zz wrote on Dec 12, 2007 7:49 AM:
" I feel for those who do not understand,or do not want to. Read, learn, look it up on your computer unless your company will not let you.
Just saw a blog from "meximan": A little harsh but right on track... "
Nikki Beaverhausen wrote on Dec 12, 2007 7:46 AM:
" To Seriously Now: Local Catholic church collections WERE used to mild this golden calf. A portion of every collection is sent up the pipeline and everybody gets a piece all the way to Rome. Some of that money gets used for projects like this one. "
meximan wrote on Dec 10, 2007 10:26 PM:
" To "leapfer"...right on.!! Finally somebody else spoke from there heart and stood up to these guys!! To "Big Spender" ...I have looked at all of the blogs in the recent year and have noticed that the most commented on are the ones that involve "Mexicans" or "Mexico", illegal or not. I see blog after blog of pure hatred and ignorance from alot of people who DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THERE TALKING ABOUT..!!! I also agree that if you don't like the catholic church...DON'T GO TO ONE. If you don't like mexicans or people from mexico....go to a counselor or a anger specialist...because it clearly shows that you have issues. "
leapfer wrote on Dec 10, 2007 4:29 PM:
" I simply cannot believe how many bigots/racists live in beautiful La Crosse. Anti-Mexican and Anti-Catholic sentiment is obvious in some of the ugly statements made. If you are not Catholic, and haven't donated to the Shrine, then DON'T GO there. "
Michael Welch wrote on Dec 10, 2007 10:19 AM:
" What's interesting is how the anti-Catholic 'PO'B' has joined the crowd -- everyone's worried about taxes but ALL church properties of whatever church, David Holt's too say, that relate directly to religious purposes are tax-exempt are they not? I wonder whether say that Pastor Holt's radio show is permitted some tax break? Now if the argument is essentially that NO religion ought to be permitted tax exemptions of ANY kind then there would be some consistency here -- but if the presumption is that CATHOLIC 'shrines' are NOT for religious purposes but protestant radio shows are, then the bias is obvious isn't it? I don't know what especial entity maintains the statue of Liberty -- is it the national park service? -- but do we really object to that too?... "
tax Justice wrote on Dec 10, 2007 8:36 AM:
" Jared, Perhaps you don't really get the "big picture". There is no real population of Latinos in LaCrosse. The Church would have credibility if it invested in projects that would truly help those who need the help. As someone who worked for Catholic Charities for and different Dioceses for more than 15 years of my life, I can guarantee you that the poor need the economic support more than we do. If you haven't walked outside into the Cathedral that the Creator made, perhaps you should. People do not need to drive thousands of mile for devotion. They need to recognize that the created order that surrounds us needs our respect and attention, and we can help others at the same time. "
Wheezer wrote on Dec 10, 2007 4:45 AM:
" Leapfer: I understand completely, what is sad is how YOU don't understand and you have been brainwashed! And every structure you mentioned, except for the roman aquaducts, were built for the purpose of worshipping a god or gods. At least that structure benefited ALL PEOPLE, not just the brainwashed ones! "
Big Spender wrote on Dec 10, 2007 12:48 AM:
" To meximan, do take your own advice regarding your last ad hominem remark...respond to the points presented and refrain from namecalling. Namecalling is an admission that you're not up to a debate. "
meximan wrote on Dec 9, 2007 11:56 PM:
" To .."Jeremy" ..were you dropped on your head as a child or something..?? When will you find something worth while to write on a blog for once..??? "
jeremy wrote on Dec 9, 2007 11:10 PM:
" For those of you that aren't catholic or are athiests, take your money and do what you're saying. I look forward to seeing a huge influx of money to local charities. You criticize the church for everything, no matter what they do. I however do agree that the naming of this shrine is a PR stunt for the many illegals/immigrants that are in the La Crosse area. "
Seriously Now wrote on Dec 9, 2007 10:32 PM:
" The main point that so many of you miss is that THE SHRINE WAS NOT CONCEIVED OF OR BUILT BY THE DIOCESE! The Diocese builds local churches, schools, etc.
