(RNS) When a church is deemed no longer viable and is ordered to be closed, who gets to decide what happens to the building?

Catholic dioceses in Ohio and Massachusetts are resisting moves by local officials to apply landmark designations to shuttered churches saying such moves raise issues of religious freedom and expression.

Landmark advocates, meanwhile, say they are preserving the historic character of neighborhoods — a concern that isn’t always shared by bishops preoccupied with more immediate needs, like shrinking budgets and dwindling numbers of priests.

On Dec. 29, the City Council in Springfield, Mass., voted unanimously to designate Our Lady of Hope Catholic church as a historic district. Built in 1925, the Italian Renaissance-style church boasts the tallest bell tower in Springfield, and state Rep. Sean F. Curran, a parishioner and a supporter of the historic designation, told the Springfield Republican that “it is a building worth saving.”

Then in early January, the city’s Historical Commission recommended that a second church, Immaculate Conception, also be named a historic district.

On Thursday (Jan. 21), the Diocese of Springfield filed suit to stop the designation, accusing lawmakers of acting out of “unnecessary haste” and “political expediency.”

Landmarking church buildings over the objection of church leaders is “a serious threat to our ability to control church buildings, including very clear religious symbols — a control which protects our religious freedom and expression,” diocesan spokesman Mark Dupont said in a statement.

The four-county diocese has announced plans to shutter about one-fourth of its 101 churches. “The population has fallen by one-third in our diocese as the industrial base has declined. The bishop is determined to right-size the diocese in terms of parishes and not over-extend our priests,” Dupont said in an interview.

The legal dispute represents a new wrinkle in traditional church-state disputes. The designation for Our Lady of Hope covers the exterior — including statues and crosses — and the government has no right telling churches what to do with such religious items, Dupont said.

“If we don’t defend this right,” he added, “every city and town could tell churches what they can and can’t do.”

A similar fight has already erupted in Cleveland, where church leaders plan to close about 50 churches due to shifting demographics, financial pressures and shortages of priests. Last March, the Cleveland City Council moved to landmark not just the exteriors, but also the interiors, of shuttered churches.

“I will not stand for stained-glass windows to be boarded up,” said Councilwoman Dona Brady. “And many churches have built-in icons. These have got to stay there.”

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (a former mayor of Cleveland and two-time presidential candidate) even suggested the city should use the power of eminent domain to acquire closed churches. City officials declined to comment on the idea.

Robert Tayek, a spokesman for the Diocese of Cleveland, said the situation has not moved into lawsuit territory — yet. Interior landmarking, he added, “raises a bigger question” under the First Amendment than the already contentious fight over preserving a church’s outward appearance.

The diocese believes there is a precedent in law that “internal facets of a church cannot be controlled by government or legislation.” Such moves are “nothing short of an attempt to exert direct governmental control over the very symbols and elements utilized by the church in its most sacred and defining act of worship: the Mass,” he said.

(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)

Once a building is landmarked, changes to the exterior — and sometimes, the interior — must be approved by a local authority. Dupont said the diocese has successfully found reuse for many of its former churches, including as affordable housing and artisan galleries. Some have been sold to other denominations and remained worship spaces. Ironically, Dupont said, landmarking would discourage developers from finding such creative new uses.

Avoiding the confrontational nature of landmarking is part of the mandate of Partners for Sacred Places, a Philadelphia-based organization that gathers denominations, architects and community leaders to explore new uses for churches.

“We are about making the most of these great old buildings and finding a smooth transition to a use that keeps the public value,” Executive Director Robert Jaeger said. In a Partners project in Detroit, for instance, a former church became a Polish history center.

(END OPTIONAL TRIM)

Everyone agrees that a church closing is an emotional issue, even for those who may not have worshipped there. But church leaders say their eyes remain focused on eternal things above, not brick-and-mortar structures down below.

“There are moments, memories, rites of passage at that location that provoke a lot of emotion,” Tayek said. However, he added, “our faith goes far beyond buildings. The faithful are part of the household of Jesus Christ.”

(Karl Turner of the Plain Dealer contributed to this report from Cleveland; Jeanette DeForge and Michael McAuliffe of The Republican contributed from Springfield.)