This is what they admitting to. The reality is probably worse. Doubtless behind the scenes dioceses are under pressure to make up PP shortfalls.
PopeWatch: Not One Thin Dime
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
I’ve been giving directly to either people in need locally or just a few. I haven’t given much to parish in offering bc of the USCCB tax also. Its time for a big change and them not to have money to have posh parties or buy lavish properties to commit all hosts of iniquity.
Yep hit ’em in the back pocket. Sometimes $$ is all they understand.
Don’t think people are interested in financing their slothfulness- especially when they are in cahoots with the powers-that-be who pushed devastating lockdowns and have driven people to the brink over the last few years.
Maybe they can start working for a penny like the rest of us for a change.
I gave what I gave the prior years: $0. I put in a minimal amount to the bishop because the parish has an amount it must pay.
I will reduce parish donations if the bishop raises the ‘tax.’
If they have no money, they can’t pay the liberal civilian bureaucracy.
I give zip point squat to any parish because some funding always goes to places that are simply evil. The rot is pervasive, and to cure this cancerous infestation, multiple applications of a whole body dose of gamma radiation at a thousand rem or more is required. That’s 10 sievert in the new units for measuring radiation dose (being an old Navy nuke, I hate the new units; yes, I hate everything new, especially this liberal progressive social justice, common good crap infesting the Church).
I think if the average pew-sitter knew what their donations to Peter’s Pence has funded, almost no one would give.
He can ask his good friends in Kirchensteuerland to make up the difference. Lord knows he coddles the Hun heretics enough.
There was a story someone once asked John XXiii how many people worked at the Vatican. His replay, “About half”. I’m wagering they could readily absorb the shortfalls. You look at their list of dicasteries and what not, you can see some targets the size of Kate Smith’s rear end. Of course, that assumes they have capable and disinterested administrators, about which:
I wonder what my Bishop’s response would be, were I to gift him a tent making kit?
Charitable works? Like funding a movie about a sodomite? Like buying pricey real estate which gets sold at a loss? Donations need to not be down 15% but 100%.
Like buying pricey real estate which gets sold at a loss?
IMO, the only real estate the Holy See should own should be the Vatican itself and the 28 properties outside the Vatican covered by the Lateran Treaty. The Holy See as landlord has the potential to generate a mess of embarrassing controversies. Ditto dioceses and religious orders, who should own no real estate not devoted to the operations of the Church, to subsidiaries devoted to works of mercy, and to the housing of priests, religious, and a few others. These will have movable property in them, including some treasures. For stores of value, the Church and its subsidiaries should stick to cash, securities, and precious metals.
Southcoast, your Bishop of course should say “thank you I’m honored”, but I think the response would likely be “what on earth is this!?”
Southcoast, based on the record in the Bible, wouldn’t tent making be associated with rigidity, with having a backbone? Tent making appears to have fallen on hard times in the modern Church. A lot of tent making in name only.
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnesty-apartheid-analysis/
While we’re at it, did you think when they declared Philadelphia cop killer Wesley Cook (aka Mumia Abu Jamal) a ‘prisoner of conscience’ that Amnesty International had hit bottom? If so, they’ve proved you wrong.
Amnesty International was one of the first examples of the ability of the Left to completely destroy an organization it infected. No one takes them seriously today. They are merely one among tens of thousands of left wing e-mail and fax groups.
Amnesty International was one of the first examples of the ability of the Left to completely destroy an organization it infected. No one takes them seriously today. They are merely one among tens of thousands of left wing e-mail and fax groups.
I think Human Rights Watch was hopeless within 10 years of its formation. In Amnesty’s case, it took about 40 years. I’m remembering Wm. Rusher as early as 1980 offered critiques of the organization in his columns, pointing out they hired an Australian Communist as their research director and devoted about as much verbiage to Guatemala as they did to Soviet Russia. Note, the organization was formed by a British lawyer in a reaction to a story he read in the paper about some people mistreated by the Government of Portugal, perhaps the least repressive of Europe’s non-democratic regimes.
I allowed my membership to lapse 25 years ago when it occurred to me that all the mailings I got from them concerned countries where human rights violations were retail (Morocco, Turkey, Singapore). In fairness, they may have thought the effect of their efforts on the margin would have been the most potent in those cases. Note, this report is not a function of the sort of letter writing campaigns Amnesty circles used to do.
Something else I noticed about Amnesty. They were the rare organization which had competitive election for their national board. The downside was that nearly all the candidates were NGO employees of one sort or another: professors, lawyers, general functionaries.
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/gofundme-allows-bail-fundraiser-for-suspect-in-parade-massacre/
Another collection of phonies.