The shrine church (when open) will not be for local weekly churchgoers, but for pilgrims. It's a separate thing!
It is a PRIVATE project, PRIVATE money. Just because the person who came up with the idea was the bishop does NOT mean it was an official project of the diocese! AGAIN: THE SHRINE WAS NOT CONCEIVED OF OR BUILT BY THE DIOCESE!
People have the right to spend their money privately as they choose. Get over it.
"
antieverything wrote on Dec 9, 2007 8:39 PM:
" The more I review the story the more I am convinced mescalin was prevalint in the 1500's "
Big Spender wrote on Dec 9, 2007 6:58 PM:
" Perhaps that money would be put to better use cleaning up the Catholic Church's pedophile priest problem (they've doled out hundreds of millions in settlements already). -- http://www.deliverusfromevilthemovie.com/index_flash.php "
Leapfer wrote on Dec 9, 2007 6:56 PM:
" It's the Christmas season - why are SO MANY of you so HATEFUL? I stopped reading after it took me the first 11 comments to come to one that was positive. It's sad that you bash what you don't understand. If the people that commented about this being a waste had their way - none of the wonders of the world would ever have been created. No pyramids, no beautiful temples, cathedrals, no greek temple of Nike, no Roman aqueducts, no Sistine Chapel, none of it... If you would have lived 100 years ago - you would've paid a percentage of your family income to build your community a big beautiful church that towered above any other building in the city. How far we've come. We'd rather just spend it on ourselves now. I'm so sad..... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Dec 9, 2007 6:54 PM:
" Now I thought that temples or shrines were supposed to be places where we bring honor or 'the spotlight' to God. It sounds like this place is set up to bring honor to someone other than God and the 'spotlight' also onto a city (for tourist dollars?). Maybe I don't understand because I'm not Catholic, but this shrine seems like something other then a place for worshiping God. "
what_that_too wrote on Dec 9, 2007 6:26 PM:
" I could see a rationalization of a need for more income (through tourism): to pay for the biggest "get rich quick" scheme ever perpetrated (don't catch the reference? - my are YOU unaware of recent history. . .) "
what_that_too wrote on Dec 9, 2007 6:25 PM:
" Most "visions", "apparitions" and "demons" (they're all about the same aren't they?) are now generally agreed to have been the result of the (occasional) ingestion of a psychotropic substance (deliberately, or otherwise). I guess it could have happened in Mexico or Portugal, and (maybe) Omaha, or to any of several posters here). Isn't wine consumption (in churches) a "sacrament"?). "
Big Spender wrote on Dec 9, 2007 6:24 PM:
" Nice scam, this organized religion thing! No taxes, people bow at your feet, and they hand you snazzy bachelor pads like this one for free! (first post deleted by Orso, hmmmm, I wonder why? Maybe Listecki complained?) "god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" -- http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807 "
Paladin wrote on Dec 9, 2007 6:00 PM:
" This is just one of many reasons I am glad I am not Catholic. "
davidinlse wrote on Dec 9, 2007 5:38 PM:
" There are shrines in 34 states, including this one, 4 in Wisconsin. Can't see why shrines would even begin to be necessary, but, how about a shrine to all the children that the church didn't protect. "
Jaxx wrote on Dec 9, 2007 5:18 PM:
" Thanks for answering my question about the candles and donations. I think that it looks like a beautiful building and I am interested in seeing it but I do have another question for everyone. If there is an existing building in Mexico that is the true shrine of Guadelupe, why is there a shrine being built here? Was there an apparition here as well? Please forgive my ignorance but I don't understand why it is being built in Wisconsin. "
antieverything wrote on Dec 9, 2007 4:51 PM:
" I am so puzzled by this project this is the only comment I come up with. Too Strange "
je wrote on Dec 9, 2007 4:12 PM:
" Why is the Diocese of Lacrosse seeking donations to offset debt from its parishoners when they are flush enough to seek donations to build a shrine? Because Burke is such an ego-maniac that he had no problen with leaving the Diocese with "debt" to eliminate & a "donated" shrine. "
Wheezer wrote on Dec 9, 2007 3:43 PM:
" Michael Welch: Was the Statue of Liberty put up by a church or other charitable organization opporating under the guise of non-profit?? "
