Are you referring to the government’s actions or the comment section of the Pillar descending into the same tiresome acrimony that “governs” the outside Internet?
It's like watching a junkie get cut off: Very sad. Very pitiful. But very necessary.
The USCCB doesn't even do much direct work themselves. People have fantasy belief that USCCB staff members are out in the desert in little tents with their green logo, with smiling ladies praying the rosary and handing out cups of water. Baloney.
They alot federal funding to CRS and local diocesan Catholic Charities - those organizations then subcontract to small radical local groups with no oversight. There are Catholic Charities down in the southwest who've been knowingly paying and working in tandem with secular radicalist groups aiding and abeting human sex slave trafficking (O'Keefe Media Group blew the lid on that a year or so ago). This also explains how such immense seemingly-endless piles of cash can get squandered each year - we throw it away to cartel-linked subcontractors.
Even here in the midwest, CC does not incorporate the Catholic faith into their programs. It's so devoid of any Christian messaging or attempt at evangelization, that the WI Supreme Court recently ruled that CC can't be counted as a faith-based org because none of its programming involves any connection to Christianity.
The vast overwhelming majority of workers hired by CC are not Catholic and don't care at all about Christianity - they're just collecting a paycheck like any other secular job. I've seen these things myself, and it's equally shocking and pathetic.
Many people have or will lose their jobs, not to mention people served by this program losing resources that were committed to them. Whether these people are Catholic or not is irrelevant. Show some compassion.
With respect, Madeleine, the United States government is not (or at the very least should not be) a job creating entity that makes up work for people who need it. The US government is, in fact, teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. In fact, were it not for the fact that the US dollar is the world reserve currency, we probably would have gone bankrupt in the early 2000s when the Fed started "Quantitative Easing," a nice euphemism for "printing money."
If you want to know what happens when a country goes nuts printing money, read about the collapse of the Weimar Republic. They started printing money and the government collapsed.
If the work that was being done was good and has value to people, people can support those entities that were actually boots on the ground and eliminate layers of bureaucracy that reduces the efficaciousness of the moneys donated as layers of bureaucracy consume funds.
It is disappointing when people lose their jobs, absolutely, and I like most people wish that we could solve the nation's monetary woes without people being put out of work. But, if we close our eyes and pretend that the only thing that matters is keep people employed, in less than 10 years, a financial cataclysm will hit the US that will make the Great Depression look like a picnic.
Helping vetted and documented refugees in their resettlement, with a 90 day maximum, hardly seems like made up work. If so, it is an argument that no one should help those in need -- government, private charity, or individuals.
"The US government is, in fact, teetering on the verge of bankruptcy."
Is that a slam at the Republican Party for voting to add $4 Trillion to the deficit and give tax cuts to the rich?
"Helping vetted and documented refugees in their resettlement..."
Actual refugees get the aid they need from the gov't. It's fine for the Church to help them somewhat if absolutely necessary, but when the Church and the agencies it subcontracts with also start helping child traff1ck3rs and abvs3ers, abortion and contraceptive providers, and other baddies whose actions are immoral and/or illegal, then it's time to put an end to it.
It's made-up work in the sense that it keeps us paying for work that is, at best, irrelevant, and at worst (again) illegal and/or immoral. The U.S. isn't a global charity.
So your first sentence is the confusion here. Yes, actual refugees have been getting the help they need from the government... through the government contracting organizations like Catholic Charities to give them that help.
These same Bishops often take yearly jaunts to Europe surrounded by the adoring faithful and skillfully arranged by travel agencies. Fine rooms, food and wine. I have yet to see an ad in a diocesean news paper touting a trip with the Bishop to the deprived areas of Guatamala City, Lagos, or Caracas sharing life with the local faithful.
And you never will because the saintly clerics are not clamoring to be bishops. As Bp Fulton Sheen once quipped, "There is a shortage of vocations ot the priesthood but no shortage of vocations to the episcopate."
Show some compassion to the millions of women who are raped every year getting trafficked into this country or for the working class Americans whose wages have plummeted from competition
On the subject of the WI Supreme Court case: Our country's courts will slap CC for "not being Catholic enough" but will also slap Catholics for being too Catholic (i.e., Catholics radically living out the Gospel/teachings of Christ), simultaneously.
Essentially, I'm arguing against the idea of the need to "prove you're Catholic enough" to gain funding (which is in the eye of the beholder, btw).
The WI case deteriorates the relationship of the Church and state. What's the next question? Are churches "Catholic enough" if they don't proselytize? Should the Catholic Church be tax exempt if 80% of Catholics walk away from the faith — it seems like the church isn't very good at being "Catholic".
Just sayin', there's a slippery slope argument to be made here, and slowly, but surely, our Catholic institutions are dying off in the course of the next century (just look at Catholic schools).
Essentially, the amount of practicing Catholics are not be able to support the traditionally-expected institutions of the Church (that's why CC applies for funding in the first place), so I'd be very careful around gov't cuts in regard to religious institutions. I'm not saying we shouldn't or can't cut, but this case is more than what you make it out to be, Matthew.
As an aside, Catholic Charities-Diocese of Madison has revamped its "Catholic-ness".
I think the WI Supreme Court decision has a very strong point to make about us, rightly earned, and it should be a wakeup call for the Church. The idea that "they will know we are Christians by our love" is turning out to be bunk, as ever more non-churchgoing individuals are just as capable of running charities and doing volunteer work as Catholics.
Perhaps the lesson is this: we must remember that the Church's foremost preeminent mission is to save souls and bring about the conversion of every man, woman, and child. The highest Corporal Work of Mercy is far below the lowest Spiritual Work of Mercy. Everything else is secondary, even tertiary, and only nested within the primary task of saving souls through evangelization and the sacrments. Any charitable work must be coupled with at least some effort to proselytize. If the name says "Catholic Charities," but none of their buildings have a single crucifix, none of their programs involve any catechesis, none of their events involve Mass or the Sacraments or Adoration or any acts of pious devotion, and nobody working or volunteering there ever encourages someone to become Catholic.... then what makes it "'Catholic' Charities" again, exactly? I kinda have to agree with the court on this.
