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

[zab]

I, too, believe that Christ wants people to be generous; I also think that He would be far happier if this bishop said that 4500 sq. feet was plenty for him, and suggested that $500,000 could be best used elsewhere.

We clearly have very different ideas of how the shepherds of Christ’s flock should conduct themselves with regard to outward trappings; no argument exists that will persuade me that this project is not a very bad idea, one that bolsters the perception of the Church hierarchy as aloof and entitled, and that flies in the face of all that our Holy Father encourages.

Judas balked at the expensive perfume that was poured of Jesus’ feet and said that it could be sold and the money given to the poor. But Jesus said, let her do it.

I do not totally disagree with you regarding the example that our Holy Father has set, encouraging priests and hierarchy to live a more modestly. But we must remember that our Holy Father belongs to a religious order that takes a vow of poverty whereas diocesan priests do not. However, there are diocesan priests who do live more modestly than others, I believe the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen was one of them. I recall him saying that he lived in a three room apartment in New York. That is wonderful when priests do this, but I also think that we should be reserve our negative feelings towards those who do not live as modestly as we think they should.

 

[Book_Worm]

There are a number of statements here that are being presented as facts, which I think are simply not true.

First is that this is a good financial investment. Just ask anyone who has tried to sell a house in the current market how profitable their investment was. Note that this house was purchased in 2002, before the housing market bubble burst, so it’s possible that the current value is less than the original cost.

Next, it’s never a good idea to over-improve a house. Any realtor will tell you that if you add improvements that increase the value of a house two-thirds, you will never get your money back. Indeed, you will make the house harder to sell, not easier. And there are very, very few buyers for a house with TWO pools.

Given the stringent zoning restrictions in NJ, this house can never be used for anything other than a residence, and probably a “one-family” residence at that. That eliminates the possibility of housing several retired clergy in it or using it for meetings or other diocesan uses.

The house is not even in the Archdiocese; it is part of the Diocese of Metuchen. I find it rather illogical to think that it’s too onerous to transport the Archbishop to a facility to use a whirlpool, etc., but that it’s feasible for a 75+YO man to drive 49 miles (in NJ traffic on Route 78, oi vey!) to attend diocesan functions.

And the thought of the up-keep just staggers my mind. How many people will be required to maintain the house, grounds and pools?

The statement from the Archdiocese openly states that they are selling other diocesan residential properties to fund this retirement house and that any monies gained from these sales will go back to diocesan coffers, so plainly some of the money that could be used to help the poor is being spent on this residence. It is not completely funded by donations for this purpose.

I would not like to see our retired clergy live in poverty, but neither do I think it appropriate that they live in a style so far above that of the majority of their flock.

I shudder to think what effect this will have on the next Collection for the Retired Clergy and Religious in December.

 

[Julianna]

There are a number of statements here that are being presented as facts, which I think are simply not true.

First is that this is a good financial investment. Just ask anyone who has tried to sell a house in the current market how profitable their investment was. Note that this house was purchased in 2002, before the housing market bubble burst, so it’s possible that the current value is less than the original cost.

Next, it’s never a good idea to over-improve a house. Any realtor will tell you that if you add improvements that increase the value of a house two-thirds, you will never get your money back. Indeed, you will make the house harder to sell, not easier. And there are very, very few buyers for a house with TWO pools.

Given the stringent zoning restrictions in NJ, this house can never be used for anything other than a residence, and probably a “one-family” residence at that. That eliminates the possibility of housing several retired clergy in it or using it for meetings or other diocesan uses.

The house is not even in the Archdiocese; it is part of the Diocese of Metuchen. I find it rather illogical to think that it’s too onerous to transport the Archbishop to a facility to use a whirlpool, etc., but that it’s feasible for a 75+YO man to drive 49 miles (in NJ traffic on Route 78, oi vey!) to attend diocesan functions.

And the thought of the up-keep just staggers my mind. How many people will be required to maintain the house, grounds and pools?

The statement from the Archdiocese openly states that they are selling other diocesan residential properties to fund this retirement house and that any monies gained from these sales will go back to diocesan coffers, so plainly some of the money that could be used to help the poor is being spent on this residence. It is not completely funded by donations for this purpose.

