It’s been about a half-century since I worked for the Red River Valley Historical Society. Articles I wrote for their Red River Valley Heritage Press are in the MSMM Archives, and that’s another topic.1
Something I liked about that historical society is that it focused on what I think of as my ‘home turf’: the Red River Valley of the North. It’s some of the flattest land, and best farmland, on the planet.
When it’s mentioned at all, it’s in the context of 19th century treaty violations. Or the latest spring floods.2 And I’m drifting off-topic again.
The point is that while I was working for that outfit, we had a meeting with folks in Winnipeg, Canada — and got a tour of one of Winnipeg’s old houses.
After a half-century, all I remember about it — in any detail — is our tour guide’s account of how a stained glass window narrowly escaped destruction.
I don’t remember his name. But I do remember that somewhere along the line he said that he was, thanks to his ancestors, the 12th baron of Shaan. Or maybe Schön — there are a few places in Liechtenstein and Switzerland with names like that.3
He described the ‘barony’ as a few blocks in some town: his title gave him no economic benefit, but allowed him a few minor ceremonial perks. Which may explain why he was living in Winnipeg.
Anyway, here’s what he told us about his interest in a particular stained glass window.
Initiative, Theft; Tomayto, Tomahto
A few years earlier, this historic building had been in bad shape. Worse, from the viewpoint of folks who were trying to restore it, it was scheduled for demolition. I don’t remember details, but I think there was a hold-up in transferring ownership.
Was tearing the house down a good idea? Depends on how you look at it.
It might have been more cost-effective to tear the old wreck down and replace it with something blandly contemporary.
But Winnipeg would have lost one of its historic landmarks, and a beautiful stained glass window would have been destroyed.
(Great Tiffany Stained Glass Window at the Hotel Ciudad de Mexico). Octavio Alonso Maya’s photo.
Considering the value folks put on stained glass art, that last bit — destroying a work of art — struck me as odd.
My guess is that someone figured there wouldn’t be enough profit in having the window removed and sold.
I think spending time and materials to preserve the window would have been a good idea. But I’m emphatically not involved in urban development.
Although I think life’s financial side matters, I also think there’s more to life than a high profit margin. Much more.
Seizing an Opportunity: and a Window
As our guide told it, with one day left before demolition, he unobtrusively slipped into the condemned building, removed the window, and took it to a nice, quiet place.
Within 24 hours, the building’s ownership SNAFU got resolved and its new owners noticed that they were one stained glass window short.
Being reasonable people, they said ‘we want our window back, no questions asked’. Communication followed, and the stained glass window was returned as quietly as it had been extracted.
Was removing that window illegal? Almost certainly.
I don’t know much about Winnipeg’s, Manitoba’s, or Canada’s law. But entering a building you don’t own and leaving with one of its windows without getting permission sounds like theft to me.
Was it wrong?
That’s a good question.
Theft: Getting Technical
There are a few actions that actually are wrong. Theft is one of them.
“You shall not steal.”
(Exodus 20:15)
Okay. That’s straightforward enough.
Theft is wrong. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2408)
But — we’re talking about humans here, so it’s not quite that simple.
For starters, there’s “the reasonable will of the owner”. And sometimes theft looks like good, or clever, business. Shortchanging employees, not delivering goods or services that were paid for — basically, “theft” comes in many shapes and sizes, and it’s complicated. (Catechism, 2407-2414, for starters)
Now: was our tour guide’s removal of that stained glass window wrong?
“Legal” May Not be Right
Dick Orkin’s Chickenman. (1966-1969)
I don’t know if it’s growing up in the Sixties, or my Irish heritage: but I’m not horrified at our tour guide’s flagrant disregard for law and order.4
Particularly since his intent was preserving the window: and that he returned it to its now-legal owners as soon as there was a reasonable chance that it wouldn’t be destroyed.
On the other hand, the odds are that if the old house had been demolished, he’d have found a buyer for the window.
Like I said, it’s complicated.
Thinking that something can be legal and still be wrong, and that doing something illegal may be right, started making a lot more sense in the Sixties.
