Atlanta Archbishop to Sell $2.2 Million Mansion

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The whole reason the people of the Archdiocese of Atlanta are upset is NOT because they don’t believe that people working at the house or rectory should make a living.
It’s not because they think he should live in a cheap home.
It’s not because they think you can get a better deal outside of that very exclusive part of town.
It’ s because the Archdiocese is struggling in so many places. Parishes have huge debt. Schools are in trouble. Some zip codes do not have a charitable entity assigned to them.
Pastors are struggling to pay their small part-time staff. Many employees have no insurance because they work on a part-time basis.
Then there are the legal fees.
People want to tithe and support the annual appeal. People want their funds to go to vocations, and all the great ministries that the people of the area need. But let’s face it. The average parishioner only knows how bad it is in their own parish. There’s nothing wrong with building a home that will house many priests. But if we believe that courting the wealthy is at the top of the list for most Catholics…they have been listening to too many “consultants”. Doing the work of the Lord is what makes generous persons’ wallets fall open. Not fancy dinners and cocktail parties.
Maybe this will bring about change in the way the monies are handled.
One can hope.
 
So the Archdiocese of Atlanta is not doing as well as I thought?
 
To be fair, AB Gregory announced he [presumably not without guidance] would, “invest the proceeds from that sale into the needs of the Catholic community.” This doesn’t mean the proceeds will go directly to charity and is baggie enough to posit that the proceeds will fund jobs (or job programs). Now would be the time for those among the archdiocese to bend the AB’s ear, along south rye ears of his advisors.

I pray for prudential guidance for him and his advisors.
 
pianistclare said:
People want to tithe and support the annual appeal. People want their funds to go to vocations, and all the great ministries that the people of the area need. But let’s face it. The average parishioner only knows how bad it is in their own parish. There’s nothing wrong with building a home that will house many priests. But if we believe that courting the wealthy is at the top of the list for most Catholics…they have been listening to too many “consultants”. Doing the work of the Lord is what makes generous persons’ wallets fall open. Not fancy dinners and cocktail parties.
Maybe this will bring about change in the way the monies are handled.
One can hope.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. If I were a rich person I would be impressed by the Archbishop inviting me to a fundraising event in a normal home or other venue. Being invited to a fancy place wouldn’t be what inspired me to give…it would be the way I saw the Archbishop treating people and talking about the needs of the diocese. He has a warm and kind personality, and doesn’t need the trappings to do God’s work.
 
Fancy dinners and cocktail parties serve a certain purpose. Wealthy donors are accustomed to a certain standard of living, and it is the standard of all kinds of charities to thank and court their top donors with galas. These parties are not wasteful, they are an investment, a profitable asset that earns money. Not to mention that they are keeping caterers and bartenders in jobs. But primarily, they are a way to meet and greet. And meeting and greeting is very important for leaders. Do people complain about the time the President spends entertaining, meeting and greeting? The Pope does it too, are we up in arms about his tête-a-tête with Queen Elizabeth? No, because it’s part of the job. A party is simply an efficient and somewhat stress-free way to meet a large number of people at one time, and furthermore it allows those people to meet yet more people and network. All the top businessmen will tell you that networking and feedback is the essence of an executive’s life. There is nothing like coming face-to-face with a donor or supporter or detractor and having her tell you exactly what she thinks. And likewise, there is nothing like giving a personal thank-you or apology to that kind of person. If leaders did not entertain, they would be rightly accused of being selfish, of being stand-offish, of being insensitive to the people’s needs.

Do you know who else entertained? Jesus did. He made his first party a success - the Wedding at Cana. And then He instituted the party to end all parties, the Holy Eucharist. He commanded it be done in memory of Him, and today we do it daily, in all parts of the world, in all sorts of buildings, on the tops of mountains and on the front lines of battle. Jesus understood the importance and significance of sharing a meal together. Of course the Eucharist is a sacrifice and not merely a shared meal or a party, but it was this context which Jesus chose to make that sacrifice which stays with us. And Catholics of all people understand the importance of making that liturgical party a success. Only the finest vestments, furnishings, art and music, sacred vessels, and holy texts. We offer only our best to the Lord for His party.

