CNN: The lavish homes of American archbishops

[Catholic_farmer]

Here you go, Joel Osteen’s house. One of your “prosperity gospel” preachers.

houston.culturemap.com/news/real-estate/07-04-10-after-move-to-river-oaks-joel-osteen-wants-to-sell-tanglewood-land-for-11-million/

However, this doesn’t mean that the archbishops are necessarily right. It also doesn’t meant they are wrong. They could be utilizing resources appropriately, especially if they have houses that are paid off and not a burden to their parishes. Or, if the houses were donated. Either way, I will trust the local parishes to discern the truth. As far as a house that originally housed 8 but now has 2, I don’t fault the Church for that. There might be a lot less seminarians than there used to be, but that could change (hopefully) in the future. Again, as long as the houses are not a burden to the parishes and are not getting in the way of the Church’s primary mission.

I do think there should be some advantage to being a higher rank in the Church. To what degree needs to be worked out by those within the hierarchy of the Church. I do hope that the archbishops self evaluate and look at the example Pope Francis is setting, even if they are not bound by a vow of poverty, some restraint seems appropriate. Now, that being said, I also recognize the need for a formal meeting place to discuss Church matters with local politicians. The Pope has the Vatican. It doesn’t bother me that they live in the formal meeting place, especially if they have only a few rooms to call their own.

(formerly “lutheran farmer”)

 

[PolarGuy]

The Pope’s quarters are not the issue – the Pope lives modestly, in particular compared to his predecessors – so use of that is not analogous to the issue.

The issue is the bishops living in expensive mansions. An example is the 5000+ square foot mansion, getting a 3000 square foot addition with hot tub, in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, and there aren’t 100 retired priests living there.

IMHO that is not defensible, given the Church’s mission, and particularly when parishes are begging for money from parishioners.

 

[CatholicSheila]

Where’s the article about some of these Protestant “mega church pastors” who build mansions with their own money from the tons they make from their congregations?

This article is really just anti-Catholicism.

I have seen numerous articles about that actually.

Lol let’s think about this for a minute. Let’s set aside the recent bishops who have been building large homes and only consider those who live in already established large episcopal residences.

I think that if you were to ask one of those fuming at the mouth whether a bishop who lives in a large and spacious episcopal residence whether he should go buy another house just to make it look like he’s “poor and with the people” or whatever, this person would say yes. But I think that’s really silly because it prefers a rather asinine and not-based-in-reality symbol over real substance. Why sell a house if you’ve already got one that’s paid for? Plus, no house is cheap to begin with. In most places, for a bishop to go out and buy a smaller house would still cost upwards of $150k, in many other places at least twice that, just for a normal size house.

Someone will say, “Sell the episcopal residence.” HMMMM really? How many people have enough money in a given community to even begin to afford what it is worth? Perhaps some. But home markets even now in many parts of the country are laughable in terms of strength. So, in many–not all–places, I highly doubt it would make fiscal sense to sell an episcopal residence. Most people can’t afford a large house anyway, and selling it for pennies is irresponsible.

I agree with this. I have no problem with residences such as this that the Church already owns.

I do have a problem with people expecting our priests to behave as though they took a vow of poverty. Let these complainers go and sell all they have first. Until then, I don’t think it is our priests who are the hypocrites.

 

[phil19034]

The Pope’s quarters are not the issue – the Pope lives modestly, in particular compared to his predecessors – so use of that is not analogous to the issue.

The issue is the bishops living in expensive mansions. An example is the 5000+ square foot mansion, getting a 3000 square foot addition with hot tub, in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, and there aren’t 100 retired priests living there.

IMHO that is not defensible, given the Church’s mission, and particularly when parishes are begging for money from parishioners.

I don’t know if the AD of Newark expansion was a good use if money or not (it’s hard to justify), but it looks like the coadjutor Bishop will make some changes once he’s Bishop. The construction is being paid for directly by donations earmarked for it and by the sale of another retirement home in CT. But it might not be a good idea. However, on the flip side, the the AD can sell it for a lot more money down the road, then it may turn out to be a good investment. Only time will tell.

northjersey.com/mobile/news/assistant-newark-archbishop-s-remarks-invite-a-look-at-myers-retirement-residence-1.1023647

abcnews.go.com/News/newark-archbishops-pricey-pad-controversy/story?id=23321764

 

[NextElement]

Use the lavish houses that the Church has owned for years as retreat houses or places for spiritual exercises. Sell all real estate that isn’t of historical value and use that money to help the poor and fund our schools. Pope Francis said the Church is in need of a simpler time, and I agree.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Use the lavish houses that the Church has owned for years as retreat houses or places for spiritual exercises. Sell all real estate that isn’t of historical value and use that money to help the poor and fund our schools. Pope Francis said the Church is in need of a simpler time, and I agree.

