A Church So Poor It Has to Close Schools, Yet So Rich It Can Build a Palace

[Andy9o8 0]

What would Francis do differently?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/nyregion/a-church-so-poor-it-has-to-close-schools-yet-so-rich-it-can-build-a-palace.html?_r=0

Quote

KEARNY, N.J. — Mater Dei Academy sits shuttered, blue drapes pulled across its windows, atop a hill in this working-class city. From its steps, you can peer across the mist-shrouded expanse of the Meadowlands to the distant spires of Manhattan.

For generations, this blond brick Catholic elementary school tossed a lifeline to the immigrants who, wave upon wave, washed ashore here. The Archdiocese of Newark closed it two years ago. Church officials offered deep regrets; the church’s wallet is thin to the touch these days.

“It was a loved place, that school,” said Dorothy Gawronski, a crossing guard holding a red “Stop” sign. “But the church, I don’t think it’s rich anymore.”

All of which brings me along a winding and narrow road that switches back and forth across the wooded Capoolong Creek to a splendid 8.5-acre spread in the hamlet of Pittstown. This is rural and rather affluent Hunterdon County, 49 miles from Mater Dei.

John J. Myers, the archbishop of the Newark Archdiocese, comes to this vacation home on many weekends. The 4,500-square-foot home has a handsome amoeba-shaped swimming pool out back. And as he’s 72, and retirement beckons in two years, he has renovations in mind. A small army of workers are framing a 3,000-square-foot addition.

This new wing will have an indoor exercise pool, three fireplaces and an elevator. The Star-Ledger of Newark has noted that the half-million-dollar tab for this wing does not include architects’ fees or furnishings.

There’s no need to fear for the archbishop’s bank account. The Newark Archdiocese is picking up the bill.

.....

Pope Francis offers the intriguing counterpoint here. He shed the papal palace for a modest guest apartment, and the papal Mercedes for a Ford. He speaks of a “poor church for the poor.”

“If a thought, if a desire takes you along the road of humility and abasement, of service to others, it is from Jesus,” he said last week.

Left unsaid is where the thought process leading to that palace in Hunterdon County came from.

Some months back, I attended a Mass celebrated for the Rev. John Grange. He was a plain-spoken worker priest, a man who walked with striking workers, picketed a slumlord and faced down a Bronx political boss.

When he died in October, he was laid out in a simple coffin in his beloved St. Jerome Church in the South Bronx, and every pew overflowed with Latino working men and women, their children and crying babies.

I watched those parishioners weep. And when the time came, I watched them pull out folded dollars and fill the offering plates.

That was grace.

[rehmwa 2]

I also understand that schools have different budgets required by law such that they can be forced to have a useless program or under utilized counselors yet core curriculums and even food service budgets are terribly weak.


It's amazing how organizations can abuse their funding to the detriment of their members, isn't it. secular, public, religious, etc

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[dpreguy 14]

And, I presume all of this is exempt from property taxes.

[Amazon 7]

dpreguy

And, I presume all of this is exempt from property taxes.

We just need another King Henry VIII to resolve this issue.

[weekender 0]

The author is being a bit dishonest. the priest does not own it. Catholic priests take a vow of poverty so do not own their residence as he is implying. The Pope doesnt own his apartment and this guy doesnt own this building. the Archdiocese does. when he dies it will be re purposed.

the school was closed because the church felt they could not maintain it. i have no idea why but its right there in the article that the money for this property is payed for by the sale of other properties. they are separate issues and he ties them together in a dishonest way.

Hate Catholic priests and the Catholic church all you want but at least be honest about it. they have made enough mistakes over the last 2k years, it should be easy to do without falsehoods. NYT is being lazy.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[lawrocket 3]

Sounds like they want to be government. Cut funds, offer fewer services, but builds nice new modern Taj Mahals in order to house their offices and not pay taxes.

When was the last time government decided not to build a monument to itself? (Cough, Robert Byrd, hack).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

weekender

The author is being a bit dishonest. the priest does not own it. Catholic priests take a vow of poverty so do not own their residence as he is implying. The Pope doesnt own his apartment and this guy doesnt own this building. the Archdiocese does. when he dies it will be re purposed.

the school was closed because the church felt they could not maintain it. i have no idea why but its right there in the article that the money for this property is payed for by the sale of other properties. they are separate issues and he ties them together in a dishonest way.

