The resurrection of a Catholic theme park
The cross that now stands at Holy Land USA in Waterbury, Conn.
Anabel DeMartino
The cross is the centerpiece of
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Perched on a hill in the center of Waterbury, Holy Land USA was founded by a local attorney and devout Catholic, John Greco, and opened to the public in 1958. Greco's niece, Rebecca Calabrese, says the theme park was an extension of her uncle's spiritual calling. When he wasn't working as a lawyer, he lived a monk-like existence in a small house at the base of the hill and used all of his spare time and money to build and take care of Holy Land.
Advertisement
A postcard of Holy Land USA in its heyday.
Bill Fitzpatrick
Advertisement
Greco was resourceful, using discarded items — old bathtubs, factory doors, cinder blocks, chicken wire, and aluminum milk cans — to construct miniature replicas of Jerusalem (and its underground catacombs), Bethlehem, and even the Egyptian pyramids. The columns of the miniature Holy Temple are made from rusty water pipes, and a statue of Jesus rises from a concrete pillar that was originally designed for the Sears at the local mall. Locals donated much of the materials needed to construct the original neon cross and the massive sign bearing the park's name.
An undated photo of guests arriving at Holy Land USA in its early years.
Bill Fitzpatrick
Greco, who spent some of his childhood in Avellino, Italy, created the park as an American equivalent of the Catholic shrines he visited in that area. In particular, he wanted to build a version of the Sacri Monti (Holy Mountains) of Piedmont and Lombardy — nine 16th- and 17th-century Christian chapels and monuments that were intended as spiritual stand-ins for the Holy Land.
In 1984, too elderly to manage the park, Greco closed it and left the property to the Religious Sisters of Filippi.
What followed were decades of decay, as the statues and buildings succumbed to the elements and vandals. By the 2000s, many in Waterbury
Salvaged plumbing pipes became the pillars of this temple.
Anabel DeMartino
When, in 2013, the nuns listed the property for sale, Neil O'Leary, then Waterbury's mayor, took an interest. Together with local businessman Fritz Blazius, O'Leary bought the site for $375,000 with the promise to the nuns that it would always remain Holy Land USA. The first order of business: replacing the underwhelming stainless steel cross with which the nuns had replaced the once-impossible-to-miss neon one. During O'Leary's first campaign for mayor, he'd been struck by how many folks had urged him to 'put up a new cross at Holy Land.'
Advertisement
It took six months and more than $400,000 in donated materials and labor. On Christmas Eve 2013, the 56-foot new cross, blazing with 5,000 LED bulbs, was lit up before a crowd of 20,000 in downtown Waterbury.
O'Leary and Blazius have since created a nonprofit foundation and a board to oversee the park's revitalization.
Since 2018, Reverend Jim Sullivan of the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Waterbury and a member of the Holy Land board, has led an Easter sunrise mass that brings hundreds of worshippers to the base of the new cross. This past Easter, Sullivan says, was the largest gathering yet, with some 1,000 attendees. 'God speaks on mountains,' Sullivan says. 'God has spoken on this mountain and will continue to do so.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
5 takeaways from a major new report on religion around the world
This article was first published in the State of Faith newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each Monday night. When people hear that researching religion is part of my job, they often ask me very specific questions about faith-related issues that have been in the news. After I disappoint them by not immediately knowing the answers, I turn to Google for help. My job has made me a search engine expert, not a religion expert. The questions that still trip me up even when I've got a strong internet connection are about the religious makeup of faraway countries. It's hard for me to quickly find info about religious life in the Czech Republic or New Zealand and then talk about what that info means for the athlete or politician who's grabbing headlines in the U.S. But now, I've got an exciting new tool in my trivia tool belt. On Monday, Pew Research Center released an interactive website that shows the religious makeup of nearly every country in the world in a single (very large) table. Once you're on the page, it takes only a few seconds to confirm that New Zealand was 40.3% Christian in 2020 or that the Czech Republic is dominated by religious 'nones.' Pew's interactive table was released alongside a new report discussing how the global religious landscape changed from 2010 to 2020. Based on more than 2,700 censuses and surveys, the report provides an in-depth look at 201 countries and territories — and plenty of fodder for conversations with your friends. Here are five key takeaways from Pew's new analysis of the global religious landscape. Christianity is the world's largest faith group, but it's not keeping pace with global population growth. In 2010, 30.6% of the world identified as Christian. By 2020, that figure had fallen to 28.8%. Islam is the fastest growing religious group. 