Sure, fancy parties and dinners look excessive and are not directly serving the poor. What would the Holy Father say? He’d probably invite some people off the street to share the meal. He’d certainly make sure the leftovers were well-used. He’d ensure there was no undue extravagance or waste. I have a feeling that as a person he doesn’t really care for parties, just as he really doesn’t care for liturgies. But he has adapted well to being a leader, and he of all people understands the value of reaching people and touching their hearts. The best way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, it’s a proven fact. So don’t say there is no value in fancy parties, because they are an important component of life for important people.
 
Elizium23 said:
Fancy dinners and cocktail parties serve a certain purpose. Wealthy donors are accustomed to a certain standard of living, and it is the standard of all kinds of charities to thank and court their top donors with galas. These parties are not wasteful, they are an investment, a profitable asset that earns money. Not to mention that they are keeping caterers and bartenders in jobs. But primarily, they are a way to meet and greet. And meeting and greeting is very important for leaders. Do people complain about the time the President spends entertaining, meeting and greeting? The Pope does it too, are we up in arms about his tête-a-tête with Queen Elizabeth? No, because it’s part of the job. A party is simply an efficient and somewhat stress-free way to meet a large number of people at one time, and furthermore it allows those people to meet yet more people and network. All the top businessmen will tell you that networking and feedback is the essence of an executive’s life. There is nothing like coming face-to-face with a donor or supporter or detractor and having her tell you exactly what she thinks. And likewise, there is nothing like giving a personal thank-you or apology to that kind of person. If leaders did not entertain, they would be rightly accused of being selfish, of being stand-offish, of being insensitive to the people’s needs.

Do you know who else entertained? Jesus did. He made his first party a success - the Wedding at Cana. And then He instituted the party to end all parties, the Holy Eucharist. He commanded it be done in memory of Him, and today we do it daily, in all parts of the world, in all sorts of buildings, on the tops of mountains and on the front lines of battle. Jesus understood the importance and significance of sharing a meal together. Of course the Eucharist is a sacrifice and not merely a shared meal or a party, but it was this context which Jesus chose to make that sacrifice which stays with us. And Catholics of all people understand the importance of making that liturgical party a success. Only the finest vestments, furnishings, art and music, sacred vessels, and holy texts. We offer only our best to the Lord for His party.

Sure, fancy parties and dinners look excessive and are not directly serving the poor. What would the Holy Father say? He’d probably invite some people off the street to share the meal. He’d certainly make sure the leftovers were well-used. He’d ensure there was no undue extravagance or waste. I have a feeling that as a person he doesn’t really care for parties, just as he really doesn’t care for liturgies. But he has adapted well to being a leader, and he of all people understands the value of reaching people and touching their hearts. The best way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, it’s a proven fact. So don’t say there is no value in fancy parties, because they are an important component of life for important people.
Click to expand...
This is quite a stretch! And your last line…“they are an important component of life for important people”…poor word choice. All people are “important people.”
 
Pax2u said:
This is quite a stretch! And your last line…“they are an important component of life for important people”…poor word choice. All people are “important people.”
Click to expand...
No, I thought about it and I meant what I said. Of course all people are important. The poor are important and “will always be with us”, we must see their intrinsic dignity and suffering. Working laborers are important because they assist the Church in building and maintaining things. They need the jobs which we can provide. Yet without wealthy donors the Church would not have the nice things that she has. It is the donations which are more important than the quality of people here. The monetary amounts are somewhat irrelevant. We know what Christ said about the poor widow who gave all she had. That is the value of charity and stewardship. A sacrificial sense of giving should be instilled in all people, especially the rich, particularly the wealthy, who should be faithful stewards of the goods entrusted to them by God. Nobody will deny the importance of leadership in the Church. Bishops are important people. But they are more than leaders, they are servants. They are likewise called to be faithful stewards of the goods which are entrusted to them by all the people, especially the wealthy donors. They are called to reach out to donors and raise all the money possible for the good of the community. They are required to cultivate relationships with the rich as well as the poor, but for different reasons.

I give my bishop $30-$40 a year. Perhaps he doesn’t know or care how much I give. But he always has a grateful smile and gracious words to me when we meet. And although I may bottle up many complaints about many things I see going wrong around me, I don’t use my brief meetings as an outlet to vent to him. I feel that compliments are more rare and valuable than complaints, so I only mention positive things when we exchange words. I want the bishop to know that he is important, that I respect his work, and that he is being a good steward of the gifts which are entrusted to his diocese.

Yes, all people are important, and all men are created equal. But different people have different aspects of importance, and we all have diverse gifts to offer. The poor offer faith and hope to the community, which enriches us spiritually, while the wealthy offer money and gifts, and hopefully, through those gifts, another kind of faith and hope that enriches the poor.