Hate Catholic priests and the Catholic church all you want but at least be honest about it. they have made enough mistakes over the last 2k years, it should be easy to do without falsehoods. NYT is being lazy.

The title refers to the Church, not the cleric. That aside, the criticism is directed principally at the archdiocese, its management, and the hypocrisy of its financial policy-making, which smells all the world like utter callousness at the least, or corruption if more. Notably, the principal policy-making administrator of an archdiocese at the local level is its archbishop. Also noteworthy is that said archbishop just happens to be the same cleric who personally benefits here.

So no, I don't think the tie-in is unfair at all.

[Bertt 0]

Do you reckon it will be re-purposed into a school?

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[Andy9o8 0]

Doesn't really differ much from This recent example, except perhaps to the degree of expense. Hopefully, Francis will handle it similarly.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

The author is being a bit dishonest. the priest does not own it.

Uh, yeah. That's kinda the point.

Quote

Catholic priests take a vow of poverty so do not own their residence as he is implying.

Priests still get paid. And poverty wise, what's the difference between buying your own vacation home and getting your employer to pay for one for your sole use?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Amazon

***And, I presume all of this is exempt from property taxes.

We just need another King Henry VIII to resolve this issue.I'm not sure it would all be exempt from property taxes. I recall that churches are exempt but the rectory (where the priest lives) is not. [Pretty low hanging fruit there for a joke about priests living in a rectory.] Similarly, a church's income is not taxed, but the priest's salary is.

Henry VIII might be able to change the situation, but he'd need to amend the constitution. The tax exempt status of churches follows from the establishment clause. If you can tax something, then you have authority over it. Because government is supposed to be independent of all religions, it cannot put itself in a position of authority over them, and so it can't tax them. Government can put some limits on what it considers as religious activities, though, so some things churches do as a business (such as paying salaries, or owning houses for people to live in) are taxable.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Amazon 7]

weekender

The author is being a bit dishonest. the priest does not own it. Catholic priests take a vow of poverty so do not own their residence as he is implying. The Pope doesnt own his apartment and this guy doesnt own this building. the Archdiocese does. when he dies it will be re purposed.

the school was closed because the church felt they could not maintain it. i have no idea why but its right there in the article that the money for this property is payed for by the sale of other properties. they are separate issues and he ties them together in a dishonest way.

Hate Catholic priests and the Catholic church all you want but at least be honest about it. they have made enough mistakes over the last 2k years, it should be easy to do without falsehoods. NYT is being lazy.

I am thinking most of the "Princes of the Church" are not exactly living like paupers. I do applaud the Pope for walking the walk.. but he is certainly doing ok.

[Southern_Man 0]

GeorgiaDon

I'm not sure it would all be exempt from property taxes. I recall that churches are exempt but the rectory (where the priest lives) is not. [Pretty low hanging fruit there for a joke about priests living in a rectory.] Similarly, a church's income is not taxed, but the priest's salary is.

Henry VIII might be able to change the situation, but he'd need to amend the constitution. The tax exempt status of churches follows from the establishment clause. If you can tax something, then you have authority over it. Because government is supposed to be independent of all religions, it cannot put itself in a position of authority over them, and so it can't tax them. Government can put some limits on what it considers as religious activities, though, so some things churches do as a business (such as paying salaries, or owning houses for people to live in) are taxable.

Don

Hmmm, being a while since this was relevant for me, so I hope I have the details correct. I do believe that the priest or pastor's house is exempt from property tax. The church building is and any property that is primarily related to its mission. This has always included a parsonage or manse in places that I've personally known, although I'm sure some local tax authority somewhere could argue otherwise. Income generating properties are not--if your church is between pastors and rents out a manse then the property should be taxable during that time.

