G
graciew
Guest
It must have taken a big effort to get on track.
Last edited:
Pope Francis names Washington Archbishop Wilton Gregory first African American cardinal
- Status
S
StudentMI
Guest
That doesn’t erase $2 million dollars on a house.
P
pnewton
Guest
Selling it does. There is still the sin of detraction. Do you want all your sins to be constantly brought up after God has forgiven you? Remember that we will be judged and forgiven according to the measure we forgive others.graciew:
That doesn’t erase $2 million dollars on a house.
U
upant
Guest
You see nothing wrong with what he did? He got off misusing 2 million dollars. What would they say if you used 2 mil of your charities money for personal use?
U
upant
Guest
No, he still misused the money, that kind of money should have disqualified him. What does it say about his judgement if he could not see why it was wrong before the people complained
P
pnewton
Guest
Pope Francis is a better of judge of qualifications for the Cardinals he wants. He also understands the concept of forgiveness, and how it affects those who do not forgive, a little better than we do.
But now, selling it does, literally and actually erase the money spent. That is how math works.
But now, selling it does, literally and actually erase the money spent. That is how math works.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
Does a person who misuses company money only need to pay it back? It isn’t the math that is the issue. The lack of judgement is the bigger issue
P
pnewton
Guest
You are changing what I answered, which was, in fact, only a point about the money.
He used, not misused, the money. It was not embezzled. He openly spent it. As to his judgement, there is only one person to judge that, and that is the one who appointed him Cardinal. All other opinions are academic.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Yes that’s nice. He still spent $2 million on a house.
Forgiving doesn’t mean forgetting.
Last edited:
A
Anesti33
Guest
The episcopal mansion is an important piece of diocesan property and is used for all kinds of official business, fundraising, etc. I do not see why it is an abuse to purchase a good one or renovate one so that it is up to code and functioning properly for the needs of the bishop and his diocese. The property on which it sat was donated to the Church, so what was a bishop to do, plant cotton there?
P
pnewton
Guest
For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.
Hebrews 8:12
If this can apply to wickedness, how much more should it apply to a judgement, a decision. The only question is how this would affect what job he might have in the future. This is a question that only one person has an opinion of any substance, that would be the one who chose him as Cardinal.
Last edited:
A
AlbMagno
Guest
I hope that all the people saying that Pope Francis made a poor judgement have already determined that Pope Benedict XVI did an even poorer judgement when he appointed Cardinal Bertone as Secretary of State.
Did you? Or is it something personal against Pope Francis?
Did you? Or is it something personal against Pope Francis?
A
aroosi
Guest
And don’t forget McCarrick was appointed by Saint John Paul II
T
twf
Guest
He apologized… but even if he hadn’t… some questions (I don’t have the answers, just putting it out there):
-Whats the real estate market like in that locale? $2 million is extravagant in some places, less so in others. My good friend’s very elderly grandma’s house is worth $2 million… it’s a very run of the mill 3-4 bedroom house that she bought for $40k in the 70s… now that area happens to be pricey.
-Was this house intended just for the bishop, or was it also going to host other priests, high profile visitors (and donors), office space, etc?
-Rightly or wrongly, bishops have traditionally had mansions / palaces as their official residence. I guarantee you that our archbishop’s mansion is worth a heck of a lot more than $2 million, but I also don’t presume it’s only purpose is to house His Grace.
-Whats the real estate market like in that locale? $2 million is extravagant in some places, less so in others. My good friend’s very elderly grandma’s house is worth $2 million… it’s a very run of the mill 3-4 bedroom house that she bought for $40k in the 70s… now that area happens to be pricey.
-Was this house intended just for the bishop, or was it also going to host other priests, high profile visitors (and donors), office space, etc?
-Rightly or wrongly, bishops have traditionally had mansions / palaces as their official residence. I guarantee you that our archbishop’s mansion is worth a heck of a lot more than $2 million, but I also don’t presume it’s only purpose is to house His Grace.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Times change. Check out the palace!
Pope Francis has rejected this type of opulence, so a few are behind the curve on this. The thing is, I could see an estate for a bishop if it served the primary function of hosting retreats, guests, housing for religious, etc. Then I could see a mansion where the bishop had his private suite in the house where business was conducted.
Pope Francis has rejected this type of opulence, so a few are behind the curve on this. The thing is, I could see an estate for a bishop if it served the primary function of hosting retreats, guests, housing for religious, etc. Then I could see a mansion where the bishop had his private suite in the house where business was conducted.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
I don’t recall Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope St. Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope Pius XII or Pope Pius XI being ‘in favour of this type of opulence’ . The fact is that here in the US a LOT of bishops’ residences date back to the 19th century when not only bishops but solid middle class citizens were out for architectural styles and furnishings that would be considered ‘opulent’ today.
And those structures require a lot of money for upkeep, but then again it requires plenty of moolah to tear down and rebuild according to code etc. Etc.
So it is not about Pope Francis suddenly being the first pope in modern history to reject ‘opulence’ but more about, as you said at first, “times changing’.
I also believe that quite a few people in Europe for example who can still view the beautiful and ‘longstanding’ churches and ‘palaces’ etc are quite grateful that back in the day people were into things which are ‘opulent’ now.
And those structures require a lot of money for upkeep, but then again it requires plenty of moolah to tear down and rebuild according to code etc. Etc.
So it is not about Pope Francis suddenly being the first pope in modern history to reject ‘opulence’ but more about, as you said at first, “times changing’.
I also believe that quite a few people in Europe for example who can still view the beautiful and ‘longstanding’ churches and ‘palaces’ etc are quite grateful that back in the day people were into things which are ‘opulent’ now.
S
StudentMI
Guest
So hypothetically, let’s say an individual stole a million dollars from a charity he was in charge of. He repents, returns it and does jail time. When he gets out would you put him in charge of another charity?
Serious question.
P
pnewton
Guest
Of course not. This has nothing to do with what happened. No money was stolen, and he is being appointed to a position that does not control money.
S
StudentMI
Guest
It was hypothetical. But in your answer you are not forgetting. You are perhaps forgiving but not forgetting.
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
Why? Living near DC, I thought Bishop Gregory was a very poor Bishop. I have relatives who attest to this. Why would I then think he would make a good Cardinal? I suspect nothing will change, but need to pray that it does.
- Status