I'd rather the Church be brought before the courts for being "too Catholic" rather than dismissed for "not being Catholic enough"
I would amend my original statement to include the adjective "aggressively/militantly/toxically" proselytize, which we shouldn't do.
Your response naturally incorporates the healthy evangelization that should be happening within our Catholic institutions: Crucifixes, catechetical programming, Mass/Sacraments incorporated, workers/volunteers are in good standing with the Church morally (this is the largest lift, especially for Catholic schools).
Dioceses certainly need to take a hard look at their charitable arms.
But, in response to your last line, I'd reiterate the point that Catholics are already brought before the courts for being "too Catholic," e.g., alleged violations of the FACE Act.
The same courts that bring cases against CC are the same ones that bring charges against "radical" Catholics.
My point is this: Reform within Catholic institutions can happen without defunding — initiating change does not depend upon defunding (although, it is the easiest, simplest way to do so).
We, certainly, can have our cake and eat it, too, as long as evangelized Catholics do not give up on corporal institutions.
I am at a loss to figure what, in this instance, is the bad action that is taking place? Helping refugees who were legally resettled into the United States to find work, to get their kids into school, to find a home, to integrate, and to become self sufficient. That is what the program is all about.
I suppose that if the federal government wanted, they could hire agency staff, set them up across the country, and do the work themselves... but then of course they would be blamed for bloat and bureaucracy, so instead they established a private/public partnership, which is established on the The Refugee Act of 1980, to help in this effort.
Excellent point. It's like the extra layer of bureaucracy in annual United Way campaigns. You give them the $ but designate the charity that receives it. So why not just go directly to the local charity and cut out the middle man (United Way)? Or here, the USCCB?
Great point, too, about the lack of Catholicism. i"ve often wondered why we continue to devote resources to secular social justice items instead of using those resources to increase Mass attendance and evangelize? It's one of the reasons I support the protestant Compassion Int'l instead of the Catholic Relief Services. I know the former will at least preach the Gospel while handing out food...
Giving food to the hungry IS preaching the Gospel. We are care for the poor not because they are Catholic or we seek to make them Catholic, but because we are Catholic.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but if the poor don't understand that "Catholic Charities" is Catholic, are obligation is to be more involved with them, not less.
I do the same. Compassion International is a solid Christian organization. They've found the right balance between the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. I trust them with the children I support.
My fear is that the Church will continue to fulfill its mission to welcome the stranger but will have no way of verifying whether those it provides aid are here legally; thus, the United States will then sue the Bishops for aiding and abetting people with illegal status, forcing the Church into simultaneous expensive litigation, as the IVF suit is surely brewing. The amoral technocrat will be delighted.
If our Bishops ask us to fund this work, I hope we respond to our ability.
There's no excuse for the government not to pay for services already delivered before the decision to cancel the contract. I hope that situation is rectified quickly.
If you're reading this thinking, "Good, the USCCB shouldn't be depending on the government for money, just the donations of Catholics" and meanwhile you have no intention of increasing your giving, then your politics might be driving your response more than your religion.
My brother, I would personally bankrupt the Church in the United States and reduce it to poverty if it meant we would focus solely on proper liturgical reform, orthodox catechesis, and a staunch unflinching witness of the Kingship of Christ to the whole City of Man.
My religion is exactly the thing driving my desire to dry up the USCCB coffers, precisely because only by the most dramatic shock treatment will the USCCB be able to come out of its narcotic haze of money and "salvation-by-programming."
I would be jumping for joy if the USCCB woke up and said "we don't even have money to pay the rent on our office, we only have enough cash to buy one host for a single Mass"
So no, I won't increase my giving, because the USCCB must be ripped from the worship of mammon regardless of whether it comes from me or DC.
As somebody who is on your side about refugee resettlement, I do think you're being uncharitable here. It's completely reasonable for someone who doesn't trust the USCCB or CC as an organization (as many Catholics don't for various more and less legitimate reasons) not to agree that their faith demands they give that organization money.
Yes, it was some uncharitable snark on my part. I'll own that.
I'm just tired of people cheering for a sacrificial, suffering Church when the suffering is somewhere else. How many people cheering about what's happening with the USCCB would be similarly delighted if it happened at their own parish? If the layoffs were happening to their family or friends? It's just glib cruelty driven by politics.
The answer must never be that THEY need to give more, do more, pray more; it's I need give more, do more, pray more. Yes, there's always someone else to blame, someone else guiltier than me. Fine. But that's why we pray "through my fault," not "through their fault."
If you're not willing to endure it yourself, don't celebrate it happening to someone else.
But it does seem the response is that no one currently doing this work (the Church, the government) should continue and no serious claim that anyone new should take it up. By addition and subtraction, it seems an assertion the poor should not be cared for.
As did I: I've lauded it in the comment section here.
Generally speaking, I maintain my position that the National Eucharistic Revival was largely a failure. The Pilgrimages, and National Conference in Indy, were the only notable and positive feature. But did you know that the National Eucharistic Revival was actually 3+ year-long program, and that the pilgrimage/conference was only a final culminating part of it? Most people had no idea that the Revival was happening for most of its run. It was launched as a response to the "33% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence" statistic from Pew Research, and was ostensibly drafted as a way to bump up that number. It's failed to do so, went largely unnoticed even by regular Massgoers, and changed very little.