I would not like to see our retired clergy live in poverty, but neither do I think it appropriate that they live in a style so far above that of the majority of their flock.

I shudder to think what effect this will have on the next Collection for the Retired Clergy and Religious in December.

Wow just wow. You said it much better than I could. Your last sentence speaks volumes to the parishoners in the Diocese.

 

[10gr8kids]

I shudder to think what effect this will have on the next Collection for the Retired Clergy and Religious in December.

This is the same thing I’ve been thinking. Hopefully we will remember that this is not the norm for most of our retired clergy.

 

[dixieagle]

There are a number of statements here that are being presented as facts, which I think are simply not true.

First is that this is a good financial investment. Just ask anyone who has tried to sell a house in the current market how profitable their investment was. Note that this house was purchased in 2002, before the housing market bubble burst, so it’s possible that the current value is less than the original cost.

Next, it’s never a good idea to over-improve a house. Any realtor will tell you that if you add improvements that increase the value of a house two-thirds, you will never get your money back. Indeed, you will make the house harder to sell, not easier. And there are very, very few buyers for a house with TWO pools.

Given the stringent zoning restrictions in NJ, this house can never be used for anything other than a residence, and probably a “one-family” residence at that. That eliminates the possibility of housing several retired clergy in it or using it for meetings or other diocesan uses.

The house is not even in the Archdiocese; it is part of the Diocese of Metuchen. I find it rather illogical to think that it’s too onerous to transport the Archbishop to a facility to use a whirlpool, etc., but that it’s feasible for a 75+YO man to drive 49 miles (in NJ traffic on Route 78, oi vey!) to attend diocesan functions.

And the thought of the up-keep just staggers my mind. How many people will be required to maintain the house, grounds and pools?

The statement from the Archdiocese openly states that they are selling other diocesan residential properties to fund this retirement house and that any monies gained from these sales will go back to diocesan coffers, so plainly some of the money that could be used to help the poor is being spent on this residence. It is not completely funded by donations for this purpose.

I would not like to see our retired clergy live in poverty, but neither do I think it appropriate that they live in a style so far above that of the majority of their flock.

I shudder to think what effect this will have on the next Collection for the Retired Clergy and Religious in December.

So well said. Thank you.

 

[dling]

I don’t know whether this expense is justified. But let me say. Catholic giving percentage is pathetic. I think this is just a drummed up reason some will put forth not to tithe. $500,000 should be a drop in a bucket of an archdiocese. I know Pope Francis has encouraged the clergy to be frugal, and this appears like an extravagance. But that does not change our responsibility to the church to give generously. The Archbishop will be acountable to God for what he does, and we will be accountable for what we do or don’t do.

foxnews.com/us/2014/03/02/archbishops-million-dollar-retreat-angers-new-jersey-faithful/?intcmp=latestnews

Dave

 

[Joe_5859]

There is already a lengthy thread on this story:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=860569

That news piece is even more misleading than the last one. By the headline, I thought they were talking about something completely different, but it’s the same story.

Here is the statement from the the Archdiocese of Newark:

newarkarchdiocese.blogspot.com/2014/02/response-to-recent-news-coverage-about.html#!/2014/02/response-to-recent-news-coverage-about.html

And here’s some more helpful background info from a Catholic blogger:

patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2014/02/some-key-facts-everyone-should-know-about-the-archbishop-s-residence-in-newark/

 

[zz912]

There are a number of statements here that are being presented as facts, which I think are simply not true.

First is that this is a good financial investment. Just ask anyone who has tried to sell a house in the current market how profitable their investment was. Note that this house was purchased in 2002, before the housing market bubble burst, so it’s possible that the current value is less than the original cost.

Next, it’s never a good idea to over-improve a house. Any realtor will tell you that if you add improvements that increase the value of a house two-thirds, you will never get your money back. Indeed, you will make the house harder to sell, not easier. And there are very, very few buyers for a house with TWO pools.

Given the stringent zoning restrictions in NJ, this house can never be used for anything other than a residence, and probably a “one-family” residence at that. That eliminates the possibility of housing several retired clergy in it or using it for meetings or other diocesan uses.

The house is not even in the Archdiocese; it is part of the Diocese of Metuchen. I find it rather illogical to think that it’s too onerous to transport the Archbishop to a facility to use a whirlpool, etc., but that it’s feasible for a 75+YO man to drive 49 miles (in NJ traffic on Route 78, oi vey!) to attend diocesan functions.

