Atlanta Archbishop to Sell $2.2 Million Mansion

[EmperorNapoleon]

Perhaps you didn’t read or understand my post. A construction project creates jobs. A bigger residence creates more jobs than a smaller residence. First you’re going to need teams of contractors to do demolition. Then design and construction on the new one. Contractors for plumbing, electrical, and all the other things. Then once it’s built, it requires upkeep and maintenance. Either people on staff or contractors to routinely come in, and clean the place, repair things, plumbing, electrical, telecom.

I mean really. Whenever the Church (or the Government) undertakes a project, people act like the cost is being doused with gasoline and burned for warmth. It’s not - it’s going into someone else’s pockets. The question is whether those pockets are deserving of redistributed wealth. Liberals would rather have the government tax us into poverty and then give it to whoever can jump through the hoops of bureacracy.

You’re grasping at straws.

 

[Elizium23]

You’re grasping at straws.

You allege that the money was misappropriated. Yet the exact quote of the endowment is that it was to be used for “general religious and charitable purposes”. The endowment included Mitchell’s own home! Now how can you say that using a donation, which included a residence, to improve that very residential property at that very address, is a misappropriation? I think you’re the one who is grasping at straws.

Now the Archbishop plans to sell it off. Let’s hope that he doesn’t take a bath on this whole deal. Even if he manages a somewhat narrow profit, he has lost a valuable asset that was part of the original endowment. And to me, that is more of a misappropriation than the alternative.

 

[MarySB]

I think I misunderstood. The old AB house was sold to the Christ the King parish for use by seven priests. The new house will be sold to whomever.

The Chancery is in Smyrna. It is a lot less expensive area. The AB probably could find a two bedroom two bath town home for as little as $200000-300000.

I do agree that the Archdiocese is not thinking about the fact that we are losing a valuable asset. We shall see what ends up in the long term vs. the short term. It may or may not have been a wise decision in the long term.

 

[twf]

If an apartment is good enough for the Pope then why not an Archbishop?

Pope Francis is a consecrated religious and as such took a vow of poverty when professing for the Jesuit order. This is not true of all priests. Pope Emeritus Benedict and many (perhaps most?) bishops around the world are secular priests - they did not take a vow of poverty, nor should we impose it upon them. It is not part of their calling. This is what the media and people at large often miss. Francis seems so “different” because he is the first consecrated religious to be elected to the throne of St. Peter since the 1700s. There was a Franciscan pope in the 18th century, and he lived a very humble life of “apostolic poverty” as well. When we judge secular priests by the standards of religious life and by the standards of vows which they did not take, we do a disservice to them.

 

[kmuestwin]

Simply put, this whole problem is the result of the Archbishop’s lack of leadership.

If the Archbishop had stuck to his guns and explained his reasons for building such a home, the scandal would have passed. Instead, he issued a sprawling apology about his misuse of the money. This confirmed the negative attitude toward the home and now to save face he has to sell.

There is no liberal conspiracy against the rich people of the Church. This is just what happens when a leader follows one bad decision with another bad decision.

 

[Elizium23]

I am not sure if the scandal would have passed while we are under the present pontificate. Financial scandals are hounding bishops as surely as the sexual abuse scandal hounded them and still does today. Today bishops must bend to the demands of the hoi polloi who feel they are reflecting the wishes of the Holy Father, and frequently they are, as we have seen in the case of Bishop +Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst of Limburg. In the latter case, however, there seems to be geniune malfeasance at work, with deception about the costs of things and undue extravagance, so the relative merits of each case must be weighed.

 

[twf]

EmperorNapoleon: How do you expect the Church to finance her charitable works throughout the world? On private donations alone? What if that comes short. Shopping malls, etc., if in fact the Vatican does own such properties (very possible - I don’t know or care personally), generate revenue which can be used for the greater good.

 

[Elizium23]

EmperorNapoleon: How do you expect the Church to finance her charitable works throughout the world? On private donations alone? What if that comes short. Shopping malls, etc., if in fact the Vatican does own such properties (very possible - I don’t know or care personally), generate revenue which can be used for the greater good.

So do hospitals, schools, and any charity which has offices and facilities. If you strip any company of its assets such as real estate and equipment, they have a hard time making money, and they have a hard time serving anyone. That’s the bottom line.

 

[ringil]

Simply put, this whole problem is the result of the Archbishop’s lack of leadership.

If the Archbishop had stuck to his guns and explained his reasons for building such a home, the scandal would have passed. Instead, he issued a sprawling apology about his misuse of the money. This confirmed the negative attitude toward the home and now to save face he has to sell.

There is no liberal conspiracy against the rich people of the Church. This is just what happens when a leader follows one bad decision with another bad decision.

No, Gregory’s apology shows humility and strength. It is in keeping with what I know and believe of his character. He is a good shepherd and it is wise that he has admitted his mistake.

I just hope that this misstep doesn’t hurt his status in the Church. I think he would make a fine Cardinal.

 

[MarySB]

Wow! Whatever the AB does, people complain. I think it says more about OUR character, than his. JMHO.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

EmperorNapoleon: How do you expect the Church to finance her charitable works throughout the world? On private donations alone? What if that comes short. Shopping malls, etc., if in fact the Vatican does own such properties (very possible - I don’t know or care personally), generate revenue which can be used for the greater good.

There are many charities in this world which operate quite successfully on donations alone. I don’t see why the Catholic Church would be any different and it isn’t limited to donations. Many religious orders produce and sell products to support their missions for example. The bottom line is that the Archbishop does not need a $2.2 million luxury residence to raise money and the Church doesn’t need luxury resorts and shopping malls for that purpose either.