Fund our schools and help the poor for how long? A week? Afaik the Church, especially in the US, doesn’t exactly own tons of property that isn’t being used currently. I have seen listings for old seminaries and whatnot… that have been on the market for ages and ages. Who’s going to buy that? It is so much more complicated than this. Besides the fact that probably the vast majority of Catholic property in the US is in active use: churches, schools, hospitals, etc. I wouldn’t expect us to be able to make more than basically cheap change that could maybe fund the Catholic machine in the US for a week.

The fact is, we already do help the poor. A lot. And we are extremely good at it. That is not a self-congratulations, it’s just a fact. We are already the most charitable organization the earth has ever known and I don’t think making a political show of selling a bunch of stuff will do much towards optimizing that. That’s sort of why we don’t really sell all our “priceless” art: it doesn’t work because if we did, then supply would be ridiculously high and suddenly that priceless painting isn’t priceless anymore. Then the art velociraptors would get tired too. Our art is only priceless for as long as it has no price.

I understand Pope Francis’s call towards simplicity and helping the poor. We can work on those things because we are never perfect at them. I think his calls are a positive example for the Church and the world. I just don’t think that selling all we have, then having no capital, and forcing priests to live on bologna sandwiches under park benches is the answer. The fact is that if we didn’t have all the institutions we do have, we would have precisely no way of substantially helping the poor because we’d have no political leverage.

As far as the retreat house thing, maybe that could work. But is it necessary? A lot of dioceses already have spacious facilities for spiritual retreats.

 

[PolarGuy]

I really cannot agree with the argument of “it may be a good investment and can be sold down the road,” because under that line of thinking, virtually any and all lavish purchases can be defended on grounds of “it may be sold later.” The issue is whether in light of the present conditions facing so many Americans, the existence and expense of lavish mansions is justifiable.

 

[Appealing_Woman]

It really bothers me that CNN does not inlcude the whole story. As for the “mansion” in San Antono, they make it sound as if the Archbishop dipped into the money contributed by the man in the pew to build himself a residence. Actually, when Pope JPII came to visit, the Archbishop was living in the Seminary dorm, so the Pope had to be put up elsewhere. Later, a group of donors put money up to build a residece for the Archbishop to house guests. Even if the Archbishop had said no,if I want to give a million dollars for a specific reason, you don’t have the right to tell me I can’t. You can refuse the money, but technically, the house belongs to the archdiocese, made possible by the donors who wanted to fund it, and not to the Archbishop. Furthermore, I have been in that house, and it is not opulent. It has a nice “suburban” feel-- but not fancy.

 

[phil19034]

I really cannot agree with the argument of “it may be a good investment and can be sold down the road,” because under that line of thinking, virtually any and all lavish purchases can be defended on grounds of “it may be sold later.” The issue is whether in light of the present conditions facing so many Americans, the existence and expense of lavish mansions is justifiable.

As I said before, new expenditures should be done with lots of prudence. The AD of Newark expense might not be a wise one or good one. I don’t know how much of the $500,000 is coming from ear marked donations vs the sale of the properly in CT. If $400,000 is coming from the sale, then it’s not a prudent investment. But if $50,000 is coming from the sale and the rest from ear marked donations, then it’s a good investment.

Church buildings are usually tax exempt. I doubt the diocese are spending a fortune on upkeep. If they are, different story.

Again, I’m not saying that NEW expenses should not be prudent. They should be. I just don’t see how selling real estate is prudent. Especially when it’s the only capital the Church has. Being good stewards means taking care of people today AND making sure we can take care of them in the future.

Selling real estate and giving all the proceeds to the poor doesn’t help the church with its mission to “teach people to fish.”

I’m sure if some presented Cardinal Dolan with a way to to sell his house and use the money to do something with lots of long term benefits, I’m sure he would listen. Otherwise, his house should continue to appreciate in value and be “cashed in” when the AD faces a real financial crises.

