Chaput Wants To List Historic Archbishop Residence For Sale

[CatholicBoy1957]

Chaput Wants To List Historic Archbishop Residence For Sale

January 2, 2012 6:50 AM

By Pat Loeb

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) - Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput is seeking to sell the large estate in Overbrook where he lives. Word of the sale comes as a blue ribbon commission prepares to recommend the closing of dozens of parish schools.

A source in the archdiocese says the proposal to sell the archbishops’ residence has been presented to the priests’ counsel and the finance counsel and now has only to be approved by the Vatican.

philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/01/02/chaput-wants-to-list-historic-archbishop-residence-for-sale/

He seems to be setting a good example.

 

[JRKH]

Yes I agree. It seems that this might be a good thing.

Some downsizing is probably appropriate.

That said, it is important to remember that a Bishop, Archbishop and such cannot simply have a “monastic cell” either (just to go to the other extreme…

The Archbishop’s residence should be large enough to facilitate the activities necessary to his office while still being as economical as possible.

I would imagine that the upkeep on the current residence is costing a lot, and the land could be put to better use.

Too bad it’s being done in such a depressed market though…

Peace
James

 

[Dale_M]

Some additional information

The sale would comport with a trend among Catholic dioceses to sell off their bishop’s mansions in favor of more modest dwellings. In 1999, when he was Denver’s archbishop, Chaput sold his predecessor’s villa and moved into the diocesan seminary.

One of the largest private homes in Philadelphia, the stately, three-story dwelling of nearly 13,000 square feet sits on 8.7 landscaped acres that sweep 900 feet from City Avenue to Overbrook Avenue.

Surrounded by a tall, iron fence, the dwelling once known as The Terraces, at 5700 City Ave., has been home to Philadelphia’s archbishops since 1935. The property includes an indoor swimming pool, a gardener’s cottage, and a six-car garage. During Cardinal John Krol’s era in the 1970s and '80s, it also featured a par-3 golf hole and putting green.

articles.philly.com/2012-01-01/news/30579106_1_donna-farrell-capuchin-order-mansion

Archbishop Chaput, as a Capuchin friar, took a vow of poverty. That alone might explain his discomfort with the grand digs. But I gather the whole archdiocese of Philadelphia is in for some belt-tightening, so leading by example is a good practice.

 

[Brendan]

In Detroit, Archbishop Vigneron lives in a house next door to the Cathedral. It is pretty much identical to the other houses on that block.

At going rates in Detroit in that neighborhood, I would estimate that it could not be sold for more than $50,000

It has no real large property itself, the backyard is mostly taken up by an extra large garage ( as his secretary and the Cathedral rector also live in that house)

That is where the last several bishops have lived.

 

[barb_finnegan]

The ‘back yard’ of the soon-to-be-sold Philadelphia Archbishop’s residence faces a monastery of Visitation nuns. I made a five-day retreat with them in 1998. So I kind of remember what the place looked like.

On a lighter note (I think we need one here), when I was being driven to the railroad station at the end of my retreat by one of the nuns, she told me about an incident with one of their dogs and a dog from the Archbishop’s. The two animals got into a fight, and it took the Sisters’ gardener (a 1991 Gulf War vet) to break it up! He got right in the middle of it!

And on a happier note, when Pope John Paul II visited Philly in 1979, he stayed at the Archbishop’s house, and the Visitandines were able to come over and see him ‘up close and personal’! I saw the photos during my retreat! They were very excited to see the Holy Father!

Seriously, though, I think it’s right that Archbishop Chaput sets an example regarding where he lives. He’s a Capuchin Franciscan, after all. Maybe there’s a monastery of his fellow Franciscans that he can stay in while a smaller residence can be found.

 

[Langdell]

… Some downsizing is probably appropriate. …

Indeed, downsizing is probably inevitable, if the sexual-abuse litigation involving the Archdiocese of Philadelphia follows the same path as that in the Diocese of Wilmington and other places.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

The ‘back yard’ of the soon-to-be-sold Philadelphia Archbishop’s residence faces a monastery of Visitation nuns. I made a five-day retreat with them in 1998. So I kind of remember what the place looked like.

And on a happier note, when Pope John Paul II visited Philly in 1979, he stayed at the Archbishop’s house, and the Visitandines were able to come over and see him ‘up close and personal’! I saw the photos during my retreat! They were very excited to see the Holy Father!

