62% of Catholic Charities $ from US Gov't?

[Ridgerunner]

I have no reason to doubt the 62% number.

However, I do have concerns about the wisdom of it from the Church’s point of view. There was a time when Catholic institutions of all kinds received nothing from the government, relying entirely on donations, and, to all appearances, did a pretty good job of charitable works.

Lots of things changed, including the shortage of priests and nuns who often staffed the institutions. But also, the governments at every level have progressively increased taxes, so (or so I believe) charitable giving is getting “crowded out” by governmental entities.

So, government handles the money and gives some of it to the entities to which people might have otherwise donated but for the ever-increasing taxation. It does not, to me, make a lot of sense other than from the government beaurocratic point of view.

But increasingly, we’re also seeing governmental interference in the expression of the charitable missions. Catholic adoption agencies are defunded unless they place children with homosexuals; Obama requires that they pay for contraceptive and abortion insurance coverage; Obama disqualifies a Catholic organization from providing refugee aid because it won’t refer them for abortions.

In other words, it appears to me the Catholic organizations are now progressively being “crowded out” of charitable enterprises from the other side as well. The future of such organizations does not look all that rosy to me unless individual Catholics decide to change their “giving” habits significantly.

Yes, one gets a tax deduction for charitable donations. But that isn’t dollar for dollar. To “replace” government defunding of Catholic organizations, Catholics would have to reduce their personal consumption, which is hard in a consumerist society. But in my opinion, it’s going to come to that, probably along with a significant reduction in the number and missions of the various Catholic charitable organizations. Some of the existing ones will elect to “go secular”, as some of the “Catholic” hospitals have done, and more of which appear to be on the cusp of doing it.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Really? How do you know this? I’m so surprised, I was told the government never gave monies to charities for foreign aid.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14419

 

[epan]

I have no reason to doubt the 62% number.

However, I do have concerns about the wisdom of it from the Church’s point of view. There was a time when Catholic institutions of all kinds received nothing from the government, relying entirely on donations, and, to all appearances, did a pretty good job of charitable works.

Lots of things changed, including the shortage of priests and nuns who often staffed the institutions. But also, the governments at every level have progressively increased taxes, so (or so I believe) charitable giving is getting “crowded out” by governmental entities.

So, government handles the money and gives some of it to the entities to which people might have otherwise donated but for the ever-increasing taxation. It does not, to me, make a lot of sense other than from the government beaurocratic point of view.

But increasingly, we’re also seeing governmental interference in the expression of the charitable missions. Catholic adoption agencies are defunded unless they place children with homosexuals; Obama requires that they pay for contraceptive and abortion insurance coverage; Obama disqualifies a Catholic organization from providing refugee aid because it won’t refer them for abortions.

In other words, it appears to me the Catholic organizations are now progressively being “crowded out” of charitable enterprises from the other side as well. The future of such organizations does not look all that rosy to me unless individual Catholics decide to change their “giving” habits significantly.

Yes, one gets a tax deduction for charitable donations. But that isn’t dollar for dollar. To “replace” government defunding of Catholic organizations, Catholics would have to reduce their personal consumption, which is hard in a consumerist society. But in my opinion, it’s going to come to that, probably along with a significant reduction in the number and missions of the various Catholic charitable organizations. Some of the existing ones will elect to “go secular”, as some of the “Catholic” hospitals have done, and more of which appear to be on the cusp of doing it.

Obama doesn’t require any such thing. It would be beyond the scope of presidential power. Only th congress has the authority to spend money. Obama has represented himself to be in favor of gay rights. I assume he does not oppose abortion. When it comes to granting money to charities, or putting restrictions on those grants, a US president has no say.

 

[jilly4ski]

Obama doesn’t require any such thing. It would be beyond the scope of presidential power. Only th congress has the authority to spend money. Obama has represented himself to be in favor of gay rights. I assume he does not oppose abortion. When it comes to granting money to charities, or putting restrictions on those grants, a US president has no say.

Except that he does, because it is not Congress who award grants or contracts but rather offices of the executive. Congress gives these offices (such as HHS, DOD, DOA, and the whole slew of them) a budget, and then these offices, including executive appointed officials, award grants and make the rules that govern the use of grant money from their department.