And the thought of the up-keep just staggers my mind. How many people will be required to maintain the house, grounds and pools?

The statement from the Archdiocese openly states that they are selling other diocesan residential properties to fund this retirement house and that any monies gained from these sales will go back to diocesan coffers, so plainly some of the money that could be used to help the poor is being spent on this residence. It is not completely funded by donations for this purpose.

I would not like to see our retired clergy live in poverty, but neither do I think it appropriate that they live in a style so far above that of the majority of their flock.

I shudder to think what effect this will have on the next Collection for the Retired Clergy and Religious in December.

Absolutely spot on.

The Archdiocese is being deceitful with their claim that it is not using Archdiocese funds. They are selling assets of the archdiocese to partially fund this construction. They explicitly admit so.

I don’t think a peep would have been made about this if the residence was going to be used to house 8-10 retired clergy. Then the expenditure would make some sense, as you would have plenty of room and some nice amenities for them. But that is NOT the case here. This is for ONE PERSON. That’s ridiculous.

I simply don’t understand why some people can’t just admit this is over the top.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Thanks Joe. Lame stream media gets everything yet again!

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The Pope cannot tell a diocese what to do with its own property or investments.

According to Roman Canon Law, the Pope has full, immediate and universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. In theory, if the Pope doesn’t like the music at the 11 o’clock Mass at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Oshkosh, Wisconsin (I don’t know if there really is such a church) then the Pope can have it changed, or fire the music director.

 

[tomarin]

I simply don’t understand why some people can’t just admit this is over the top.

I think whether the cost of the renovations to a retirement home for an archbishop is “over the top” or not is fundamentally a subjective judgement.

It reminds me of a conversation I once had a few years ago with my sister about her feeling of outrage that the Vatican has beautiful artwork worth untold millions in its art galleries, and that this is why she hates Catholicism. In her view the Church isn’t authentically Christian unless it divests of everything it owns and gives it to the poor. Would that make poverty go away? Of course not. In my view the Church may own things as long as they put them to good use; consequently it’s more important that the Church act as a good custodian of fine works of art by taking care of them and displaying them to the public for everyone’s enjoyment and edification.

 

[seaton2005]

I think whether the cost of the renovations to a retirement home for an archbishop is “over the top” or not is fundamentally a subjective judgement.

It reminds me of a conversation I once had a few years ago with my sister about her feeling of outrage that the Vatican has beautiful artwork worth untold millions in its art galleries, and that this is why she hates Catholicism. In her view the Church isn’t authentically Christian unless it divests of everything it owns and gives it to the poor. Would that make poverty go away? Of course not. In my view the Church may own things as long as they put them to good use; consequently it’s more important that the Church act as a good custodian of fine works of art by taking care of them and displaying them to the public for everyone’s enjoyment and edification.

Wow! that’s exactly what a priest said in a homily a few weeks ago, “give all of your riches to the poor” I’m not kidding.

 

[Peebo]

I think whether the cost of the renovations to a retirement home for an archbishop is “over the top” or not is fundamentally a subjective judgement.

It reminds me of a conversation I once had a few years ago with my sister about her feeling of outrage that the Vatican has beautiful artwork worth untold millions in its art galleries, and that this is why she hates Catholicism. In her view the Church isn’t authentically Christian unless it divests of everything it owns and gives it to the poor. Would that make poverty go away? Of course not. In my view the Church may own things as long as they put them to good use; consequently it’s more important that the Church act as a good custodian of fine works of art by taking care of them and displaying them to the public for everyone’s enjoyment and edification.

