The Foundation at one time considered paying for outfitting a local piece of property, either one of the medians, or a small Village park, or even purchasing a vacant lot in the Village, as a dog park. And there was significant support for such an idea from a few people. At least one would have contributed a good deal of money toward the project. And this wasn't the first time there had been notable energy in the direction of a dog park.
The problem turned out to be that as much as there were people who wanted a dog park, and who would have taken their dogs to make use of one, there was no place in the Village that the direct neighbors of a proposed dog park wanted one. Even dog lovers, and proposed dog park devotees, didn't want a dog park next to them. So the idea was abandoned.
That's what we're dealing with regarding the school in the church. Most of the people who have come to special meetings where the issue was taken up, who were devotees of the church, or proposed customers of a potential school, were not residents of Biscayne Park. They wanted a school, and a church, but not in their back yards, so to speak. And I understand their position, of being generous, but only with someone else's money. Hey, it's OK with me, too, if there's a church and school, as long as it's in their neighborhood, and not mine.
Look at Father Cutie. He could have lived in the house right on church property, directly next door to the church. He didn't want to. He wanted to live elsewhere, in Miami Shores. So the "caretaker" lives in the church-owned house instead. Doesn't Father Cutie like the church? You bet he does. He loves it. It's where he works. But he doesn't want to live next to it. Not even in the same town. He leaves that to us. The church is a great idea, and so is the school, but only if we have to put up with living next to them, and he doesn't. Traffic mess? No problem. As long as the mess is in Biscayne Park, and not next to Father Cutie, or Sandy Busta, or Michael Campo.
I get it. I really do. I just don't like it. In fact, I resent it. Not that it's my issue, but it just seems so un-Christian.
I have no problem with living in a community with houses of worship. The town I live in has 13. I have no problem living in a community with schools. I grew up beside an elementary school with bells that rang 7 days a week and children's voices - sometimes screaming - that could be heard on the school playground every day. What I do object to is a priest who chooses not to live in the church owned parsonage. Under these circumstances, a housing allowance must be provided for him thus increasing the expenses for the congregation. In this case, the congregation graciously allows the sextant to reside in the parsonage. Even if he pays rent, the church's budget is increased because the priest is not residing there himself. So, the solution is the school. It appears to me that, possibly, no "solution" would be necessary if the priest had chosen to both live in the community to which he ministers and live in the property already owned by the church.
ReplyDelete