I think one needs to step back and look at this more objectively.  If it wasn't for the current situation with the society right now people would not object to this.  Some of the most glorious churches in the world, certainly in the US, were built by the poor, struggling to feed their families.  Even the very beautiful, but simple country churches scattered around came at a great cost to those who built them.  We mustn't start acting like protestants and using their arguments, just because we may be upset with an unrelated decision by the Superior General.

I think one needs to step back and look at this more objectively. If it wasn't for the current situation with the society right now people would not object to this. Some of the most glorious churches in the world, certainly in the US, were built by the poor, struggling to feed their families.  Even the very beautiful, but simple country churches scattered around came at a great cost to those who built them.  We mustn't start acting like protestants and using their arguments, just because we may be upset with an unrelated decision by the Superior General.

That's where you miss the point.  It's exactly because of this situation that we cannot trust what is being done with the money.

nadieimportante had a great point about this: in this time of crisis, you don't know what future security there will be with properties.  It can be taken away.

Zorayda is right to be concerned about the financial priorities of the society.

It's very apparent that the liberalizers in the SSPX are those most concerned with these big projects and with big money.

It would be simple to expand the Winona seminary. As for the "costly to maintain" - people who want new building projects invariably trot that one out there. Particularly school districts. There are so many Catholic structures in this country, it's hard to believe there are no existing facilities that would be readily adaptable to the purpose and that could be had for a small fraction of the price.

In fact there are so many properties being foreclosed on it's hard to believe they can't do this for a fraction of the cost. Also makes you wonder who would be building these new seminaries, Catholic construction ompanies? You'd think there could be a way to keep the money in the family. 25 million of hard earned money to give to a commercial construction company seems like a foolish thing to do, when those old churches were built they were built by fellow Catholics so the community benefitted.

Oops

Forgot decimal

$2.5 million

Well if they sign tomorrow, they wiil have to get their building permit from the local bishop.

 

http://www.richmonddiocese.org/

A Message from Bishop DiLorenzo
Welcome to the Diocese of Richmond.  We hope you’ll find our website a reflection of who we are as a diocese and our commitment to Word, Worship, Community and Service.
 
The Diocese encompasses over 33,000 square miles of the southern part of Virginia.  Founded in 1820, we are one of the oldest dioceses in the country, with 147 parishes stretching from the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean west to West Virginia and Tennessee.  Ours is an active and vibrant diocese, committed to supporting cultural diversity, marked by a spirit of enthusiasm for mission and ministry.
 
Relations of the Society of Saint Pius X with diocesan bishops
DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you mentioned in recent statements.  Now, in the Code of Canon Law, canon 297 requires not only informing diocesan bishops but obtaining their permission in order to found a work on their territory.  Although it is clear that any canonical recognition will preserve our apostolate in its present state, are you inclined to accept the eventuality that future works may be possible only with the permission of the bishop in dioceses where the Society of Saint Pius X is not present today?
Bishop Fellay: There is a lot of confusion about this question, and it is caused mainly by a misunderstanding of the nature of a personal prelature, as well as by a misreading of the normal relation between the local ordinary and the prelature.  Add to that the fact that the only example available today of a personal prelature is Opus Dei.  However, and let us say this clearly, if a personal prelature were granted to us, our situation would not be the same.  In order to understand better what would happen, we must reflect that our status would be much more similar to that of a military ordinariate, because we would have ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful.  Thus we would be like a sort of diocese, the jurisdiction of which extends to all its faithful regardless of their territorial situation.
All the chapels, churches, priories, schools, and works of the Society and of the affiliated religious Congregations would be recognized with a real autonomy for their ministry.
It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary.  We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it.  Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? 

You miss the point.  I am talking about the principle, rather than the application.  Zorayda was complaining about the money, rather than who was spending it.  Unless I missed something.  

There is such a thing as misallocation of resources.  The SSPX chapel schools should be better organized.

Quote from: Tomas de Torquemada

I think one needs to step back and look at this more objectively.  If it wasn't for the current situation with the society right now people would not object to this.  Some of the most glorious churches in the world, certainly in the US, were built by the poor, struggling to feed their families.  Even the very beautiful, but simple country churches scattered around came at a great cost to those who built them.  We mustn't start acting like protestants and using their arguments, just because we may be upset with an unrelated decision by the Superior General.

I didn't think too highly of this project idea when it was first announced, before the present SSPX crisis. I agree with others that the needs of the SSPX seminary could be more than adequately met with much less money. When there are still faithful who must attend Mass in hotel rooms, does the district really need such an expensive seminary?

That is  comparing apples to oranges, though.  They are too different things.  Local chapels are supported locally, at least primarily.  When that particular Mass center can support itself financially, and afford to build/buy a church, then it is free to do so.  This is the case regardless of affiliation (Society, Sede, Independent, Diocese, etc).  

The larger entity (District/Diocese/etc) is responsible for the overall continuation of that entity.  One may certainly have concerns that they are not properly using those funds, and I would bet that every public/religious  construction project has its critics.  But I disagree with the notion that the district has a responsibility to build everyone a local church before tending to the needs of the seminary, which is absolutely necessary for the continuation of the society.

Again, I am speaking in terms of principle here.  The particular situation may change things, but in principle I don't have a problem with it.