Seriously, though, I think it’s right that Archbishop Chaput sets an example regarding where he lives. He’s a Capuchin Franciscan, after all. Maybe there’s a monastery of his fellow Franciscans that he can stay in while a smaller residence can be found.

I hope they take the nuns’convent into consideration when they decide who to sell to. They probably would rather their convent not back up on a high-roller’s parties! LOL

Maybe for the next papal visit the Pope will stay with the nuns since the bishop might be living with the seminarians!

 

[barb_finnegan]

I hope they take the nuns’convent into consideration when they decide who to sell to. They probably would rather their convent not back up on a high-roller’s parties! LOL

Maybe for the next papal visit the Pope will stay with the nuns since the bishop might be living with the seminarians!

Well, the main building of the Visitation convent is an old mansion! One never knows…

 

[ringil]

Yes, it’s a bit less glamorous but Bishops are beginning to just live in houses like the rest of us.

I think it’s a good thing but, I admit it’s a bit sad to see these nicer properties pass to secular hands.

 

[lizaanne]

I think it is a horrible shame when a diocese sells off historic property - only for the reason of appearance. Many of these locations are part of the material historic legacy of the Church that is tangible to us who are far from Rome. The Bishop of Detroit, many many years ago, lived in a spectacular Tudor style mansion near the Cathedral. I was a docent there about 20 years ago when a “decorators show place” was held in the mansion, after the Archdiocese sold it to a private owner. It was terribly sad to me that the home could not be used for something else by the Church, and kept “in the family” as it were. The private chapel in the home was so beautiful.

Bishop Gallagher’s Residence:
modeldmedia.com/features/bishops72.aspx
detroit1701.org/BishopRes.htm

I’m a lover of historic architecture, and I feel these are true treasures of the Church.

~Liza

 

[JRKH]

I think it is a horrible shame when a diocese sells off historic property - only for the reason of appearance. Many of these locations are part of the material historic legacy of the Church that is tangible to us who are far from Rome. The Bishop of Detroit, many many years ago, lived in a spectacular Tudor style mansion near the Cathedral. I was a docent there about 20 years ago when a “decorators show place” was held in the mansion, after the Archdiocese sold it to a private owner. It was terribly sad to me that the home could not be used for something else by the Church, and kept “in the family” as it were. The private chapel in the home was so beautiful.

Bishop Gallagher’s Residence:
modeldmedia.com/features/bishops72.aspx
detroit1701.org/BishopRes.htm

I’m a lover of historic architecture, and I feel these are true treasures of the Church.

~Liza

I agree with what you are saying here. It is indeed a shame.
It’s too bad that these wonderful buildings can’t be kept for the time when the Church get’s past it’s difficulties and resurges in influence.

But on the other hand we shouldn’t become too attached to such things either.
After all, our true mansion is not brick and stone and is not on this earth.

If you have ever seen the movie “The Bishop’s Wife”, you’ll remember that the (Episcopalian) Bishop was all caught up in trying to raise money for a Cathedral and was losing sight of other, more important matters. An angel is sent to help him sort things out.
There is a great line where the angel says - “That one big roof could make so many little ones”.
It’s a line that speaks to our keeping our priorities straight.

Peace
James

 

[lizaanne]

But on the other hand we shouldn’t become too attached to such things either.
After all, our true mansion is not brick and stone and is not on this earth.

Then would you advocate selling St.Peter’s in Rome?

Of course, we should not become too attached to things - but these “things” are for the glory of God and His Church if used and appreciated properly.

The problem here is not being attached to things, but the getting rid of them because we are worried about what others may feel. That, to me, is a ridiculous justification.

~Liza

 

[Sarabande]

In one regard, it is sad that it will be sold as I remember many years of my childhood driving to the city, seeing the seminary on my left and then the Archbishop’s residence on my right a little further down. I have a sentimental attachment to it, for the historical aspect and because I love old, beautiful architecture.

That said, knowing how much spiritual pain and financial trouble the Archdiocese is in, especially with the money spent due to the sex abuse scandal and from speaking with priests and other people I know who are involved with the Archdiocese, I think this was a good decision. The Archbishop represents a new face and new beginning for the Archdiocese and I pray that Archbishop Chaput continues to set a good example and hope for the Catholics there. I know too many lay people, including priests and religious, who have been in pain and felt betrayed by what has happened in the Archdiocese and by the last couple of Archbishops there. The climate has been nasty there long enough.

