CNN: The lavish homes of American archbishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tommy999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizium23, you are, with due respect, getting a bit carried away, calling people “rabid secularists” when they suggest archbishops need to live a bit more modestly.

In NJ, 22,000 signatures were collected on a petition to ask the archbishop to reconsider his building project. Moreover, that home is not in a derelict neighborhood as some suggest of other residences – it’s in a safe, quiet, relatively unpopulated area 90 minutes from the city of Newark. Are all those 22,000 rabid secularists? I suspect most are people who get hit on constantly to give more in the collection basket.

Is it “rabidly secularist” to suggest that perhaps Archbishop John Myers’ decision to expand his summer residence cum retirement home – already a model of luxury with five bedrooms, three full bathrooms, an elevator, a three-car garage and a large outdoor pool and valued at nearly $800,000 – is over the top? The addition will house an indoor exercise pool, a hot tub, three fireplaces, a library, another elevator and a “gallery” to provide a panoramic view of the grounds below, according to a report in The Newark Star-Ledger.

As the Star Ledger reported, a few hours to the south in the Camden, N.J., diocese, recently installed Bishop Dennis Sullivan purchased a 7,000-square-foot mansion with eight bedrooms and six bathrooms for $500,000. The home had previously undergone $700,000 in renovations and includes an in-ground pool, three fireplaces, a library and a three-car garage.

These are not old, historic residences that have been in the Dioceses for decades - they are new purchases and/or new construction.

No one is suggesting these folks need to live in squalor, but at the same time, the decision to buy/build these is IMHO shameful and indefensible, and a gross misuse of the positions these folks hold. Defending their decisionmaking is bad enough; smearing anyone who challenges their decisionmaking, and calling them “rabid secularists” bespeaks an attitude of “the church and it’s clergy can do no wrong” – an attitude that appears to blindly support some clergy who clearly are not too concerned with appearances; who show poor judgment; and who are not wisely stewarding the resources they are responsible for.
 
Conversely, there is human wreckage in the person of religious-friars/monks and nuns-who had the misfortune to ally themselves with an order and take life-long vows tucked away in properties that appreciated to the point they were sold out from under them, and left to fend for themselves, with our without stipends. One such person had been in a monastery 50 years, and though canon law mandates stipends for religious in dissolved monasteries, no cash has been forthcoming. House-and-dog sitting at age 70+. God forgive us.
 
Elizium23 said:
None of them could ever live modestly enough for the rabid secularists.

Father Z weighs in appropriately: On the residences of bishops.
Click to expand...
A poor tap dance to justify Bishops who live upscale lifestyles.

Fact is, even Pope Francis called a German Bishop to Rome for his luxurious lifestyle and if I recall correctly, he was removed from his position.

You don’t have to provide lame excuses for those Bishops who don’t live as Christ would. The people are not stupid. They see what the see and aren’t going to be fooled by some flimsy justification to defend such Bishops.

There are Bishops who live modestly, living in chancery building apartments and such, and their lifestyles are justified, as I’ve stated before.

However, there are others who are living well above the lifestyles of the average Catholic living in their dioceses. Lets not give them lame excuses because an ego-identity attachment to the religion is offended.

Jim
 
I don’t doubt that there are a few bishops around the world who live extravagantly and misuse diocesan funds. I am confident that Francis will deal with them all in due time. As I said, this is the new cardinal sin for bishops and nothing will get them removed from a post faster. But it is a true minority, a very small number of bishops in the world. And that does not justify the media calling for blood or the jealous rabid secularists wishing the Church were poor and powerless. It really doesn’t.
 
Elizium
But it is a true minority, a very small number of bishops in the world.
Click to expand...
The article pointed at only 10 of 34, US Bishops.
And that does not justify the media calling for blood or the jealous rabid secularists wishing the Church were poor and powerless. It really doesn’t.
Click to expand...
I didn’t see that in the article.

Maybe I missed it?

The article did explain Cardinal Dolan’s residency is part of the Chancery attached to the Cathedral, and couldn’t be sold if they wanted to.

It also pointed out how other Bishops, like Cardinal Sean O’Malley lives.

The article seems more balanced after reading it a second time.

Jim
 
Here’s a question… If some of these Bishops sell their homes that the people of the Dioceses proudly bought for them back in the day (not talking about new ones), and the Bishop buys a cheaper place with the proceeds, how much money is too much?

Does he have to be a one bedroom condo in a poor part of town? His he allowed to have a few guest bedrooms for Vatican visitors and family when they come to visit him from out of town?

Should it be handicap accessible incase a new bishop has trouble walking?

Should it have a formal living room for hosting fundraising events?

Should it have a chapel for private mass?

Who defines what specs are ok for a Bishop’s home? The Pope, the Laity, the diocese, CNN, non-Catholics and Catholics from other dioceses who sign a online petition?
 
adawgj said:
Really playing the WWJD card 😃

It’s none of our business to judge other peoples homes. The Church can still help the poor and own great buildings, just like Bill Gates can help the poor and live in a mansion.
Click to expand...
Except Bill Gates buys his things with his own money and doesn’t preach morality. So, no hypocrisy there.
 
It’s a sign of horrible leadership if an (arch)bishop is living in a mansion these days. If a large mansion exists on cathedral grounds it should be turned into a monastery, friary, a rectory or even a boarding house for lay Catholics united by a specific charism. This has also happened in more than one location.

It’s rather sad to see people trying to defend sumptuous living by (arch)bishops in this day and age. Embarrassing actually. The fact that some Catholics will always defend clergy actions no matter what is perhaps the single biggest reason that problems (including grave problems like pedophilia) take so long to be dealt with.