"Salvation-by-programming" is the term I've come up with to describe this mindset in the church that "if we just implement this exciting new program/initiative/capital improvement/event, things are going to get so much better!" and then nothing changes. These are the ecclesial versions of diet fads. It's a waste, they pass quickly, reach few, affect little, and are replaced by an ever-spinning wheel of "good ideas"
Meanwhile, we perpetually avoid doing the ONE THING that we know statistically always invariably improves every aspect of the local church: reform of the liturgy. Implementing a reform of the reform of the liturgy to a traditional liturgical praxis requires LITTLE TO NO effort, time, and money. When it's implemented on the parish level, it ALWAYS results in increased Mass attendance, increased parishioner giving, increased converts in RCIA, increased involevement in extra-curriculars (Bible Studies, etc.). When implemented on a diocesan level, it ALWAYS results in increased diocesan contributions, in increased vocations to the priesthood and religious life, and more.
It's the one thing that we're really supposed to do as the Church (the Sacraments), costs literally nothing, can be implemented tomorrow, and will invariably improve every measurable metric. But no, parishes/dioceses/USCCB all throw themselves into pet projects, "good ideas," and initiatives and programs that never actually accomplish much at all. It's the definition of insanity.
There are an awful lot of people who think that a good effort is defined by the number of dollars spent, the number of hours worked, or the amount of sweat produced.
Doing what actually works is worth a lot more. But it requires the work of the mind and courage in the heart, and is generally less pleasant and more arduous than spending money or organizing a big thing. At least for the person making the decision. The people who originally earned the money might be another story.
No, the pilgrimages and National Eucharistic Conference were the activities of the second year. The first was supposed to be diocesan and I was able to attend a diocesan wide Eucharistic pilgrimage on Corpus Christi in the middle of the diocese, if I remember correctly from Sacred Heart parish in Warsaw to Our Lady of Guadeloupe parish. It was led by choirs in different languages and races and music styles. I heard over 4,000 people had attended but I didn't count them. The bishop also gave days of Eucharistic adoration including one I attended where Carlo Acutis's relics were present and the bishop gave some very good talks and explanations on the Eucharist. We also had a different parish in the diocese declared a pilgrimage church each month and if you got a paper showing you had visited the pilgrim church for the month a number of different months you received a certificate good for a certain amount of money at a local Catholic bookstore.
This is the third year and it is supposed to be the year focused on the parish. In South Bend our parish was focused on getting people to invite their friends and neighbors to adoration or Mass. We also had and they still have regular teachings by our parish staff on the Eucharist and parish potlucks. Unfortunately I had to move to the middle of nowhere in Kentucky where invitation to participate in parish Eucharistic activities is limited to those belonging to a small clique in the parish. I have been told I'm not welcome, and neither were a majority of the parishioners, who weren't invited either. Enough said. That's not what this
It's a tough situation. I have the same concerns that have been voiced by others in regard to the "NGO-ification" of the Church. It does certainly seem that these programs were accepted uncritically and quickly got out of control.
On the other hand, it would certainly be unjust for the government to not fulfill contracts that they have already promised.
I don't think the Trump administration has good motives here, but I could see this having a positive effect (though a trial at that) on the Church in the long run.
The State Department said "Payment requests for legitimate costs incurred prior to this notification are allowable” and indicated where they can go to seek that reimbursement. They're essentially saying they'll pay expenses incurred up to now, which (almost) everyone would agree is morally required.
OTOH, there is no legal right to future contracts which have been cancelled.
You can say "I wish these contracts were not cancelled", but let me ask - if you were in a venture with a "partner" who sued you, would *you* continue that venture? I would drop it like a hot potato.
The USCCB tried to play hardball, with predictable results.
If the USCCB have competent strategic advisers they'll take a different tack. The administration would likely cooperate with them on many fronts, but if they cast themselves as "the resistance" then the relationship will be unproductive.
It's a complicated situation for sure, but I also really worry about the Church just becoming an NGO. That's basically what happened with Liberation Theology in Central and South America and the results have been a disaster.
I would go so far as to say it truly is the "pre-emininent issue" in the Church. Most of our problems are downstream of that mindset. Secularism has left us with an eviscerated husk of a Church.
I think the various Catholic charitable organizations will be in far less danger of being just another NGO if they aren't getting hundreds of millions per year from the government.
Being beholden to a secular government that only gives money with strings attached, is simply unwise. You have to be willing to refuse the money and shut down whatever operations were funded by it, for the sake of your religion. That is, unless the people who run Catholic NGOs are willing to shut down their organization rather than do anything contrary to the Faith, they have no business taking money from the government. Gain the world and lose your soul.
Because they will be put in that position, sooner or later.
In order to have a comprehensive understanding of this matter, shouldn’t the USCCB provide U.S. Catholics with a comprehensive accounting of how this government money has been spent ( and actually how all USCCB money is spent!). Perhaps that information is a available and I don’t know where to look for it.
Personally, having worked as a federal contractor, I do not recommend the USCCB or any Catholic organization to seek federal funding. The federal government is not interested in religious institutions, is capricious, and can issue stop work orders whenever it likes. It also builds a dependence on federal funding, i.e., the overhead needed to manage the program. The USCCB may have spent more money on the program than it took in, but their overhead was 14-26%.
Thanks much for this reference, which indicates 80%+ of the USCCB money went to other organizations involved with refugees and migrants. I was wondering if there is available information about precisely who these other organizations are. I recall the past scandals about USCCB Campaign for Human Development money going to activist pro abortion organizations. But in any event agree with you about Catholic entities not seeking federal funding.
What is missing from that report is that the money gets funneled downstream to radical leftwing organizations who are explicitly anti-Christian. USCCB makes grants to Catholic charities which makes grants to NGOs which make grants to NGOs which provide advice to illegal aliens on how to avoid ICE and promote LGBT propaganda.
First let me state I do not support bureaucracy of any large organization. They spend more on fluff, executives and committees then the people they state to aid. I do see a human face in these refugees .The poorest of the poor were lied to by the Biden administration, the coyotes and the cartel. They were promised an escape from their poverty and trials.