'The number of Muslims increased by 347 million (from 2010 to 2020) — more than all other religions combined,' researchers wrote. Sub-Saharan Africa is now the region of the world where most Christians live. In 2010, Europe held that title. As of 2020, the United States has the second-largest number of religiously unaffiliated residents. China has the most. The growth of Islam from 2010 to 2020 was mostly due to natural population growth, while the decline of Christianity stemmed, in large part, from religious switching. 'Religious 'switching' — especially people shedding their religious identity after having been raised as Christians — explains much of the unaffiliated population's growth between 2010 and 2020," Pew reported. Americans are divided over religious freedom. The Supreme Court? Not as much How 'Jeopardy!' can save us all, according to Ken Jennings The Supreme Court's surprising decision day This top running back says he believes in God, not the so-called 'Madden curse' A religious school is facing pushback for its partnership with U.S. Customs and Border Protection Hidden Christianity is a unique form of Christianity practiced on some of Japan's rural islands. It gets its name from the fact that its earliest practitioners really were hiding their faith to avoid persecution. 'Hidden Christians were forced to hide all visible signs of their religion after the 1614 ban on Christianity and the expulsion of foreign missionaries. Households took turns hiding precious ritual objects and hosting the secret services that celebrated both faith and persistence,' according to The Associated Press. Early practitioners disguised their Christian icons by making them appear to be Buddhist. Even after it was safe to be openly Christian again, many families continued these secretive practices, in part because they wanted to honor loved ones who'd risked their lives and in part because they didn't fit in with mainstream Christians, the AP reported. 'Many Hidden Christians rejected Catholicism after the persecution ended because Catholic priests refused to recognize them as real Christians unless they agreed to be rebaptized and abandon the Buddhist altars that their ancestors used,' the article said. Hidden Christianity may soon be just a memory in Japan, since most current practitioners are quite old and most young people who grew up with the traditions have moved to cities and either don't want to or can't access the gatherings. A controversial research project featuring faith leaders using psychedelic drugs was released last month after a long delay. The report showed that nearly all of the members of the clergy who took part described their experiences with psilocybin as some of the most spiritually significant of their lives, but health and religion experts don't agree on what type of additional research or policy proposals that finding should inspire, according to Religion News Service. Which groups face the most discrimination in the United States? Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to weigh in, and the survey report offers an in-depth look at how people's political views influence their thoughts about discrimination. My Deseret News colleague Krysyan Edler recently wrote about the inspiring life of Caroline Klein, the chief communications officer for Smith Entertainment Group. After being diagnosed with cancer in her thirties, Klein committed to living every day like there might not be a tomorrow. 'Nothing about my situation is sad to me, but I want to make sure that when I'm gone, I've left people with a lot of great memories that bring them joy, too,' she said. After years of daydreaming about getting back into tennis, I finally started a summer tennis class on Saturday. It felt so good! Take this as the nudge you need to do that thing you've been dreaming about.
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
A Word, Please: When phrases lose their popularity
Not long ago in this column, I talked a bit about the expression 'step foot,' as in 'I wouldn't step foot in that store.' The first time I heard it, I was embarrassed for the speaker who, I was sure, meant 'set foot.' The second, third and fourth times I heard it, I sensed a change was underway — and I'm not a fan of change (that's an understatement). Eventually, I looked it up and learned that 'step foot' is slowly gaining on 'set foot,' whether I like it or not. Figures of speech, like words, evolve. Take 'vicious cycle,' for example. For a solid century, there was no 'vicious cycle' — at least not in published writing. Pretty much everyone who could get near a printing press agreed the expression was 'vicious circle.' The idea behind the expression, of course, is that of being stuck in a loop, a bad one. Merriam-Webster defines 'vicious circle' as 'a chain of events in which the response to one difficulty creates a new problem that aggravates the original difficulty.' As the 20th century dawned, 'vicious circle' continued to dominate, but suddenly it had some competition. 'Vicious cycle' was emerging as a contender. 'Vicious circle' held onto its lead until just about a decade ago, when 'vicious cycle' nosed ahead. At the same time, the original and originally correct expression 'vicious circle' started to dive. I'm not optimistic about its future. 'Top up' is another term that caught my eye lately, and not in a good way. I started seeing it in travel articles pondering whether it's worthwhile to buy airline miles to 'top up' your existing balance enough to book a flight. My whole life, the expression I heard was 'top off.' According to Merriam-Webster, 'top off' is a phrasal verb that has two definitions: The first is 'to end (something) usually in an exciting way.' So an athlete may top off their career with a final victory, or a nice dinner can be topped off with dessert and coffee. The second definition is similar to the first: 'to fill (something) completely with a liquid.' Be it a mug of coffee or a tank of gas, when it's not quite full and you fill it all the way, you're topping it off. 