Here's why:
$75 million dollars, or even half that, could have wiped out the entire debt of the archdiocese, which is estimated to be nearly $20 million *, with plenty of money left over not only to build a brand new seminary, but create an endowment that could have paid for the education of seminarians for years to come, eliminating the need for the annual archdiocesan appeal.
* $20 million is the figure estimated by the former AFC. Note that the remainder of the debt incurred by the renovation of the Cathedral and the Cemeteries, a project overseen by Msgr. James, is only 1.7 million. That means the archbishop himself owes another 18 million. Yet we only hear about the debt supposedly incurred by Msgr. James - which as we have already explained, is another debt which Archbishop Apuron himself incurred, not Msgr. James.
Some commenters even agreed with this. They do not see anything wrong with selling this property to pay off the debts incurred by the cathedral and Catholic cemeteries. Let us take a close look at it. A Japanese businessman built a hotel, and it turned out to be a failure. He sold it to the Catholic Church for 1.9 million dollars. Bear in mind that this Japanese business man could have sold the hotel for 75 million dollars because that is what it is worth. Rather, he sold it to the CATHOLIC CHURCH for only 1.9 million dollars. That is a bargain price.
How would it look like if the Catholic Church turned around and sold the property for 75 million dollars so she could make a profit from it? It would make the Catholic Church appear that she only cared about the material goods rather than the spiritual goods. In the first place, the money that was used to purchase this property did not even come from the Catholic Church but from a donor who wished to remain anonymous. Would the Japanese businessman feel terrible knowing that the Catholic Church sold it for more than what he generously offered? Since when has the Catholic Church been in the business of taking something for free and turning around and selling it at a higher price to gain a profit?
Archbishop Apuron was correct in firing the financial council because apparently they were more interested in the material goods that the hotel offered.
Many handsome profits have been made from Church properties being sold. Sadly, some were sold to pay billions of dollars of debt to victims of sexual abuse in the Church. Some where sold to simplify the Christian life and help the poor. Most dioceses have groups of people who wisely make these decisions everyday ......profit is not bad at the service of the people who need it most, Diana.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 2:00 am,
DeleteDo you even know what you wrote? How did the Church profit when it sold billions of dollars of debts to the victims of sexual abuse? How did the Church profit by giving to the poor? The Church did not profit from any of these things. The victims of sexual abuse and the poor profit, but certainly not the Church. The Church seeks spiritual goods not material goods.
Money is tricky endeavor. People who handle money are in danger of becoming servants of mammon. RMS money is handled separately from church money because of separate business. Separate business, separate mammon? How does it work?
DeleteDear Jolene,
DeleteI assure you that money collected at the Sunday Masses goes to the parish and not to the RMS seminary. I can also assure you that the NCW has contributed money to their parishes. You should speak to the parish auditors yourself. The NCW also has its own auditors.
Tim Rohr once accused the RMS for money laundering. If he truly has evidence of this, he is welcome to go to the police and give them that evidence. The fact that he has not gone to the police is because all he has is pure speculation.
wow! that's say it all, wow! 20 million dollars $$$$
ReplyDeleteSince when has the Catholic Church been in the business of taking something for free and turning around and selling it at a higher price to gain a profit?
ReplyDeleteThe Archdiocese of Philadelphia is selling off property to cover up debt. So did the Archdiocese of New York. So...it has been done.
And concerning the business man, of course he'd sell it at a conservative price to try and recoup his losses. It isn't uncommon in real estate or any business for that matter. Not so sure why image of the church would become an issue if they were to have sold the property.
Dear Anonymous at 6:57 am,
DeleteThe situation in Philadelphia and New York was different. According to news report, the properties sold by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia had been unused for many years. They were selling unused Church properties.
http://catholicphilly.com/2013/07/news/local-news/local-catholic-news/unused-church-properties-to-be-auctioned-for-quick-sale/
As for the Archdiocese of New York, it was parishes that were closing and being sold off. Using free money from a donor to get a multimillion dollar property at a cheap price and then turning around to sell it at a higher price to gain a profit is scandalous.
There was no scandal in Philadelphia because they were selling unused property. The Church in Philadephia purchased those properties to build more parishes in the hopes that the Catholic population would increase, but that never happened.
There was also no scandal in the Church of New York because the parish was being closed down due to declining or lack of attendance of parishioners. That is not a profit, but a loss.
AnonymousJanuary 13, 2015 at 6:57 AM - Diana made a good point and no comparison to Guam. The intention here is to destroy and malign the Archbishop.
DeleteWhat kind of job does Tim Rohr holds -- Demolition job
ReplyDelete