Is The USCCB Responsible for ObamaCare?

Friday, July 16, AD 2010

The American Life League (ALL) is making a strong case of placing most of the blame for passage of ObamaCare squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

What the ALL is alleging is that the USCCB was very desperate to push for universal health coverage that they compromised on some key principles.  One of which was that of abortion where instead of fighting against abortion they decided to stick their heads in the ground and use “abortion neutral” language.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Is The USCCB Responsible for ObamaCare?

  • It was imprudent for the USCCB to advocate for universal health care. While it is important and appropriate for the USCCB to explain the moral rules of engagement regarding access to health care, how a society can best satisfy those moral imperatives is outside its competency. Its opinions are no more or less instructive or insightful than mine, yours, etc. One of the most important moral rules of engagement regarding health care is that abortion is unacceptable.

  • I agree with Mike, but this is BS. The bishops (who certainly favor HC reform of some sort and in many or most cases prefer a government based system) were one of the loudest and most influential voices against abortion and the lack of conscience provisions. If it weren’t for them and other pro-life orgs like NRTL Obamacare would have steamrolled through with generous abortion provisions. In large part it was their influence with “pro-life” Dems that resulted in making the matter an obstacle to be overcome by Dem leadership and gaining what little protections there are.

  • There = their. Illiterate or something.

  • RL,

    Got it fixed for you buddy.

    Cardinal George personally telephoned pro-life GOPers to push for the pro-life amendment when it was in the House.

    He didn’t do any such thing when Bart Stupak and his Benedict Arnold’s reversed course and put the death sentence on innocent unborn children.

  • I’m with RL. The USCCB was one of the loudest opponents of ObamaCare. To say that they are somehow responsible for it passing is bizarre.

  • Thanks Tito.

    The bishops spoke to anyone and everyone who would listen. They made it clear to Stupak too. The bishops were rightfully disappointed in the “pro-life” Dems that changed their vote, and outraged at the shenanigans and betrayal of the CHA. I use the owrd outraged because that is pretty much what it would take for them to speak so disapprovingly publicly.

  • Why is it that anyone continues to think that our bishops are men of honor? Which of them would accept martyrdom in support of Church? Why was it necessary for the Vatican to issue rules about the protection of children?

    Blind mouths, as Milton called them.

    Blind mouths! that scarce themselves know how to hold
    A sheep-hook, or have learn’d aught else the least That to the faithful herdman’s art belongs!
    What recks it them? What need they? They are sped;
    And when they list, their lean and flashy songs
    Grate on their scrannel pipes of wretched straw:
    The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed,
    But swoln with wind and the rank mist they draw
    Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread:
    Besides what the grim wolf with privy paw
    Daily devours apace, and nothing said:

  • Gabriel,
    I think you paint with an exceedingly broad and uncharitable brush. And to answer your insulting rhetorical question, I bet quite a few would accept martyrdom if it came to that — but like STM have no interest in initiating or accelerating the process.

  • Politics are a problem for the USCCB. There are many so called “Catholics” who continue their support of todays culture and relativisms in Congress. The only fault of these Bishops , for most of them , is their inability in their teaching of the Church’s tenets to really enforced these teachings on those politicians after meetings and consultations with these so called “catholics” who continue to support the culture of death. A good example is the record of Nancy Pelosi and yet the extreme measure of excomunication is not used. These leaves many of the laity to wonder why they also can not pick and choose what tenets they may or may not follow, or disagree with, or why if these politicians are are able to cotinue their ” standing ” in the Church why then can’t they.

  • Mike Petrik said Friday, July 16, 2010 A.D.
    “Gabriel,
    I think you paint with an exceedingly broad and uncharitable brush. And to answer your insulting rhetorical question, I bet quite a few would accept martyrdom if it came to that — but like STM have no interest in initiating or accelerating the process”.

    My point is quite simple: our bishops are failing in their duty. Compare ours with the bishops in China, Vietnam, Africa.
    A.N.Whitehead described religion in our time as “decoration for comfortable lives”. Our bishops are afraid; they congregate behind the chancery walls and the bureaucratic pomposities of the USCCB.

    Consider but the inanities of Fr. McBrien, published in so many diocesan papers. Uncharitable is permitting his misleading notions to be published under episcopal authority. {One among many examples: Fr. McBrien believes that ensoulment of the fetus happens three months after conception – which is to say that an abortion before the 3rd month is not murder].

