CNN: The lavish homes of American archbishops

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

Yeah and the good Archbishop also admitted that he loved driving a Cadillac and eating in finest restaurants.

I don’t fault him for this, for he did earn much money for the Church, and was one of the best evangelist of the modern age.

However, as the Vatican looks into the canonization process, this is going to be a problem I think.

Jim

 

[Elizium23]

However, as the Vatican looks into the canonization process, this is going to be a problem I think.

Why? Was enjoying fine cars and food some kind of a sin? Did it somehow interfere with his personal holiness, or heroic acts of virtue?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, this really isn’t so bad as some of the Bishops of the past.

I recall watching a documentary on PBS about the great Cathedrals of Europe.

One of them(don’t remember the Cathedral), the Bishop was living the high life on the construction funds. He decided to cut corners on the cathedral by ordering a cheep base for the foundation, against the architect’s protests. Anyway, when the cathedral was 3/4 built, it collapsed because of the poor base material for the foundation.

The people finally protested against the Bishop. They dragged him out of his palace and beheaded him. The next Bishop who took over, used his own money to rebuild the entire cathedral where it stands today.

In memorial to the first Bishop, they placed a statue of the Bishop minus his head, which he holds in his hand.

Such a forgiving people.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Why? Was enjoying fine cars and food some kind of a sin? Did it somehow interfere with his personal holiness, or heroic acts of virtue?

I don’t know, but it could be an impediment.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of Archbishop Fulton Sheen and would love to see him canonized.

Jim

 

[phil19034]

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.

I have no problem with what I bolded and underlined above. If a diocese owns a mansion on or off cathedral grounds, I think it’s perfectly fine to turn it into a home for multiple priests and/or laity. The bishop can live there too or move into another rectory or dorm.

My issue is simply selling them off for the sake of selling them. I don’t think selling off real estate is the wise thing to do, especially if it’s increasing in property value and not a burden to upkeep. Now, if the property value is dropping and/or it’s a burden to upkeep, different story, then perhaps selling it is the best thing.

In my Archdiocese, the Archbishop Chaput sold his mansion and beach house. He moved into a dorm room at the seminary, where a retired Archbishop and Cardinal Bevilacqua lived until he died in 2012.

catholicphilly.com/2012/08/news/local-news/local-catholic-news/archdiocese-looks-to-ease-cash-crunch-by-selling-properties/
catholicphilly.com/2012/01/news/archbishops-residence-to-be-sold/
catholicphilly.com/2012/09/news/local-news/local-catholic-news/archbishops-residence-sold-to-st-josephs-u-for-10-million/

Our Archdiocese is also selling other real estate. Nursing homes were sold to a private company with guarantees to keep them Catholic, the Archdiocesan cemeteries were sold with the agreement to keep them Catholic cemeteries, land for future high schools and future parishes have been sold, old rectories have been sold, part of the seminary is going to be sold, etc. All of this is because the Archdiocese has been running financially in the red. I commend Archbishop Chaput for everything he’s been doing. They are even looking to sell some valued art from the seminary.

But I would also like to say that if the Archdiocese didn’t have all these fixed assets, they wouldn’t be able to sell them to help the fix the financial troubles.

Each diocese is only one law suit away from going bankrupt. If you don’t want your bishop living in a mansion by himself, that’s fine. Have several people move in with or without the bishop. But don’t sell the homes for the sake of selling them. Sell them when the money is needed. Don’t sell real estate for the sake of selling it.

But the only voices that should be heard are the voices of the local (arch)diocese. Not CNN, not the rest of the media, not non-Catholics, and not people from other dioceses who only know part of the story.

May the Lord grant us peace,
Amen.

 

[YoungTradCath]

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.

If people think living in a small suite of rinky-dink rooms in the Apostolic “Palace”–this term is really a translation misnomer–is really so luxurious and ostentatious that they become “outraged” at it then perhaps they should educate themselves: only a part of one floor is reserved as the quarters of the Pope. The rest of it, probably more than 75% of the building, is offices and meeting rooms. What some clearly don’t understand is that the suite used by the Pope in the “Guesthouse” is chock full of fine carved heavy wood furniture as can be seen in pictures, and the hallways are floored in marble and have Baroque tables placed at lengths on the sides. I hardly consider the Papal rooms in the Guesthouse “normal” by any measure; the walls are plain but the furnishings are exquisite. The papal quarters in the Apostolic Palace is no Versailles and the Guesthouse is no midcentury suburban painfully outdated average American ranch house.

The Apostolic “Palace” looks like any old Roman building: nothing special for its own era, really. I really don’t understand how people are up in arms about things and how they trust what they are told. For the record I don’t think it’s generally a very good thing for bishops to build $10 million houses but if they want to live in something that’s already built and established for purpose, who am I to judge?

 

[phil19034]

I have no problem with what I bolded and underlined above. If a diocese owns a mansion on or off cathedral grounds, I think it’s perfectly fine to turn it into a home for multiple priests and/or laity. The bishop can live there too or move into another rectory or dorm.