However, I do not believe Catholic Charities or any government agency was helping these people by lying to them and giving them hope for a better life . Catholic Charities knew that what they were doing is illegal. I agree they should provide temporary food clothing and shelter as Christ demands of us. However, these refuges should be provided transportation back to their homelands as the law demands. The key to stopping illegal immigration is to better the people in their countries and that has never happened. I know it seems like a futile task. There has to be a better situation . Education is one way they could help these immigrants. Instead of throwing money to bandied a large gaping wound that has never been given the right treatment , it is time to stop the insanity. This a larger problem that has festered for ever with no relief in site. Start one small area at a time. Mother Teresa did it and it worked. Start growing slowly but efficiently. It has not been handled well and needs a new approach. Catholic Charities is too big for its breeches. The federal government is too inefficient tied up with red tape and more problems. I do support immigration laws and do not accept law breakers into the country. Through the eyes of Christ , I see the reason for these refugees coming to America. I feel so sorry that they were lied to, stolen from and traumatized. Most of them are not College graduates,they are illiterate , poor, desperate and misinformed. The anger should be directed to the Organizations who give them false hope. We need to be Merciful not hateful. We need to stop ignoring the problem and find solutions. Anger solves nothing . The greatest of things needed is love.
Then they can legally get a job. There is no need to provide them assistance except maybe a brochure where they can go to look for a job. If they are Catholic, money to assist them should be provided from all the second collections that parishes gather for the USCCB every year. If they are not Catholic, give them the address to the local mosque, temple, or Protestant church to have them give them aid.
If the other places fail to help them, they can come back to the Catholic Church because then it will hopefully be a source of conversion to them seeing that people of their own faith refused to be generous to them. But we should first show charity to our Catholic brethren before spending money on others, lest there is not enough for our fellow Catholics. If I spend a $100 to feed others, and my brother or sister starves, then I am failing my primary duty.
Have you read thevNew Testament? Have you not read in the Acts of the Apostles about St. Paul gathering money from the places he evangelized to the Christian brethren in Jerusalem. He did not bring it to everyone in Jerusalem, just the Christians.
Did you not read in 2 Thessalonians 3 how St. Paul chastises lazy, able-bodied Christians by writing: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.' One argument for illegal immigration is that there are plenty of jobs available. Since that is the case, find yourself a job and don't ask for charity, which should only be reserved to the disabled, unaccompanied children, and elderly and widows.
No, a brochure that explains to a non-American where to look for jobs (addresses, websites, etc.), public library addresses where they can use computers for free, etc.
I am convicted, by your comment and by one or two others somewhere onsite, to log out of the comment section indefinitely, in order to atone for vaguely sensed national sins (as Douglas Adams wrote that eating dry pub sandwiches is a penance for) and for something specific (which he says pub sausages, floating in a sea of something hot and sad, are eaten to atone for.)
Is this move coupled with a reduction of refugees legally admitted to the US? It would at least be consistent to cut refugee resettlement if we were also cutting refugee admission. But to cut the resettlement programs and still admit refugees would be...imprudent
I believe the thing that is being cut is the admission of refugees and asylum seekers to the US *before* their claims are processed and they are vetted.
This will probably also cut down on the people who claim to be refugees and asylum seekers, are released into the country, and mysteriously never show up for any of their court dates.
Everything I've run across says that the resettlement programs have been paused/suspended, not cut. Whether Catholic Charities gets any money once the suspension ends remains to be seen.
Yes, the current administration cancelled refugee admissions as well, so cancelling the resettlement programs that serve those refugees more or less matches. (By "refugee admissions" I'm talking about the program where the US vets and gives advance permission to travel to a capped number of refugees - previously ~100k/year; not asylum seekers who present themselves at the border). There are some active court cases around cancelling refugee admissions; so it's unclear what the long term outcome will be.
It is sad that Catholic Social Services is caught up in this first wave of long-overdue government spending cuts, but anyone who thought this vast government spending could continue forever is not thinking clearly. The time for targeted cuts was years ago, but no one had the spine to do it. Not all the cuts now will be the sort of insane stuff we all think should go. I hope that bills CCS already incurred will be paid and obligations already made for the future can find local funding, and I hope that some of the programs cut (not just refugee resettlement) can be restored. But problems with CCS refugee programs in some areas have impacted the entire country--as has reckless, unsustainable spending.
Disgusting behavior.
Are you referring to the government’s actions or the comment section of the Pillar descending into the same tiresome acrimony that “governs” the outside Internet?
As mine was the first comment.... don't let bad site design confuse you.
The cruelty is the point.
It's like watching a junkie get cut off: Very sad. Very pitiful. But very necessary.
The USCCB doesn't even do much direct work themselves. People have fantasy belief that USCCB staff members are out in the desert in little tents with their green logo, with smiling ladies praying the rosary and handing out cups of water. Baloney.
They alot federal funding to CRS and local diocesan Catholic Charities - those organizations then subcontract to small radical local groups with no oversight. There are Catholic Charities down in the southwest who've been knowingly paying and working in tandem with secular radicalist groups aiding and abeting human sex slave trafficking (O'Keefe Media Group blew the lid on that a year or so ago). This also explains how such immense seemingly-endless piles of cash can get squandered each year - we throw it away to cartel-linked subcontractors.
Even here in the midwest, CC does not incorporate the Catholic faith into their programs. It's so devoid of any Christian messaging or attempt at evangelization, that the WI Supreme Court recently ruled that CC can't be counted as a faith-based org because none of its programming involves any connection to Christianity.
The vast overwhelming majority of workers hired by CC are not Catholic and don't care at all about Christianity - they're just collecting a paycheck like any other secular job. I've seen these things myself, and it's equally shocking and pathetic.
Many people have or will lose their jobs, not to mention people served by this program losing resources that were committed to them. Whether these people are Catholic or not is irrelevant. Show some compassion.
With respect, Madeleine, the United States government is not (or at the very least should not be) a job creating entity that makes up work for people who need it. The US government is, in fact, teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. In fact, were it not for the fact that the US dollar is the world reserve currency, we probably would have gone bankrupt in the early 2000s when the Fed started "Quantitative Easing," a nice euphemism for "printing money."
If you want to know what happens when a country goes nuts printing money, read about the collapse of the Weimar Republic. They started printing money and the government collapsed.
If the work that was being done was good and has value to people, people can support those entities that were actually boots on the ground and eliminate layers of bureaucracy that reduces the efficaciousness of the moneys donated as layers of bureaucracy consume funds.
It is disappointing when people lose their jobs, absolutely, and I like most people wish that we could solve the nation's monetary woes without people being put out of work. But, if we close our eyes and pretend that the only thing that matters is keep people employed, in less than 10 years, a financial cataclysm will hit the US that will make the Great Depression look like a picnic.
Austerity is difficult, but it beats bankruptcy.
"makes up work for people who need it. "
Helping vetted and documented refugees in their resettlement, with a 90 day maximum, hardly seems like made up work. If so, it is an argument that no one should help those in need -- government, private charity, or individuals.
"The US government is, in fact, teetering on the verge of bankruptcy."
Is that a slam at the Republican Party for voting to add $4 Trillion to the deficit and give tax cuts to the rich?
Every post you make sounds like a democrat sponsored talking point. No matter what the topic. Do you have any thoughts of your own?
I've come to realize that any expression of charity towards others is considered a Democratic talking point by certain elements.
Certain elements - enough said.
Tis a pity thou grew old before thou grew wise.
"Helping vetted and documented refugees in their resettlement..."
Actual refugees get the aid they need from the gov't. It's fine for the Church to help them somewhat if absolutely necessary, but when the Church and the agencies it subcontracts with also start helping child traff1ck3rs and abvs3ers, abortion and contraceptive providers, and other baddies whose actions are immoral and/or illegal, then it's time to put an end to it.
It's made-up work in the sense that it keeps us paying for work that is, at best, irrelevant, and at worst (again) illegal and/or immoral. The U.S. isn't a global charity.
I see. Just let them starve.
"Help child traffickers" and "let them starve" are not the only two options, and it helps no one to talk as if they are.
Food banks are still open around the country. The one thing about thr poor in the US, unlike other countries, is that they do not starve.
So your first sentence is the confusion here. Yes, actual refugees have been getting the help they need from the government... through the government contracting organizations like Catholic Charities to give them that help.
These same Bishops often take yearly jaunts to Europe surrounded by the adoring faithful and skillfully arranged by travel agencies. Fine rooms, food and wine. I have yet to see an ad in a diocesean news paper touting a trip with the Bishop to the deprived areas of Guatamala City, Lagos, or Caracas sharing life with the local faithful.
And you never will because the saintly clerics are not clamoring to be bishops. As Bp Fulton Sheen once quipped, "There is a shortage of vocations ot the priesthood but no shortage of vocations to the episcopate."
Very well put, thank you. Bishop Sheen's comment immedediately brings to mind the former Cardinal McCarrick.
Hey, European trips are at least better than weekend shenanigans with the newest crop of seminarians at the beach house...
Show some compassion to the millions of women who are raped every year getting trafficked into this country or for the working class Americans whose wages have plummeted from competition
Not sure how the refugee resettlement program has anything to do with either of those alleged issues.
On the subject of the WI Supreme Court case: Our country's courts will slap CC for "not being Catholic enough" but will also slap Catholics for being too Catholic (i.e., Catholics radically living out the Gospel/teachings of Christ), simultaneously.
Essentially, I'm arguing against the idea of the need to "prove you're Catholic enough" to gain funding (which is in the eye of the beholder, btw).
The WI case deteriorates the relationship of the Church and state. What's the next question? Are churches "Catholic enough" if they don't proselytize? Should the Catholic Church be tax exempt if 80% of Catholics walk away from the faith — it seems like the church isn't very good at being "Catholic".
Just sayin', there's a slippery slope argument to be made here, and slowly, but surely, our Catholic institutions are dying off in the course of the next century (just look at Catholic schools).
Essentially, the amount of practicing Catholics are not be able to support the traditionally-expected institutions of the Church (that's why CC applies for funding in the first place), so I'd be very careful around gov't cuts in regard to religious institutions. I'm not saying we shouldn't or can't cut, but this case is more than what you make it out to be, Matthew.
As an aside, Catholic Charities-Diocese of Madison has revamped its "Catholic-ness".
I definitely echo a lot of your thoughts here!
I think the WI Supreme Court decision has a very strong point to make about us, rightly earned, and it should be a wakeup call for the Church. The idea that "they will know we are Christians by our love" is turning out to be bunk, as ever more non-churchgoing individuals are just as capable of running charities and doing volunteer work as Catholics.
Perhaps the lesson is this: we must remember that the Church's foremost preeminent mission is to save souls and bring about the conversion of every man, woman, and child. The highest Corporal Work of Mercy is far below the lowest Spiritual Work of Mercy. Everything else is secondary, even tertiary, and only nested within the primary task of saving souls through evangelization and the sacrments. Any charitable work must be coupled with at least some effort to proselytize. If the name says "Catholic Charities," but none of their buildings have a single crucifix, none of their programs involve any catechesis, none of their events involve Mass or the Sacraments or Adoration or any acts of pious devotion, and nobody working or volunteering there ever encourages someone to become Catholic.... then what makes it "'Catholic' Charities" again, exactly? I kinda have to agree with the court on this.
I'd rather the Church be brought before the courts for being "too Catholic" rather than dismissed for "not being Catholic enough"
I would amend my original statement to include the adjective "aggressively/militantly/toxically" proselytize, which we shouldn't do.