    Bishops like hanging around politicians. They are not unlike the Arian bishops who delighted in being received at the court in Constantinople. Plus ca change…

Planned Parenthood, What Happened to the Money?

Tuesday, June 22, AD 2010

A US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report has brought out an interesting mystery in regard to the federal funds given to Worse Than Murder, Inc, aka Planned Parenthood:

A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on federal tax money funneled into Planned Parenthood and similar organizations raises more questions than it answers about the nation’s largest abortion chain.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Planned Parenthood, What Happened to the Money?

The Many Scandals of the USCCB

Saturday, February 6, AD 2010

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is a recent invention that grew out of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.  Some Catholics confuse the USCCB as a teaching authority and mistaken it for a parallel magisterium.

Nowhere in Sacred Scripture and Tradition do we have an instance for this man made invention.  We have one teaching authority and that is the Magisterium.

So why have the USCCB?  Well, to support the various ministries of bishops.  And of course you need the laity to support the many functions that the USCCB does.

Which brings us to our current scandal.  Like anything else the USCCB is susceptible to error.  Which in this case is that many bishops and the majority of the laity that work inside the USCCB are partial or are openly members of the Democratic Party that has various liberal platforms  which cooperatives in evil such as abortion and the legalization of homosexual license.

The issue is that this creates a conflict of interest.  When a member, in this instance a high executive such as John Carr, in the USCCB also holds a board membership with a group that supports abortion, confusion and scandal is created.

And this isn’t just one isolated case.  There is the Catholic Campaign for Human Development that provides funds to anti-marriage and pro-abortion organizations.  The bishops response is to arrogantly deny any scandal whatsoever.

This of course creates more scandal.

At this moment the bishops have refused to deal with infestation that the USCCB has, hoping that the scandal and uproar will quietly subside just as the controversy over Harry Forbes glowing movie reviews of anti-Catholic movies.

Well, enough is enough.  The chickens have come home to roost.

More and more Catholics will continue to shine the light on the decrepit state of the USCCB until the someone does something to resolve the matter.

Ora pro nobis!

Where is our Cardinal Spellman!

To help and keep the USCCB honest, please visit and support Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, the American Life League and Reform CCHD Now Coalition.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to The Many Scandals of the USCCB

  • I’m reluctant to derive conclusions re the USCCB. Most of the accusations invite questions concerning the level of cooperation with evil that are not easy to address wtih confidence. It is possible for Catholics to support and fund good works through morally imperfect organizations. A can fund the good works of B without necessarily supporting the evil works of B. The devil is in the details. The problem I have is that over many years of observing the USCCB I have come away with the disturbing impression that while it may check the boxes necessary to appear to avoid a material cooperation with evil, its staff and infrastructure are actually pretty indifferent to abortion and certain other issues and subordinate any ambivilence they might have on these matters to their embrace of liberal policy preferences.

  • “It is possible for Catholics to support and fund good works through morally imperfect organizations.”

    The way things look these days, I think I’d rather just do them on my own.

  • Pingback: Why Non-Profit Workers Lean Left « The American Catholic
  • Tito, if you haven’t already read the canon law regarding the episcopal conferences, here it is:

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1L.HTM

    It would also be helpful to read Pope Paul VI’s motu proprio Ecclesiae Sanctae, starting with paragraph 41:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19660806_ecclesiae-sanctae_en.html

    Tito, it’s my opinion that you ought to consult with your spiritual director before continuing this ongoing series on the USCCB. If you are wrong in your assertions, then this is slander, and a grave sin. And everything that I have read leads me to believe that you are indeed wrong. May God lead us to the truth in charity.

    God bless,
    Nate

  • My God, Mr. Voris essentially called the USCCB a Satanic entity, even while using Pope Paul VI to prove his point. Apparently he’s unaware that it was Pope Paul VI who ordered the Church to form the episcopal conferences following Vatican II.

    Pope John Paul II wrote an Apostolic letter on the Episcopal Conferences, and made it clear that the Bishops’ Conferences had the duty to teach:

    “The joint exercise of the episcopal ministry also involves the teaching office. The Code of Canon Law establishes the fundamental norm in this regard: “Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the Bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in Conferences of Bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own Bishops with a sense of religious respect (religioso animi obsequio)”.”

