J
JLSacred
Guest
A wet bar is nice too!Now there is nothing wrong with a Bishop having nice cars and houses and servants- he is the Bishop after all!
Just so long as he doesnt neglect his office.
- Status
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
We had an assistant Bishop in my diocese, who took a vow of poverty. He lived in the Catholic Charities half-way house with the drunks and drug addicts, and ministered to them everyday.
He drove a low-end Chevy. Instead of a gold shepherds staff, his was wood, made for him by a friend. He wore low-end clothing, including his bishops mitre. He eventually became Bishop, and then had to move into the Bishopâs residency, which was nothing extravagant. At the same time, the sexual abuse cases in our diocese were very small and although there were some law-suits that had to be settled, the diocese never got into trouble like that of Boston.
So, should a Bishop drive fancy cars and have a luxurious life style? I think if his prayer life is in sync with who he is, it wonât matter much. However, if heâs lived the life of a âprofessional priest,â and his prayer life never developed beyond the minimum, and even there, he let is slide, the results will be obvious.
Jim
He drove a low-end Chevy. Instead of a gold shepherds staff, his was wood, made for him by a friend. He wore low-end clothing, including his bishops mitre. He eventually became Bishop, and then had to move into the Bishopâs residency, which was nothing extravagant. At the same time, the sexual abuse cases in our diocese were very small and although there were some law-suits that had to be settled, the diocese never got into trouble like that of Boston.
So, should a Bishop drive fancy cars and have a luxurious life style? I think if his prayer life is in sync with who he is, it wonât matter much. However, if heâs lived the life of a âprofessional priest,â and his prayer life never developed beyond the minimum, and even there, he let is slide, the results will be obvious.
Jim
C
Caesar
Guest
Well, good for him. But I believe that all vows are removed upon elevation to the Episcopate. How he lives is his own business, but he must be a symbol of the Church, so he should have worn the beautiful robes and carried a gold crozier.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Having been in the car bussines in the past I think Ive got something to say. first a bishop needs something reliable. the car wont do him any good if its in the shop all the time. second the car needs to be durable. with all the driving he does he needs a drive train and suspension that can hack being used all the time, he needs a car that isnt worn out at 150grand. third the bishop needs a car that is comfortable. most bishops are up in age and need better seats, a 70 yearold has a harder time taking a hot day without ac than us 30 somethings. A BISHOP doesnt need special wheels, diamond white paint, or a special hood ornimate. one thing many over look I want my bishop in the safest car possible. needs air bags and anything else offered, and not being driving a tiny cracker box. we dont need the bishop recovering 6 months in a hospital because his cavalier couldnt hack being t-boned by a pickup truck running a stop sign. so cars like a ford crown vic a buick lasabre, pontiac bonneville base model are very appropriate. in some areas where roads can get dicey because of the weather in winter a jeep, blazer, or ford explorer are appropriate too.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
i personally have a problem with ANY Christian who drives an extremely expensive car. i have no problem with people getting a reliable car and a car that can somewhat reflect your personal style, but when people who are supposed to care about the poor and downtrodden waste (yep, i said waste) their money on a flashy car (and iâm talking about over the top cars such as mercedes, bmw, cadillac, jaguar, land rover, etc.) it just shows that they have either lost touch with or never had touch with the example that Jesus and his apostles (on whom the church is built) gave us. James tells us that true religion is caring for orphans and widows⌠how many orphans and widows could be cared for if we gave up the extra $10, $20, $30 thousand to get the âflashyâ car and just went with something reliable? itâs a question i have to ask myself daily (and not just with vehicles but where i eat out, if i eat out, the clothes i buy, the vacations i might take, etc.). there is my rant and i hope you understand i wrestle with this issue also.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Back to the very first post on this, the poster said that a group she was talking with was discussing cars and bishops, and she said that âher bishop, and mostly all other bishopsâ
The more expensive (not really expensive, but more than the clunkers that have a planned obsolescence of 3 years or so) cars have longer lasting parts (usually) and better workmanship so they last longer.
Hereâs another thought-I donât know about the U.K. but here in the U.S. a lot of people lease their cars and thus âget another oneâ every 3 years. I wonder if the gabmeisters considered that?
I still say (yes I do) that all other things considered, it fries me to have people judging a bishop not at all on his actual work as a bishop (notice how nobody mentioned anything about how often he travels, what missions he is involved in, etc. etc. but only about âthe car he drivesâ), but simply on what car he drivesâand youâll also note that nowhere is it ever said that the bishop himself purchased that car let alone his reasons for driving that particular car (which also is never specifically given make and model).
No offense, we all have our pet peeves and our own personal struggles with both vice and virtue, but to me (IMO), I think that people whose gut reaction is to immediately pull a âoh no, a man of the cloth driving a expensive carâhow could he, that is not what Jesus would do, that money should go to to the poor!â should think very, very long and carefully about whether they are really considering the poor (who, letâs face it, might receive, one time only, a fraction of a penny if that car were âsoldâ for their benefit), or whether they are feeling that good old calvinistic neo-iconoclassicism of âthere should be no waste, and no âpompâ for a Christian. Art work? Sell it for the poor. Ditto the cups, the vestments, etc.â
IOW, I wish that people would stop trying to inforce their own personal interpretation of Scripture onto othersâbishops or non bishops.