Pastors who do not get a manse as part of their compensation may instead receive a housing allowance. While general pastoral compensation is taxable income there are some complications here. Use of a manse (parsonage, rectory, etc) or a housing allowance is considered taxable income for purposes of social security taxes, where a minister in considered self-employed (and therefore liable for a 15.3% tax bite) but is not considered taxable for income tax purposes.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Priests still get paid. And poverty wise, what's the difference between buying your own vacation home and getting your employer to pay for one for your sole use?

[raises hand] Ooh! Teacher! Call on me!

In the US, the difference to a non-cleric is that in-kind compensation is taxable as ordinary income.
Ah, but to a cleric, like, say.... an Archbishop... well, they can live in those kind of employer-supplied digs, and it's usually not considered taxable income*. Pretty neat, eh?

Oh, and there's a third standard: the standard of Pope Francis. So regardless of how Caesar might view it, it certainly does not personify the humility of rendering unto God.


__________________________
*It's generally either deemed within the scope of the non-taxable portion of the clerical housing allowance; or in the alternative, the cleric may exclude from income the fair rental value of the parsonage, including utilities, as long as it's not more than reasonable compensation for the cleric's services - which for the archbishop of a large archdiocese would be pretty high.

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

weekender

The author is being a bit dishonest. the priest does not own it. Catholic priests take a vow of poverty so do not own their residence as he is implying. The Pope doesnt own his apartment and this guy doesnt own this building. the Archdiocese does. when he dies it will be re purposed.

the school was closed because the church felt they could not maintain it. i have no idea why but its right there in the article that the money for this property is payed for by the sale of other properties. they are separate issues and he ties them together in a dishonest way.

Hate Catholic priests and the Catholic church all you want but at least be honest about it. they have made enough mistakes over the last 2k years, it should be easy to do without falsehoods. NYT is being lazy.

Well, the diocese said that they don't have enough money to run the school, so it closed.

Then the diocese spends a huge amount of money on a house. Regardless of who it's for, they certainly seem to have enough money for that.

I guess I find it a bit odd that they are building a huge mansion for someone who "took a vow of poverty," and at the same time don't have the money to run a school that actually served the poor.

Or maybe it's not all that odd. More like business as usual for the church.

Edit to add: And it's not even a primary residence. It's a vacation home. For the weekends.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jakee 1,254]

Andy9o8

Quote

Priests still get paid. And poverty wise, what's the difference between buying your own vacation home and getting your employer to pay for one for your sole use?

[raises hand] Ooh! Teacher! Call on me!

In the US, the difference to a non-cleric is that in-kind compensation is taxable as ordinary income.

Well, I was aiming for the (potential) hypocrisy of taking a vow of poverty then living in sumptuous company funded surroundings and claiming it doesn't count because you're not paying for it personally. (Hey, if poverty means getting loads of awesome expensive shit for free then sign me up!)

The tax thing's good too though. I mean, WTF?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

Think of it as a re-org.... for the purpose of profitability.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Thanks for the clarification (you too Andy).

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Southern_Man 0]

Andy9o8

In the US, the difference to a non-cleric is that in-kind compensation is taxable as ordinary income.
Ah, but to a cleric, like, say.... an Archbishop... well, they can live in those kind of employer-supplied digs, and it's usually not considered taxable income*. Pretty neat, eh?

__________________________
*It's generally either deemed within the scope of the non-taxable portion of the clerical housing allowance; or in the alternative, the cleric may exclude from income the fair rental value of the parsonage, including utilities, as long as it's not more than reasonable compensation for the cleric's services - which for the archbishop of a large archdiocese would be pretty high.

We agree, except note that the in-kind compensation or housing allowance is taxable for payroll tax purposes but not income tax purposes.

Have you done clergy tax law? I am kind of impressed you know that answer if you haven't.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

Not specifically; more like general knowledge from having a broad general practice for over 25 years. Plus, the specifics are right in the IRS topic guideline: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417.html

[rehmwa 2]

GeorgiaDon

I recall that churches are exempt but the rectory

hee hee,,,,, 'rectory'


(they are required to live in a 'rectory' - that explains a lot)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GeorgiaDon 340]

News story with video of the house and expansion. "Bishop of Bling" does seem to fit.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)