My issue is simply selling them off for the sake of selling them. I don’t think selling off real estate is the wise thing to do, especially if it’s increasing in property value and not a burden to upkeep. Now, if the property value is dropping and/or it’s a burden to upkeep, different story, then perhaps selling it is the best thing.

In my Archdiocese, the Archbishop Chaput sold his mansion and beach house. He moved into a dorm room at the seminary, where a retired Archbishop and Cardinal Bevilacqua lived until he died in 2012.

catholicphilly.com/2012/08/news/local-news/local-catholic-news/archdiocese-looks-to-ease-cash-crunch-by-selling-properties/
catholicphilly.com/2012/01/news/archbishops-residence-to-be-sold/
catholicphilly.com/2012/09/news/local-news/local-catholic-news/archbishops-residence-sold-to-st-josephs-u-for-10-million/

Our Archdiocese is also selling other real estate. Nursing homes were sold to a private company with guarantees to keep them Catholic, the Archdiocesan cemeteries were sold with the agreement to keep them Catholic cemeteries, land for future high schools and future parishes have been sold, old rectories have been sold, part of the seminary is going to be sold, etc. All of this is because the Archdiocese has been running financially in the red. I commend Archbishop Chaput for everything he’s been doing. They are even looking to sell some valued art from the seminary.

But I would also like to say that if the Archdiocese didn’t have all these fixed assets, they wouldn’t be able to sell them to help the fix the financial troubles.

Each diocese is only one law suit away from going bankrupt. If you don’t want your bishop living in a mansion by himself, that’s fine. Have several people move in with or without the bishop. But don’t sell the homes for the sake of selling them. Sell them when the money is needed. Don’t sell real estate for the sake of selling it.

But the only voices that should be heard are the voices of the local (arch)diocese. Not CNN, not the rest of the media, not non-Catholics, and not people from other dioceses who only know part of the story.

May the Lord grant us peace,
Amen.

I would like to add something to my previous post, so info I just learned about the Beach house for retired priests the Archdiocese of Philadelphia sold…

1. It was purchased for only $1000 dollars from a Catholic who basically donated it.
2. the family who bought it invites the priests to come once a year for a reunion.

In both instances, we have rich people being very generous towards priests.

God bless them.

mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/realestate/new-jersey-in-the-region-archdiocese-to-sell-beach-house.html?pagewanted=all&_r=

catholicphilly.com/2012/09/news/local-news/local-catholic-news/archdioceses-shore-home-for-priests-sold-for-4-5-million/

 

[Wassermann]

Yeah and the good Archbishop also admitted that he loved driving a Cadillac and eating in finest restaurants.

I don’t fault him for this, for he did earn much money for the Church, and was one of the best evangelist of the modern age.

However, as the Vatican looks into the canonization process, this is going to be a problem I think.

Jim

Sheen didn’t eat much. He had a bad gut. When he would entertain at his mansion he would throw lavish dinner parties where he would consume little more than a few saltines. It is good that he realized his missteps later on.

I don’t really know just how lavish his lifestyle was, but it really is amazing how $$$ seduces even the best. At least he actually earned the money he spent.

 

[Wassermann]

I would like to add something to my previous post, so info I just learned about the Beach house for retired priests the Archdiocese of Philadelphia sold…

1. It was purchased for only $1000 dollars from a Catholic who basically donated it.
2. the family who bought it invites the priests to come once a year for a reunion.

In both instances, we have rich people being very generous towards priests.

God bless them.

Even if the house was a gift, even if some feel it can be financially justified, it still reflects poorly on clerics to live that sort of life.

 

[phil19034]

Even if the house was a gift, even if some feel it can be financially justified, it still reflects poorly on clerics to live that sort of life.

I’m sorry, but I really have an issue with this way of thinking. While I have an issue with financial abuse, I have a hard time justifying why we Laity should not want our priests to live comfortably. If I had the money, I would gladly renovate a rectory or purchase a retreat house.

It’s one thing if they demand or expect it. That would be un-priestly. But its sad that the laity wants to force a vow of poverty on all our priests. If a monk or friar takes a vow, that’s one thing. But to force the vow on diocesan priests after they spent a lifetime servicing the Faithful really isn’t fair.

Shoot, some of our monks and friars who live in a community live in much more majestic places than our diocesan priests and bishops.

If we laity desire to have a comfortable retirement, grow old with dignity, and have a peaceful death; why is it so bad for us to give our priests the same thing? God knows we don’t pay them a decent wage.

Is a priest not entitled to a vacation? If we take away all the vacation homes and retreat houses, will the laity object to paying for a priest to attend a retreat?

And what about priests who organize group trips to Rome and the Holy Land? Should they not go for free (i.e. Part of the fee for the people who go pays for the priest)?

If I donate a retirement or vacation home to priests, who give their whole lives to servicing God, The Church, and the Faithful; the laity shouldn’t be looking down upon them for using it.

