/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

How is this even remotely justifiable? He doesn't even have a family to justify a house that big, it's just him. Sell it, give the proceeds to the local poor and send him off to a Monastery. This is prosperity gospel type shit and has no place in the Catholic Church

There's something very uncomfortable about the way Roman Catholicism operates. I'm Orthodox, and I have witnessed abuses isolated incidents of abuse among clergy, but things like this seem to be totally normal with Roman Catholicism.

>>693367

>this seem to be totally normal

Because everybody looks what the others do. Imagine one bishop who has bought for himself a home for $2 million visiting another bishop who also has bought for himself a home for $2 million. His counciousness was accusing him but now he sees his fellow brother has done the same and he is relieved. For the same reason he will try to encourage other people to do the same. "This is normal, there is nothing bad in this" he will say and he will believe that his words are true.

https://www.dsj.org/blog/statement-of-bishop-patrick-j-mcgrath-diocese-of-san-jose/

"his made it necessary to look for another house. The Diocesan Finance Council and the College of Consultors approved the purchase of the home in the Willow Glen neighborhood of San Jose. I agreed with them that in economic terms the purchase of the home made sense in terms of financial return on investment. It was bought primarily with funds that had been designated for this sole purpose, funds that had accrued from the sale of Bishop DuMaine’s condominium, when he was no longer able to live in it due to failing health."

"I have heard from many on this topic and I have decided that I will not move into this house. The Diocese will put it up for sale as soon as possible; if there is any profit to the Diocese from that sale, those funds will be donated to Charities Housing, a division of Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County.

I assume full responsibility for this decision and I believe that the sale of the house is the appropriate action. I thank those who have advised me.

When I retire, I now intend to live in a rectory at one of our parishes."

So, it was bought with funds from another property sale, was intended to be later sold on after the bishop's death for more money (because the church has been purchasing and selling off land for centuries).

What's wrong with this? Do any of you people here know how expensive property in San Jose is?

>>693385

The optics are shit. If you want to flip houses that's one thing. Rent it out cheaply to a family, set a soup kitchen there, make it into a little church, do lectures there, make a library out of it…I dunno, do Something good with it for a decade while it increases in value.

Don't gift it to a guy who took a vow of poverty and lives alone and is probably a homosexual. It's actually bad for the bishop to get spoiled and like the laity said their diocese is underfunded.

>>693386

>Rent it out cheaply to a family, set a soup kitchen there, make it into a little church, do lectures there, make a library out of it…I dunno, do Something good with it for a decade while it increases in value.

except, all of that LOWERS the value, the entire point of the land purchase is INVESTMENT.

this is why the house is given to a retired bishop, who will spend most of his time keeping up the property; this is why he specifically states he will definitely spend his remaining time tending to the garden, which will raise the value of the investment. this makes sense, right?

>Don't gift it to a guy who took a vow of poverty and lives alone and is probably a homosexual. It's actually bad for the bishop to get spoiled and like the laity said their diocese is underfunded.

Incredibly uncharitable of you. Prove the bishop is a homosexual, that he is getting spoiled, or that the diocese is underfunded.

The entire idea of a land investment is to make more than you spent, this in result will make -many- more soup kitchens and other cash-flow to keep up social services. Need I remind you, this has been done for centuries!

another area of hypocrisy here, what exactly do protestant collections go to?

1. either rent for the church and utilities, and eventual land purchase for permanent home (see steve anderson)

2. the pastor's personal funds (again, see steve anderson and his 6+ children)

3. social services, which get split with funds used to expand the church's brand (again, see steve anderson spending cash on prosleytizing or making movies)

the orthodox church acts in the same way, buying and selling land/property for social/church investment, so I'm not sure what tree anyone is barking up here

>>693390

Renting it to a family doesn't lower the value any more than letting the bishop stay there does, though I agree other more public options would.

sets a bad example for other bishops, it's not like this is standard practice, this is a vain perk.

The fact that he accepted it , as a solo mansion, shows his true colors

>>693384

Literally this, guys. The guy won't be moving into this house and it will be sold off soon. Delete this trainwreck of a thread.

>>693449

Are you dense? This fraud Bishop only "realized it was a mistake" AFTER his parishoners made a big stink about it, after people noticed his vanity.

THREADS like this are the reason why he's not moving in! Expose the stink, don't hide it. The RCC hasn't learned this yet.

>>693463

He's not moving in, he's still buying it.

He's gonna move into some other swanky million dollar abode, No one will get a whiff of it though

I can't believe there are Catholics defending and rationalizing what this bishop is doing

>>693363

>never mind their vows of poverty

Not all clergy take a vow of poverty. Most priests don't. Only those who are members of Mendicant Orders do so.

just to let you know not all priests have to take vows of poverty. that is only for some orders

>>693564

sorry didn't see your response first

>>693490

purchasing land, raising the value, and then selling it at a profit? this is basic land investment.

