it reached the territory of the Vatican.

As always, the procession attracts much interest fom bystanders.

(Above) In contrast to previous pilgrimages, the procession was not lead by impressive ranks of clergy but by the laity. The clergy that were present blended into the rest of the pilgrims. In fact, the number of clergy present at this procession was far less than in prior years. Several major congregations were completely absent. Had they received advance word of the prohibition on entering St. Peter’s? From within the pilgrimage organization, or perhaps from the Vatican directly?

(Above) After a conversation with Carabinieri (Italian national police), the pilgrimage moved onto St. Peter’s square and eventually the territory of Vatican City.

The pilgrims were directed by a few Vatican officials into a kind of large holding pen or corral formed by barriers similar to those that deface this magnificent square today. Here the pilgrimage “fizzled out” around noon. It was an unforgrettble low point for this pilgrimage and for the Traditionalist cause.

The first liturgical celebration of the pilgrimage was Solemn Vespers in the Pantheon (Sta Maria ad Martyres) on Friday evening. Bishop Athanasius Schneider presided.

Of course I shall not pretend to consider it any matter for wonder, that (this) extraordinary case … has excited discussion. It would have been a miracle had it not — especially under the circumstances. Through the desire of all parties concerned to keep the affair from the public, at least for the present, or until we had farther opportunities for investigation — through our endeavors to effect this — a garbled or exaggerated account made its way into society, and became the source of many unpleasant misrepresentations, and, very naturally, of a great deal of disbelief.

It is now rendered necessary that I give the facts — as far as I comprehend them myself.

(Edgar Allan Poe, The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar)

The recently concluded Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage generated a great stir at least in those Catholic circles that still care about such things. Last year the massive attendance at the Pontifical Mass celebrated at St. Peter’s attracted more attention than this pilgrimage, which dates from 2012,  had ever previously achieved. Yet this year, when the Vatican formally barred the pilgrimage from even entering St Peter’s,  the resulting publicity was even greater. The events have given rise to a continuing stream of online commentary which, because of travel, I was at first unable to follow in detail. Perhaps that was fortunate, for much of what has been spoken or written is special pleading, attempted manipulation or outright lies.  Those connected with the leadership of the pilgrimage have subsequently issued succinct statements of their own. Journalists too have weighed in, in some cases publishing relevant correspondence which has shed light upon the background of these events. 

In view of this controversy and in the spirit of the anonymous narrator in The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar, quoted above,  I will modestly relate what I myself saw and heard in Rome during the 15th Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage.  As is usual on this blog, I will accompany the story with photos.  I have added information I have learned from other sources and also give my opinions regarding the ultimate factors and forces behind these events.

I. The Conference

(Above) Natalia Sammartin Fenollera.

As always, the pilgrimage began with a conference Friday morning, which featured several memorable presentations. It is as always a privilege to experience the breadth and variety of the Traditionalist life throughout the world. Let me offer a selection of what we heard. Natalia Sammartin Fenollera (Madrid) spoke eloquently of the “battle for the liturgy and the burning fires” or centers of liturgical resistance. Her profoundly spiritual discourse drew on seemingly innumerable sources: Newman, Dostoevsky, John Senior, Pavel Florensky, Simone Weil, Kierkegaard  –  and, again and again, Cristina Campo,  who seems to be finally receiving the recognition  – in Catholic circles  – that she deserves. Sammartin Fenollera spoke of the various communities that have preserved the liturgy and of their capacity for sacrifice in the midst of a disintegrating world. They (and we) do not need to “save the world” – or the Church –  but only accomplish the little that we can.  She emphasized the need for patience and fortitude, referencing St Hildegard of Bingen and St. Benedict. And she quoted Cristina Campo on trust in the providence of God:  a youth trapped in a housing project may be meditating all night on the text of the liturgy, a drug addict, longing for death, may end up on Mount Athos….

(Above) Sebastian Ostritch.

Sebastian Ostritch (Stuttgart) spoke of the role of silence in the traditional liturgy, and how silent contemplation can be the most active form of participation. He spoke of  the silent recitation of  the canon, and of how people  are now rediscovering this atmosphere reverence.  Perhaps he went a little too far, though – it almost would seem that the ubiquitous (in  pre-conciliar times) low mass would represent the pinnacle of Catholic liturgical sensibility!

(Above) Jorge O’Reilly.

Jorge O’Reilly (Buenos Aires) presented the story of Sursum Corda, a Catholic community, school and housing development founded around the celebration of the Traditional Mass. O’Reilly’s presentation addressed many practical questions involved in creating and maintaining such a community, such as obtaining the services of clergy and navigating local educational laws. Such an initiative is, of course,  not without enemies. O’Reilly remarked on the “prudence of keeping a low profile.”

Now at this conference there were some very significant communications. The conference began with a lengthy, and I thought, unnecessary explanation,  of why the Saturday mass at St. Maria Maggiore would be celebrated versus populum. Then,  we were told that the vespers that evening would start at 6 instead of 6:30 as announced. Because of this I left early, thus missing the most important event of the day. For I heard later that evening that it had been announced  –  I believe for the first time publicly  – that the Vatican had barred the pilgrimag from entering St. Peter’s Basilica.