'Top up,' meanwhile, was a perfectly fine way to say 'top off' if you're British. But it wasn't for us, I thought. We were top-off people. Turns out that's not quite right. 'Top up' has been in print as long as 'top off,' and though the American version has always been more popular in American publishing, 'top up' has never been far behind. I was wrong about that, but I was even more wrong about 'You've got another think coming.' I couldn't understand how anyone could make the embarrassing mistake of using 'think' in this expression. Obviously, the correct version was 'You've got another thing coming.' I never considered the context. The expression follows a stated or implied statement of 'If you think X …' so 'another' makes sense because you've already had one think. Of course, a think is a thing. So it's not wrong to say you've got another thing coming. And that's lucky for modern English speakers, because Ngram Viewer shows that 'another think coming' started to decline in popularity about 10 years ago while 'another thing coming' is becoming more popular than ever — just when I was getting used to 'think.' For me, there are two takeaways from these trends. One, the language will keep changing. And two, change will continue to annoy me. — June Casagrande is the author of 'The Joy of Syntax: A Simple Guide to All the Grammar You Know You Should Know.' She can be reached at JuneTCN@
USA Today
5 hours ago
- USA Today
They led the fight for marriage equality
They led the fight for marriage equality | The Excerpt On Sunday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: Jim Obergefell and his partner John Arthur's fight to have their marriage recognized by their home state of Ohio ultimately paved the way for nationwide marriage equality for the LGBTQ+ community. John, tragically, passed before the ruling, but the couple's story endures as a milestone for the LGBTQ+ community. Jim Obergefell joins The Excerpt to share more about his historic journey. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Officiant: John Montgomery Arthur, do you, continuing from this day, take James Robert Obergefell to be the love of your life, your eternal partner, your husband? John Montgomery Arthur: I do. Zach Wichter: Hello, and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Zach Wichter, a reporter at USA TODAY. What you just heard was John Arthur's vows to Jim Obergefell during a wedding ceremony that changed the course of American history. Obergefell and Arthur's fight to get their marriage recognized by their home state of Ohio went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, ultimately paving the way for nationwide marriage equality for same-sex couples. John tragically passed before the ruling, but the couple's story endures as a milestone for the LGBTQ+ community and in American history. Jim Obergefell joins me now to share more about his story. Jim, thanks for joining me. Jim Obergefell: Absolutely, Zach. Great to be here. Zach Wichter: Did you ever think that marriage was a possibility? Was that on the horizon for you at all? Jim Obergefell: For me, growing up, marriage always was part of my future, but that was a straight marriage. All of my siblings were married and having kids, so that was always what I imagined. But when I came out, I felt like that dream, that image of my future was taken away from me because that wasn't a possibility. And in fact, when John and I became a couple, early on in our relationship, probably 1994 or '95, we talked about marriage and how we both wanted to get married. But we wanted marriage. We didn't want a symbolic ceremony, we didn't want a civil union, a domestic partnership. We wanted marriage. So, we just thought we're never going to have that option because there isn't anywhere in the United States we can do that. They led the fight for marriage equality Obergefell and Arthur's fight to have their marriage recognized by Ohio ultimately led to nationwide marriage equality. Zach Wichter: Can you tell me a little bit more about how you and John met and about your story together? Jim Obergefell: The first time I met John was shortly before I quit my teaching job and left for graduate school. I was still in the closet and I went out with a friend and we went to a bar near the University of Cincinnati where we had both graduated. We walked into this bar and my friend Kevin said, "Oh, there's one of my friends, John." That was the first time I met John. He scared the daylights out of me, because he was an out gay man comfortable in his own skin. And I thought for sure he was going to see right through me and say, "Come on, Jim. We know. You can come out." Then I was back in Cincinnati for a weekend, went out with that same friend. We went back to that same bar, and guess who was there again, but John. In that conversation, John said, "You'd never go out with someone like me, and I said, "How do you know? You haven't asked." And he didn't take the hint, so I thought, that's it, I've met him twice now, probably never going to see him again. But then Kevin became one of John's housemates, and Kevin invited me to John's house for a New Year's Eve party. I went to that party and never left. And seven weeks later, John gave me a diamond ring. Zach Wichter: How did you know? And you mentioned before that neither of you really saw marriage as a possibility. So, what did that diamond