Well --- waitaminnit. OK, "our".
Posted on 03/28/2015 10:39:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Even Mother Teresa might have been tempted by this kind of property bonanza.
A group of nuns wants to boot 55 tots from one of the city’s oldest preschools so they can cash in on the facility’s $20 million Chelsea real estate, according to a lawsuit by fuming parents.
More than 50 moms and dads of kids at Nazareth Nursery Montessori claim the Sisters of St. Francis — who bought the West 15th Street facility for $5,000 in 1901 — want to sell the school’s two brick brownstones and hoard the money.
“It's clear that the defendants plan to close the school, stop providing education to the children of working mothers, sell the school’s property and transfer the money to the Sisters of St. Francis to use for other purposes, none of which is to educate children,” the Manhattan civil suit says.
The school was started at the dawn of the 20th century to fill a need that is still vital — to provide low-cost child care for working mothers in Manhattan. Originally, it served single moms who worked in the Meatpacking District.
Now it serves students ages 2 to 6 and employs 14 lay teachers overseen by the sisters.
The $10,000-a-year tuition at the school — which was accredited as a Montessori school in the 1980s — makes it by far the cheapest Montessori school in the borough.
But recently the school announced that it would close in August, surprising parents, who are seeking an injunction to stop closure.
The parents claim in the lawsuit that the nuns at first gave no reason why the school was closing — but then school officials claimed the facility “was losing $100,000” and that “the building structure is precarious.”
But the suit says that no building violations were recorded with the city
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
O.K., thanks. I must have confused the name with something else.
Thanks.
I don’t know about this particular convent, but most nunneries were set up so the younger nuns took care of the older ones, among their other duties, at least until they got very old and needed to be hospitalized.
But the fallout of Vatican 2 resulted in many of the younger nuns leaving, so the older ones, still faithful, had no one to support them or earn money for their care. Plus many of the orders got no new recruits, which also resulted in a rapid increase in their average age.
Well --- waitaminnit. OK, "our".
Her original work was to foster the development of the children of the poor in Rome (the "criminal class"), many of whom were considered mentally retarded. She believed in the innate dignity of the child: that children are drawn toward beauty, order, self-discipline, purpose, if they are given ample opportunities and a good environment. She continued with the same philosophy with the children of the poor in India.
Here's an interesting article on Montessori and Catholicism.
What do you mean, bad publicity for the nuns?
It sounds, to me, like bad publicity for the parents who want to force the nuns to keep the school open.
The nuns have provided low cost care for working parents for over 100 years. Very few young women are becoming nuns these days so they probably need the money to care for the elderly women who cared for their little brats.
They probably will, in August :-)
“Hoard” the money? Do these dipsh8t parents know there is no retirement for nuns? That many of them have to go begging and die in need?
It is their property ...their right to sell it..
“...and HOARD the money”??
The NYT is a hate rag.
Why?
Because I highly doubt that what they’re doing is in the spirit of what St. Francis himself would do.
Everything they’re doing is legal and rightful in the United States, and I have no issues with that.
I just have that original question -— Would St. Francis himself approve? I highly doubt that a wealthy man who was making money selling wares, who gave up everything to live a life of poverty would sanction his name being used in this manner.
The Freeper poster of this article said it was a NY Times article, but the link shows the article is from the NY Post.
Also, the article goes on to give the nuns’ side of the story, that the neighborhood is no longer populated with poor working class families, and the litigious parents are rich Manhattan-ites, who have alternatives.
The school is re-examining its mission and its internal obligations, in other words.
The article is a nasty piece of writing, but the NYTimes is apparently not the guilty party.
I doubt St Francis would rush to judgement.
RE: I doubt St Francis would rush to judgement.
Well, since St, Francis would not rush to judgment, I suggest you refrain from saying “Yes” to my question until we get more information.
So you were the one rushing to judgement. I did not. I actually read the article.
So I stand by my answer that yes he would approve.
Do you stand by your whine that because they don't want to operate at a loss so wealthy people can take charity they should not call themselves the order of St. Francis?
RE: So I stand by my answer that yes he would approve.
Well, I withhold my judgment on that and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I might agree with you at a later time but I’ve seen too many cases where money talks even on religious orders to be as
RE: Do you stand by your whine that because they don’t want to operate at a loss so wealthy people can take charity they should not call themselves the order of St. Francis?
1) If you bothered to read my post, I took the time to say that there is nothing illegal with what they did. If they want to PROFIT from the real estate, that’s their right.
2) I did not defend what the parents are doing.
3) I did ask if St. Francis would approve of this business transaction and that is where our discussion should focus on.
You said yes, I say I’m not certain that the answer would be yes based on the life of St. Francis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.