All Souls Day is this Monday, November 2. The following churches will offer Traditional Masses.

Connecticut

St. Mary Church, Norwalk, Solemn Mass 1 pm (organized by Regina Pacis Academy); Solemn Mass 7 pm.

Georgetown Oratory of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Redding, 6 pm, Sung Latin Mass followed by recitation of the Bede Roll and refreshments 

St. Pius X, Fairfield, 7 pm

Sts. Cyril and Methodius Oratory, Bridgeport, Low Masses at 7:45 am and 8:30 am; High Mass and absolution, 6 pm

St. Patrick Oratory, Waterbury, Requiem High Mass, 6 pm

New York

Church of the Holy Innocents, New York, NY, 6 pm

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Harlem, 7 pm Solemn Requiem Mass

St. Josaphat Oratory, Bayside, Queens, Requiem Low Masses at 7 am and 12 noon; Requiem High Mass and Absolution, 7 pm

St. Rocco Church, Glen Cove, Long Island, Sung Requiem Mass, 7 pm

Sacred Heart, Esopus, 11:30 am

November 3: Church of the Blessed Sacrament, New Rochelle, Solemn Requiem Mass, 7 pm

November 5: St. Aidan Church, Williston Park, Long Island, Sung Requiem Mass, 7:30 pm

November 7: St. Margaret Church, Bronx, 12 noon Sung Requiem Mass.

New Jersey

Our Lady of Sorrows, Jersey City, Sung Requiem Mass, 5:30 pm

Our Lady of Victories in Harrington Park, NJ at 5:30pm, Low Requiem Mass

St. Anthony of Padua Oratory, West Orange, Requiem Low Masses at 9 am and 12 noon; Requiem High Mass at 7 pm

Shrine Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament, Raritan, 7 pm

St. John the Baptist, Allentown, Solemn Requiem Mass, 7 pm. Dinner reception to follow.

November 3rd: St. Mary of Mt. Virgin, New Brunswick, Sung Requiem Mass, 7 pm. Annual Choral Requiem, featuring the Mass Ordinary from Victoria’s Officium Defunctorum à 6.

November 5th: Good Shepherd Parish, Hopelawn, 7 pm, Traditional Latin Vespers ofr the Day with candlelight proceession into cemetery

November 6th: St. Catherine Laboure Church, Middletown, Sung Requiem Mass, 7 pm

(Above) Most Holy Redeemer, New York (photo 1/6/2013)

The New York Post has published an extensive article summarizing the lack of progress on landmark designations in New York City, particularly those related to Catholic churches:

Moore, Chadwick, “Historic NYC churches and landmarks at risk of being razed for the sake of ‘affordable housing,’” nypost.com ( 10/15/2026)

The article specifically mentions – and provides photographs of –  churches to which we ourselves have returned many times in this blog – reporting on the history of the church, its more recent vicissitudes, and, sometimes, the celebration there of a Traditional Latin Mass. For each church listed by the Post I provide a link to one of our relevant articles :

Most Holy Redeemer (The Churches of New York IX: Vierzehnheiligen on the East River)

St. Michael’s (West 34^th Street)( The Churches of New York XXXI: the Wrong Side of the Tracks)

Our Lady of Guadalupe (at St. Bernard’s) ( The Churches of New York XXX: A Tale of Two Churches)

Church of the Transfiguration (Maspeth, Queens) (A Church in Danger of Closing)

St. Mary’s (Grand Street) (Landmark designation already received) ( The Churches of New York XXIV: In the Beginning. The interior seems to have been painted in garish red since we last visited.)

The New York Post article attributes the drying up of landmark designations to the desire to free up real estate for building  both luxury condominiums and affordable housing, Thus, the interests of both real estate speculators and “democratic socialist” politicians and planners may be aligned:

“Without landmark protection, it’s very likely that eventually all of the historic buildings, the tenements, the old synagogues and churches, the institutional buildings will be demolished and turned into luxury housing and expensive hotels, the way things are going,” Richard Moses, president of the Lower East Side Preservation Initiative, told The Post of the current climate.

The socialists who have taken over have a dim view of preserving old buildings, particularly houses of worship, because they’d rather see more affordable apartments. They claim keeping churches from being torn down isn’t “equitable.” 

The article gives an example of proposed legislation seeking to exploit the alleged tension between historical preservation – of churches – and affordable housing:

Preservationists are particularly worried about buildings being demolished to make way for affordable housing, after a bill called the “Faith Based Affordable Housing Act” was introduced by Brooklyn Democrats Andrew Gounardes and Brian Cunningham. It targeted houses of worship to have their landmark protections amended to allow developers to add-on or completely demolish sites of historic religious significance as long as they offered a fraction of the units they build at below market rates.

“Culture is low on the totem pole. If the mayor really wants an affordable housing complex to go on a historic site, it’ll probably happen,” Michele Bogart, former vice president of the New York City Art Commission under Mayor Rudy Giuliani, told The Post.

The flashpoint of the conflict over landmarking Catholic Churches is now Most Holy Redeemer in the East Village:

Preservationists are particularly alarmed over the fate of Most Holy Redeemer church on East 3rd Street in Manhattan’s East Village — a granite and limestone cathedral built in 1851 by German missionaries.