ring mean for you in that moment? Jim Obergefell: That diamond ring signified you're the person I choose. You're the person I want to spend my life with. And we don't have the ability to do anything legal, but at least you know that's how I feel, and that's what this ring signifies. We both felt that. We both felt that this is a relationship that will last. We just made our commitments to each other. Even though they weren't legal, they weren't binding in any way, but they were binding on us in our hearts. Zach Wichter: What was the path to that day or night that you got the ring up through your actual wedding ceremony? What were the steps along the way? Jim Obergefell: We just had fun. We traveled, we collected art, and just all of those things that any couple does as they build a life together. Like I say, we had talked about marriage, but realized that isn't on the table for us, it isn't an option. So, we just kept doing what we were doing. It wasn't until 2011 that things really took an unexpected turn. It was that year in May, or late or early June that John was diagnosed with ALS. That was really when instead of seeing a few decades more together, we knew our time together was limited to two to five years. ALS for John progressed fairly rapidly. And by April of 2013, he started at-home hospice care. We could have put him in a facility, but we had to think about things that other couples didn't have to think about. How would he be treated as an out gay man in a facility? How would I be treated as his partner of almost 21 years? We had nothing legal, no rights. We made the decision, let's do at-home hospice care because that meant I could keep him safe and comfortable. And it was my honor to do that, no matter how tiring or overwhelming it was. Zach Wichter: At what point did you really start to feel like you needed to fight for this? How did you go from not thinking of marriage as a possibility to feeling the need to have that recognized by the state? Jim Obergefell: I'm going to start back a little bit earlier, and actually back to the day John came home from his third neurologist appointment, when that neurologist concurred with two others that it was ALS. He said, "Jim, we're going to have to find somewhere new to live.", because the condo we had was two levels in an old factory. And he said, "It isn't going to work for me. But when we find a new place, Jim, don't put my name on the deed. I don't want you to have any issues when I'm gone." So, he was already thinking about me and wanting to make sure that I would be okay after he died. And that was just how he was throughout his entire time with ALS. In June 26th, 2013, I was standing next to his bed, holding his hand when news came out from the Supreme Court that with their decision in United States versus Windsor, they struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. That was that law that had defined marriages between only one man and one woman. We hadn't talked about marriage again since the mid-90s, but as that news was sinking in, I realized, wait, we've always wanted to get married, here's our chance. We could get married and at least have the federal government see us, recognize us, treat us as a married couple. So, I spontaneously proposed and he said "yes". Zach Wichter: Once DOMA was turned over, how did you start to think about this fight for yourself, and how did you go from this discussion to eventually suing the state and ultimately winding up in the Supreme Court? Jim Obergefell: Suing the state of Ohio was never our plan, was never on the radar, was never something we had considered. And going to the Supreme Court certainly was even beyond that. That all happened unexpectedly. We decided to get married. And because we lived in Ohio, which had its own state level Defense and Marriage Act, we couldn't get a marriage license or get married at home. So, we figured out let's go to Maryland because it's the only state that doesn't require both of us to appear in person to apply for a marriage license. I loved that because my whole goal was I want to keep John as safe and as comfortable as possible. So, I could get the marriage license on my own, come back to Cincinnati, and then we could go to Maryland just for the ceremony. And that's what we did. Through the generosity of our family and friends, they covered the cost of a chartered medical jet and we flew from Cincinnati to Baltimore, Washington International Airport on July 11th, 2013. We stayed in that medical jet and I got to take his hand and we got to say, "I do". That was all we wanted. We just wanted to get married. Because of a story that was written about us that came out in the Cincinnati Inquirer online two days after we got married, a local civil rights attorney, Al Gerhardstein, he'd been fighting for civil rights for women, for trans people, for prisoners, for the queer community for decades in Cincinnati, he came to hear about us. He read that story and he reached out through mutual friends to say, "Hey, I would like to come talk to you because you have a problem you probably haven't thought about." Five days after we got married, Al Gerhardstein came to our home and he pulled out a blank Ohio death certificate, said, "Do you guys get it? When John dies, this document, his last record as a person, will be wrong. Because here where it says, 'marital status at time of death', Ohio will fill this out and say that John was unmarried. In the space for surviving spouse name, Jim, your name won't be there." So when he said, "Do you want to do something about it?", he tells me, we