 

[JRKH]

Then would you advocate selling St.Peter’s in Rome?

If the Church determined that it was best to sell then yes…BUT, it would be difficult to sell St Peter’s in Rome since it is the centerpiece of the Vatican City State. Something that the Church is not likely to give up since it provides the Holy Father political independence.

Of course, we should not become too attached to things - but these “things” are for the glory of God and His Church if used and appreciated properly.

Indeed they are…and you are right. But one should also remember that expressions of “The Glory of God” can change. Again, it is a question of what best serves God’s Glory…

The problem here is not being attached to things, but the getting rid of them because we are worried about what others may feel. That, to me, is a ridiculous justification.

~Liza

While “how others might feel” should not be the sole or primary reason for keeping or selling, careing about how others “feel” and how they view the Church can also be a legitimate factor…

Just my opinion

Peace
James

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

We could sell the Vatican. We could sell all of the treasures within it, too.

Who has the right to sell it, and what gives them the right?

Were not all of the treasures the Church has given as gifts? If someone gives you a gift, do they expect you to sell it to someone else, and convert it to cash?

And when you have the cash, what then? Bank it, along with our heart also? Give it to the poor? I seem to recall some famous words, where someone said “we could have sold it, and gave the money to the poor”.

 

[manualman]

Then would you advocate selling St.Peter’s in Rome?

Of course, we should not become too attached to things - but these “things” are for the glory of God and His Church if used and appreciated properly.

The problem here is not being attached to things, but the getting rid of them because we are worried about what others may feel. That, to me, is a ridiculous justification.

I think you are missing the context rather badly. Archbishop Chaput just had to make the gut wrenching decision to close nearly half the catholic schools in his diocese because of the virtual bankruptcy of the diocese. He isn’t selling the mansion because of “what people might think.” He’s selling the mansion to (hopefully)stave off having to close another school. Surely you don’t object to prioritization like that?

 

[lizaanne]

I think you are missing the context rather badly. Archbishop Chaput just had to make the gut wrenching decision to close nearly half the catholic schools in his diocese because of the virtual bankruptcy of the diocese. He isn’t selling the mansion because of “what people might think.” He’s selling the mansion to (hopefully)stave off having to close another school. Surely you don’t object to prioritization like that?

No - I don’t. If that is his true motivation, then he has to do what he has to do. He has inherited a challenge to be sure.

~Liza

 

[TheDoctor]

I think you are missing the context rather badly. Archbishop Chaput just had to make the gut wrenching decision to close nearly half the catholic schools in his diocese because of the virtual bankruptcy of the diocese. He isn’t selling the mansion because of “what people might think.” He’s selling the mansion to (hopefully)stave off having to close another school. Surely you don’t object to prioritization like that?

I have never heard that as a reason - do yoiu have a source or just a gut feeling?

The sale of the mansion was announced before the blue ribbon panel made it’s decision and I don’t think one has to do with the other as no money from the sale of the mansion is slated for school or parish preservation as far as I know.

If I am not mistaken, the Archbishop did the same thing in Denver when he was there in an effort to leave simply and poorly (remember he is an order priest). I think he is trying to instill the same here.

No doubt, he will have detractors on both sides no matter what he does, however he has stated that he cannot see keeping a building so large open for only 3 people to live in.

 

[Brendan]

We could sell the Vatican. We could sell all of the treasures within it, too.".

The large majority of the art treasures no longer belong to the Church proper. Rather, they were donated to a non profit foundation called “the Vatican Museum”.

The Pope has no more right to sell the Pieta, for example, than the Mayor of New York has rights to sell the works in the Guggenheim Museum.

 

[manualman]

I have never heard that as a reason - do yoiu have a source or just a gut feeling?

Just context, as noted in my post. I sure know that if I were facing a report from my advisors recommending that HALF the schools in my diocese should be closed, I would think VERY hard about selling off the mansion I lived in before tossing school kids back to the dubious care of the public school districts.

Surely you realize that the announcement of the decision to close the schools was preceded by a LOT of studying of the financial conditions of each. The difference in timing still allows a lot of overlap in the decision making processes.