Newark archbishop's future retirement home undergoing a $500K addition

[Cricket2]

But Pope Francis HAS called bishops - loudly and clearly - to “live simply.”

How anyone can believe that it is in any way prudent for a bishop to retire - alone - to an already very large, comfortable “weekend home” that will be *more than 7500 sq. feet *and nothing short of luxurious when complete is astonishing. And this in a very poor diocese, yet!!!

Perception matters… very much. Actions like this simply add fuel to the fire of anti-Catholicism.

You are correct. I think there is a total lack of common sense here. It is insulting to those who are poor. Perhaps priests, when they retire should simply have to do as the rest of us do: find a retirement center to live in, or their own studio apartment.

 

[Julianna]

I understand the cost of real estate in NJ. If indeed is a retreat, then perhaps the parishoners in the diocese could use this facility for various retreats, etc. That would be fair. As far as a “gym” goes, IMHO I believe our Pope would get in his little car and drive to Gold’s to work out, utilize the hot tub there and return home. And paying for the use of the gym out of his pocket.

 

[dixieagle]

You are correct. I think there is a total lack of common sense here. It is insulting to those who are poor. Perhaps priests, when they retire should simply have to do as the rest of us do: find a retirement center to live in, or their own studio apartment.

I wouldn’t begrudge any bishop or priest a decent retirement home; I think that every diocese should make provision for this. Many priests - and bishops - sacrifice a great deal over decades of service.

What I object to is one bishop of a very poor diocese retiring to an enormous, luxurious abode in the face of all that Pope Francis has rightly expressed about how bishops and priests should live. In an era in which the Church is under constant attack, an in an anti-Catholic climate which, sadly, a number of her priests and bishops fostered through evil and/or unwise actions, this is hardly the sort of spectacle that we need. Very bad judgment, all around, no matter who is paying for it. Perception is, unfortunately, reality.

 

[Corki]

But Pope Francis HAS called bishops - loudly and clearly - to “live simply.”

How anyone can believe that it is in any way prudent for a bishop to retire - alone - to an already very large, comfortable “weekend home” that will be *more than 7500 sq. feet *and nothing short of luxurious when complete is astonishing.

He has to go somewhere and this is a property the diocese already owns. I think this is a very prudent move on the part of the Archdiocese. The property has appreciating value and long-term prospective use. Nor do I think that anyone, not even Pope Francis, wants our retired Bishops to live out their latter days in discomfort.

And this in a very poor diocese, yet!!!

No, it’s not. The diocese contains the city of Newark, which is a mix of poor areas and very affluent ones. But it also contains Bergen and Essex counties which are some of the most affluent areas in the state. Hunterdon county, where the Archbishop’s residence will be is the #4 most affluent county in the entire US. Much of this renovation is being paid for by private donors, which are not in short supply in northern NJ.

Perception matters… very much. Actions like this simply add fuel to the fire of anti-Catholicism

I’ll agree with you here. The anti-Catholicism from self proclaimed Catholics is sure evident in the commentary on this move. But if the anti-Catholics are against it, it’s probably a good thing.

 

[dixieagle]

He has to go somewhere and this is a property the diocese already owns. I think this is a very prudent move on the part of the Archdiocese. The property has appreciating value and long-term prospective use. Nor do I think that anyone, not even Pope Francis, wants our retired Bishops to live out their latter days in discomfort.

No, it’s not. The diocese contains the city of Newark, which is a mix of poor areas and very affluent ones. But it also contains Bergen and Essex counties which are some of the most affluent areas in the state. Hunterdon county, where the Archbishop’s residence will be is the #4 most affluent county in the entire US. Much of this renovation is being paid for by private donors, which are not in short supply in northern NJ.

I’ll agree with you here. The anti-Catholicism from self proclaimed Catholics is sure evident in the commentary on this move. But if the anti-Catholics are against it, it’s probably a good thing.

I think that you have blinders on.

There is no way, no matter who’s paying for this, that a single retired archbishop, living alone in the lap of luxury in a renovated mansion that was already extremely comfortable, is not an outrageously unwise image to be projecting. The fact that this residence is in an extremely wealthy part of a diocese whose central city is one of the very poorest in the nation hardly helps matters.

Francis has called for “a poor Church, for the poor” and repeatedly called for bishops and clergy to live lives of simplicity. He exhorted the newly-elevated cardinals to celebrate only in an “evangelical spirit of austerity, sobriety and poverty.”

