While $131 million does seem a tad high, I can't think that making the Church more visible in the Bay Area would be a bad idea.
To: MegaSilver
The design for the new cathedral is hideous.
The new cathedral in SF and planned one in Oakland could accurately be described as the abomination and the desolation.
2 posted on
05/08/2004 11:51:13 AM PDT by
Canticle_of_Deborah
(The day the Church abandons her universal tongue is the day before she returns to the catacombs-PXII)
To: MegaSilver
Perhaps it is time we have a married Catholic clergy. If the good Bishop had about 6 or 8 kids(maybe 10-12 as a real good Catholic)to support he would have a better sense of money and know what the poor schmucks sitting in the pews would have to sacrifice for this monstrosity.
My sainted Mother, a convert to Catholicism, always said the priests were very good at spending other people's money.
To: MegaSilver
a "tad" high? $131 million - probably end up costing $250mm. A lot of sexual abuse cases could be settled with that money.
6 posted on
05/08/2004 1:03:29 PM PDT by
mcenedo
(lying liberal media - our most dangerous and powerful enemy)
To: MegaSilver
Catholicism as a living faith is just about dead in all of California, and especially in the Bay Area. This sounds like a very expensive tombstone for it. Perhaps the bishop could include space for a pricey restaurant to serve the post-Christians who prefer to spend their Sunday mornings having brunch.
7 posted on
05/08/2004 1:09:49 PM PDT by
madprof98
To: MegaSilver
The bay area needs to build an edifice to bring religion to all of the perverts there and to accommodate the Catholic church pedophile priests too.
13 posted on
05/08/2004 2:01:36 PM PDT by
hgro
To: MegaSilver
$1200/ sq. ft. Wow.
18 posted on
05/08/2004 2:20:36 PM PDT by
Paul_B
To: MegaSilver; madprof98; Carry_Okie; VOA; Canticle_of_Deborah; Cicero; sartorius
Here is what they want to build...
Looks like the shark from Jaws getting ready to devour the faithful.
21 posted on
05/08/2004 2:26:43 PM PDT by
pbear8
(Over 100 years in California, and I pay the taxes to prove it.)
To: MegaSilver
Oakland needs God bigtime, but this cathedral has more to do with what man wants, than with what He wants.
29 posted on
05/08/2004 3:21:27 PM PDT by
Drango
(A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
To: MegaSilver
Another speaker said, "I will be ashamed to enter the Cathedral if $131 million is spent to build it. That's money that should help the poor and homeless. Our priorities are wrong." As it is said in the Gospel:
"Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein." (Saint John, 12:3-6)
30 posted on
05/08/2004 3:22:22 PM PDT by
A. Pole
(<SARCASM> The genocide of Albanians was stopped in its tracks before it began.</S>)
To: MegaSilver
Vigneron is pretty conservative where can one access the building plans for the new Cathedral? Were these plans from the previous bishop?
55 posted on
05/08/2004 5:14:28 PM PDT by
Diva
To: MegaSilver
62 posted on
05/08/2004 5:29:32 PM PDT by
Tribune7
To: MegaSilver; Canticle_of_Deborah; sinkspur; Cicero; ninenot
This article contains some information that is wrong. The previous bishop, Bishop Cummins arranged it so he would have full control of the cathedral, even after he was no longer bishop. Bishop Allen Vigneron has no control over the cathedral project whatsoever. It's very unfortunate, but that is the current situation. I will try to update this with more information later, but please bump all the people on this thread to this, so there is no misunderstanding.
To: ninenot; Paul_B; sinkspur; Cicero; MegaSilver; pbear8; m4629
For those interested... some information on Cardinal Cummins, the man apparently responsible for this blasphemous piece of architecture:
http://www.stjosephsmen.com/brochures/cummins/Attachment00097855/Cummins25%20Years.pdf
At the end of this brochure, it says, "Beg the Holy Father to appoint a strong, orthodox, and holy bishop to replace John Cummins in the Diocese of Oakland. Tell the Holy Father and Cardinal Prefects of the abuse and heresy we suffer here and why they cannot risk appointing another renegade bishop." Apparently, that prayer has been answered... but Cummins' influence still lives on, unfortunately.
86 posted on
05/08/2004 9:06:39 PM PDT by
MegaSilver
(Training a child in red diapers is the cruelest and most unusual form of abuse.)
To: MegaSilver
While $131 million does seem a tad high, How many people live in the Bay Area? How much annual income exists in the Bay area? What is the total amount of money spent on social services in the Bar Area? How much is spend on a sports stadium? $131 Million is a paltry sum of money. It isn't a dent on any of those numbers.
I used to live in Oakland. It ought to be embarassing that one of the prettiest locations in the center of one of the wealthiest areas of the country still suffers from Urban blight. Given Oakland's centrality to tranportation and industry it ought to have become a crown jewel. This location on Grand Avenue is a fabulous location and building a cathedral to inspire a sense of the wonder of God is to be commended.
To: MegaSilver
Several who spoke said the $131 million price tag for building the cathedral complex should instead be spent on the poor and homeless as taught by Jesus Christ and the Bible. Uh, that's what Judas said, not Jesus.
Unfortunately, this church design is awful.
113 posted on
05/10/2004 5:33:06 AM PDT by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson