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

[10gr8kids]

Originally Posted by dixieagle

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

Originally Posted by Corki
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.

Can you please explain how having more retired clergy living in this same house would be a bad financial decision? Thanks

 

[dixieagle]

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)

The home is already 4500 sq. feet, with 5 bedrooms and 3 baths. How much more “comfortable” should it be??? The vast majority of* families* in this country don’t live in homes that size.

Pope Francis has, indeed, addressed the issue of the kind of *bishops *he wants. From a Catholic News Service article from June, last year: “A good prospective bishop will ‘love interior poverty as freedom for the Lord’ and live that externally with a simple lifestyle, and he won’t have the 'mindset of a prince,’ the pope said June 21 during a meeting with nuncios and apostolic delegates.” catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1302707.htm

All of us should be cognizant of the image that we present to those who do not share the faith. I don’t think that a lone bishop living in the lap of luxury in a mansion more than 3 times the size of the average family home is one that we should be presenting to the world.

 

[ringil]

What has the Holy Father stated about how priest and bishops should live their lives in a material fashion.

Anyone remember the Holy Father’s lightening quick removal of the German Bishop egregiously using Church money on his diocese?

 

[Corki]

Can you please explain how having more retired clergy living in this same house would be a bad financial decision? Thanks

I never said that doing that would be a bad financial decision only that the current plan seems to be a good one.

We don’t know that that won’t be considered in the future especially if the diocese finds itself, as ours has, with multiple retired bishops. Most priests, and some bishops, retire owning property where they retire. Those that are in diocesan facilities are often those that need a higher degree of senior or medical care. Providing that type of care and staffing would be part of any decision to use the property as more than a personal residence. With more than a couple priests in residence, codes would probably require a lot more renovation, including a commercial kitchen and emergency provisions. The effect of those renovations on the investment value would also be considered.

It’s not like you can just say, ‘here’s a bigger house, let’s move a bunch of people into it.’ The renovations being made now make the property more valuable as well as making it a good location for the Archbishop. Further renovation to make it a more general retirement home might be a good financial decision but it might not.

 

[Corki]

The home is already 4500 sq. feet, with 5 bedrooms and 3 baths. How much more “comfortable” should it be??? The vast majority of* families* in this country don’t live in homes that size.

Pope Francis has, indeed, addressed the issue of the kind of *bishops *he wants. From a Catholic News Service article from June, last year: “A good prospective bishop will ‘love interior poverty as freedom for the Lord’ and live that externally with a simple lifestyle, and he won’t have the 'mindset of a prince,’ the pope said June 21 during a meeting with nuncios and apostolic delegates.” catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1302707.htm

All of us should be cognizant of the image that we present to those who do not share the faith. I don’t think that a lone bishop living in the lap of luxury in a mansion more than 3 times the size of the average family home is one that we should be presenting to the world.

This is very close to slander of the Archbishop. He has been living in a rectory. He has not acquired private property. He has been working for decades in service to the whole Church and to his diocese. He is not being given a house but being allowed use of a property the diocese owns.

He is not a “prospective bishop” but one who has nearly completed his full-time service and is about to enter his well-earned retirement.

To imply that he has “the mindset of a prince” or that he is “living in the lap of luxury” is very uncharitable and inaccurate. If anyone is “presenting to the world” a false image of the Church, it is people who spin these stories casting our clergy, especially our Bishops in the worst possible light.

 

[Julianna]

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.

My 85 yr mother was a wife and mother while growing up. She did not go to work with until we were out of high school. Her job did not offer her a retirement. When dad passed away she got what little ss and combined with her paltry ss is barely enough for her to live on. Last year she got a reverse mortgage…now she is where she is going to have to sell the how see because she doesn’t have gardeners. …cooks and maintenance folks to keep the place up. She sacrificed too. She was the housewife and mom of the 50’s & 60’s.

Her standard of living and that of a retired priest. …should be the same. Schools…maternity homes and youth groups have disappeared from the Catholic scenery… a 7500 square foot house for 1 priest is a bit much. And I know he won’t be doing his own cooking…maintenance or yard work. My 85 yr old mother cuts her own grass.

 

[Corki]

My 85 yr mother was a wife and mother while growing up. She did not go to work with until we were out of high school. Her job did not offer her a retirement. When dad passed away she got what little ss and combined with her paltry ss is barely enough for her to live on. Last year she got a reverse mortgage…now she is where she is going to have to sell the how see because she doesn’t have gardeners. …cooks and maintenance folks to keep the place up. She sacrificed too. She was the housewife and mom of the 50’s & 60’s.

Her standard of living and that of a retired priest. …should be the same. Schools…maternity homes and youth groups have disappeared from the Catholic scenery… a 7500 square foot house for 1 priest is a bit much. And I know he won’t be doing his own cooking…maintenance or yard work. My 85 yr old mother cuts her own grass.