And a bit more about liturgy: bishops are the chief liturgists of their diocese. We would always hope that a man elected to be ordinary have an excellent sense of what makes good liturgy. We expect the cathedral to offer the pinnacle of beauty for the diocese, not extravagant, but excellingly good liturgy, with fine furnishings, art, vestments and vessels. So is it really any surprise that bishops have similar tastes when it comes to their residences and parties? An important distinction has been made between a Jesuit such as the Holy Father, who took a solemn vow of Poverty, and a secular bishop who is in a wealthy diocese and has ample funds to work with. Surely we cannot condone extravagance or ostentatious displays of wealth. We cannot condone waste, misuse of assets, accumulation of liabilities, and squandering of funds. The case of Atlanta vs. the case of Limburg seem, on close inspection, to be very different animals. I can see that in Limburg there was waste and malfeasance, but I am not seeing it in Atlanta.

There is a delicate balance that must be struck in all forms of governance. Perhaps the ArchAtl was wrong in allowing schools and parishes to struggle while using funds for other purposes. Perhaps difficult decisions were being made behind-the-scenes that did not permit help to be extended to these struggling organizations. We don’t know all the details out there. One thing is certain: This pontificate has changed the focus. Sexual abuse cases are passé and, while they will still make the news, have been falling off the radar for people because all eyes are on the Pope and his revolutionary manner of doing things. The new focus is going to be on financial management, on clergy living humbly, on the perception (whether it is accurate or not) of being good stewards of the gifts given by donors. The good Archbishop rightly fears for his job and the confidence of the laity. He made some hard decisions, and it may surprise you to know that while I have spent this whole thread defending his previous choices, I fully support his decision to sell the residence because in this climate it was the only right thing to do, and he did it prudently and with due consultation with his advisory boards.
 
Elizium23…I appreciate reading your posts, as I can tell you put much thought in them. In your last post you said “A sacrificial sense of giving should be instilled in all people, especially the rich, particularly the wealthy, who should be faithful stewards of the goods entrusted to them by God.” I agree with this statement. But where we are differing is how that sense of giving should be instilled. I don’t think wining and dining wealthy people is going to instill a :“sacrificial” sense of giving, necessarily. When Jesus fed people, it was simple bread and fish, outside!

I do respect your opinion though Elizium23…as I said, I can tell you have given this much thought.
 
…and why not invite those caterers and toffee noses to the church hall?
 
Miserissima said:
…and why not invite those caterers and toffee noses to the church hall?
Click to expand...
Sure, if the parish has appropriate resources and infrastructure to handle such a gathering. But those resources and infrastructure cost money. So you see, the money has to be spent somewhere.

However, in this case, the Mitchell bequeathment included a parcel of land in a residential zone. It was an asset given for the stewardship of the archdiocese. At the time of the bequeathment, the archbishop (and he couldn’t have been alone, some finance council must have signed off on this) decided that it was appropriate to retain the parcel as it was, to demolish the existing residence, and to build a new one on the same parcel. The property was not usable for a parish church. So the question in this case would have been whether to sell off the parcel completely and invest it in some other way, or use part of the bequeathment to improve it and retain it for archdiocesan use as a legacy. The latter was chosen and it was just a bit too unpopular.
 
Pax2u said:
Elizium23…I appreciate reading your posts, as I can tell you put much thought in them. In your last post you said “A sacrificial sense of giving should be instilled in all people, especially the rich, particularly the wealthy, who should be faithful stewards of the goods entrusted to them by God.” I agree with this statement. But where we are differing is how that sense of giving should be instilled. I don’t think wining and dining wealthy people is going to instill a :“sacrificial” sense of giving, necessarily. When Jesus fed people, it was simple bread and fish, outside!

I do respect your opinion though Elizium23…as I said, I can tell you have given this much thought.
Click to expand...
It’s not either/or it’s both/and.

Sure there are some people who will write a big check just because you ask and there are others who want to use charitable giving occasions for multiple uses. For example, a benefit dinner might raise a lot of many AND be a chance for a donor to honor an artist or musician he/she admires. There are also many donors who aren’t even Catholic but get satisfaction being able to throw a benefit to raise money for a good cause.

I don’t know any diocese that can afford to tell its donors, “no, thanks but come back if you want to give money more humbly.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top