Somebody's confused here
Michael Miller, who handles business affairs for the Spokane diocese, explained to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that the diocese could not have avoided bankruptcy by selling off parish properties.
... Miller described each parish as a separate entity -- in other words, not part of the diocese's budget. Church law, he added, holds that a bishop cannot sell parish property for diocesan purposes.
Um, Mr. Miller, do you suppose you'd have time for a cup of coffee with Archbishop Sean O'Malley, who is selling off parish properties by the dozen?
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our year-end goal ($126,198 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Nov. 14, 2004 11:22 PM ET USA
Boston - your analysis underscores the ridiculous nature of Mr. Miller's comments.
Posted by: BostonBlackey -
Nov. 13, 2004 6:35 PM ET USA
Minidoc, what in the world do you think the archbishop of Boston and his minions are doing with this reorganization? Even when two parishes are combined, all of the assets of the closed parish revert to the diocese. Perfectly healthy, vibrant parishes are being closed and what they have in common is lots of money in the bank and large tracts of property that is worth a king's ransom (or a bishop's soul).
Posted by: -
Nov. 13, 2004 3:08 AM ET USA
This seems pretty logical to me. The diocese can't just loot a parish to pay for court settlements. But the bishop can close a parish and then confiscate the property, sell it and give the proceeds to the court. This could be used to great advantage! Perhaps the principle could be applied first in LA. A new archbishop can take over and "close" the "cathedral" and sell it to the Moonies or the Dalai Lama or Barbara Streisand.
Posted by: Gil125 -
Nov. 12, 2004 6:24 PM ET USA
Nobody in San Francisco doubts that the Archbishop is in charge. John Quinn closed half a dozen parishes before he retired (properly in my view). It would have cost many millions to make them earthquake-safe and they were 'way too small to justify it. Nobody in those parishes offered to come up with the dough because the churches "belonged to them". The parishoners of one (who might have been able to raise enough) appealed to the Vatican and lost.
Posted by: Psalms -
Nov. 12, 2004 6:20 PM ET USA
In our midwest diocese, not only did the Bishop sell off properties to pay off out of court settlements on the former bishop, he then bought the former bishop a house in a very nice neighborhood. (That made news when there was a domestic dispute at the house.) The Bishop then raised the Diocesen tax for each remaining parish stating that with fewer parishes he would need more support from the remaining. The question asked is "Why should the parishes support when they could be the next to close?"
Posted by: -
Nov. 12, 2004 5:20 PM ET USA
Exactly right. The East Coast cannot claim and act like the individual parishes are the chancery office's to dispose of while the Left Coast tries to claim that the parish properties are merely held in trust for them by the diocese without the claimants being considered schizophrenic by the courts. Will the real Catholic Church please stand up? And who is kidding whom? The Bishops are salvaging their hides by letting the courts loot the parishoners. Where do Bishops thing they get any money