I know this is going to sound harsh but your mother sacrificed for her family. If you want her to have a better standard of living, than it’s the family’s responsibility to provide it for her.

A priest sacrifices for the Church and its the Church’s responsibility to provide for him in his retirement.

You are presenting a false equivalence. Whether or not the Archbishop takes care of his own yard will have absolutely no bearing on whether your mother continues to mow her own grass.

 

[dixieagle]

This is very close to slander of the Archbishop. He has been living in a rectory. He has not acquired private property. He has been working for decades in service to the whole Church and to his diocese. He is not being given a house but being allowed use of a property the diocese owns.

He is not a “prospective bishop” but one who has nearly completed his full-time service and is about to enter his well-earned retirement.

To imply that he has “the mindset of a prince” or that he is “living in the lap of luxury” is very uncharitable and inaccurate. If anyone is “presenting to the world” a false image of the Church, it is people who spin these stories casting our clergy, especially our Bishops in the worst possible light.

Slander? To believe that bishops should inwardly and outwardly model the ideal of austerity and simplicity clearly enunciated by Pope Francis himself? Hardly. I haven’t made any comment on the archbishop’s personal sanctity or holiness; I have no way of knowing anything about him. I do, however, seriously question the common sense and wisdom of those in Newark who thought that this would go unnoticed, or that this was a sensible thing to do, especially in the current climate.

Sadly, our Church hierarchy has a lot of fence-mending to do as a result of past mistakes. The scenario of a bishop retiring into this kind of outsized McMansion, with every possible amenity, doesn’t in any way help things.

 

[dixieagle]

I know this is going to sound harsh but your mother sacrificed for her family. If you want her to have a better standard of living, than it’s the family’s responsibility to provide it for her.

A priest sacrifices for the Church and its the Church’s responsibility to provide for him in his retirement.

You are presenting a false equivalence. Whether or not the Archbishop takes care of his own yard will have absolutely no bearing on whether your mother continues to mow her own grass.

You are again avoiding the central issue. It is our Christian duty to see that priests and bishops (and all religious, for that matter) are cared for in their retirement after years of service. Catholics gladly contribute generously (at least in our archdiocese) to the annual collection for retired sisters.

Our retired archbishop (an eminent scholar who served in many capacities nationally over the years) lives, with other priests, in the old home that serves as the chancery office. The current archbishop lives in a modest home in a neighborhood close to downtown.

The argument is not that the Newark archbishop shouldn’t have a decent retirement, but that it should not take place in an edifice of such size and luxury, especially in an archdiocese whose central city is one of the poorest in the nation. It doesn’t send the right message, and I cannot believe anyone actually believes it does. There would clearly be room - there already is, with 5 BRs - for other retired clergy; move them in and silence the (justifiable) criticism.

This incident brings up the spectre of clericalism that the Pope has repeatedly warned us against; it is demonstrably dangerous when either the laity or clergy themselves perpetuate the notion that a certain “entitlement” goes with the territory.

 

[Julianna]

I know this is going to sound harsh but your mother sacrificed for her family. If you want her to have a better standard of living, than it’s the family’s responsibility to provide it for her.

A priest sacrifices for the Church and its the Church’s responsibility to provide for him in his retirement.

You are presenting a false equivalence. Whether or not the Archbishop takes care of his own yard will have absolutely no bearing on whether your mother continues to mow her own grass.

It does have bearing when the people of the diocese are “paying” for a cook…a housekeeper…a gardner and a maintenance person. I can “see” helping with food…clothing…and healthcare and even a portion of the rent. However I do not see the need for a hot tub and a gym…and 4 other unoccupied bedrooms.

I realize you made be old school in that you may believe the clergy should be held on a pedestal. What you don’t seem to realize is that my elderly mother and the archbishop put their pants on one leg at a time.

 

[Corki]

It does have bearing when the people of the diocese are “paying” for a cook…a housekeeper…a gardner and a maintenance person. I can “see” helping with food…clothing…and healthcare and even a portion of the rent. However I do not see the need for a hot tub and a gym…and 4 other unoccupied bedrooms.

I realize you made be old school in that you may believe the clergy should be held on a pedestal. What you don’t seem to realize is that my elderly mother and the archbishop put their pants on one leg at a time.

If by “old school” you mean orthodox and not progressive, I am guilty.

I do realize that both your mother and the Archbishop are equally loved by God. What you don’t seem to realize is that an Archbishop is not the same as any other lay Catholic or any other clergyman. Nor do you seem to realize that whether or not the Archbishop is living there, the diocese would still be paying for a housekeeper, a gardener and a maintenance person for the property. And where ever the Archbishop is living, they would be paying for a cook and probably a housekeeper. And they can’t charge the Archbishop rent! That would violate canon law (and common decency).