Wheezer wrote on Dec 9, 2007 3:41 PM:
" Irish_frog, you hit the nail right on the head. Seriously Now....seriously, where do you think that money would have been donated if not to this shrine? To the church itself, of course! So in essence, it did take away from other charities...not that all money the church takes in goes to chrities. If we can't trust the church with our children, can we really trust them with money? Money doesn't talk! SERIOUSLY NOW: it is YOUR ignorance that is showing! BryanGSmith: I love your comments and your fair intelligence on here always, keep it up! "
Michael Welch wrote on Dec 9, 2007 3:32 PM:
" Even if the most cynical twist (see just below) is turned upon all this it's like bemoaning any 'structure' -- why a statue of Liberty in New York harbor? Why anything that doesn't serve an obvious utilitarian purpose? I was never very enthused about this shrine when I lived in La Crosse and still attended mass et. al. and I never contributed a dime but now that it's 'there' after all I 'vote' with those who may say Beauty is its own 'utility'... "
irish_frog wrote on Dec 9, 2007 3:21 PM:
" Re: Seriously Now. I apologize for my over simplification. I would point out that these private donors would normally be putting money in the Church's coffers, so the money is coming out of the collection plate in an indirect way. ----------------------------------- Nonetheless, the church could have tapped these private donors and built the best Catholic hospital in the state, or created an organization to support single mothers, poor mothers, and people contemplating abortion in an effort to cut down on the practice. They could have created the best Catholic School system in Wisconsin and turn out generations of educated leaders with moral compasses. They could have created the finest shelter for the homeless and hungry. But instead they gathered up all this money to build a shrine so that Archbishop Burke could look good and move up in the Church hierarchy. "
davidinlse wrote on Dec 9, 2007 2:39 PM:
" RE: Seriously Now wrote on Dec 9, 2007 12:03 PM: Your comments are a hoot. If it cost's the people nothing, why doesn't the church cough up the money for fire, police, water ect. Because they are exempt, therefore, they will not. In the end, it's still the taxpayers footing the bill. Who's paying the roads, plowing them, maintaining them, not the church. So in fact, the taxpayers are getting taken, as usual. "
Michael Welch wrote on Dec 9, 2007 2:35 PM:
" Looks like a lovely edifice to me; I have absolutely nothing against spending money on a little beauty in the world. I am no longer a practicing Catholic but I know that shrines can have a kind effect, promoting more compassionate empathy and providing a 'quiet space.' I myself am 'dedicated' to battling the nasty sense of superiority some have about THEIR religion vis-a-vis another's and I must say I still like the Catholic 'polytheistic' aspects and these 'pagany' shrines et. al. much more than the mean-spirited literalist protestant I-made-a-desert-of-my-heart-and-called-it-MY-religion. Also: 'Viva La Senora de Guadalupe y El Pueblo Suya!'.. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Dec 9, 2007 2:16 PM:
" The building itself looks beautiful. I'm a big fan of stone, arcs and towers. It has a wonderful classical Italian look to it. Where did the architects get their influences? "
Jared wrote on Dec 9, 2007 1:01 PM:
" "While most of the conservative writers to this paper complain about illegal aliens crossing the border, one has to wonder what would life be like back in Mexico for millions of people if the church would have built this enormous shrine their [sic]." They did. Maybe you should know something before trying to tell people "how it is." There is a shrine in the town where the apparition allegedly happened. "
Seriously Now wrote on Dec 9, 2007 12:03 PM:
" My mother used to say, "Your ignorance is showing." That can be said of many posts about this shrine. First, the article CLEARLY states that it is 100% privately funded. NO collection plate money or diocese money. People choose what they give to. Does anyone ask you why the money you spent on a big screen TV wasn't given to the poor?
Second, why is wasn't built in Mexico? The original shrine IS IN MEXICO, been their for decades.
Third: You donate for candles the same way you donate for the "free" high school car wash. Because the organization needs money to keep operating.