    Mr. Voris is right in a certain respect, in that the Conferences do not have authority per se. Yet the USCCB does have authority insofar as it is an instrument of the Apostolic Successors!

    Mr. Voris trots out all kinds of issues that the USCCB supposedly teaches against – abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. Is he speaking of the same USCCB? No document of the Bishops has ever supported these things.

    I said it before, when the first attacks came – this isn’t just about a few funding issues. This is about a deeply ingrained hatred for the teachings of our Bishops, especially on issues related to money, power, and violence.

  • Nate

    I tried to tell Tito that he needs to look into the charges instead of just repeating them; this is pure gossip-mongering.

  • Nate and Henry,

    I take your opinions and charges very seriously.

    I was careful to point out the conflicts of interest in this post.

    For Nate, I believe what you are saying and accusing me of is very sensationalistic itself.

    I’d like to know where were you when the pedophilia scandal broke out?

    Did you attack the abused children for coming out against priests and bishops?

    Again, the USCCB is not a teaching authority.

    You say This is about a deeply ingrained hatred for the teachings of our Bishops, especially on issues related to money, power, and violence

    If you bothered to read my post I did not accuse ANY bishop. I accused John Carr, Harry Forbes, and the USCCB as an entity.

    It’s interesting that you mention “power”.

    You seem to defend the USCCB much more vigorously than anything else here at TAC.

    Maybe you have made the USCCB your idol since it funds so many left-wing organizations that promotes anti-Catholic teachings.

    Maybe you need to take the log out of your eye before you make wild and inaccurate accusations.

    The links you provided do not vest ANY authority whatsoever in these bishops conferences.

    Moreover they give a detailed outline on how to hold meetings.

    Meetings!

    Not issue dogma, decide on discipline, nor invent any new teachings.

    Your opinion in the end is absolutely and unequivocally incorrect.

  • Tito, you might be right, and I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again. I defend the USCCB because I see it as an indirect attack on the authority of our bishops.

    The USCCB is not per se an authority. Yet when the bishops speak together, through the USCCB, they do not lose their authority as bishops. I believe that it is incorrect to claim that the bishops lose their authority when they speak together. Moreover, the Church documents I linked to (and quoted) say that the Episcopal Conferences have authority when they teach on faith or morals. I’ll quote JPII again, with my own emphasis at the end:

    ““The joint exercise of the episcopal ministry also involves the teaching office. The Code of Canon Law establishes the fundamental norm in this regard: “Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the Bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in Conferences of Bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own Bishops with a sense of religious respect (religioso animi obsequio)”.”

    If this is sensationalistic, then it is not due to me, but to the heart and mind of our late Pope. The Episcopal Conferences derive their authority from the Bishops who teach through it. This is Canon Law, and I’ve quoted and linked to it. Mr. Voris disagrees, but his S.T.B. doesn’t make him right. If anything, he makes him more culpable for spreading misinformation.

  • Nate,

    It isn’t sensationalistic.

    I appreciate your comments and you make some valid points.

    This would be a good idea for another (new) posting some time in the future.

    Thanks for engaging in this debate, your comments are truly valued by me and many of the readers of this site.

  • Thank you for the gracious response, Tito! We’re both Catholic, and we both want to defend the faith. God grant that we can figure out a way to do that together. Peace, Nate.

  • We’re both Catholic indeed, the least we can do is be an example of charitable dialogue, even if we disagree!

    😀

Is Bishop Roger Morin Mendaciously Defending CCHD?

Thursday, November 19, AD 2009

Bishop Roger Morin is the Chair of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) Subcommittee that directs the CCHD.  In theory the CCHD works towards ending poverty and injustice in the United States by basically offering grants to organizations that support these goals.  But reality is far harsher than what is written.

Numerous organizations have investigated the CCHD and have uncovered many nefarious groups that are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus.  Many of these groups promote abortion to ‘gay marriage’.  What is striking is that the CCHD doesn’t do anything to end the funding unless a very bright light is shined on them such as the case with ACORN.

Bishop Roger Morin continues to issue memorandums defending CCHD’s vetting process and grants.  Yet time and time again he has been proven unequivocally wrong.  From the Young Workers United to the Chinese Progressive Association, CCHD apparently sees no evil… anywhere.

Is Bishop Roger Morin being mendacious in his continual defense of the indefensible.  I am having a really hard time believing that he could be so obtuse to such an important matter as this.

Continue reading...