Those of us who are appalled at the excess exhibited by this Newark scenario are in no way “anti-Catholic”; we are, however, anti- this show of temporal wealth by someone who should be following the Pope’s very wise advice to live as a servant, and simply.

Catholics who don’t speak up when they see something in the Church that goes against the example of Christ and exhortations of the Pope aren’t doing the Church any favors, as we have all learned the hard way.

 

[savone]

I think that you have blinders on.

There is no way, no matter who’s paying for this, that a single retired archbishop, living alone in the lap of luxury in a renovated mansion that was already extremely comfortable, is not an outrageously unwise image to be projecting. The fact that this residence is in an extremely wealthy part of a diocese whose central city is one of the very poorest in the nation hardly helps matters.

Francis has called for “a poor Church, for the poor” and repeatedly called for bishops and clergy to live lives of simplicity. He exhorted the newly-elevated cardinals to celebrate only in an “evangelical spirit of austerity, sobriety and poverty.”

Those of us who are appalled at the excess exhibited by this Newark scenario are in no way “anti-Catholic”; we are, however, anti- this show of temporal wealth by someone who should be following the Pope’s very wise advice to live as a servant, and simply.

Catholics who don’t speak up when they see something in the Church that goes against the example of Christ and exhortations of the Pope aren’t doing the Church any favors, as we have all learned the hard way.

Excellent. I’ll not add as I have little patience with this sort of thing, especially when considering the plight of so many people.

 

[Corki]

I think that you have blinders on.

.

And I think maybe you have been influenced by the sensational way this has been reported to see fault where none exists.

It’s not like this is an Archbishop who has been living the high life. He has been living in a parish rectory with other priests rather than in a Bishops residence, something he is fully entitled to.

I think that some kind hearted people found a way to make his latter days comfortable and add an investment to the diocese portfolio at the same time. There’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[dixieagle]

And I think maybe you have been influenced by the sensational way this has been reported to see fault where none exists.

It’s not like this is an Archbishop who has been living the high life. He has been living in a parish rectory with other priests rather than in a Bishops residence, something he is fully entitled to.

I think that some kind hearted people found a way to make his latter days comfortable and add an investment to the diocese portfolio at the same time. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I would say that “comfortable” is an extreme understatement. And the archbishop has already been spending weekends in the current 4500 sq. foot house.

I have a fairly jaundiced attitude towards anything about Catholicism that appears in the media. However, one need only look at the facts as presented by the Archdiocese itself (I refer to the poster who actually called the Archdiocesan office and asked blunt questions, receiving answers that confirmed the facts of the situation) to come to the conclusion that this endeavor projects an image of extravagance and luxury that a servant of Christ’s people should eschew.

 

[Cricket2]

I wouldn’t begrudge any bishop or priest a decent retirement home; I think that every diocese should make provision for this. Many priests - and bishops - sacrifice a great deal over decades of service.

What I object to is one bishop of a very poor diocese retiring to an enormous, luxurious abode in the face of all that Pope Francis has rightly expressed about how bishops and priests should live. In an era in which the Church is under constant attack, an in an anti-Catholic climate which, sadly, a number of her priests and bishops fostered through evil and/or unwise actions, this is hardly the sort of spectacle that we need. Very bad judgment, all around, no matter who is paying for it. Perception is, unfortunately, reality.

I don’t begrudge anyone a decent retirement home. But being a Priest does not make one more worthy than others to have that. And as they are supposedly to more like the poor it does seem a little contradictory.

I have known of only one priest that actually lived in a manner that people would consider to “be like the poor.” Most have had some pretty nice places to live in. I am not saying that they should live in dirt huts, or be without, as they are doing a wonderful work. I do think they should be more mindful of how they live and if that life style reflects a deep understanding and care for the poor.

 

[Corki]

I don’t begrudge anyone a decent retirement home. But being a Priest does not make one more worthy than others to have that. And as they are supposedly to more like the poor it does seem a little contradictory.

I have known of only one priest that actually lived in a manner that people would consider to “be like the poor.” Most have had some pretty nice places to live in. I am not saying that they should live in dirt huts, or be without, as they are doing a wonderful work. I do think they should be more mindful of how they live and if that life style reflects a deep understanding and care for the poor.