Finally, some day those who are complaining will actually go up and visit this place, and then perhaps will see what a gift it was to the city of La Crosse.
Your ignorance is showing! "
irish_frog wrote on Dec 9, 2007 11:33 AM:
" I'm glad my donations to the church over the years have gone into building this new shrine in the middle of the woods. I was tired of my money going to causes like feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, aiding the poor, educating the children, and preaching the message of hope and service to our fellow man. A new building was definitely the way to go. /sarcasm "
Enjoylife wrote on Dec 9, 2007 11:05 AM:
" " The Catholic Church is just capitalizing on the mexinization of America which they helped create by discouraging birth control in Mexico (the fastest growing religion in the world, you know). The Mexicans, with the encouragement of the Catholic Church, have overpopulated their own country, and they are now working on ours. Picking Guadalupe was no accident, it is a marketing strategy for a dying religion to attract one of their last strong demographics - Mexicans. "
WOW! "
Me Thinks wrote on Dec 9, 2007 10:56 AM:
" Tourism is the justification for most all big projects in the La Crosse area. Yet it seems no one can agree on any numbers. Each project claims a vague amount and that is good enough. Now jenisgone says the people who come are "countless". I don't know, I can count pretty high. Seems like with countless tourists it would be impossible to get a room or a seat in a restaurant, and downtown would not be seeing increasing vacancies. "
Dan M. wrote on Dec 9, 2007 10:50 AM:
" It's so sad to see the pettiness and hatred displayed in these blogs. I've been that way in the past, whining and complaining about everything. That way of life was poison to a happy life. These "arguments" are so silly and don't deserve any attempt at rebuttal. I urge you to stand back and look at your lives. In your mind, watch yourselves as you complain about everything constantly. Look at yourselves as if you were watching a movie of someone else. Ask yourselves, "Is this any way to live?" I personally have found that it only brings depression and unhappiness. Life is good if we'll let it be. "
ToeJam wrote on Dec 9, 2007 10:49 AM:
" indigenous Mexican= TEQUILA "
Hillbilly wrote on Dec 9, 2007 10:25 AM:
" The Catholic Church is just capitalizing on the mexinization of America which they helped create by discouraging birth control in Mexico (the fastest growing religion in the world, you know). The Mexicans, with the encouragement of the Catholic Church, have overpopulated their own country, and they are now working on ours. Picking Guadalupe was no accident, it is a marketing strategy for a dying religion to attract one of their last strong demographics - Mexicans. "
davidinlse wrote on Dec 9, 2007 10:03 AM:
" RE: dmm wrote on Dec 9, 2007 9:05 AM: All TAXPAYERS pay for the shrine, not directly, but with the cost of fire, police, sewer and water. It's of no benefit to the community, as once the church finishes the restaurats and motels being built there, the only "benefit" will be to the catholic church.