35 Responses to Is Bishop Roger Morin Mendaciously Defending CCHD?

  • With so many Catholic charitable organizations, why is yet another overreaching organization necessary? Except perhaps to provide jobs for the bureaucrats in the USCCB?

    And what is “human development”? Does it not sound like one of those philanthopically mush words, with no specifics? I recall J.D. Rockefeller’s Committee for Uplift”.

    Is not the Church chiefly concerned with salvation?

  • Four words: Saint Vincent (de) Paul Society (SVDS).

    Their Catholic and they do fine social work.

    Give the money you normally give to CCHD to SVDS.

  • Charity is one side of the coin. Another is justice. And while I realize that many conservatives and Republicans seem to prefer charity as a way of keeping people in their place, the fact is that when the poor have authentic political advocacy, people can be permanently lifted out of poverty. If for no other reason that they in turn can help others.

    That said, the local SVDS is a worthy charity. Giving there is an improvement over pocketing the CCHD money for oneself.

    As for the post, another conservative Catholic calls another bishop a liar. Yawn.

  • Todd,

    I’m reporting what the good bishop is doing.

    And I’m Catholic first, conservative second, third or fourth.

    You need to remember that we are Catholics before we are anything else.

  • Holy smokes are you harsh on Morin.

    It seems the CA contacts, not surprisingly, gave some money to groups that when exposed, were de-funded. Outside of CA though, it does not seem to be a widespread problem, as there are almost no examples. It is not surprising that this is true in CA or that a few examples, given the number of groups that receive funding. occur. Even the highest diligence can result in errors-many of us have heath insurance plans that we did not know cover abortion; many of us shop at companies that support one or more causes we Catholics oppose.

    Perhaps that’s enough to make you concerned about making a donation to CCHD and I don’t care whether you donate or not. But that Morin’s skull ought to pave the road to hell? Absolutely no evidence that he deserves that kind of bashing. As a layman and a Catholic, you owe a bishop (or any other human being for that matter) far greater deference.

  • “the fact is that when the poor have authentic political advocacy, people can be permanently lifted out of poverty.”

    I’d say the trillions in anti-poverty efforts by government since the Great Society demonstrates how well unearned government handouts work in lifting anyone out of poverty.

  • Michael D.,

    Excellent point, but when this sort of thing has been going on for many years. And when the CCHD ignores others (like ourselves) who point out the error of their ways and yet they still ignore, then that is a totally different animal.

    As Todd has so clearly and ironically demonstrated that the CCHD seems more partisan than Catholic. Their blind loyalty to everything in the Democratic Party platform has jaded them to the point of being laughable.

    Laughable meaning reading Bishop Morin continously defend the indefensible.

    Believe me I have deference. You’ll know it’s me when you see me bend to my knee to kiss Cardinal DiNardo’s ring in a busy airport. I’m not ashamed of being Catholic.

    Unlike Bishop Morin who will find any excuse in the book to stick to the Democratic Party platform Catholic teaching be damned.

  • But is Morin defending the indefensible? He’s arguing the indefensible does not apply to this situation, and that the CCHD is committed to making sure the indefensible does not occur.

    You can disagree with that statement, as it’s a statement of fact. But it seems to me that Morin here has good intentions and if nothing else pushes that standard that the CCHD must hold the groups it funds accountable and needs to improve in carrying out that mission.

  • Defend the indefensible?

    Like when I suggested to you to move to Houston?

  • I am making a point of giving an extra large donation to the CCHD development this year, to counter those whose bizarre and Beckian acorn-fixation has trumped their support of a key Church program. I would note that despite its reputation in secular right-wing circles, “community activism” has a long history in Catholic social teaching. We call it subsidiarity. I would also note that the call for Catholics to donate to the CCHD stands at the top of the USCCB’s website. In my own diocese, it was the subject of a heart-felt letter by Bishop Knestout.

  • Actually I will be giving my money to Salt and Light radio which my diocesan newspaper strangely ran an editorial that was negative. Also that will go for the money I usually give to the annual Bishop’s appeal. Still doing good – just in a different way and in a way I can specify.