Thus the president appoints people that think like him, (such as Kathleen Sebelius) and they direct their department to award grants and contracts the way they see fit.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Here is the American Red Cross’s 990 for 2011. It says they receive 68,005,187 in government grants on page 9 of the 990. And here is the American Red Cross’s international programs.

First, rolling your eyes at people and using emoticons to indicate how stupid you think they are is rude. Please refrain from being rude to me.

2nd, this is what you said:

**Since the government gives large amounts of money to the Red Cross who does charity work. How do you think all the money for foreign aid is actually given. Often the government will allocate foreign aid, and contract with charities to distribute that aid- food and health care, or run refugee camps or etc. **

I actually have a fairly good idea of how foreign aid is given, and it’s not by grants to the ARC. The 990 does show how many government grants they received, do you know which ones and what the stipulations are for the money? As I indicated, those monies would be used for aid in this country.

Non-profits in this country are constrained by some pretty extensive laws and if you give money for something, and specify it is only for that something, that’s what it is used for.

So, nothing you’ve said in any way illustrates that you are not simply giving your personal opinion and have no objective source to show the US government gives any money to any non-profit for foreign aid.

As I have noted, I may be mistaken, but nothing ITT shows I am. Here is a link you can read about how foreign aid is distributed

This focus on either growing the pie or distributing it differently takes as a premise that the current system of government-to-government aid is the best way forward.

and ideas for changing the policy. hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5767

Because of the date of these recommendations, it is possible that something has changed. Foreign aid is accomplished by contracts between governments, not through private charities.

 

[1ke]

Well, they are one or the other but by definition can’t be both.

Perhaps you need to learn more about Church law and Church structure.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I have no reason to doubt the 62% number.

However, I do have concerns about the wisdom of it from the Church’s point of view. There was a time when Catholic institutions of all kinds received nothing from the government, relying entirely on donations, and, to all appearances, did a pretty good job of charitable works… To “replace” government defunding of Catholic organizations, Catholics would have to reduce their personal consumption, which is hard in a consumerist society. But in my opinion, it’s going to come to that, probably along with a significant reduction in the number and missions of the various Catholic charitable organizations. Some of the existing ones will elect to “go secular”, as some of the “Catholic” hospitals have done, and more of which appear to be on the cusp of doing it.

I agree. It’s always a good idea to avoid the government hand-outs. I’ve been thinking about the topic of this thread and the issue with the new health insurance. In the end, Catholic Charities is not the Church. If the Court doesn’t agree, they would either have to close all of CC, or accept the mandate. Or, CC would have to be an actual Catholic Church enterprise and not be independent non-profits. That would completely open the books of every Catholic Diocese to public scrutiny.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Obama doesn’t require any such thing. It would be beyond the scope of presidential power. Only th congress has the authority to spend money. Obama has represented himself to be in favor of gay rights. I assume he does not oppose abortion. When it comes to granting money to charities, or putting restrictions on those grants, a US president has no say.

Yes he does, and you would do well to look it up. Congress has delegated so much authority to the executive branch that many think it excessive.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Perhaps you need to learn more about Church law and Church structure.

Or you need to learn more about US law governing non-profits and churches?

The Church might think that they are the Church, doesn’t make it so in legal terms.

 

[jilly4ski]

First, rolling your eyes at people and using emoticons to indicate how stupid you think they are is rude. Please refrain from being rude to me.
.

I rolled my eyes, because I wanted to know where you “know” this from. (I am usually open to learning about how things like this work) Because again, there is a mechanism for handing out aid to foreign nations and it usually does not consist of handing money to those foreign governments (Thus it must be going to private, charitable, or US government run orgs). Then you came back and told me to provide proof. I thought that a little disingenuous of you.
So I did, the American Red Cross gets government grants and then provide humanitarian services overseas.

crs.org/about/finance/pdf/2008-form-990.pdf Here is the 990 from Catholic relief Services, which operates through the USCCB. It appears that over half of their budget is supplied by the government even they work almost exclusively abroad. The statement on the 990 claims that CRS is the “Official international humanitarian agency of the Catholic community in the US.”

Remember the big brouhaha over the government ending the contract with the bishop’s refugee work, even though the bishops had the best rating as far as services and administration costs.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I rolled my eyes, because I wanted to know where you “know” this from.

