 |
Cruz Blanca |
Early in December I headed out for a browse of favorite
photo locales around Taos. As is often the case I headed to La Morada de
Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, locally referred to as the Morada. Near the Taos
Historic District, the Morada, a Catholic lay chapel, sits on a glorious patch
of high desert with sweeping views across Taos Pueblo lands toward the Sangre
de Cristo Mountains. It’s a special piece of land and the Morada, while
underknown and appreciated, is one of Taos’s most important and aesthetic
historic sites.
 |
Cruz Negro |
 |
La Morada with Taos Pueblo and the Sangre de Cristos beyond |
 |
La Morada de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe |
To my modest surprise, as I approached the Morada grounds I
found that a gate had been installed across Penitente Road so that public access
to the property is no longer possible. I say modest surprise since there’s been
a fraught relationship between the Penitente Brothers who use the Morada for
their severe devotionals and anyone who is not a Hermano. That tension
has existed forever. Since the property was sold to the Diocese of Santa Fe by
the Taos Historic Museums in 2008, visitors have sometimes been accosted by Hermanos when they attempt to enter the grounds. And more recently a sign appeared
saying that painting and photography are expressly forbidden. But the right of
the Penitentes or the Catholic Church to deny access to the Morada grounds has
been called into question. It is believed but not yet proved that under the terms
of the sale of the Morada to the Archdiocese of Santa Fe by the Taos Historic Museums
public access was preserved and that access includes the right to depict it
artistically.
Much to my frustration I backed out the entire length of one
lane Penitente Road and put it aside for the moment. Days later I received an
email from a fellow photographer who had suffered the same fate. Rupert
Chambers, who does not turn the other cheek, had tracked down the parish priest
under whose purview the Morada lies. When questioned by Rupert about the
closing here’s how the priest replied.
Mr. Chambers,
My secretary forwarded me your email, thank you for your
question. The short answer is though a historic site, it is a living morada,
and the men of our local fraternity practice their devotions and care for the
grounds/building. Though the choice remains with me, I chose to honor their
wishes that the grounds remain private for their use and for official parish
use only. Furthermore, the pueblo tribal government has asked that we keep
visitors out since our land borders theirs as they are worried about issues
with trespassing. So, in the end I am respecting the wishes of our special
group and of our neighbors. You should know, however that visitors are allowed
when we have public worship events there such as Mass (once a month during
normal time) and for certain devotions during the Lenten season.
I do hope you and your loves one enjoy a warm, safe, and
joyful Holiday Season!
Sincerely,
Prompted by the Father’s answer, I weighed in.
Dear Father,
The interchange between you and Rupert Chambers was shared
with my wife Peggy who in turn shared it with me. I am disheartened that in
your narrow view the desires of the Penitente Brotherhood exceed the value of
the general public’s freedom to visit one of Taos’s extraordinary historic
sites. It’s shortsighted at best. Further, it is my understanding that a
stipulation of the sale of the property by the Taos Historic Museums to the
Archdiocese of Santa Fe in 2008 was that public access to the grounds be
guaranteed and that access was to include the right to paint, photograph or
otherwise depict the Morada and its grounds. If that is not the case the
Historic Museums dropped the ball in an inexcusable way. If that stipulation is
part of the agreement the Archdiocese is bound by it. In your response to Mr.
Chambers, you declare with not a little pride that the decision was entirely
yours. In your presumed wisdom you are denying access to the property to the
devout who are not Penitentes and to those who simply appreciate New Mexico’s
rich Catholic history. You are making that history smaller, less approachable
and for the very few.
It is no secret that the insular, and may I say bitter,
Penitentes do not want to share the Morada with anyone who is not a Hermano.
Even more they are revulsed at having it painted, photographed, or otherwise
depicted. Surely you are aware that artistic works memorialize sacred sites for
all time. How is the Church served by denying that legacy?
I harbor no illusions that you will be swayed to reconsider.
But I hope you will ponder what you have wrought.
Steve Immel
Sounds good! I have no qualms that your argument has weight
and is meaningful, but as pastor here it’s both my call and it isn’t, because I
do not represent merely my interests and I am also well aware of this.
In a different context I might just say do as you wish, but
the Hermanos and the Pueblo have been here a lot longer than both of us and
both have been wronged and often overlooked. With the abundance of gorgeous
vistas in our fair valley I am sure you can find many a spot that suits your
needs as an artist and in capturing visual history.
I mean no harm and I didn’t intend my previous email to
presume wisdom or anything of the kind, I am just telling you where I stand,
and I would prefer we would respectfully disagree than any sense of injustice or
disrespect being fostered.