>>693463

if you have zero idea how the economics of land investment works, why open your mouth?

>>693398

renting it to laity is not as safe an option as leasing it to a single 60 year old man who will spend the rest of his days in prayer/upkeep. and I'm not exactly sure how renting a 2.3 million dollar home to a family would be a great way to treat an investment property

>>693553

Being this autistic. Complaints LIKE this, not literally this thread …. No one with power reads 8ch

>>693715

>but if I use the house for charity they might not take care of it! What do you mean it doesn’t hurt to try? Besides, I’d do a better job keeping everything in order than a bunch of Christians thankful for a place to stay and respectful of the property the Church is allowing them to use!

Some charity there RCC anon

>people actually justifying this

>>693732

>Still complaining about something when the issue has already been resolved

How autistic indeed.

>>693735

Anon, you sell the property for millions of dollars, which in turn supports way more food + supplies for the homeless/charities than just providing…low rent for a family, or whatever it is you're kvetching about.

>>693783

Do you actually believe those millions go to food and supplies for the homeless? lel. More like it will be embezzled to install a plush bathhouse in a rectory, or used to pay off gay prostitutes.

>>693789

Yes, I do. You have to prove they don't.

>>693791

Considering the endless scandals involving financial corruption, secret settlements, and payments to gay lovers from diocese funds, I think the burden of proof lies on anyone trying to pretend a Catholic diocese actually uses money for anything else.

>>693385

I don't think the problem is the property values in California, those are unavoidable. Rather, that the Diocese of San Jose has had some gay infiltration problems reported on traditionalist news services and given the current climate there would be some suspicious just what exactly a five bedroom (and well-furnished) house would be needed for if it's just for one person and occasional guests.

>>693783

You don’t buy and immediately sell it. I’m suggesting renting it to a family for a set period of time, preferably at a rate that still allows them to save for s permanent residence of their own, while the property acquires equity

>>693793

All accusations you would have to be at extreme pains to prove. Which diocese? All diocese?

>I think the burden of proof lies on anyone trying to pretend a Catholic diocese actually uses money for anything else.

Calumny. May God rebuke you.

>>693796

OK, which family? I'm sure there are hundreds of families in the San Jose area, but you have to pick one. You also have to pick one that can be entrusted with a piece of Church property and that will maintain and keep up the property, or may inadvertently lower the value possibly at the expense of the Church.

I understand where you're coming from, but all the complaints seem to come from people who simply have no idea how any of this works and are against the Church.

>>693798

Literally any of the churchgoers in need? This seems more like an attempt to justify not being more charitable with funds provided by the people themselves than it does a reasonable justification for using a 5 bedroom property as a single person’s dwelling. I’m not against the Church, I just don’t find it very believable that it’s too hard to manage the property to a family that will take care of it so he only solution is to let it be used by the one person instead.

>>693798

Why a bishop though? Why not, say, a married deacon and his wife? Also, considering the track record of Catholic bishops, the odds of the house being turned into a gay sex brothel while he occupied it are very high. Are you telling me that wouldn't lower property values?

>>693801

>Literally any of the churchgoers in need?

So you want them to turn a property investment into a rent-free house? They already have shelter services, and they're already selling the property because the money is AN INVESTMENT, they bought so they can sell.

>This seems more like an attempt to justify not being more charitable with funds provided by the people themselves than it does a reasonable justification for using a 5 bedroom property as a single person’s dwelling

It's a property investment. Do you know what that is?

>I’m not against the Church, I just don’t find it very believable that it’s too hard to manage the property to a family that will take care of it so he only solution is to let it be used by the one person instead.

So then you want the Church to be involved with rental properties?

>>693802

>Why a bishop though? Why not, say, a married deacon and his wife?

Because the Bishop is retired and is putting himself to work on the property. Did you read the statement they put out? They bought the property with funds from a condo they did the same thing with. If you paid attention, you'll notice they SOLD THE CONDO when the Bishop was close to death! Ergo, they're caretakers.

>Also, considering the track record of Catholic bishops, the odds of the house being turned into a gay sex brothel while he occupied it are very high.

One more time, may God rebuke you.

san jose catholic shelter, btw: http://sjcw.org/

>>693803

>One more time, may God rebuke you.

And you implying that an ordinary Catholic family would somehow not take care of it properly and would lover property values is different how, exactly? You're the one who brought up risk and property values. From that standpoint, bishops don't exactly have a good track record. A bishop is actually an extremely high-risk tenant, I'd say, since properties that gain a reputation as places of disrepute will definitely drop in value. At least if a married deacon lived there you can be sure there wouldn't be a constant stream of strangers dropping by for casual sex.

>>693803

He already declined living in it once he realized everyone found out he wanted to love in luxury. Stop covering for dumb clerics

>>693753

People complaining is how we got this vain bishop to give up living in it. Complain more.

Less power for the corrupt church

>>693363

Soft men in palaces.