I never said I “knew” anything. I said this:

Really? How do you know this? I’m so surprised, I was told the government never gave monies to charities for foreign aid.

Then you came back and told me to provide proof. I thought that a little disingenuous of you.

I can’t imagine why a straightforward request for information would seem “disingenuous.”

So I did, the American Red Cross gets government grants and then provide humanitarian services overseas.

And as I said, nothing indicates where that money is spent, how or by whom.

Remember the big brouhaha over the government ending the contract with the bishop’s refugee work, even though the bishops had the best rating as far as services and administration costs.

No. Do you have a link?

 

[1ke]

Or you need to learn more about US law governing non-profits and churches?

No, I am sufficiently well versed in both. I work for a 501(c)(3) and have been to training in our diocese on the corporate structure of parishes, charities, canon law, etc.

The Church might think that they are the Church, doesn’t make it so in legal terms.

I am really not clear on what you mean here. Can you be more specific.

 

[jilly4ski]

And as I said, nothing indicates where that money is spent, how or by whom.

No. Do you have a link?

By whom? The money is spent by CRS, indeed, where the money is a little more tricky, but since their primary mission in international humanitarian aid, we can assume all funds are either spent on administrative costs or funding of their work, lobbying, etc. With over 50% of their budget being supplied by the government, it would seem strange that at least some of this did not end up overseas.

This is the usccb’s page on the funding of their refugee program.

And here is the news article. mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-10/catholic-group-dropped-from-u-s-aid-contract.html

 

[Julia_Mae]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae
The Church might think that they are the Church, doesn’t make it so in legal terms.

Catholic Charities, Inc of Memphis, for instance, must file 990s as a 501(c)3. ccwtn.org/forms/FY07CCIForm990.pdf But as we see here, the Archdiocese of Memphis, as a church, does not. faqs.org/tax-exempt/TN/Diocese-Of-Memphis-Catholic-Communication-United-States-Cathol.html#b

Catholic Charities is not part of the Church in the United States. The Church might feel that it is, or consider that it is, but legally it is not. Which is why these independent organizations, regardless of Church affiliation, are subject to US laws regarding, say, OSHA or the new health care proposals. They aren’t churches.

 

[Julia_Mae]

By whom? The money is spent by CRS, indeed, where the money is a little more tricky, but since their primary mission in international humanitarian aid, we can assume all funds are either spent on administrative costs or funding of their work, lobbying, etc. With over 50% of their budget being supplied by the government, it would seem strange that at least some of this did not end up overseas.

This is the link you provided to their 990s redcross.org/www-files/Documents/pdf/corppubs/ARC_990_2011.pdf

I want to take the elements in your post and compare with the numbers because what you are saying doesn’t seem tome to be supported by their own documents.

their primary mission in international humanitarian aid

The 990 we are looking at is for the American National Red Cross, Line 1, Page 1 states their mission is disaster preparation and relief. There’s no mention of any international action in their primary mission.

With over 50% of their budget being supplied by the government

Total revenue from Line 1a Page 1 is $3,452,960,387. That’s 3 billion. Total Government grants from page 9, Line 1e is $68, 005, 187. So that’s a little less than 20% of their total revenue.

Monies spent internationally on Page 2: $340, 107, 000. That’s about 10% of their total revenue.

Nonprofits I am familiar with who do varied kinds of services, usually keep separate accounts for monies that are designated for certain programs. Grant money, which has to be carefully accounted for back to the grantor, usually, is kept in it’s own account so where it is spent is tracked.

The US government does not send foreign aid through private charities. I think a lot of people are under this impression, but it’s just not true that I have ever seen. But I haven’t looked at your other links, yet. I will. But government grants to the US Red Cross, will be for domestic use only, and probably are mostly given during the times of disaster when the Red Cross moves in, as with hurricanes and so forth.

 

[Julia_Mae]

This is the usccb’s page on the funding of their refugee program.

And here is the news article. mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-10/catholic-group-dropped-from-u-s-aid-contract.html

Okay, well. As to the first link, the USCCB never had a refugee program, the US government does. Your second link, says in the first paragraph:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was awarded a five- year contract that paid it $19 million to coordinate the services during the administration of President George W. Bush.
The contract was extended briefly in March, and the group said it was informed recently that its grant request to continue the work was turned down.