  • Tony, since you are a Leftist, of course you approve of the funding choices made over the years by the CCHD. Lord only knows why any other Catholic should.

    http://bellarmineveritasministry.org/

  • Here is something else that I have always considered odd about CCHD: why in the world is the Catholic Church in this country funding groups that are not Catholic? There are legions of Catholic groups in this country helping the poor. Why not fund them? For the answer, read what Father Neuhaus wrote last year:

    “What most Catholics don’t know, and what would likely astonish them, is that CHD very explicitly does not fund Catholic institutions and apostolates that work with the poor. Part of the thinking when it was established in the ideological climate of the 1960s is that Catholic concern for the poor would not be perceived as credible if CHD funded Catholic organizations. Yes, that’s bizarre, but the history of CHD is bizarre. The bishops could really help poor people by promptly shutting down CHD and giving any remaining funds to, for instance, Catholic inner-city schools. In any event, if there is a collection at your parish this month, I suggest that you can return the envelope empty—and perhaps with a note of explanation—without the slightest moral hesitation.”

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2008/11/13/not-one-dime/

  • That’s a true Catholic for you — deliberately give more money to anti-Catholic organizations just out of spite for other Catholics for not being leftists.

  • Suggesting mendacity is morally beyond the pale.

    If not slander it is at least detraction.

    Sins of this type require restitution. There’s a serious obligation to undo unjust harm done to another’s reputation.

    The eighth commandment is still operative, if I’m not mistaken.

  • I don’t think that I support the theory that Bishop Morin is being mendacious in his defense of the CCHD, nor the idea that he’s essentially doing it for resume material or visible credit. However, as I read around about the collection it strikes me as a rather poor idea that it specifically restricts itself to:

    a) Non-Catholic groups (groups that are specifically Catholic will not be funded by the CCHD, it’s purpose is to fund non-Catholic groups)

    b) Programs that do not seek to directly alleviate poverty (by providing food, housing, money, clothing, etc. to those in need) but rather to social programs which seek to change society in ways that will alleviate poverty in the long run.

    Particularly in light of the second, it strikes me as a bit dishonest that the marketing for the campaign this year is all focused around the current recession and “how long can you hold on” themes. The CCHD programs will specifically _not_ help families hold on and get back on their feet.

    In this regard, I think suggestions of focusing (especially this year) on Catholic programs that seek to directly help those in need (such as St.VdP) are entirely reasonable. Reading over the list of groups which were funded last year on the USCCB site, I see very few that I would choose to donate to over the charities that I already fund. And coming two weeks after the annual diocesan appeal (which I support very, very strongly) it’s not at a good time in our diocese anyway.

  • “Mendacious” well, it’s a nice Latin way of calling someone a liar.

    Still, this post has been up all day and Donald has likewise had all day to consider the distinction between charity and justice. And he still doesn’t get it. For an educated man, willful ignorance is a sorry sight to see.

  • “For an educated man, willful ignorance is a sorry sight to see.”

    Actually Todd some of the most willfully ignorant individuals I have encountered during my life have been the best educated. Those without much formal education I have generally found to be eager to learn. As to charity and justice they are both essentially about love, and a key element of love is truth and not pleasing illusions about bishops or collections.

  • the fact is that when the poor have authentic political advocacy, people can be permanently lifted out of poverty

    When people have their health and acquire trade skills they can be permanently lifted out of poverty.

  • I am giving my money… wait a minute… never mind. Maybe next year…

  • Todd,

    When overwhelming evidence is showing how much evil these organizations do and the good bishop is willfully ignoring it, then he’s causing scandal.

    Donald,

    I agree. The most educated always find creative and innovative ways to lie through their teeth. Hoping that they find moral loopholes and ethical backdoors to continue lieing through their teeth.

  • Is Bishop Roger Morin Mendaciously Defending CCHD?

    IMHO YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Personally, I’m not getting too worked up over this. I agree with those who say that organisations that are not Catholic but help serve the poor (and in ways other than strictly soup kitchens, etc.) are worthy recipients. IKnowing mankind and burocracies, I think erros inevitable. The key questions are: are errors identified as such and acted on in ernest? What measures are taken to prevent them in the future. Tied to the later, was the issue really just an error or was it something endemic or nefarious?

    Frankly, I don’t think it is uncharitable or unreasonable to question the program or the judgment of those who run the operation. Excluding Catholic organisations strikes me as terribly imprudent and contrary to our the mission of the Church, which is in part to serve. The selection of some of these organisations is horrific and I can’t believe they were done in ingnorance. This is indeed a problem and IMO the only possible correction is to revisit the mission and operating plan, and start from ground up again.

