Chicago Archdiocese Set for Major Reorganization

  • Thread starter Thread starter ProVobis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
Good points.

I remember the Bernadin closings well. There was a sentiment floating around after that that one should consider registration with Holy Name Cathedral as that one was the only parish that was guaranteed not to close.

That said, the last time I checked, the Archdiocese was $115 million in debt, much of it being borrowed from the city of Chicago itself. (The St. Sabina project is a separate issue.) And the city has deep financial problems of its own. Things certainly aren’t looking up for the archdiocese.
Click to expand...
That’s just insane and horrendous. There’s ZERO justification for a diocese going into debt of that amount. NONE.
 
ProVobis said:
An updated financial statement for those who might be interested.

archchicago.org/pdf/annual_report/cfs_14.pdf

Amount listed there is almost $174 Million. (up from $115 Million in 2013) about halfway down.
Click to expand...
Those are as of June 30, 2014. So in ONE year their debt ballooned by almost $60 MILLION. That doesn’t even reflect how bad it is for 6/30/2015.

And total liabilities for the diocese is 1.6 BILLION.

This is simply unsustainable, and the Diocese is going to be bankrupt soon.
 
irishpatrick said:
May I ask a couple simple questions?

Why is it that the Archdiocese is not planning a full-out attempt to increase vocations and to call parents and Catholics to encourage vocations? Why isn’t there a call for rosaries and prayer groups calling out for vocations?

It seems so many times the Church just concedes as if they are helpless to make any changes. These problems are projected for 2030–that gives the Archdiocese 14 years to try to make a difference.

There is never a shortage of God’s call to the Priesthood–yet there is a shortage of men listening to that call. Why isn’t THAT the area to be targeted for help?
Click to expand...
I would hope that a push for vocations is part of the plan. But the impact of those new vocations might not be felt until further out that 14 years.

They really only have 6–8 years to up the number of seminarians if they want to increase the number of priests they project to have in 14 years—considering that seminary formation is generally 6–8 years. Those being ordained in 14 years will have to have been in seminary by then.

And even then, the freshly ordained won’t be ready to be pastors right out of the gate. You’d probably want them to have at least 6–8 years of priestly experience under their belt before making them pastors. Which leaves them with the number of priests and seminarians they currently have, minus those who retire over the next 14 years.

So it seems pretty realistic to me that they should know right now how many pastors they will have in 14 years.
 
Joe_5859 said:
… Which leaves them with the number of priests and seminarians they currently have, minus those who retire over the next 14 years.

So it seems pretty realistic to me that they should know right now how many pastors they will have in 14 years.
Click to expand...
It seems there has to be an allowance of those who leave the priesthood or take temporary leave somewhere too.
 
ProVobis said:
It seems there has to be an allowance of those who leave the priesthood or take temporary leave somewhere too.
Click to expand...
Right. There’s that, too. They’re going to lose priests to medical issues, death, positions as seminary professors or rectors, elevations to the episcopacy, and those who just decide to leave the priesthood altogether.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top