The alternative to this living arrangement is not to stick the Archbishop in an apartment in some senior citizen community. The alternative is to find (probably by purchasing) an alternative home for him, renovating it and making sure it met whatever accommodations he might need in his elder years. The man has arthritis. Is it really that more extravagant to put in a hot tub vs. transporting him several times a week for hydrotherapy? Or installing an elevator rather than paying a caregiver to help him move around the house?

 

[Corki]

You are again avoiding the central issue. It is our Christian duty to see that priests and bishops (and all religious, for that matter) are cared for in their retirement after years of service. Catholics gladly contribute generously (at least in our archdiocese) to the annual collection for retired sisters.

Our retired archbishop (an eminent scholar who served in many capacities nationally over the years) lives, with other priests, in the old home that serves as the chancery office. The current archbishop lives in a modest home in a neighborhood close to downtown.

If your retired Archbishop does that by choice, great. If he is forced to do that because the diocese did not provide him with a residence for his retirement, shame on them.

The argument is not that the Newark archbishop shouldn’t have a decent retirement, but that it should not take place in an edifice of such size and luxury, especially in an archdiocese whose central city is one of the poorest in the nation. It doesn’t send the right message, and I cannot believe anyone actually believes it does. There would clearly be room - there already is, with 5 BRs - for other retired clergy; move them in and silence the (justifiable) criticism.

Luxury is being defined by bloggers and the media. We have no idea whether this home is luxurious or simply big. Nor do we have any idea if others might live there in the future. But it isn’t the Church’s job to “silence the (snidely) criticism”

This incident brings up the spectre of clericalism that the Pope has repeatedly warned us against; it is demonstrably dangerous when either the laity or clergy themselves perpetuate the notion that a certain “entitlement” goes with the territory

This IS the kind of topic that brings out neo anti-clericalism. There is a big difference between “entitlement” and respectful deference. No clergy should embrace the former but our clergy, especially our Bishops deserve the latter.

And please stop bringing the Pope into this as if he has ever weighed in on this treatment of retired bishops. Pope Francis and done and said many things that people have misrepresented and which have given people the wrong “notions” and his response has consistently been (paraphrasing) “who cares what they think?” as long as he is speaking the truth. As long as the archdiocese is acting according to good financial practices and is not breaking any laws (civil or canon), who cares what people think of the message it might be sending.

 

[Miriam1947]

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

WHAT WILL THE RENOVATION COST THE ARCHDIOCESE?
Quick answer: Nothing. The project is being funded solely by private contributions which have been donated for this purpose.
The home which is the subject of newspaper speculation was actually purchased by the Archdiocese of Newark twelve years ago, using proceeds from the sale in 2002 of a more expensive home on the Jersey Shore. The Jersey Shore home which was sold in 2002 had a greater value than does the home which is currently being renovated, even when one includes the cost of landscaping and furnishings.

A statement released by the Archdiocese explains:

The current weekend residence and future retirement home of Archbishop Myers was purchased in 2002 with funds from the sale of a prior residence at the Jersey Shore that had been donated to the Archdiocese more than 20 years ago.

The planned construction is being paid for by donations from individuals specifically given for this purpose, and through the sale of other residential properties that the Archdiocese owns but does not need. The sale of these properties is expected to not only pay for the construction, but also to return funds to the Archdiocese for other ministry uses.

No parishioner funds or Archbishop’s Annual Appeal contributions are being used on this project. Similarly, no convents, schools or other Archdiocesan buildings are being sold to provide funding for this project. The Archdiocese does pay real estate taxes on this property.

Full article at link.

 

[dixieagle]

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

WHAT WILL THE RENOVATION COST THE ARCHDIOCESE?
Quick answer: Nothing. The project is being funded solely by private contributions which have been donated for this purpose.
The home which is the subject of newspaper speculation was actually purchased by the Archdiocese of Newark twelve years ago, using proceeds from the sale in 2002 of a more expensive home on the Jersey Shore. The Jersey Shore home which was sold in 2002 had a greater value than does the home which is currently being renovated, even when one includes the cost of landscaping and furnishings.

A statement released by the Archdiocese explains:

The current weekend residence and future retirement home of Archbishop Myers was purchased in 2002 with funds from the sale of a prior residence at the Jersey Shore that had been donated to the Archdiocese more than 20 years ago.

The planned construction is being paid for by donations from individuals specifically given for this purpose, and through the sale of other residential properties that the Archdiocese owns but does not need. The sale of these properties is expected to not only pay for the construction, but also to return funds to the Archdiocese for other ministry uses.

No parishioner funds or Archbishop’s Annual Appeal contributions are being used on this project. Similarly, no convents, schools or other Archdiocesan buildings are being sold to provide funding for this project. The Archdiocese does pay real estate taxes on this property.

Full article at link.

I believe someone had previously linked to this.

It doesn’t matter who paid for it; do we really think that this is the face of the Church Christ would want us to present? I don’t think so.

 

[Corki]

I believe someone had previously linked to this.

It doesn’t matter who paid for it; do we really think that this is the face of the Church Christ would want us to present? I don’t think so.

Yes, it does matter who paid for it. You brought up a sense of entitlement which is wrong, I agree. But it is not wrong to graciously accept what others offer you out of gratitude for your service. No one strong-armed donors or diverted donations from other causes. In fact, one of the articles stated that these donations were being made expressly for this purpose.

I do not think Christ has any problem at all with people being generous to their bishops in their retirement. Nor do I think anyone seriously equates the retirement home of a bishop with the “face of the Church”. The face of the Church is in the encounters people have with clergy and the faithful.

No more than a few handfuls of people will ever encounter the bishop at his residence. If it wasn’t for the internet and some journalist trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, no one would even know, let alone care. It’s not the face of the Church, it’s a blip in a 24 hour news cycle.

 

[dixieagle]

If your retired Archbishop does that by choice, great. If he is forced to do that because the diocese did not provide him with a residence for his retirement, shame on them.

That is a retirement residence. Why do you think that a bishop must have a residence for himself alone in retirement?

Luxury is being defined by bloggers and the media. We have no idea whether this home is luxurious or simply big. Nor do we have any idea if others might live there in the future. But it isn’t the Church’s job to “silence the (snidely) criticism”

Unless your idea of luxury and mine are vastly different, I think that a soon-to-be- 7500 sq. ft. home with 5 BRs and 3 BAs on 8.5 acres with a swimming pool, indoor pool, 3 fireplaces and an elevator pretty much fills the bill.

This IS the kind of topic that brings out neo anti-clericalism. There is a big difference between “entitlement” and respectful deference. No clergy should embrace the former but our clergy, especially our Bishops deserve the latter.

I am perfectly delighted to give a bishop “respectful deference.” That will not, however, include a mansion.

And please stop bringing the Pope into this as if he has ever weighed in on this treatment of retired bishops. Pope Francis and done and said many things that people have misrepresented and which have given people the wrong “notions” and his response has consistently been (paraphrasing) “who cares what they think?” as long as he is speaking the truth. As long as the archdiocese is acting according to good financial practices and is not breaking any laws (civil or canon), who cares what people think of the message it might be sending.

The Pope has spoken frequently about how bishops and cardinals should live, and I venture to say that his feelings hold true for those who are retired, as well. We can look to the fact that Pope Emeritus Benedict lives in part of a renovated monastery, in quarters far smaller than what is planned for Newark. And we all know about the simplicity modeled by Pope Francis himself in his lifestyle.

The “message it might be sending” is something we should care about, because it reflects poorly on a Church that is to be of the poor and for the poor. To quote Pope Francis: “Poverty is the flesh of the poor Jesus, in that child who is hungry, in the one who is sick, in those unjust social structures”. I would far rather that $500,000 to be donated for the addition to this already large house go to some of those sick and hungry. There are plenty of them in Newark.

 

[Corki]

I would far rather that $500,000 to be donated for the addition to this already large house go to some of those sick and hungry. There are plenty of them in Newark.

The diocese cannot legally do that. It was donated for the express purpose of the Archbishop’s retirement residence. If you are worried about what people think about the Church, would do you assume they would say if the diocese committed fraud by reallocating dedicated funds? One cannot do evil just so that good may come of it.

 

[dixieagle]

Yes, it does matter who paid for it. You brought up a sense of entitlement which is wrong, I agree. But it is not wrong to graciously accept what others offer you out of gratitude for your service. No one strong-armed donors or diverted donations from other causes. In fact, one of the articles stated that these donations were being made expressly for this purpose.

I do not think Christ has any problem at all with people being generous to their bishops in their retirement. Nor do I think anyone seriously equates the retirement home of a bishop with the “face of the Church”. The face of the Church is in the encounters people have with clergy and the faithful.

No more than a few handfuls of people will ever encounter the bishop at his residence. If it wasn’t for the internet and some journalist trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, no one would even know, let alone care. It’s not the face of the Church, it’s a blip in a 24 hour news cycle.

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.

 

[dmwessel]

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.

The initial remark was simply bringing up a seeming discrepancy that was clarified, which is a good thing. It was the initial Bishop that was in question, no one else.

 

[dixieagle]

The diocese cannot legally do that. It was donated for the express purpose of the Archbishop’s retirement residence. If you are worried about what people think about the Church, would do you assume they would say if the diocese committed fraud by reallocating dedicated funds? One cannot do evil just so that good may come of it.

I am well aware of the issues surrounding donated funds, having been a development director of a non-profit for years. What I would have liked to see was for the archbishop himself to suggest other purposes for that half a million dollars.