Crystal Cathedral board endorses offer from Diocese of Orange

  • Thread starter Thread starter SonCatcher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s very ugly, yes. However, I highly doubt that the diocese would build a cathedral that isn’t extremely modern. If an ugly one is going to be built anyway, why not? Also, while they would not like to sell to Catholics, the church is in bankruptcy. I think the judge could force them to sell it.

All of the talk of Gothic architecture really isn’t fitting. That would be very out of place in the area. The only buildings older than the '50’s are mostly in the Spanish or what we usually call the Spanish Mission style. That would be better fitting, but it won’t happen.
 
News Update

Catholic diocese offers to buy Crystal Cathedral, $50 million in cash
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County has made a $50 million cash offer for the 35-acre property that houses the iconic Crystal Cathedral and all its core buildings, officials said Friday.
Click to expand...
The offer from the diocese calls for an immediate deposit of $250,000 and a secondary payment of $750,000. Martin said the diocese is willing to help Crystal Cathedral Ministries phase out its operations by offering a three-year leaseback plan for some of the buildings on campus including the four-story Family Life Center on Chapman Avenue.
Click to expand...
Martin added that the diocese is also ready to offer Crystal Cathedral Ministries an alternative worship space at 90 percent of the fair market value for 15 years. They could also choose to buy the same property 90 percent of the fair market value within five years if they choose to do so, Martin said.
Click to expand...
ocregister.com/news/cathedral-309365-diocese-church.html
 
psr13 said:
It’s very ugly, yes. However, I highly doubt that the diocese would build a cathedral that isn’t extremely modern. If an ugly one is going to be built anyway, why not? Also, while they would not like to sell to Catholics, the church is in bankruptcy. I think the judge could force them to sell it.

All of the talk of Gothic architecture really isn’t fitting. That would be very out of place in the area. The only buildings older than the '50’s are mostly in the Spanish or what we usually call the Spanish Mission style. That would be better fitting, but it won’t happen.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that the reason we’re interested is because buying a building is cheaper than building one. Demolishing it and building a new Cathedral would defeat the purpose.
 
Arkadin said:
How disturbing. That money could be used for those in need.
Click to expand...
Or, looked at another way, since a completely new building adequate to serve the needs of the diocese was going to cost $100 million or more, this decision cuts the cost in half and wisely opens up perhaps $50 million extra dollars for charity. How smart.
 
Arkadin said:
How disturbing. That money could be used for those in need.
Click to expand...
I’ll just leave this here too…

Matthew 26:6-13
Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,
a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, “Why this waste?
It could have been sold for much, and the money given to the poor.”
Since Jesus knew this, he said to them, “Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me.
The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me.
In pouring this perfumed oil upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.
Amen, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be spoken of, in memory of her.”
 
Rolltide said:
Or, looked at another way, since a completely new building adequate to serve the needs of the diocese was going to cost $100 million or more, this decision cuts the cost in half and wisely opens up perhaps $50 million extra dollars for charity. How smart.
Click to expand...
But why does a church need to cost that much? It doesn’t.
 
Rolltide said:
I’ll just leave this here too…

Matthew 26:6-13
Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,
a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, “Why this waste?
It could have been sold for much, and the money given to the poor.”
Since Jesus knew this, he said to them, “Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me.
The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me.
In pouring this perfumed oil upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.
Amen, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be spoken of, in memory of her.”
Click to expand...
Essentially, ignore the poor and focus on me.
 
Arkadin said:
Essentially, ignore the poor and focus on me.
Click to expand...
No… more like “Continue with the Catholic Church being the largest charitable organization on the planet, and use a bit of extra money up front to construct a church that will last for 1000 years instead of one that is less expensive, but will end up costing more money in the long run by needing repairs and numerous replacements.” Also… the focus of any church is on God, NOT man.
 
Expense was a common criticism of the cathedrals of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, for example. However, as a professional historian, let me explain some of the background.

A cathedral was actually one of the best investments a medieval town could make. Despite their great expense, a large cathedral could take hundreds of years to complete. It could become an industry unto itself. Large cathedrals employed thousands, and generated huge amounts of highly skilled jobs… jobs that were sorely lacking in the period. When the cathedral was complete, they would still need to be maintained, so many workmen would still remain. The pilgrims that would come to visit the cathedral needed to be fed, clothed, and housed, and this provided a virtual tourism industry, bringing in much needed revenue to both the church and the community. Churches were also the only medieval centers of learning, and every major university in Europe split off from a cathedral. If you had a cathedral school in your town, opportunities for trade would skyrocket, since learning about math, geography, cartography, astronomy, business, and law was all required by merchants. Further, most towns only even needed to have one large church, since there were no denominations. Everyone was Catholic, so all the effort could go into one splendid building rather than many smaller ones that were actually MORE expensive in the long run due to the use of cheaper materials, the need for constant replacement, the extra property taxes, and so on. Almost all medieval cities with a cathedral were FAR better off than their counterparts without them. This is why the cathedral is often called the greatest innovation of the Middle Ages.

In any case, the whole idea of money is actually irrelevant. Much of the Vatican’s wealth has been donated to it by the great artists of the world for the glorification of God. Even that art which has been commissioned by the Vatican was still done for the glorification of God, because as Christians, we realize that the things of this Earth are fleeting. We give our best to God, but in the end, money doesn’t really mean anything. It’s our relationship with God. Jesus is saying in the passage I quoted from Matthew above that one can honor God with fine things AND help the poor at the same time.
 
Arkadin said:
Being the largest doesn’t mean being the best and most helpful.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church actually spends more money and does more for the poor in some areas of our own country than the federal government does. It’s contributions to the world are so numerous with regard to charity, that it would take an entire thread of hundreds of posts to discuss them all.
 
Arkadin said:
Essentially, ignore the poor and focus on me.
Click to expand...
A few questions:
  1. Why doesn’t the greedy federal government sell off the contents of the Smithsonian Institution and the National Archives and give the money to charity? I mean, it’s all a waste really, since it could do so much to help the poor.
  2. What about the greedy French government? Surely the Palace of Versailles could be sold off piece by piece to help the poor of the world, right?
  3. For that matter, why build anything artistic at all? Shouldn’t ALL buildings be utilitarian structures? Aren’t cost savings the MOST important design element of a building? Perhaps the Bauhaus movement got it right after all?
 
Rolltide said:
A few questions:
  1. Why doesn’t the greedy federal government sell off the contents of the Smithsonian Institution and the National Archives and give the money to charity? I mean, it’s all a waste really, since it could do so much to help the poor.
  2. What about the greedy French government? Surely the Palace of Versailles could be sold off piece by piece to help the poor of the world, right?
  3. For that matter, why build anything artistic at all? Shouldn’t ALL buildings be utilitarian structures? Aren’t cost savings the MOST important design element of a building? Perhaps the Bauhaus movement got it right after all?
Click to expand...
Why does the Catholic church not do the same?
 
Arkadin said:
Why does the Catholic church not do the same?
Click to expand...
Precisely! It would be pointless.

Like the examples I gave of the US and France, the Vatican also serves as a museum for many of the world’s great treasures. As such, it protects them in museums. In reality, these objects have no objective value, because they cannot be sold. For example, let’s say the Vatican was to give up all of it’s wealth. How, precisely, would you sell off the Sistine Chapel? Is there really anything else you can do with it? You can’t give it to a private collector, or build a Starbucks, or something. That said, let’s do an experiment. Let’s say that the art that it WOULD be possible to sell at the Vatican is worth, say, a trillion dollars. That would indeed be a large sum of money. Now, let’s sell it all and donate the money to the poorest one-third of the world. The Catholic Church would then be able to give those two billion people exactly… $500. That’s it! Now, while the average income of those 2 billion impoverished people is around $300 per year, and while this would help them for a very short time, in about a half a decade, they would all likely go right back to being poor, and the world would have lost access to many of the world’s greatest treasures, as they’d be in private hands. In any case, even if you DID decide to sell all of that artwork, one of two things would happen. Either you would flood the market and the price of such art would be devalued to the point at which it wouldn’t be worth it to sell anymore, OR you’d have to sell it over such a long protracted period of time, that the tiny amount of revenue really wouldn’t make any difference at all.
 
Rolltide said:
Precisely! It would be pointless.

Like the examples I gave of the US and France, the Vatican also serves as a museum for many of the world’s great treasures. As such, it protects them in museums. In reality, these objects have no objective value, because they cannot be sold. For example, let’s say the Vatican was to give up all of it’s wealth. How, precisely, would you sell off the Sistine Chapel? Is there really anything else you can do with it? You can’t give it to a private collector, or build a Starbucks, or something. That said, let’s do an experiment. Let’s say that the art that it WOULD be possible to sell at the Vatican is worth, say, a trillion dollars. That would indeed be a large sum of money. Now, let’s sell it all and donate the money to the poorest one-third of the world. The Catholic Church would then be able to give those two billion people exactly… $500. That’s it! Now, while the average income of those 2 billion impoverished people is around $300 per year, and while this would help them for a very short time, in about a half a decade, they would all likely go right back to being poor, and the world would have lost access to many of the world’s greatest treasures, as they’d be in private hands. In any case, even if you DID decide to sell all of that artwork, one of two things would happen. Either you would flood the market and the price of such art would be devalued to the point at which it wouldn’t be worth it to sell anymore, OR you’d have to sell it over such a long protracted period of time, that the tiny amount of revenue really wouldn’t make any difference at all.
Click to expand...
I think the church can survive dealing with the buildings they already have. It just looks real bad for them, especially in California.
 
And, for starters, a church that follows Christ would never have accepted the artworks or commission them or the buildings in the first place. In Christ’s reality, the church would not have all these fancy looking buildings and poverty in this world would hardly be where it is at today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top