Diocisan priests are not supposed to be “more like the poor”. They are supposed to serve the poor. Some religious order priest take vows of poverty but that is not the case with secular priests. I would be very distressed if I found out my parish priest was living in a manner that was considered to “be like the poor.” He would be very ineffective in his parish role.

And yes, priests are more worthy to have a retirement home* provided by the diocese t*han others. The diocese is their employer and providing for their retirement is part of the duty of the diocese to its priests.

 

[Joe_5859]

Do people imagine that, in retirement, Archbishop Myers will be kicking his feet up in the hot tub and sipping mojitos on the cumulative mite of a million poor widows? He will still very much be working and carrying on business in service of the Church.

Yes, $500,000 is a lot of money to me, but not knowing all the variables in play, I have a hard time mustering up incredulity over the whole thing.

The house was originally bought with money from the sale of a more expensive home which was given to the diocese as a gift. And the money for the renovations are being completely paid for from private donations specifically for that purpose and the sale of non-ministry related real estate. No one is being put out. No Churches or schools are closing.

Plus, as with all things real estate, the money being spent is more akin to an investment than it is to throwing money down a hole. When the time comes for the diocese to sell the house, it will fetch that much more money.

If I were a multi-millionnaire, I would gladly donate money for upgrading a bishop’s residence – in addition to lots of other charitable giving, of course.

To compare this situation to the German “Bling” Bishop is not at all an apt comparison.

 

[zab]

Do people imagine that, in retirement, Archbishop Myers will be kicking his feet up in the hot tub and sipping mojitos on the cumulative mite of a million poor widows? He will still very much be working and carrying on business in service of the Church.

Yes, $500,000 is a lot of money to me, but not knowing all the variables in play, I have a hard time mustering up incredulity over the whole thing.

The house was originally bought with money from the sale of a more expensive home which was given to the diocese as a gift. And the money for the renovations are being completely paid for from private donations specifically for that purpose and the sale of non-ministry related real estate. No one is being put out. No Churches or schools are closing.

Plus, as with all things real estate, the money being spent is more akin to an investment than it is to throwing money down a hole. When the time comes for the diocese to sell the house, it will fetch that much more money.

If I were a multi-millionnaire, I would gladly donate money for upgrading a bishop’s residence – in addition to lots of other charitable giving, of course.

To compare this situation to the German “Bling” Bishop is not at all an apt comparison.

I’m with you, Joe. I was thinking the same thing. Also being an aging person almost 64 years of age, my thinking on hot tubs and exercise rooms has totally changed. We need to take care of our retired priests and bishops, not will gold toilets and trash cans but with things that will aid them in staying healthy perhaps saving on outrageous medical expenses later on or even aid in physical therapy now. If there are people who care enough about their aging and retired priests and bishops to donate money toward this cause, why should I complain. I need more information before I do that.

 

[dixieagle]

I don’t begrudge anyone a decent retirement home. But being a Priest does not make one more worthy than others to have that. And as they are supposedly to more like the poor it does seem a little contradictory.

I have known of only one priest that actually lived in a manner that people would consider to “be like the poor.” Most have had some pretty nice places to live in. I am not saying that they should live in dirt huts, or be without, as they are doing a wonderful work. I do think they should be more mindful of how they live and if that life style reflects a deep understanding and care for the poor.

Priests and bishops should be treated with respect, especially when elderly, and after long decades of faithful service. I believe that every diocese should have something like Regina Cleri in the Archdiocese of Boston, where an elderly priest cousin of mine lived for years. There are many empty convents and rectories (sadly) around the country that could be put to this use.

Diocesan or “secular” priests do not take a vow of poverty; many people don’t understand that. You are right, however, that all clergy should be mindful of the Pope’s exhortations to live simply and as servants of God’s people.

 

[dixieagle]

Do people imagine that, in retirement, Archbishop Myers will be kicking his feet up in the hot tub and sipping mojitos on the cumulative mite of a million poor widows? He will still very much be working and carrying on business in service of the Church.

Yes, $500,000 is a lot of money to me, but not knowing all the variables in play, I have a hard time mustering up incredulity over the whole thing.

The house was originally bought with money from the sale of a more expensive home which was given to the diocese as a gift. And the money for the renovations are being completely paid for from private donations specifically for that purpose and the sale of non-ministry related real estate. No one is being put out. No Churches or schools are closing.