Your response naturally incorporates the healthy evangelization that should be happening within our Catholic institutions: Crucifixes, catechetical programming, Mass/Sacraments incorporated, workers/volunteers are in good standing with the Church morally (this is the largest lift, especially for Catholic schools).
Dioceses certainly need to take a hard look at their charitable arms.
But, in response to your last line, I'd reiterate the point that Catholics are already brought before the courts for being "too Catholic," e.g., alleged violations of the FACE Act.
The same courts that bring cases against CC are the same ones that bring charges against "radical" Catholics.
My point is this: Reform within Catholic institutions can happen without defunding — initiating change does not depend upon defunding (although, it is the easiest, simplest way to do so).
We, certainly, can have our cake and eat it, too, as long as evangelized Catholics do not give up on corporal institutions.
I am at a loss to figure what, in this instance, is the bad action that is taking place? Helping refugees who were legally resettled into the United States to find work, to get their kids into school, to find a home, to integrate, and to become self sufficient. That is what the program is all about.
I suppose that if the federal government wanted, they could hire agency staff, set them up across the country, and do the work themselves... but then of course they would be blamed for bloat and bureaucracy, so instead they established a private/public partnership, which is established on the The Refugee Act of 1980, to help in this effort.
Mt 25 points to the reality that exercising of corporal works of mercy is integrally tied to one's own salvation. Hardly secondary or tertiary.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case. It will be argued by the Becket Find.
Excellent point. It's like the extra layer of bureaucracy in annual United Way campaigns. You give them the $ but designate the charity that receives it. So why not just go directly to the local charity and cut out the middle man (United Way)? Or here, the USCCB?
Great point, too, about the lack of Catholicism. i"ve often wondered why we continue to devote resources to secular social justice items instead of using those resources to increase Mass attendance and evangelize? It's one of the reasons I support the protestant Compassion Int'l instead of the Catholic Relief Services. I know the former will at least preach the Gospel while handing out food...
Giving food to the hungry IS preaching the Gospel. We are care for the poor not because they are Catholic or we seek to make them Catholic, but because we are Catholic.
Nonsense, Kurt, being Catholic is just about owning the libs and righteously causing other people misery.
I don't usually agree with you, but you're right on the money with this one.
Thank you my friend. I certainly can't claim that comment was anything original. I've heard that all my life.
Giving food to the hungry only preaches the Gospel if the poor know we are acting because of our Christian faith.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but if the poor don't understand that "Catholic Charities" is Catholic, are obligation is to be more involved with them, not less.
I do the same. Compassion International is a solid Christian organization. They've found the right balance between the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. I trust them with the children I support.
My fear is that the Church will continue to fulfill its mission to welcome the stranger but will have no way of verifying whether those it provides aid are here legally; thus, the United States will then sue the Bishops for aiding and abetting people with illegal status, forcing the Church into simultaneous expensive litigation, as the IVF suit is surely brewing. The amoral technocrat will be delighted.
If our Bishops ask us to fund this work, I hope we respond to our ability.
They already don't vet immigrants...
Jesus wept.
There's no excuse for the government not to pay for services already delivered before the decision to cancel the contract. I hope that situation is rectified quickly.
If you're reading this thinking, "Good, the USCCB shouldn't be depending on the government for money, just the donations of Catholics" and meanwhile you have no intention of increasing your giving, then your politics might be driving your response more than your religion.
My brother, I would personally bankrupt the Church in the United States and reduce it to poverty if it meant we would focus solely on proper liturgical reform, orthodox catechesis, and a staunch unflinching witness of the Kingship of Christ to the whole City of Man.
My religion is exactly the thing driving my desire to dry up the USCCB coffers, precisely because only by the most dramatic shock treatment will the USCCB be able to come out of its narcotic haze of money and "salvation-by-programming."
I would be jumping for joy if the USCCB woke up and said "we don't even have money to pay the rent on our office, we only have enough cash to buy one host for a single Mass"
So no, I won't increase my giving, because the USCCB must be ripped from the worship of mammon regardless of whether it comes from me or DC.
The guy who won't increase his giving thinks other people need to repent of their worship of Mammon.
Now you're getting it!
As somebody who is on your side about refugee resettlement, I do think you're being uncharitable here. It's completely reasonable for someone who doesn't trust the USCCB or CC as an organization (as many Catholics don't for various more and less legitimate reasons) not to agree that their faith demands they give that organization money.
Yes, it was some uncharitable snark on my part. I'll own that.
I'm just tired of people cheering for a sacrificial, suffering Church when the suffering is somewhere else. How many people cheering about what's happening with the USCCB would be similarly delighted if it happened at their own parish? If the layoffs were happening to their family or friends? It's just glib cruelty driven by politics.
The answer must never be that THEY need to give more, do more, pray more; it's I need give more, do more, pray more. Yes, there's always someone else to blame, someone else guiltier than me. Fine. But that's why we pray "through my fault," not "through their fault."
If you're not willing to endure it yourself, don't celebrate it happening to someone else.
But it does seem the response is that no one currently doing this work (the Church, the government) should continue and no serious claim that anyone new should take it up. By addition and subtraction, it seems an assertion the poor should not be cared for.
> and "salvation-by-programming."
You did not like the Eucharistic pilgrimages? I quite liked the one that came through my parish.
As did I: I've lauded it in the comment section here.
Generally speaking, I maintain my position that the National Eucharistic Revival was largely a failure. The Pilgrimages, and National Conference in Indy, were the only notable and positive feature. But did you know that the National Eucharistic Revival was actually 3+ year-long program, and that the pilgrimage/conference was only a final culminating part of it? Most people had no idea that the Revival was happening for most of its run. It was launched as a response to the "33% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence" statistic from Pew Research, and was ostensibly drafted as a way to bump up that number. It's failed to do so, went largely unnoticed even by regular Massgoers, and changed very little.