The point is that it’s wrong to assume that every Bishop is simply living lavishly or attached to money.

I mean this sell off mentality if right, the we should start selling Churches which are in good areas to and move our parishes into lower property values so we can donate that money to the poor.

Why not stop there…? Let’s make all Deacons who have or had a higher paying secular job donate a large chuck on their money to charity and downgrade their homes too. Lets also make a rule that rich Parishioners must pay more than others to send their kids to Catholic school. Finally, let’s only allow parishioners who live modestly to be Lectors, Altar Servers, EMHCs, Cantors, Choir members, and/or Parish council members.

If we want the Church to set more of an example to the world, how about we Laity focus on setting the example ourselves instead of forcing our Church to do more with less while we sit comfortably on our couches watching our HDTVs.

 

[adawgj]

If the hierarchy were collecting things like Jay Lenos car collection, or were buying all sorts of extra merchandise cluttering things up around them like jewelry, clothes, and other extravagant items, then id be concerned -but the structure itself matters not.

You should understand what a ‘minimalist’ is. It doesnt include having junky things, just less things.

…take all the pictures off the walls and sell your end tables. Get rid of all your extras. Thats minimalism. (see the popes quarters)

Totally agree with you.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There is no doubt that there are some Bishops who live in very upscale homes at the cost of their flocks.

However, the CNN Article is a little misleading on some of the photos they’re showing.

Some of the buildings are the Chancery buildings for the diocese and the Bishop as an apartment in that building. I believe the building of Cardinal Dolan’s is an example. For those not away, Chanceries are the office buildings where the dioceses is run from. In other words, some Bishops live at their place of work.

When Cardinal Law was head of the archdiocese of Boston, he lived in a mansion, but also took over a mansion on Cape Cod and made it his private summer residence. The property was donated many years ago by a wealthy family and before Cardinal Law came to Boston, it was used for youth retreats and such for the people of the archdioceses. He ended that and made it his summer home.

However, when he was replaced by Bishop Sean O’Malley, better known as Cardinal O’Malley, he sold both properties and took an apartment in the South End of Boston, which is a blue collar area. He also took public transportation to work and brown bagged his lunches. He had to stop using public transportation for so many people would come to talk with him, he couldn’t get to work on time. Now he drives himself in a small used car.

I think Jesus would be disgusted by the lifestyles many leaders of the Church have lived in, going back through the centuries.

He’d also be disgusted how they were in bed with the wealthy catering to their politics rather than serving the poor.

Pope Francis has changed that attitude. Yes, he has a nice bed room, but it’s plain in comparison to previous popes. Also, he has to live in the Vatican homes built for the popes for security reasons.

There is always the danger o Popes being kidnapped for ransom or for other evil agendas and protecting the Pope from such is a must.

Jim

 

[Joe_5859]

Lol let’s think about this for a minute. Let’s set aside the recent bishops who have been building large homes and only consider those who live in already established large episcopal residences.

I think that if you were to ask one of those fuming at the mouth whether a bishop who lives in a large and spacious episcopal residence whether he should go buy another house just to make it look like he’s “poor and with the people” or whatever, this person would say yes. But I think that’s really silly because it prefers a rather asinine and not-based-in-reality symbol over real substance. Why sell a house if you’ve already got one that’s paid for? Plus, no house is cheap to begin with. In most places, for a bishop to go out and buy a smaller house would still cost upwards of $150k, in many other places at least twice that, just for a normal size house.

Someone will say, “Sell the episcopal residence.” HMMMM really? How many people have enough money in a given community to even begin to afford what it is worth? Perhaps some. But home markets even now in many parts of the country are laughable in terms of strength. So, in many–not all–places, I highly doubt it would make fiscal sense to sell an episcopal residence. Most people can’t afford a large house anyway, and selling it for pennies is irresponsible.

This is a rather complex situation and I can’t respect statements like, “Omg u r not ‘pastoral,’ go sell ur mansion,” when the bishop lives in a 19th century, large house in an average no-name part of the country where people couldn’t begin to imagine buying it.

Leave the bishops alone, mind your own business. I see no outrage here.

PS: ???article??? Is there some decree out there that states that bishops cannot live in houses that are worth/“worth” more than one million USD?