I certainly hope you and your loved ones enjoy a warm, safe,
and consoling celebration of the holidays. Lord knows this year has been hard
enough on all of us.
Paz, Father
Father,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. As you say, we’ll
have to agree to disagree.
In my view you have chosen to serve the few rather than the
many. There is no doubt that the Pueblo and the Penitentes have each been
“wronged” and “overlooked.” The list is long. As you know the Penitente
Brotherhood stemmed in part from the inability or disinterest of the Catholic
Church in providing spiritual guidance, namely priests, to the lowest caste of
New Mexico Hispanic society, mostly mestizo. After 1821 the problem became more
acute when Spain withdrew its priests. In lieu of real Catholic clergy devout
campesanos built their own lay chapels and practiced their own fundamentalist
brand of Catholicism. Taos Pueblo provided land for La Morada de Nuestra Señora
de Guadalupe in 1798 if memory serves.
Because I referenced access to the Morada grounds for
artistic pursuits you have you have singled out that use. That trivializes my
argument for access. This is not about “gorgeous vistas” or spots to fill our
needs as artists. Those are of modest importance. It does, however, have a lot
to do with freedom, choice, and inclusion. I am addressing the inequity of
denying access to anyone who is not a Penitente.
The Morada is a special place, even a spiritual one. Being
there is a gift unto itself. It’s a shame that no one else will discover it.
And finally, is there or is there not a provision for public
access within the agreement that conveyed ownership of the Morada from the Taos
Historic Museums to the Archdiocese in 2008?
I suggest that The Church or the Brotherhood install proper
signs at the bottom of Las Cruces Road and Penitente Road indicating the Morada
grounds are no longer open to the public. That way folks are spared the
difficulty of backing out the entire length of Penitente. A press release
announcing the closure would seem appropriate, as well. This should be public
knowledge.
Respectfully,
Steve
Steve, I am sorry, I have no answers for you as I am in the
midst of Christmas preparation, a sacred and busy time for us Christians.
I know that registered with the country, morada property
belongs to our parish corporation. Thus it is private property under my name
currently and I have seen no clause of the sort you mention.
Certainly, our diocesan chancellor could answer your
questions as he has all of the paperwork for our parish. His name is Tom Macken
and you can reach him at (505)831-8100. Also, I believe some documents are also
public information and you can contact the county clerk for that.
If you still want to discuss this with me personally, I
would be happy to meet with you, please just make an appointment after the new
year with my secretary, Anita.
Again, I appreciate your concern and I am not opposed to discussion
at all, but I can’t do it right now.
I hope this special season
brings you and your loved ones hope, joy, and consolation.
In His joy, Father
Thank you once again for your openness, Father. That
there is a contractual obligation to allow public access to the Morada grounds
is what I’ve been told by individuals who should know. The last two presidents
of the Historic Museums, Sarah Turner and Margo Gins, contend that access is
part of the deal. I don’t know the opinion of Daniel Barela the current
president. Legal obligations, of course, can be different than what is right
and fair and serves the common good.
Let’s table this discussion till after the busy Christmas
season and the New Year. In the meantime, I wish you a blessed Christmas and a
better New Year.
Respectfully,
Steve
This is a quandary for the Father or at least I hope it is. But
it feels more like a verdict rendered when only the complainant was represented
before the court. And what if unfettered access to the Morada Grounds is
guaranteed? Who would challenge the Father’s and by extension the Catholic
Church’s decision? And when made public what judgment will the Court of
Public Opinion render?
I understand that this more than a legal issue. Public access
may or may not have been guaranteed. I’m hellbent, excuse the term, on finding that
out whatever resolution is reached. The Father’s desire to the right wrongs
comes from a good place no doubt. The Morada at some point was owned or at
least controlled by the Penitente Brotherhood. They built it after all. But at some
time in history, they lost legal possession of their prized property. Does that
mean that this particular wrong should be righted? What about other losses at
the hand of the conquerors? Is it possible to right all the wrongs perpetrated
by Hispanos and the Catholic Church on Native Americans or by Anglos on Hispanos? The answer of course is no. Though
it may be worthy.
I am less sympathetic to the Pueblo which wants the public
denied access because someone might trespass on Pueblo lands adjacent to the
Morada. Is the “possibility” of a misdeed or the rare occasion of that
incursion a fair rationale for denying access to everybody else to a property
you no longer own? I suggest No. Clearly, Hispano and Native American interests hold great sway
in Northern New Mexico. And that’s as it should be to a point. But one suspects the
Father’s deliberation in this case was made without an opposing voice.
More will be revealed.