  • Charity and justice are two different but complementary things. I would venture to suggest that while charity (tending to individual, immediate, short-term needs) is an area where church leaders and church institutions do well, justice (tending to the long-term needs of society) is more the job of the laity.

    Pope John Paul II more or less acknowledged that when he banned priests from running for public office — he was saying it’s not their job, that belongs to lay people exercising their properly formed convictions.

    C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity also said in a chapter about how “the Church” is supposed to lead the way in creating a just society, that this can be understood in two ways. If it means that active Christians ought to become politicians, business leaders, etc. and devote themselves to putting Christian principles into action, that is true.

    But if it means “the bench of bishops getting together to put out a political program,” that is wrong and silly, just as expecting Christian literature to come from priests and bishops writing plays and novels in their spare time, rather than from talented writers and poets who also happen to be Christians, would be silly.

    With that in mind, I think CCHD represents the official Church hierarchy trying to do something they were not really called to do.

  • “Tony, since you are a Leftist, of course you approve of the funding choices made over the years by the CCHD. Lord only knows why any other Catholic should.”

    By your argument, Donald, the US bishops are leftists, and God knows why Catholics should support them on this one.

  • I have issues with some of the funding decisions which CCHD has made to the point that I probably won’t contribute this year. *But*, I enthusiastically support the idea of trying to address human development in a systemic fashion (cf. Caritas in Veritate in general on human development). I give a more of my annual tithe to organizations that provide direct service to those in need (e.g. SVdPS), but I’d like to be able to contribute to an umbrella organization that provides funds for systemic solutions, much like CCHD intends to do.

    Anyone have any recommendations?

  • Tony I have no doubt that some Bishops lean as far Left as you do. A bigger problem is that most of them pay no attention and let USCCB bureaucrats run the show and almost all of them are on the political Left. The whole purpose of the CHD is not to help the poor but rather to fund political pressure groups of the left. The ACORN funding was not a bug but a wad of this annual tithe that Catholic parishioners unknowing pay to the Left in this country.

  • The question arises: why is the good bishop refusing to go slowly in examining the organization being funded by CATHOLIC money? Is it right for the good bishop to complain about sheep who bleat? It is certainly not right for him to accuse them of bad faith.

    I note that in my diocese money is to be directed to Albuquerque Interfaith. This is a group founded by Saul Alinsky, whose underlying purpose is to organize for political action.

    Meanwhile we have FOOD FOR THE POOR, ALBUQUERQUE RESCUE MISSION, the various groups helping the local Indian reservations, PREGNANCY HELP and so on. These are small groups who do actually feed the poor, and advise about pregnancies and the like.

  • Gabriel, I don’t fault CCHD for not funding organizations that provide direct assistance… their mission is to address problems at a systemic & structural level, which often entails political involvement. I welcome such an intention… I only wish that CCHD didn’t so often fund organizations with views in opposition to Catholic doctrine.

  • Its so sad that at a time when we are closing catholic schools in the inner cities, we are also giving money to groups like these.

  • The problems with the CCHD can be found right in its granting process. It grants only to those organizations that have the “involuntary poor” on their boards of directors. This defies common sense. If the poor understood the “root causes” of poverty and knew the remedies for them, then (Hello) they wouldn’t be poor, would they.

    The poor in this country have largely been conditioned to believe that the solution to poverty is government handouts. Therefore, the action to take to end poverty would be to register the poor to vote for those politicians who will give the most government(taxpayer) funds to the poor. Hence you have ACORN who’s main work was voter registration as a recipient of CCHD funds.

    Also, I would like to say that it is very devious how the Bishops go about getting this money. They should make it clear that the money will not be used by the
    Church directly but given to secular groups to do the work they cannor or will not do. If the Bishops want the faithful to give to these groups, they should issue pastoral guidelins saying so, not collect money under false pretenses then redistribute the moeny to these groups. The Bishops should put out their list of recommended charities, then let us decide which onnes we wnt to donate to.

  • Pingback: Where Your CCHD Donations Go To « The American Catholic
  • Another November CCHD collection to which I did not contribute. I have only so much money, and that will go to charities that I am certain are unquestionably Catholic. CCHD is not one of those.

  • Pingback: Bishop Bruskewitz Brings the Smackdown on CCHD « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: The Many Scandals of the USCCB « The American Catholic