 

[Elizium23]

The Church doesn’t “need” beautiful churches in which to celebrate Mass. The Church doesn’t “need” millions of cloistered vowed religious living a life of prayer. The Church doesn’t “need” schools and hospitals. The Church really doesn’t operate on need, and your opinion of the Church’s needs is zero, as you are not a bishop or even a member thereof. I am getting an overall picture that you are simply jealous of the Church’s temporal goods and position in this world. That’s entirely justified. The Church is still quite powerful, albeit not at her peak of a few hundred years ago. Arguably, the Church gets spiritually stronger every day, even as we encounter trials and apostasy in the world, even if the numbers diminish (which they haven’t really) because we are all consciously approaching the End Times and the Return of Christ to reign gloriously again. Then the Church won’t have need of anything at all, but she will have it.

And you won’t have a thing to say about it.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m hoping this fiasco doesn’t set an extremely dangerous precedent, but I think it will anyway.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Perhaps you didn’t read or understand my post. A construction project creates jobs.

A construction project feeds a construction worker for a day. The same money could have gone to teach someone marketable job skills and then the recipient could be fed for a lifetime.

 

[Elizium23]

A construction project feeds a construction worker for a day. The same money could have gone to teach someone marketable job skills and then the recipient could be fed for a lifetime.

You apparently didn’t read or understand my post. A working building represents jobs for janitorial, maintenance staff, contractors, gardeners… the bigger the better. Managed well, it is not a liability but an asset not only for the people who work there but for the people who own it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You apparently didn’t read or understand my post. A working building represents jobs for janitorial, maintenance staff, contractors, gardeners… the bigger the better. Managed well, it is not a liability but an asset not only for the people who work there but for the people who own it.

On the other hand, if the mansion is sold, the money can be invested in productive assets and the income from those productive assets could be used to help the poor. So the problem is that we don’t have enough information to know whether the sale is a good thing or a bad thing from a stewardship point of view.

 

[Elizium23]

On the other hand, if the mansion is sold, the money can be invested in productive assets and the income from those productive assets could be used to help the poor. So the problem is that we don’t have enough information to know whether the sale is a good thing or a bad thing from a stewardship point of view.

That is indeed true, but it should be remembered that the Archbishop and clergy will still have to live somewhere, and so that means buying or renting someplace humbler, and so that money is going to be re-sunk, cutting into whatever is left that can be invested.

 

[pianistclare]

That is indeed true, but it should be remembered that the Archbishop and clergy will still have to live somewhere, and so that means buying or renting someplace humbler, and so that money is going to be re-sunk, cutting into whatever is left that can be invested.

Are you in the Archdiocese of Atlanta?

 

[twf]

There are many charities in this world which operate quite successfully on donations alone. I don’t see why the Catholic Church would be any different and it isn’t limited to donations. Many religious orders produce and sell products to support their missions for example. The bottom line is that the Archbishop does not need a $2.2 million luxury residence to raise money and the Church doesn’t need luxury resorts and shopping malls for that purpose either.

The truth is I don’t have much invested in this particular story one way or another, but I did want to look at it from another angle…the potential revenue “entertaining” in such a residence could raise for the archdiocese. I also pointed out earlier in this thread that the expectations for secular priests should not be the same as that of consecrated religious priests. You compared the living conditions of archbishops to Pope Francis without making this distinction. Pope Francis is a consecrated religious under a vow of poverty…while many (maybe most?) archbishops are secular priests who have taken no vows.

Earlier you claimed that the Vatican owns 20% of all property in Italy. I find this very hard to believe. Are you sure that this statistic isn’t based on all property owned by “the Church” in a generic sense? I could easily believe that 20% of property in Italy is owned by the hundreds of archdioceses, dioceses, and abbeys found in Italy…but not by the Holy See itself. Financially there is no connection between the Holy See and individual dioceses / abbeys. If the Archdiocese of Atlanta owns a mansion, the Holy See does not own that property in any sense of the word.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The truth is I don’t have much invested in this particular story one way or another, but I did want to look at it from another angle…the potential revenue “entertaining” in such a residence could raise for the archdiocese. I also pointed out earlier in this thread that the expectations for secular priests should not be the same as that of consecrated religious priests. You compared the living conditions of archbishops to Pope Francis without making this distinction. Pope Francis is a consecrated religious under a vow of poverty…while many (maybe most?) archbishops are secular priests who have taken no vows.

Appearances and overhead matter when we’re talking about charity. A lot of people do not want to commit to tithing when they see their money being spent in such a way and potential donors to charity will walk away when they find out the same.

Earlier you claimed that the Vatican owns 20% of all property in Italy. I find this very hard to believe. Are you sure that this statistic isn’t based on all property owned by “the Church” in a generic sense? I could easily believe that 20% of property in Italy is owned by the hundreds of archdioceses, dioceses, and abbeys found in Italy…but not by the Holy See itself. Financially there is no connection between the Holy See and individual dioceses / abbeys. If the Archdiocese of Atlanta owns a mansion, the Holy See does not own that property in any sense of the word.

The Vatican does indeed own 20% of all property in Italy. It acquired much of this through bequeathment, but the Italian government was so concerned by the loss of the tax revenue that they have scaled back its tax exempt status to include only those properties which serve a religious purpose. The Vatican also has robust secular real estate holdings throughout Europe which it acquired of its own accord.