A good example of how to deal with archbishop housing was Sean Cardinal O’Malley of Boston. A horrible recent example was that of Archbishop Wilton Gregory in Atlanta. To Gregory’s credit he did do the right thing following outrage. Read what happened to Gregory’s mansion. It’s quite interesting.
 
Wassermann said:
It’s a sign of horrible leadership if an (arch)bishop is living in a mansion these days. If a large mansion exists on cathedral grounds it should be turned into a monastery, friary or even a boarding house for lay Catholics united by a specific charism. This has also happened in more than one location.

It’s rather sad to see people trying to defend sumptuous living by (arch)bishops in this day and age. Embarrassing actually. The fact that some Catholics will always defend clergy actions no matter what is perhaps the single biggest reason that problems (including grave problems like pedophilia) take so long to be dealt with.
Click to expand...
If it were turned into a monastery I think there would hardly be enough people found to live in it…

I’m not at all scandalized by this. To me it’s sort of a, “Okay, whatever, I don’t care,” kind of thing. Doesn’t make a difference in my life.
 
phil
Who defines what specs are ok for a Bishop’s home?
Click to expand...
The Bishops decide, which is the problem.

The people have no say about where and how their money is used by the Church.

We place our trust in the Bishops to be good stewards. When they’re not, anyone who points it out is made to be looked upon as enemies of the Church.

Jim
 
YoungTradCath said:
If it were turned into a monastery I think there would hardly be enough people found to live in it…
Click to expand...
That would depend on the location of the mansion and the society/order that might be interested in living in it. There are also other worthy uses of such a structure as I noted.

Living royally in a mansion by a bishop is indefensible in this day and age. It would be difficult to be taken seriously as a leader if one lived in such an ostentatious setting. Even Pope Francis changed where the pope lives in the Vatican City. He changed things around enough to live a “more normal” life and to gain back some respect.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
phil

The Bishops decide, which is the problem.

The people have no say about where and how their money is used by the Church.

We place our trust in the Bishops to be good stewards. When they’re not, anyone who points it out is made to be looked upon as enemies of the Church.

Jim
Click to expand...
So very true.

Another good example of a frugal bishop was Timothy Cardinal Manning of Los Angeles. The archbishop’s residence in LA used to be an honest-to-goodness mansion. When Manning took over from McIntyre (who also disliked the splendor of the mansion) he moved from it (which was then sold) to an apartment complex adjacent to Saint Vibiana’s Cathedral which was right in the middle of skid row.
 
Wassermann said:
Living royally in a mansion by a bishop is indefensible in this day and age. It would be difficult to be taken seriously as a leader if one lived in such an ostentatious setting. Even Pope Francis changed where the pope lives in the Vatican City. He changed things around enough to live a “more normal” life and to gain back some respect.
Click to expand...
Pope Francis changed where Pope Francis lives. As I have explained, Pope Francis is peculiar in the line of modern popes, because he is a religious under a vow of poverty, which we have not seen since Gregory XVI was elected in 1831. Any future pope is free to live wherever he pleases, and it is altogether reasonable to assume that they do not wish the continue the trend of humility signaled by Francis but instead return to the Papal Apartments as befits prelates not bound by vows of poverty.
 
Yes, there is also a difference between where bishops live and their property just happens to be worth millions of dollars, but spending 2.2 million on what was supposed to be for the poor in a pricy neighborhood is indefensible. Apparently even he thought so and apologized for it too.
 
In retirement, Archbishop F.J. Sheen built himself a large mansion in Washington, DC from monies that came from his writing and speaking. He later said that it was a huge mistake. I believe it’s now some sort of house of formation of something like that.
 
Elizium23 said:
Pope Francis changed where Pope Francis lives. As I have explained, Pope Francis is peculiar in the line of modern popes, because he is a religious under a vow of poverty, which we have not seen since Gregory XVI was elected in 1831. Any future pope is free to live wherever he pleases, and it is altogether reasonable to assume that they do not wish the continue the trend of humility signaled by Francis but instead return to the Papal Apartments as befits prelates not bound by vows of poverty.
Click to expand...
Surely the clergy think the laity must have taken vows of poverty everytime they begin to lecture us on wordly goods and material things being our gods. Its nice to know we can actually disregard all of that then and continue to spend large amount of money needlessly on expensive luxuries for our homes, cars, or whatever.

So the next time that is brought up to myself or the laity I will just respond with, “I never took a vow of poverty.”
 
Elizium23 said:
Pope Francis changed where Pope Francis lives. As I have explained, Pope Francis is peculiar in the line of modern popes, because he is a religious under a vow of poverty, which we have not seen since Gregory XVI was elected in 1831. Any future pope is free to live wherever he pleases, and it is altogether reasonable to assume that they do not wish the continue the trend of humility signaled by Francis but instead return to the Papal Apartments as befits prelates not bound by vows of poverty.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s what I said. The rest of your posting is sadly, nothing but noise.
 
Wassermann said:
Yes, that’s what I said.
Click to expand...
No, you said Francis changed “where the pope lives” which to me implies that he somehow bound future Popes to live there as well. No Pope can bind future ones, so Pope Francis only changed where Pope Francis lives and nothing more.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
phil

The Bishops decide, which is the problem.

The people have no say about where and how their money is used by the Church.

We place our trust in the Bishops to be good stewards. When they’re not, anyone who points it out is made to be looked upon as enemies of the Church.

Jim
Click to expand...
I meant if its changed… there needs to be a uniform system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top