I have no idea who is speaking so loosely, but it’s either a contract or a grant. The USCCB is not a non-profit like Catholic Charities, it’s the Church. So, essentially, George Bush gave the Church $19 million dollars to do some work. No one outside the Church has any idea what happened to the money, really, since the Church is not required to account for anything. Obama took the contract and awarded it to others.

Not sure what the Constitution would make of the government contracting with a church.

 

[jilly4ski]

Okay, well. As to the first link, the USCCB never had a refugee program, the US government does. Your second link, says in the first paragraph:

I have no idea who is speaking so loosely, but it’s either a contract or a grant. The USCCB is not a non-profit like Catholic Charities, it’s the Church. So, essentially, George Bush gave the Church $19 million dollars to do some work. No one outside the Church has any idea what happened to the money, really, since the Church is not required to account for anything. Obama took the contract and awarded it to others.

Not sure what the Constitution would make of the government contracting with a church.

This is the link you provided to their 990s redcross.org/www-files/Documents/pdf/corppubs/ARC_990_2011.pdf

I want to take the elements in your post and compare with the numbers because what you are saying doesn’t seem tome to be supported by their own documents.

their primary mission in international humanitarian aid

The 990 we are looking at is for the American National Red Cross, Line 1, Page 1 states their mission is disaster preparation and relief. There’s no mention of any international action in their primary mission.

With over 50% of their budget being supplied by the government

Total revenue from Line 1a Page 1 is $3,452,960,387. That’s 3 billion. Total Government grants from page 9, Line 1e is $68, 005, 187. So that’s a little less than 20% of their total revenue.

Monies spent internationally on Page 2: $340, 107, 000. That’s about 10% of their total revenue.

Nonprofits I am familiar with who do varied kinds of services, usually keep separate accounts for monies that are designated for certain programs. Grant money, which has to be carefully accounted for back to the grantor, usually, is kept in it’s own account so where it is spent is tracked.

The US government does not send foreign aid through private charities. I think a lot of people are under this impression, but it’s just not true that I have ever seen. But I haven’t looked at your other links, yet. I will. But government grants to the US Red Cross, will be for domestic use only, and probably are mostly given during the times of disaster when the Red Cross moves in, as with hurricanes and so forth.

If you actually look at what you quoted, I was talking about Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which about half of the budget is provided by the government, and they are a non-profit 501c, providing services oversees.

And the USCCB is a non-profit. usccb.org/about/children-and-migration/upload/MRS-CS-Capacity-Statement-December-2011.pdf.

And what do you mean, no one knows what happened to the money. In order to receive the money and get the extension, and get a rating, they had to provide an accounting. What makes you think that they didn’t have to follow the procedures that all people who receive grants and contracts?

If you look back at CRS 990, it clearly says that they don’t have to file a 990, because they are exempt, and yet they did anyways. Maybe so they could do audits and continue to receive grants no?

 

[1ke]

Catholic Charities, Inc of Memphis, for instance, must file 990s as a 501(c)3. ccwtn.org/forms/FY07CCIForm990.pdf But as we see here, the Archdiocese of Memphis, as a church, does not. faqs.org/tax-exempt/TN/Diocese-Of-Memphis-Catholic-Communication-United-States-Cathol.html#b

IRS filing rules do not mean that Catholic Charities is not Catholic and is not part of the Church.

Catholic Charities is not part of the Church in the United States. The Church might feel that it is, or consider that it is, but legally it is not. Which is why these independent organizations, regardless of Church affiliation, are subject to US laws regarding, say, OSHA or the new health care proposals. They aren’t churches.

Which is why they are unconstitutional. It is npt the goverment that tells us what a Church is, it is the othe way around.

 

[Julia_Mae]

And the USCCB is a non-profit.

The USCCB is the Church. Not a 501(c)3. They don’t file 990s.

 

[Julia_Mae]

IRS filing rules do not mean that Catholic Charities is not Catholic and is not part of the Church.

Churches don’t file 990s. When Catholic Charities, of any place, declare themselves a 501(c)3, they declare themselves not a church.

Which is why they are unconstitutional. It is not the goverment that tells us what a Church is, it is the othe way around.

It’s the Courts who decide, actually, as in the case of Scientology.