Plus, as with all things real estate, the money being spent is more akin to an investment than it is to throwing money down a hole. When the time comes for the diocese to sell the house, it will fetch that much more money.

If I were a multi-millionnaire, I would gladly donate money for upgrading a bishop’s residence – in addition to lots of other charitable giving, of course.

To compare this situation to the German “Bling” Bishop is not at all an apt comparison.

You are undoubtedly a very generous soul. However, I think that what the core issue here is - no matter who is paying for it - that it looks simply extravagant for one bishop to be retiring ALONE to a 7500 sq. foot luxury residence (because 4500 sq. feet, 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms is not enough!) And, plenty of schools HAVE closed in that archdiocese.

Fill the place with other retired priests and hold archdiocesan events there and defuse the situation.

 

[zab]

You are undoubtedly a very generous soul. However, I think that what the core issue here is - no matter who is paying for it - that it looks simply extravagant for one bishop to be retiring ALONE to a 7500 sq. foot luxury residence (because 4500 sq. feet, 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms is not enough!) And, plenty of schools HAVE closed in that archdiocese.

Fill the place with other retired priests and hold archdiocesan events there and defuse the situation.

I just assumed that there would be other retired priests or bishops living there, too. It is just too much space for one person.

 

[Corki]

Fill the place with other retired priests and hold archdiocesan events there and defuse the situation.

Why? Because you say so regardless of whether it makes good financial sense? This is a good investment and has good long-term potential. To do something financially irresponsible just to satisfy some anti-Catholic media types would be very wrong.

I wish more dioceses were taking such care of their elderly clergy, especially their bishops.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A long time ago, our parish had a priest who had an extremely wealthy brother. Because of his brother’s gifts, he lived pretty well. Because people knew all of that, nobody that I know of begrudged him.

I realize it’s a different thing, sort of, but not by a whole lot.

 

[Corki]

A long time ago, our parish had a priest who had an extremely wealthy brother. Because of his brother’s gifts, he lived pretty well. Because people knew all of that, nobody that I know of begrudged him.

I realize it’s a different thing, sort of, but not by a whole lot.

It is sort of the same thing. We live in a climate, at least in the US, where certain forces have been trying very hard to stir up a “class war”. Anyone who has nice things is suspect regardless of how they were gotten or earned.

This story is a good reflection of that. If you read the media trail, it looks like at first, they tried to paint this as the evil Archbishop siphoning off diocesan funds for his own gain. Oh, wait, he doesn’t own the home. Ok, next tactic. The evil Archdiocese is siphoning off funds that should have been used for schools. Oh, wait, most of the money was either already tied up in real estate or came from private donors. So, what’s left? - it’s all evil because A) it’s the Church and B) no Bishop should have nice things and C) somebody might “get the wrong idea” and D) it violates the clergy (non-existent) vow of poverty.

 

[dixieagle]

Why? Because you say so regardless of whether it makes good financial sense? This is a good investment and has good long-term potential. To do something financially irresponsible just to satisfy some anti-Catholic media types would be very wrong.

I wish more dioceses were taking such care of their elderly clergy, especially their bishops.

Why? Because the image of a lone bishop living in solitary splendor in a 7500 square foot mansion is not one that the Church should be projecting. How can you not see that, especially in light of the many things Pope Francis has said about bishops living as servants, not “like princes”?

 

[Corki]

Why? Because the image of a lone bishop living in solitary splendor in a 7500 square foot mansion is not one that the Church should be projecting. How can you not see that, especially in light of the many things Pope Francis has said about bishops living as servants, not “like princes”?

I can certainly see that some people might not like it. But I don’t agree that the diocese should make decisions regarding investments, let alone the care of a retired Archbishop, based on what other people think or on appearances. The Church is more concerned with “doing” than “projecting” and I don’t care a whit about what people might think or say or about “image”. If I thought that the Archbishop was being dishonest or acting in any immoral way, I would be the first to speak against him and his decisions. But I also think that our Ordinaries deserve our utmost respect and care. And if that means renovating a piece of property to make it a comfortable retirement residence, I am all for it as long as it’s being done in an above-board manner.

(btw, the comments you attribute to Pope Francis were made regarding Cardinals, especially those in the curia. It was a bit of a play on words since the Cardinals are the Princes of the Church)