This same mentality can be used to say, we shouldn’t give base housing to our military or pay good money to our generals. Or we should make the President of the United States buy his own home and use the White House only as an office. And let’s sell Camp David while we are at it.

Finally, I don’t think we should have Bishops paying millions of dollars for a home just for themselves. But I don’t think our priests and bishops should be looked down upon for using homes donated for their use if the taxes and upkeep isn’t too burdensome.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sheen didn’t eat much. He had a bad gut. When he would entertain at his mansion he would throw lavish dinner parties where he would consume little more than a few saltines. It is good that he realized his missteps later on.

I don’t really know just how lavish his lifestyle was, but it really is amazing how $$$ seduces even the best. At least he actually earned the money he spent.

Well, not according to him in his own words.

He said he enjoyed going to fine restaurants.

He may have developed a condition in later years, but that’s what he had said in an interview I had read years ago while he was still alive.

Jim

 

[pbmbfl]

I am pretty sure that a previous Pope had an interest in sports cars, Pope Saint John Paul II had an interest in skiing, certainly by some could be considered wasteful but nevertheless…

This obsession with simplicity has gone too far in some respects, simplicity to simply out simplify someone else is wrong, yet this is an epidemic among clergy, probably far more than what is in this CNN article…if you want to call it an article…:dts:

Of course, more money could also be spent on the decoration of our sometimes overly austere newer Church’s.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think when I graduate and make a bit of cash I will round up some local priests and take them to the best restaurant I can find.

 

[Dan999]

It’s a typical leftist smearjob. The same people who comment on it resent anyone living better than they do except government officials.

 

[Starrsmother]

To me it isn’t a question of whether a bishop has earned money to provide him with a mansion, a sports car or lavish vacation. That’s a subject he can take up with Jesus when the time comes. The issue is it is a scandal–and I can’t count the times that I’ve had it thrown in my face by protestants that if you really want to live like a king on the backs of the middle class and poor–your best road is to become a priest and then set yourself to rise through the ranks. I do NOT think that this is what Jesus wants or expected from his church hierarchy. As I remember, He sent His first 12 out without even allowing them a second cloak or sandals.

 

[WilT]

I agree that no priest, bishop, archbishop or even the pope himself needs to live in a palace. Jesus denounced such
Didn’t Jesus tell His apostles they were there to serve not to BE served? I wonder what Jesus would think and say about some of our church hierarchy if he ran into them today.

 

[WilT]

A 2,5oo sq. ft. home is fine with a moderate size yard up front and a moderate size yard in the back is plenty enough space for them. All or any entertaining can be done at the Cathedral.:clapping::crying::tsktsk:

 

[phil19034]

A 2,5oo sq. ft. home is fine with a moderate size yard up front and a moderate size yard in the back is plenty enough space for them. All or any entertaining can be done at the Cathedral.:clapping::crying::tsktsk:

I agree that 2500 sq ft is plenty. But entertaining at the Cathedral isn’t proper unless it has a parish hall.

Before Archbishop Chaupt sold the mansion for the Philadelphia Archbishop (who is usually a Cardnial), the Pope has slept there and President Regan was hosted there as well.

If a diocese doesn’t have a place for entertaining, then I hope we don’t get up in arms when they rent a hotel ballroom or something.

However, another option is to build a ballroom in the basement of a new Church (when one is built).

St. Helena’s Parish in Blue Bell, PA built a ballroom in the basement of their Church, which a Catholic cater manages for them.

sainthelena-centersquare.net/
paravaticateringgroup.com/

 

[jimmy]

I don’t see any big deal of having the archbishop live in a big house. The President of the USA lives in a big house and has his own private Boeing E4 and yet we still pay our taxes.

The Church should definitely support architecture. I’m fine with it as long as it is accessible to people and more than one person lives in the house.

I may be late to the party and this may have already been discussed, but there is a difference between the president and a religious leader. An archbishop is supposed to be a representative of Christ to the world, not a secular leader. He may not take a vow of poverty, but the way he lives his life is an indication of what he believes. Modesty is a major virtue in Christianity, particularly Catholicism. How can he expect anyone to accept what he believes and preaches if he doesn’t live it?

 

[TEPO]

I may be late to the party and this may have already been discussed, but there is a difference between the president and a religious leader. An archbishop is supposed to be a representative of Christ to the world, not a secular leader. He may not take a vow of poverty, but the way he lives his life is an indication of what he believes. Modesty is a major virtue in Christianity, particularly Catholicism. How can he expect anyone to accept what he believes and preaches if he doesn’t live it?

What is modesty? I knew a holy man once who had nothing. His clothes were old and his quarters run down. He resembled the poorest of his flock. But he was sure he was a holy man and was sure that he knew best. Even when he was wrong, he wasnt.

…my point is that the twin sins vanity and pride can creep up in the sneakiest of places, and representatives of Christ are no less vulnerable to sin than anyone. We should be cautious on how we judge -lest we brush shoulders with the sin of pride ourselves.