I’ve heard similar arguments…why doesn’t the church sell all her works of art…her treasures…all her building…land etc she owns…the Catholic Church is one of the richest institutions in the world…great idea huh…the Catholic Church is the largest charity organization in the world…it doesn’t run on thin air…it takes organization and skill…where is the cost supposed to come from…who would pay the electric bills…the water…the cost of maintenance…wages for staff and other professionals…etc…etc…the art works belongs to the people of God…to show the glory of God…but…just sell everything to appease the self righteous…so maybe a small minority of the worlds hungry would be fed for a couple of weeks to make the self righteous feel good about themselves…Holy Mother Church would be broke…the money needed to run the worlds largest charity would be gone…everything would fall into disrepair…then who would feed…clothe…and nurse the poor of the world…the self righteous wouldn’t worry…they would have forgotten them and moved on to some thing else …maybe save the Stromatolites…I don’t know the circumstances of this Bishop so I don’t want to comment on him…I just hope that what he is doing doesn’t reflect negatively on our church which is already under intense scrutiny by those who would like to destroy her…

 

[dling]

I think folks are always looking to justify their lack of giving to the church. Sounds like some folks donated specifially to this church padre, out of love and devotion. $500,000 should be a blip on the screen in a archdiocese like this, if folks are giving anywhere close to 10%. (tithe)

Dave

 

[zz912]

I think whether the cost of the renovations to a retirement home for an archbishop is “over the top” or not is fundamentally a subjective judgement.

It reminds me of a conversation I once had a few years ago with my sister about her feeling of outrage that the Vatican has beautiful artwork worth untold millions in its art galleries, and that this is why she hates Catholicism. In her view the Church isn’t authentically Christian unless it divests of everything it owns and gives it to the poor. Would that make poverty go away? Of course not. In my view the Church may own things as long as they put them to good use; consequently it’s more important that the Church act as a good custodian of fine works of art by taking care of them and displaying them to the public for everyone’s enjoyment and edification.

The works of art, museums, and beautiful churches are for the entire Church to enjoy. This is a private residence for one archbishop. There is a difference.

And the discussion of “over the top” can be subjective within some bounds, but a house with two pools, and 4x the size of the average home for an entire family is clearly and objectively “over the top”. It is NOT subjective.

Now again, if this house was for the retirement of 6-12 priests, then no one would give it much concern at all. But this is for ONE PERSON. As you noted above, properties and possessions of the Church should be put to good use. This is NOT good use.

 

[zz912]

I think folks are always looking to justify their lack of giving to the church. Sounds like some folks donated specifially to this church padre, out of love and devotion. $500,000 should be a blip on the screen in a archdiocese like this, if folks are giving anywhere close to 10%. (tithe)

Dave

SOME people may be using it to justify their lack of support for the Church, but not everyone is. Some people support the Church as much as they can, and see this as wasteful and ridiculous.

Second, SOME of the funds were donated. The Archdioeses admits that some of the funds are coming from the sale of Archdiocesan properties.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

the father of lies, the accuser is hard at work looking for any opening to tear apart the catholic Church which is the bane of his existence. Get smart people! the church, even on its worst day is the hope of the world. People in the church may commit evil, that is for sure since we are all sinners, but the One Holy Catholic Church will remain until He comes again. Cast aside the whinings of the evil ones who do the devil’s work. Pray for the good of all our clergy, especially in this latest instance. The facts are always skewed toward the negative, aren’t they? Pray for those in media to have a conversion experience.

 

[dling]

SOME people may be using it to justify their lack of support for the Church, but not everyone is. Some people support the Church as much as they can, and see this as wasteful and ridiculous.

Second, SOME of the funds were donated. The Archdioeses admits that some of the funds are coming from the sale of Archdiocesan properties.

To be clear I wasn’t talking about any folks here on the forum, but people referenced in the article. It really doesn’t matter what the church does IMHO. Our responsibility is to give as much as we can. The bishop will be accountable to God and so will we. Honestly it does seem extravagent and our pope encourages the religious to live simple lives before men. He is doing so, to much great indearment of the general public towrds him. Bishops should follow his lead. But it is not mandated.

Dave

 

[Et_Cetera]

The bishop should be able to retire to a comfortable living situation, especially if he is growing old, but a 7500 sq ft mansion is absurd for one person. It does make the Church look bad. Standing up for these kinds of extravagant displays only serve to hurt the Church, in my opinion. As another poster stated, it helps to call out this kind of behavior. This kind of stuff is one of the reasons I left the Church. I’d rather actually help the poor than help some guy build a mansion. For the people defending him: Are you aware of exactly how big 7500 sq ft is for one human being? Think of how many people could be helped with that money.

 

[dling]

I agree it should be called out, shed light on. Who has to approve of this expediture?

Dave