Wednesday, May 26, 2010


Over $90 Million for Los Angeles' new Cathedral!

Over $100 Million for Oakland's new Cathedral!

Similar looking to the Cathedrals above, but a different denomination, the Nuclear non-denominational, built for $90 in 1992, never used, blown up for a whopping $5 million yesterday. $5 million is mega bucks in this neck of the woods and could build some pretty magnificent churches in the south!

In Aiken County,South Carolina,about 20 miles outside of Augusta, Georgia where I grew up, there is what we call the "bomb plant." From the 1950's until the end of the Cold War in the early 1990's it produced nuclear warheads. In fact during the Cuban Missal Crisis, we bragged that our region would be the first to be hit by the Russians! Over the years there have been many accidental releases of radioactive waste into our air and water and thus into our food supply. Augustans glow in the dark.

But please read the article from this morning's Augusta Chronicle. In the early 1990's a cooling tower for a nuclear reactor to produce tritium for warheads was build for over $90 million! It never went into use and yesterday it was imploded (or nuked, whichever you prefer) for about $5 million!

Could you imagine if the new Cathedral in Los Angeles which cost about the same or the new one in Oakland, CA which cost a bit more were imploded after being built?

It is amazing to me how people complain about what the Church spends on building churches and schools but no one seems to protest this kind of waste in Government spending. Click on the link and view video implosion:
Atomic Bomb Cooling Plant Nuked!


Anonymous said...

I'll donate $5,000,000 to implode these monuments to humans, specifically the smart and skilled architect who designed them.
What ever happened to monuments to God?
It's the Theology of Me again, just like in the 'church shopping' blog below.
Apparently, denying the self is too old-fashioned. What's in style is glorifying the self and if you're 'pious' it's cloaked in the religion that you think is tailored just right for you. Oh, what a nice fit!

The check's in the mail...

Templar said...

I'll only complain about the amount of money spent on Church building funds that produce buildings which are not Christocentric (is that a word?) designs. New church buildings that have theater in the round designs; altars that are more akin to stages; bare and austere or with modern versions of traditional stained glass or statuary; tabernacles placed in out of the way closets; choir "lofts" set beside the altar (stage) as if it's an orchestral pit; pews so plush and comfortable they feel like a lazy boy; baptismal bath tubs; etc etc not only miss the mark of what a Church is for, they can directly hinder the act of worship through Liturgy.

Marc said...

... and the marginalization of "Traditional" Catholics continues...

Thank God for our parish at St. Joseph and our Diocese of Savannah, our priests and our Bishop, and our "traditional-minded" Pope Benedict!

Henry said...

What a shame to have wasted that $5 million on the Aiken cooling tower, when it could have been used so much more profitably in LA.

Mackja said...

Oh! those are Cathedrals, I thought they were an office building and a small skyscraper. Can I light the fuse! They are awful looking buildings, I would donate to the blowing up and rebuild a real Cathedral fund

Anonymous said...

I think that Fr. McDonald was making a statement against reckless government spending on defense and not advocating the blowing up of two houses of worship that cost about as much as the cooling tower that was destroyed. No one should be advocating building something that won't be used that cost as much as this tower and then spending millions more to blow up! We shouldn't blow up houses of worship period. Now should be build houses of worship that cost this much and look like a nuclear cooling tower. That we can debate especially when the cost of something does not necessarily have broad based appeal.

Frajm said...

From Fr. McDonald--I appreciate Anonymous comment that I'm not advocating blowing up the Cathedrals in California! In fact I like them and would love to go and see them. I have a nephew who lives in Orinda near San Francisco and one day I hope to visit him and the Oakland land mark. My point was government wasteful spending on defense--building something that cost over $90, never using it and then spending millions to blow up. That's where I would have like the discussion to revolve, reckless spending on war. Now if someone thinks it is reckless to spend millions on cathedrals, I would hope they would be just as angry as those who spend millions on cooling towers, high rise offices and spacious shopping malls. Is there a double standard? I don't advocate blowing up churches period and I don't think we should even joke about it given the nature of paranoia today that exists in terms of terroristic threats. So let's stay on topic!