talked about it for less than a minute, and said, "Yes." That was Tuesday, five days after we got married. On Friday, eight days after we got married, we filed a lawsuit in federal district court suing the governor of Ohio, John Kasich and the Attorney General Mike DeWine. And because of John's health, the federal judge it was assigned to, Judge Timothy Black, had to clear his docket and he heard arguments on the case on Monday, 11 days after we got married. And that very day he ruled in our favor. And then John died three months later to the day, but he died a married man. Zach Wichter: The fight didn't stop there, obviously. The judge ruled in your favor, but it went on in appeal, it got overturned. How did you decide at that point, once the record was correct in your paperwork, that you were going to keep on with the fight? Jim Obergefell: Once Ohio appealed and we lost to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, when Al said, "Do you want to keep fighting?", my immediate answer was, "Of course I do." If I don't, I'm not living up to my promises to John. I promise to love, honor and protect him. And if I don't keep fighting this to make sure our marriage can't be erased, then I'm failing in my promises. In April, 2015, I was in the Supreme Court for oral arguments. And then I was there again on June 26th, 2015 when the decision came down. Zach Wichter: What was that experience like being in the court for oral arguments in a case that bore your name? Jim Obergefell: I don't think you could ever prepare yourself to go to the Supreme Court as a plaintiff, let alone as the name plaintiff, when there's more than 30 other plaintiffs in the case. It would be overwhelming enough just being one of those 30 plaintiffs, but to have your name and your story and your face be what everyone sees, what everyone hears, what everyone knows, it's overwhelming. And I had to be in that courtroom. I had to be there to hear what the justices said, to hear what the states argued. But to be fair, I went into the courtroom feeling optimistic. I refused to think that the highest court in the land could possibly rule against us. And I was positive, I was optimistic, and that didn't change after oral arguments. And I was happy that I knew I had at most two months to wait for a decision. Zach Wichter: I've seen in other interviews you've said that you never really considered yourself an activist. So, how did you go from Jim from Ohio to suing the state of Ohio and becoming a gay rights figurehead? Jim Obergefell: I think it just happened. And honestly, it's because of John, because we loved each other and we wanted to exist. Learning that our right to call each other husband and to have it mean something wasn't going to be reflected on his death certificate... I mean, it did, it broke our hearts. But I think the more important thing is it really made us angry, the injustice of it, the harm that it was doing to us. So, I think it was that. It was that I loved John, he loved me back. We finally had the chance to say I do. But then understanding how our home state, the state where I was born and raised, would completely disregard us, made me angry, made us both angry. So, not something I ever thought would happen, but it's amazing what'll happen when you love someone enough, when you're willing to fight for what you know is right, and when you're angry. Zach Wichter: And you mentioned before you were also in DC the day the decision came down. What was that experience like, and what were you thinking about, and what would you have said to John if he was there with you? Jim Obergefell: I'm just holding the hands of friends sitting on either side of me thinking, all right, here it comes, here it comes. And of course I'm thinking, John, I wish you were here, I wish you could experience this, I wish it was your hand I was holding. All I wanted in that moment was to hug and kiss John and say, "Our marriage can never be erased." He wasn't there. I didn't have that joy of sharing that moment with him. I thought about so many people who I had met over the course of the case, the people who were coming up to me and sharing photos and telling me stories and talking about what this potential decision meant to them and what it meant to the person they loved, their child, was thinking about them. And then just the unexpected realization that for the first time in my life as an out gay man, I actually felt like an equal American. I wasn't expecting to feel that. And that was a really beautiful realization. I feel equal. It's about queer kids having a future, knowing that in the words of a mom and dad who stopped me on the street in Philadelphia with their child in a stroller, they said, "Thanks to you and those other plaintiffs, Jim, we know our kid can one day marry the person they love, no matter whom that person is." That's what I think about. So, I don't get too hung up in the "you're a historic figure" because that just, I don't know, feels weird to me. I focus more on the difference the fight I was part of has made for millions of people. Hundreds of thousands of couples have gotten married since June 26th, 2015. And that's something we should celebrate. I'm really, really grateful that I got to be part of that. And it's simply because John and I loved each other and we wanted to exist. Zach Wichter: Jim, thanks for coming on The Excerpt. Jim Obergefell: Thanks for having me. It was great. Zach Wichter: Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@ Thanks for listening. I'm Zach Wichter. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