"Salvation-by-programming" is the term I've come up with to describe this mindset in the church that "if we just implement this exciting new program/initiative/capital improvement/event, things are going to get so much better!" and then nothing changes. These are the ecclesial versions of diet fads. It's a waste, they pass quickly, reach few, affect little, and are replaced by an ever-spinning wheel of "good ideas"
Meanwhile, we perpetually avoid doing the ONE THING that we know statistically always invariably improves every aspect of the local church: reform of the liturgy. Implementing a reform of the reform of the liturgy to a traditional liturgical praxis requires LITTLE TO NO effort, time, and money. When it's implemented on the parish level, it ALWAYS results in increased Mass attendance, increased parishioner giving, increased converts in RCIA, increased involevement in extra-curriculars (Bible Studies, etc.). When implemented on a diocesan level, it ALWAYS results in increased diocesan contributions, in increased vocations to the priesthood and religious life, and more.
It's the one thing that we're really supposed to do as the Church (the Sacraments), costs literally nothing, can be implemented tomorrow, and will invariably improve every measurable metric. But no, parishes/dioceses/USCCB all throw themselves into pet projects, "good ideas," and initiatives and programs that never actually accomplish much at all. It's the definition of insanity.
There are an awful lot of people who think that a good effort is defined by the number of dollars spent, the number of hours worked, or the amount of sweat produced.
Doing what actually works is worth a lot more. But it requires the work of the mind and courage in the heart, and is generally less pleasant and more arduous than spending money or organizing a big thing. At least for the person making the decision. The people who originally earned the money might be another story.
No, the pilgrimages and National Eucharistic Conference were the activities of the second year. The first was supposed to be diocesan and I was able to attend a diocesan wide Eucharistic pilgrimage on Corpus Christi in the middle of the diocese, if I remember correctly from Sacred Heart parish in Warsaw to Our Lady of Guadeloupe parish. It was led by choirs in different languages and races and music styles. I heard over 4,000 people had attended but I didn't count them. The bishop also gave days of Eucharistic adoration including one I attended where Carlo Acutis's relics were present and the bishop gave some very good talks and explanations on the Eucharist. We also had a different parish in the diocese declared a pilgrimage church each month and if you got a paper showing you had visited the pilgrim church for the month a number of different months you received a certificate good for a certain amount of money at a local Catholic bookstore.
This is the third year and it is supposed to be the year focused on the parish. In South Bend our parish was focused on getting people to invite their friends and neighbors to adoration or Mass. We also had and they still have regular teachings by our parish staff on the Eucharist and parish potlucks. Unfortunately I had to move to the middle of nowhere in Kentucky where invitation to participate in parish Eucharistic activities is limited to those belonging to a small clique in the parish. I have been told I'm not welcome, and neither were a majority of the parishioners, who weren't invited either. Enough said. That's not what this
FAFO
It's a tough situation. I have the same concerns that have been voiced by others in regard to the "NGO-ification" of the Church. It does certainly seem that these programs were accepted uncritically and quickly got out of control.
On the other hand, it would certainly be unjust for the government to not fulfill contracts that they have already promised.
I don't think the Trump administration has good motives here, but I could see this having a positive effect (though a trial at that) on the Church in the long run.
The State Department said "Payment requests for legitimate costs incurred prior to this notification are allowable” and indicated where they can go to seek that reimbursement. They're essentially saying they'll pay expenses incurred up to now, which (almost) everyone would agree is morally required.
OTOH, there is no legal right to future contracts which have been cancelled.
You can say "I wish these contracts were not cancelled", but let me ask - if you were in a venture with a "partner" who sued you, would *you* continue that venture? I would drop it like a hot potato.
The USCCB tried to play hardball, with predictable results.
If the USCCB have competent strategic advisers they'll take a different tack. The administration would likely cooperate with them on many fronts, but if they cast themselves as "the resistance" then the relationship will be unproductive.
It's a complicated situation for sure, but I also really worry about the Church just becoming an NGO. That's basically what happened with Liberation Theology in Central and South America and the results have been a disaster.
I would go so far as to say it truly is the "pre-emininent issue" in the Church. Most of our problems are downstream of that mindset. Secularism has left us with an eviscerated husk of a Church.
I think the various Catholic charitable organizations will be in far less danger of being just another NGO if they aren't getting hundreds of millions per year from the government.
Being beholden to a secular government that only gives money with strings attached, is simply unwise. You have to be willing to refuse the money and shut down whatever operations were funded by it, for the sake of your religion. That is, unless the people who run Catholic NGOs are willing to shut down their organization rather than do anything contrary to the Faith, they have no business taking money from the government. Gain the world and lose your soul.
Because they will be put in that position, sooner or later.
In order to have a comprehensive understanding of this matter, shouldn’t the USCCB provide U.S. Catholics with a comprehensive accounting of how this government money has been spent ( and actually how all USCCB money is spent!). Perhaps that information is a available and I don’t know where to look for it.
The Pillar had an analysis of it, here: https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/is-migration-padding-the-usccb-bottom
Personally, having worked as a federal contractor, I do not recommend the USCCB or any Catholic organization to seek federal funding. The federal government is not interested in religious institutions, is capricious, and can issue stop work orders whenever it likes. It also builds a dependence on federal funding, i.e., the overhead needed to manage the program. The USCCB may have spent more money on the program than it took in, but their overhead was 14-26%.
Thanks much for this reference, which indicates 80%+ of the USCCB money went to other organizations involved with refugees and migrants. I was wondering if there is available information about precisely who these other organizations are. I recall the past scandals about USCCB Campaign for Human Development money going to activist pro abortion organizations. But in any event agree with you about Catholic entities not seeking federal funding.
You actually can see grant info and subrecipients here, by searching "Catholic bishops" and CFDA 19.510, for example: https://www.usaspending.gov/
Thanks!