Right. As JimG observed, too, many of these residences are in urban areas that are in demographic decline. They would never be able to sell those buildings for what they are “worth.” Indeed, I reckon it would generally cost a lot more money for them to sell the current residence (at a loss) and purchase a new building (or build one from scratch) that is more modest yet still functional in all the ways that it needs to be.

My bishop lives in a tiny little house. He’s not an archbishop, though.

I think when stories like this crop up, we need to avoid the temptation to generalize that all bishops live a life of luxury. There are oftentimes reasons stretching back decades for why a given bishop lives where he lives. We don’t usually see the full picture.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Deacon Greg Kandra posted the following article from Joanne McPortland:

patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/08/cnns-gotcha-piece-hitting-bishops-where-they-live/

Laying righteous indignation aside, unlump what you read. The 10 episcopal residences profiled have very little in common beyond assessed value. The archdioceses, too—which, contrary to the wishful thinking of many believers, are multimillion-dollar corporations of which the archbishop, whether or not he’s comfortable with the role, is the CEO—differ in economic circumstances, administrative burden, and numbers of people served (a population that extends far beyond Catholics in the pews). And the individual archbishops differ greatly from one another—and from Pope Francis—in temperament and personal circumstances.

When Francis chose to leave the papal apartments for the Domus Sanctae Martae, a move toward a simpler pontifical style was only one reason. (Simpler, of course, is relative. Francis is not living in a one-room pensione and cooking his meals over a hot plate.) His stated reasons had much more to do with who he is as an individual: an extrovert, a man who feeds on the familiarity of life in common, one who has little patience with ceremony. Had Francis been forced to stifle his soul within the walls of the papal apartments, he’d have been no use to the Holy Spirit or the Church—in the same way that the monastic introvert Benedict XVI would have experienced life without books and silence as a perpetual martyrdom.

Among the 10 archbishops profiled (as well as the “hundreds” of other U.S. bishops “living equally large”), there are extroverts and introverts. There are those who like inviting the world over for lunch, and those who need to close the door and leave the world out. There are men with chronic health issues that affect what they can eat or how much energy they have to spare in a given day. Like Pope Francis, two of the archbishops whose simplicity CNN lauds—Cardinal Sean O’Malley and Archbishop Charles Chaput—are members of religious orders, vowed to poverty and accustomed to communal living. Others have grown up in the diocesan administrative system, and are comfortable with that model. There are, as any Catholic ought to recognize, not a one of these men who lives an easy life, no matter what thread-count he lays his head on at night.

Among the residences profiled, there are historic piles it’s a trial to live in, but which have deep-rooted significance to the archdiocesan identity. There are McMansions, yes, often retrofitted or purpose-built for the needs of the archdiocese and its shepherd by donors. True, there isn’t a one that couldn’t be unloaded, and the funds put to what somebody thinks is a better use. That’s been true of every episcopal residence since the Apostles left their fishing boats behind. What the CNN investigation doesn’t tell you is what tradeoffs are made every day in stewarding the financial resources of a diocese in order to drive the engine of spiritual resources. When you sit in the meetings, agonizing over where the money goes, you can take your potshots, maybe.

Every archbishop on this list—every bishop in the world except, ironically, the Bishop of Rome, who has others to worry about this—sits in those meetings and thinks about it. And thinks about what you will think about it. And takes advice, and prays, and discerns, and chooses. Often, the choice of where he lives is the least of his worries. Sometimes, as with Bishop Wilton Gregory and his retirement plans, he rethinks and changes his mind—not because he’s afraid CNN will call him out, but because that is what he believes is the way God is calling him to shepherd.

There is no best place, no best way for a bishop to live. I have known an archbishop who lived in a downtown apartment over a church, and ministered to the homeless who slept through his daily noon Mass. I have known a bishop who had no residence at all, whose chancery office was his beat-up car, who lived a week at a time in his parishes like Queen Elizabeth on progress. And I know a couple of the bishops on this CNN Shame List. Not a one of them is any better at living his call to shepherd than any other; not a one of them has a reason to justify his conscience to Pope Francis or the media.

Optics are important—especially these days, when everything is optical—but they are not, by themselves, a basis for condemnation by the God who judges not by appearances, but by what is in the heart. Don’t lump. Get to know, and pray for, each bishop as Christ knows and calls him. If wealth and worldliness are obstacles to his ministry, pray he finds the grace to detach himself. If the material circumstances of his life enhance (or even make possible at all) his ministry, give thanks that God and his people are generous.