Now, London is London, and âexecutive saloon carâ is not exactly YankeeSpeak, but nobody appears to be talking Porche, Jaguar, or even (in the U.S.) Land Rovers. From what I gather, this basically means something on the order of a medium range model like a Lincoln Town Car (not cheap but definitely not expensive). A bishop does not usually travel alone, so he needs a larger model than a London Mini or even here a 2 door little Hyundai, right? Larger car usually means bigger price to begin with.
The more expensive (not really expensive, but more than the clunkers that have a planned obsolescence of 3 years or so) cars have longer lasting parts (usually) and better workmanship so they last longer.
Hereâs another thought-I donât know about the U.K. but here in the U.S. a lot of people lease their cars and thus âget another oneâ every 3 years. I wonder if the gabmeisters considered that?
I still say (yes I do) that all other things considered, it fries me to have people judging a bishop not at all on his actual work as a bishop (notice how nobody mentioned anything about how often he travels, what missions he is involved in, etc. etc. but only about âthe car he drivesâ), but simply on what car he drivesâand youâll also note that nowhere is it ever said that the bishop himself purchased that car let alone his reasons for driving that particular car (which also is never specifically given make and model).
No offense, we all have our pet peeves and our own personal struggles with both vice and virtue, but to me (IMO), I think that people whose gut reaction is to immediately pull a âoh no, a man of the cloth driving a expensive carâhow could he, that is not what Jesus would do, that money should go to to the poor!â should think very, very long and carefully about whether they are really considering the poor (who, letâs face it, might receive, one time only, a fraction of a penny if that car were âsoldâ for their benefit), or whether they are feeling that good old calvinistic neo-iconoclassicism of âthere should be no waste, and no âpompâ for a Christian. Art work? Sell it for the poor. Ditto the cups, the vestments, etc.â
IOW, I wish that people would stop trying to inforce their own personal interpretation of Scripture onto othersâbishops or non bishops.
J
jrabs
Guest
See - perhaps you are not able to do both with your disposable money but there are an amazing number of people in the world that can do both - meaning have an expensive car if the prefer AND donate beyond your wildest dreams.
The problem isâŚyou appear to be judging folks based on your experience but not on reality of what is going on in their world. Your perception does not equal reality in all cases.
Just as the OP cannot possibly know how the Bishop came to have a nice car.
To those given much, much is required. There are people out in the world that do give in excess.
D
dorothy_smith
Guest
Youâre quite right.
No one is talking about the Monstrance, cups, vestments and other paraphernalia. (You tend exagerate a bit)
No one is enforcing anything on anyone. Chill out! Everyone is entitled to their opinion (in a reasonable manner)
Take care
D
dorothy_smith
Guest
No, I donât. I feel rather guilty really.
I havenât (I wouldnât) mention the Bishop by name but I guess I am still being judgemental. I apologize (to all) for that.
A
az_4_faith
Guest
I would assume that most who are calling for the Bishops and clergy to live below the poverty level are doing the same in their own lives.
Itâs not a sin to spend a little money on oneâs self. Or to moderately accept some things as gifts when theyâre donated or provided for by the diocese. Perhaps many are jumping to conclusions about our beloved successors to the Apostles. Either way, donât worry about it unless someone is grossly abusing their office. And if youâre that concerned, ask some charitable questions before forming judgments.
As for the Churchâs vestments, chalices and such, only THE best for worshiping the Creator of all things. After all, He gave us these gifts to begin with. Weâre just giving them back to Him.
Itâs not a sin to spend a little money on oneâs self. Or to moderately accept some things as gifts when theyâre donated or provided for by the diocese. Perhaps many are jumping to conclusions about our beloved successors to the Apostles. Either way, donât worry about it unless someone is grossly abusing their office. And if youâre that concerned, ask some charitable questions before forming judgments.
As for the Churchâs vestments, chalices and such, only THE best for worshiping the Creator of all things. After all, He gave us these gifts to begin with. Weâre just giving them back to Him.
C
Caesar
Guest
I dont understand. Because of their most holy office, Bishops have the right to nice cars, large houses, servants, ect. They are the successors of the Apostles after all!
D
dorothy_smith
Guest
Why do you assume that?
Okay. This my charitable question: What kind of message are bishops giving out when they are seen stepping out of posh restaurants and getting into luxury cars?
Oh please! Donât try and turn it around. No one is questioning Churchâs vestments, chalices, paraphernalia.
D
dorothy_smith
Guest
I know what you mean. I donât understand neither. What has their holy office got to do with living the good life?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Are you joking?
Neither Jesus nor the apostles traveled or lived in luxury.
I think many of the Bishops and priest will have to answer to God for their life-styles which in some cases, was scandalous.