What is missing from that report is that the money gets funneled downstream to radical leftwing organizations who are explicitly anti-Christian. USCCB makes grants to Catholic charities which makes grants to NGOs which make grants to NGOs which provide advice to illegal aliens on how to avoid ICE and promote LGBT propaganda.
You can literally check the subrecipients at the link above. It's not a vast conspiracy.
First let me state I do not support bureaucracy of any large organization. They spend more on fluff, executives and committees then the people they state to aid. I do see a human face in these refugees .The poorest of the poor were lied to by the Biden administration, the coyotes and the cartel. They were promised an escape from their poverty and trials.
However, I do not believe Catholic Charities or any government agency was helping these people by lying to them and giving them hope for a better life . Catholic Charities knew that what they were doing is illegal. I agree they should provide temporary food clothing and shelter as Christ demands of us. However, these refuges should be provided transportation back to their homelands as the law demands. The key to stopping illegal immigration is to better the people in their countries and that has never happened. I know it seems like a futile task. There has to be a better situation . Education is one way they could help these immigrants. Instead of throwing money to bandied a large gaping wound that has never been given the right treatment , it is time to stop the insanity. This a larger problem that has festered for ever with no relief in site. Start one small area at a time. Mother Teresa did it and it worked. Start growing slowly but efficiently. It has not been handled well and needs a new approach. Catholic Charities is too big for its breeches. The federal government is too inefficient tied up with red tape and more problems. I do support immigration laws and do not accept law breakers into the country. Through the eyes of Christ , I see the reason for these refugees coming to America. I feel so sorry that they were lied to, stolen from and traumatized. Most of them are not College graduates,they are illiterate , poor, desperate and misinformed. The anger should be directed to the Organizations who give them false hope. We need to be Merciful not hateful. We need to stop ignoring the problem and find solutions. Anger solves nothing . The greatest of things needed is love.
This program serves refugees who have legally entered the United States.
Then they can legally get a job. There is no need to provide them assistance except maybe a brochure where they can go to look for a job. If they are Catholic, money to assist them should be provided from all the second collections that parishes gather for the USCCB every year. If they are not Catholic, give them the address to the local mosque, temple, or Protestant church to have them give them aid.
"If they are not Catholic, give them the address to the local mosque, temple, or Protestant church to have them give them aid."
And if they are Samaritans?
If the other places fail to help them, they can come back to the Catholic Church because then it will hopefully be a source of conversion to them seeing that people of their own faith refused to be generous to them. But we should first show charity to our Catholic brethren before spending money on others, lest there is not enough for our fellow Catholics. If I spend a $100 to feed others, and my brother or sister starves, then I am failing my primary duty.
Have you ever read the Gospels?
Have you read thevNew Testament? Have you not read in the Acts of the Apostles about St. Paul gathering money from the places he evangelized to the Christian brethren in Jerusalem. He did not bring it to everyone in Jerusalem, just the Christians.
Did you not read in 2 Thessalonians 3 how St. Paul chastises lazy, able-bodied Christians by writing: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.' One argument for illegal immigration is that there are plenty of jobs available. Since that is the case, find yourself a job and don't ask for charity, which should only be reserved to the disabled, unaccompanied children, and elderly and widows.
Umm have you ever gotten a job from a brochure?
No, a brochure that explains to a non-American where to look for jobs (addresses, websites, etc.), public library addresses where they can use computers for free, etc.
So you're actually serious.
Yes, actually. More factually, after interviewing and receiving the offer, I turned it down.
I am convicted, by your comment and by one or two others somewhere onsite, to log out of the comment section indefinitely, in order to atone for vaguely sensed national sins (as Douglas Adams wrote that eating dry pub sandwiches is a penance for) and for something specific (which he says pub sausages, floating in a sea of something hot and sad, are eaten to atone for.)
With an inability to read/write or be read with a heart of charity, I think I'll follow you Bridget.
I'm tired and saddened. Everyone wants to be angry. I don't.
Is this move coupled with a reduction of refugees legally admitted to the US? It would at least be consistent to cut refugee resettlement if we were also cutting refugee admission. But to cut the resettlement programs and still admit refugees would be...imprudent
I believe the thing that is being cut is the admission of refugees and asylum seekers to the US *before* their claims are processed and they are vetted.
This will probably also cut down on the people who claim to be refugees and asylum seekers, are released into the country, and mysteriously never show up for any of their court dates.
Everything I've run across says that the resettlement programs have been paused/suspended, not cut. Whether Catholic Charities gets any money once the suspension ends remains to be seen.
Yes, the current administration cancelled refugee admissions as well, so cancelling the resettlement programs that serve those refugees more or less matches. (By "refugee admissions" I'm talking about the program where the US vets and gives advance permission to travel to a capped number of refugees - previously ~100k/year; not asylum seekers who present themselves at the border). There are some active court cases around cancelling refugee admissions; so it's unclear what the long term outcome will be.
Here's a source: https://apnews.com/article/refugees-flights-trump-immigration-border-resettlement-33ebaa34bc4d0c069a22ee7aa5f8ff6d
It is sad that Catholic Social Services is caught up in this first wave of long-overdue government spending cuts, but anyone who thought this vast government spending could continue forever is not thinking clearly. The time for targeted cuts was years ago, but no one had the spine to do it. Not all the cuts now will be the sort of insane stuff we all think should go. I hope that bills CCS already incurred will be paid and obligations already made for the future can find local funding, and I hope that some of the programs cut (not just refugee resettlement) can be restored. But problems with CCS refugee programs in some areas have impacted the entire country--as has reckless, unsustainable spending.
Mathew, addiction is complex, showing mercy to underserved communities is not.
Why do Catholic Charities depend on funding from the government? It should not otherwise it get beholden to the requests of it masters!
Because no amount of private charity can solve these kind of global issues.
Mary, Undoer of Knots, Pray for us.