Jesus told the rich young man that he must give up all that he had to serve God authentically. The rich man went away sad, because he was much attached to his possessions. But Jesus had very different answers for the wealthy followers whose generosity supplied his own ministry and gave him the forum to preach and heal. He had a very different answer for Judas, who chided the woman of Bethany for wasting precious ointment on Jesus’ comfort. In each circumstance, Jesus judges the heart and the intention of the individual, not the exterior circumstances. So does Pope Francis.

And so, my friends, should we.

patheos.com/blogs/egregioustwaddle/2014/08/dont-judge-a-bishop-by-his-residence-or-the-popes.html

 

[conneally]

A couple of questions with this to everyone:

-If they were to sell their homes for current market value and give to the poor, would you accept them into your home?
-And will you then lambaste all the other owners of lavish homes?

Considering the age of the NY and Baltimore (John Carroll) residences, intent is clear to discredit the Catholic Bishops/Cardinals in America (many of whom have been ardent opponents to current popular mainstream ideas).
Further proof…just read the comments.

 

[Elizium23]

The secularists are jealous. It’s plain to see. They can’t stand that the Church has assets, that the Church has money which equals temporal power. Let’s be realistic. CNN isn’t altruistic in their wish that archbishops be humble. They don’t care if archbishops imitate Christ or not. What they want is for property of the Church to be sold and the proceeds given to abuse victims, or the state. They are using Francis and his message of poverty as a blunt instrument against leaders who speak a little too loudly against abortion, or in defense of marriage. A Church without assets can’t fund political campaigns, can’t publish voter information, can’t influence popular opinion. Ted Turner built an empire and he knows exactly what kind of power goes along with the assets he gained along the way. He can’t stand to see that kind of power in the hands of an opponent.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

conneally

-If they were to sell their homes for current market value and give to the poor, would you accept them into your home?

Why ? No one is asking them to go into destitution, just to live modestly instead of like royalty.

-And will you then lambaste all the other owners of lavish homes?

Other owners don’t rely on the charity of their flocks as Bishops do.

Hope this helps.

Jim

 

[Elizium23]

Seven Ways CNN Gets It Wrong on Bishops’ Residences

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Seven Ways CNN Gets It Wrong on Bishops’ Residences

The author doesn’t justify some of the luxurious homes some Bishops live in.

Yes, some are chancery buildings.

However, others are not especially the Bishop who added the addition to his retirement home with the indoor pool.

Yes, they don’t own the homes they live in, but neither do people who stay in the Ritz Hotel, but is their living standard depraved because they don’t own the room they have at the Ritz ?

There are Bishops who live modestly. as Cardinal Sean O’Malley does. However, his predecessor lived in mansions one of which was donated to be used for the entire dioceses, but he made it his private summer home.

It doesn’t follow the example Jesus gave, who was born in a stable and mostly lived on the streets during his ministry.

Jim

 

[FollowChrist34]

Well, maybe we should at least back off of Joel Olsteen, huh? (net worth $40 million)

 

[Elizium23]

The author doesn’t justify some of the luxurious homes some Bishops live in.

Yes, some are chancery buildings.

However, others are not especially the Bishop who added the addition to his retirement home with the indoor pool.

Yes, they don’t own the homes they live in, but neither do people who stay in the Ritz Hotel, but is their living standard depraved because they don’t own the room they have at the Ritz ?

There are Bishops who live modestly. as Cardinal Sean O’Malley does. However, his predecessor lived in mansions one of which was donated to be used for the entire dioceses, but he made it his private summer home.

It doesn’t follow the example Jesus gave, who was born in a stable and mostly lived on the streets during his ministry.

Jim

None of them could ever live modestly enough for the rabid secularists.

Father Z weighs in appropriately: On the residences of bishops.

The idea CNN and Fishwrap are proffering is that unless His Excellency (or just plain “Bill”) lives in a box over a grate and drinks from puddles on the sidewalk, he must be some sort of heartless sybarite. The hitch is that, no matter how humbly an American bishop would choose to live, his life couldn’t possibly suck enough for liberals and dissidents. The next article would be “ARCHBISHOP HAS LAVISH DRINKING PUDDLE”. ”Why?”, they would cry “Why was this puddle not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor undocumented children?”