Jim
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
True, neither Jesus nor the apostles lived in luxury.
True, one should strive to live modestly.
But the point that might be given is that the bishops today function in an established Churchâthe Church was not established at the time of the apostles, any more than the Jewish religion was âestablishedâ at the time of the patriarchs. Yet no one questions that the high priest of the Jews as Judaism became an established religion, in his function as high priest, was entitled to wear the beautiful vestments and to wield political influence, etc.
One must be careful to look at the function of the apostles in context. They are the successors to the âTwelve Tribesâ, they are to wield both earthly and heavenly power. Though Christianity was not âestablishedâ, does one doubt that Peter, though he may not have lived in âluxuryâ, nevertheless as leader exercised spiritual authority and power far greater even than his fellow apostles??
One must be careful not to live oneâs faith in a vacuum. To posit, for example, that one must live âas Jesusâ and by that to understand living as a 1st century AD Jewish male, eating a spartan diet, working as a carpenter, reclining at table, obedient to all the customs of the time, is egregiously wrong. . .just as wrong as to posit that we should all be living as feudal lords or serfs. Times change.
Here is a good example. What a male of Jesusâs time would consider luxuries are bare essentials to us. . .Soap, clean water from a tap, abundant clean clothing, a varied and plentiful diet. So why is **no one **saying that, to live like Jesus, we should eschew bathing and grooming aids, wear one or maybe two robes, use bartering, go back to gathering untreated water from a public well???
What is a luxury for John Smith, an office worker in Kew, might be, if not a necessity for Lord John Smith, member of the House of Lords, Bishop John Smith, or Prime Minister John Smith, certainly not a âluxuryâ. All of the latter three have âfunctionsâ for which they might require âmoreâ than they would if they were âprivate persons.â
Anyway, who appointed anyone here (self included) as the 'Austerity police?â What gives any of us the right to say of any person, Bishop or no, âYour car/clothes/food/house etc. are âtoo muchâ, therefore you are displeasing to God?â
True, one should strive to live modestly.
But the point that might be given is that the bishops today function in an established Churchâthe Church was not established at the time of the apostles, any more than the Jewish religion was âestablishedâ at the time of the patriarchs. Yet no one questions that the high priest of the Jews as Judaism became an established religion, in his function as high priest, was entitled to wear the beautiful vestments and to wield political influence, etc.
One must be careful to look at the function of the apostles in context. They are the successors to the âTwelve Tribesâ, they are to wield both earthly and heavenly power. Though Christianity was not âestablishedâ, does one doubt that Peter, though he may not have lived in âluxuryâ, nevertheless as leader exercised spiritual authority and power far greater even than his fellow apostles??
One must be careful not to live oneâs faith in a vacuum. To posit, for example, that one must live âas Jesusâ and by that to understand living as a 1st century AD Jewish male, eating a spartan diet, working as a carpenter, reclining at table, obedient to all the customs of the time, is egregiously wrong. . .just as wrong as to posit that we should all be living as feudal lords or serfs. Times change.
Here is a good example. What a male of Jesusâs time would consider luxuries are bare essentials to us. . .Soap, clean water from a tap, abundant clean clothing, a varied and plentiful diet. So why is **no one **saying that, to live like Jesus, we should eschew bathing and grooming aids, wear one or maybe two robes, use bartering, go back to gathering untreated water from a public well???
What is a luxury for John Smith, an office worker in Kew, might be, if not a necessity for Lord John Smith, member of the House of Lords, Bishop John Smith, or Prime Minister John Smith, certainly not a âluxuryâ. All of the latter three have âfunctionsâ for which they might require âmoreâ than they would if they were âprivate persons.â
Anyway, who appointed anyone here (self included) as the 'Austerity police?â What gives any of us the right to say of any person, Bishop or no, âYour car/clothes/food/house etc. are âtoo muchâ, therefore you are displeasing to God?â
J
Jerry_Mitchner
Guest
Who knows what private penances any bishop may be practicing while appearing outwardly luxurious? Any position of great responsibility is itself a trial. I try not to envy powerful or wealthy individuals.
Purchases of new, quality items provide jobs for laborers who otherwise might have to rely on charity. Wealth, whether spent, invested, or in the bank, is still benefiting others. Funds invested in stocks benefit those working for the companies invested in. Funds in the bank become a pool available for loans.
Purchases of new, quality items provide jobs for laborers who otherwise might have to rely on charity. Wealth, whether spent, invested, or in the bank, is still benefiting others. Funds invested in stocks benefit those working for the companies invested in. Funds in the bank become a pool available for loans.
A
az_4_faith
Guest
D
dorothy_smith
Guest
Oh please! Donât try and turn it around. No one is questioning Churchâs vestments, chalices, paraphernalia.
D
dorothy_smith
Guest
My (our) bishop is my neighbour (and a very nice man).
What makes you think that it is a serious problem?
A
az_4_faith
Guest
I still have no idea what youâre talking about.
That has to be so cool living next door to the Bishop.
- Status