A lot has been made of this article in the California “alternative” newspaper, Orange County Weekly that lists very expensive homes where a number of priests live in the Diocese of Orange, California. But apart from the $1.1 million home where the bishop lives, the article does not say that the other houses are owned by the Diocese. Just because a priest lives there, doesn’t mean the Church bought the house. Many people are under the false impression that diocesan priests take vows of poverty. They do not, and some of them have family wealth that allows them to own substantial properties.
I’m not saying that it’s okay for priests to live in luxury or for a bishop to live in a multi-million dollar house when the diocese is saying it doesn’t have the money for basic services and is laying off workers. Still, I think there’s more flash than substance to the story, and it appeared to be writer Gustav Arrellano’s opportunity to attack the Church and make fun of our beliefs.
Yes, the “alternative” newspaper is undoubtedly out to get the Church.
Regardless, the abandonment of rectory living has been a mistake, IMO. And it must cost more even to rent all these properties than it would to use rectories.
This is the same diocese, incidentally, where the bishop denied the continuation of the Traditional Latin Mass at St. Mary by the Sea, when the pastor retired.
Yes, as to priest housing, it’s beyond thin unless the writer verifies that the Diocese has bought the properties.
But the reference to Bishop Brown building a new multi-million residence is appalling in and of itself. The title “Prince of the Church” has the emphasis on the last word, not the first. The last thing any bishop in this country needs to be doing right now is building a state of the art residence on the faithful’s tab.
Say what you will about the late Bishop Untener (and Lord knows I can say a lot), he lived very, very humbly, having sold the bishop’s residence shortly after his appointment.
Yes, as to priest housing, it’s beyond thin unless the writer verifies that the Diocese has bought the properties.
But the reference to Bishop Brown building a new multi-million residence is appalling in and of itself. The title “Prince of the Church” has the emphasis on the last word, not the first. The last thing any bishop in this country needs to be doing right now is building a state of the art residence on the faithful’s tab.
Say what you will about the late Bishop Untener (and Lord knows I can say a lot), he lived very, very humbly, having sold the bishop’s residence shortly after his appointment.
Yes, goat, but who’s renting these properties if indeed they’re being rented? The article doesn’t say that the diocese owns or is renting any of this.
Yes, goat, but who’s renting these properties if indeed they’re being rented? The article doesn’t say that the diocese owns or is renting any of this.
I’m not necessarily defending the practice, but offering some thoughts: No one said these were primary residences. I know many priests who own places where they go on their days off.
(Actually it’s not a bad idea since if a priest stays in his rectory on those days he’s going to be bombarded with requests anyway. Everyone needs a few days off once in a while.)
So, again, if it’s where priests currently assigned to parishes are living instead of their rectories, yes, that’s a problem. In fact, I think canon law now requires a pastor to live at his parish. (Not sure and don’t have time to look it up.) But if it’s just a second home or where priests without parish assignments are living that’s different.
I’m not necessarily defending the practice, but offering some thoughts: No one said these were primary residences. I know many priests who own places where they go on their days off.
(Actually it’s not a bad idea since if a priest stays in his rectory on those days he’s going to be bombarded with requests anyway. Everyone needs a few days off once in a while.)
So, again, if it’s where priests currently assigned to parishes are living instead of their rectories, yes, that’s a problem. In fact, I think canon law now requires a pastor to live at his parish. (Not sure and don’t have time to look it up.) But if it’s just a second home or where priests without parish assignments are living that’s different.
It was my understanding that all property owned by a Diocese is held in the Bishop’s name. Ownership of these properties should be readily available to anyone who wants to look. But we assume that the writer already did that, right?
It was my understanding that all property owned by a Diocese is held in the Bishop’s name. Ownership of these properties should be readily available to anyone who wants to look. But we assume that the writer already did that, right?
That’s the question and I don’t think we can assume that. After all, if he’d done that he would have said it, wouldn’t he? Otherwise, he’d be just leaving us with a false impression, making it all an attempt to hurt the Church again. (Not that our own bishops and priests and laypeople aren’t doing a good of that on their own.)
That’s the question and I don’t think we can assume that. After all, if he’d done that he would have said it, wouldn’t he? Otherwise, he’d be just leaving us with a false impression, making it all an attempt to hurt the Church again. (Not that our own bishops and priests and laypeople aren’t doing a good of that on their own.)
Yes Dom, diocesan priests do not have a vow of poverty but they should have the and we need your help to cover the cost offood, heat and necessities for these parishioners. We are asking members of St. Bernardh. We have FAR more churches than we do church-goers.
That’s the reason. “Liberal” or “Conservative” parishes are simply not the issue.
Yes Dom, diocesan priests do not have a vow of poverty but they should have the Diocese of Orange, California. But apart from the $1.1 million home where the bishop lives, the article does not say that the other houses are owned by the Diocese. Just because a priest lives there, doesn’t mean the Church bought the house. Many people are under the false impression that diocesan priests take vows of poverty. They do not, and some of them have family wealth that allows them to own substantial properties.
I’m not saying that it’s okay for priests to live in luxury or for a bishop to live in a multi-million dollar house when the diocese is saying it doesn’t have the money for basic services and is laying off workers. Still, I think there’s more flash than substance to the story, and it appeared to be writer Gustav Arrellano’s opportunity to attack the Church and make fun of our beliefs.
]]>
3971
2004-09-27 09:28:35
2004-09-27 13:28:35
open
open
priestly_living_in_the_oc
publish
0
0
post
Regardless, the abandonment of rectory living has been a mistake, IMO. And it must cost more even to rent all these properties than it would to use rectories.
This is the same diocese, incidentally, where the bishop denied the continuation of the Traditional Latin Mass at St. Mary by the Sea, when the pastor retired.