Now that I’m a Catholic, I have to believe that what’s right and what’s legal aren’t necessarily the same thing. (Catechism, 1954-1960, 2273)
But, since I’m a Catholic, I should show obedience to, and respect for, authority. Reasoned obedience: not blindly doing whatever I’m told. (Catechism, 1900-1903, 2242-2243)
Again: complicated.
Believing that what a government says is right may be, in fact, wrong was counter-cultural in my youth. It still is.
All that’s changed are the details, and that’s yet another topic.
I’ve talked about natural law, principles that are part of reality; and positive law, rules that we make up,5 before:
- “Humanae Vitae Award: Fr. Greg Paffel, Parishes on the Prairie” (July 20, 2024)
- “Floyd/Chauvin Trial, Taser Trouble and Irksome Issues” (April 24, 2021)
- “‘Christmas Sermon for Pagans’: Viewpoints, Nature; and Hope” (December 23, 2023)
- “Secondary Causes: Both/And, not Either/Or” (August 21, 2021)
- “Natural Law, Our Rules” (February 5, 2017)
1 Researched, written, printed, archived:
- MSMM (Minnesota State Moorhead, Moorhead)
- Archives
- Red River Valley Historical Society/Red River Valley Heritage Society (S4857)
- Inventory
- Box 2:
Newsletter – Red River Valley Heritage Press. 1976-1988
- Box 2:
- Inventory
- Red River Valley Historical Society/Red River Valley Heritage Society (S4857)
- Archives
2 My homeland, from the dominant culture’s perspective:
- Wikipedia
- 1950 Red River flood
- 1997 Red River flood
- 2011 Red River flood
- Red River Floodway (diverts water around Winnipeg, Canada)
- Red River Valley (not a valley: it’s mostly an old lake bed)
- Winnipeg
3 A sample of what I found, looking for Shaan, Schön, or some place that sounds like that:
4 My heritage includes blood feuds and cattle raids, but neither are part of my life:
- Wikipedia
- Njáls saga (Burnt Njáll: ‘you can burn me alive, but you can’t make me care!’)
- Táin Bó Cúailnge (AKA Cattle Raid of Cooley) (these folks valued their livestock)
- Wikipedia
- Natural law (Unchanging principles, laws that are part of reality)
- Positive law (Rules we make up) (Sounds cooler in Latin: ius positum)
Like This? Share It:
Discover more from A Catholic Citizen in America
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There’s who the law says the building belongs to and who the building *actually* belongs to. Given that the city was going to demolish subject of an active ownership dispute, I’d say Mr. Baron was right in trying to preserve at least *part* of the building for the people who turned out to be the true owners. The city was *definitely* in the wrong.
😉 Yes, indeed! Bear in mind, though, that this is what stayed in my memory for a half-century. I can’t be certain about the nature of the dispute – but – yes, agreed. This is, assuming that I retained the gist of what was happening, is a case where both “the reasonable will of the owner” and who the owner, from a reasonable viewpoint, are in doubt. And that’s just one aspect of the situation.
Bottom line, I’m very glad he took the initiative.
Rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God, yeah? I am more certain that the guide did both by returning the window he stole the way he did, but still, theft was not only considered but also done. And now I’m thinking of how Saint Joseph considered sending Mama Mary away quietly until an angel stopped him. Perhaps some things are meant to be resolved quietly, while some things are meant to be resolved in ways as upfront as the thoroughly humiliated Lord we faithful display so openly.
Agreed – this is one of many situations where I am very glad my job isn’t sorting out what is right and wrong, where an individual’s actions are involved.
The Caesar and God quote does apply here, I think, at least indirectly – but I should have said in the post that this stained glass window was in a private residence. Beautiful piece of art: but not sacred art. 🙂
And yep: another important point is whether quiet or upfront resolution is a good idea. Good points all around.
God continue to help all those who have to handle rules, alright. And I was thinking of “rendering to God what belongs to God” as following His principles rather than just paying respect to religious property. Still, pardon me for causing confusion.
🙂 Amen. And no problem!