"
justaguess wrote on Dec 9, 2007 9:55 AM:
" To tax justice, it is about time we started worring about the poor in this country...but I respect your view. "
Terri wrote on Dec 9, 2007 9:14 AM:
" The liquor license is for the restaurant that serves wine, and yes, you do donate money in any Catholic Church for the lighting of candles. The donation at the Chapel is tax deductible. I'm a reformed Catholic, and not really a huge fan of the Shrine. I think I remember that the initial donation was $5 million from some woman. I'm not sure where the other $20 million came from. I've gone to the shrine a few times now, and really do love the peace that comes over you there. I can't wait to see the Shrine when it is done. I just hope that local churches weren't required to contribute to this project. "
tax justice wrote on Dec 9, 2007 9:10 AM:
" While most of the conservative writers to this paper complain about illegal aliens crossing the border, one has to wonder what would life be like back in Mexico for millions of people if the church would have built this enormous shrine their. If people are willing to come to LaCrosse for devotional reasons and spends millions on hotels, food, and visiting the shrine, would it not make more sense to have built the shrine where the poor in the world could have truly benefited from it? "
dmm wrote on Dec 9, 2007 9:05 AM:
" If you have not donated to fund this project, it has not cost you a dime. The people who donate of their own money should be able to fund whatever they wish. Some of you have some pretty grand ideas of how to spend the money of others. If you have a more noble project in mind, use your actions and not your spiteful words. Donate your money to that project. "
justaguess wrote on Dec 9, 2007 8:53 AM:
" No you do not have to pay to light a candle, it is a suggested donation. BTW, taxes are paid on the property. Please quit whining people about how a organization spends their money. In this case it does more for others than you will ever know...better to worry about your back yard. "
jenisgone wrote on Dec 9, 2007 8:04 AM:
" The number 1 industry of any area is tourism. Even if you don't agree with how the church spends its money you should be happy that it brings in a lot of tourist dollars to the area. The countless people that come to see it stay in local hotels, eat at local restaurants, and shop at local stores. "
davidinlse wrote on Dec 9, 2007 8:03 AM:
" I'm confused also, but for different reasons. They built the Shrine of the Holy Burke, fine. But the article says it's in Shelby. How about all the gyrations to change the land so they could get free fire and police protection from the CITY? Why did they need 2 liquer liscense from the CITY? The whole thing is just a phoney nothing that was built to support the ego of Burke and the church. "
Jaxx wrote on Dec 9, 2007 7:59 AM:
" I'm not Catholic so I have a question for someone who is... Do you always have to pay to light a candle in a chapel? "
Nikki Beaverhausen wrote on Dec 9, 2007 7:56 AM:
" So let's take money away from services that help PEOPLE and build a big giant golden calf on a hill. I'm sure the guy upstairs must be so proud. "
rick harsch wrote on Dec 9, 2007 7:31 AM:
" One of the funniest quotes in some time, from Burke: 'it truly is a work of God. I can’t take credit for this at all.' Imagine the godlike humility of the man. Otherwise, this is a bizarre story that from the picture looks like one of La Crosse's better ideas, though there is surely an adolescent adventure novel playing out here, what with Swinghamer, the Swing family, Fowler and Hammer. I make Fowler the bad guy, white in the book, Morgan Freeman in the movie, sort of playing against type, and Hammer a mute played by Bruce Willis. The ghost of the deceased Swing would be played by the ghost of Richard Harris.
"
placid wrote on Dec 9, 2007 6:55 AM:
" DK, did they use any of your money? Probably not. Worry about what the state does with your tax dollars...don't worry about what the church is doing with their dollars. The church has to answer to someone about the money and how it's used...and it's not you! "
BrianGSmith wrote on Dec 9, 2007 6:20 AM:
" Wheezer....good idea, sort of. Let's open a Casino next to this Shrine and see where the 'souls' go first? "
BrianGSmith wrote on Dec 9, 2007 6:18 AM:
" I'm still confused why the Catholic Church up here in wintry white Wisconsin built a 'Shrine to GUADALUPE"? Have we no Saintly folks up above the Rio Grande? Why not build a shrine for that Florida lady who found the image of Mary in a potatoe chip? "
Wheezer wrote on Dec 9, 2007 5:50 AM:
" So, let's all put holy relics in our business's, make them shrines, and make a little more money. With a gift shop, restaurant, and having people pay to keep candles lit ($10 for a week, up to a yr for $300), it certainly is more of a business and less of a church. They have got you(your $$$) coming, and going! On the upside, all these fanaticals will be spending money in the area. I wonder how long before the church builds a hotels so that they keep more of that money? Kind of like the casinos... "
Wheezer wrote on Dec 9, 2007 5:18 AM:
" DK, you got it wrong.....it is more like, "Just think of the things they can pay for with the income they will be getting from the shrine!" Like lawsuits, relocating pedofile priests, the hiding of other crimes committed, etc! THAT is why this is being built, it is all about the money. No "miracle" took place on that site to justify a shrine being built there, it just sounded like a good idea to bring in some much needed money, and it is all about the money. Ever go to a church that didn't expect money? "
DK wrote on Dec 9, 2007 3:01 AM:
" Just think of all the good that could have been done with the money wasted on this building. "