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

[iloveangels]

There are organizations that are owned by corporations and they are authorized to use the name Catholic. The Church cannot close them. However, the Church can take away their legal right to use the name Catholic and if necessary to sue them in civil court for misrepresentation. You cannot call yourself Salvation Army, without their approval or unless they own you. The same with Catholic organizations. Either they are owned by the Church or are privately owned, but operate under the jurisdiction of the Church.

Yes, but the abuse of the word “Catholic” is way out of control. We haven’t protected the word legally and we probably are not going to be able to now. A huge number of organizations, who are not in union with Rome, use the word. A lot of our signature symbols and phrases are out there beyond our reach now too.

 

[JReducation]

It’s also off-topic.

How is it off topic? We’re seeing people on these threads defend the government and throw the Church under the bus over money.

Yes, but the abuse of the word “Catholic” is way out of control. We haven’t protected the word legally and we probably are not going to be able to now. A huge number of organizations, who are not in union with Rome, use the word. A lot of our signature symbols and phrases are out there beyond our reach now too.

This is true. Unfortunately, the only way to stop them is to create a modern Inquisition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[iloveangels]

How is it off topic? We’re seeing people on these threads defend the government and throw the Church under the bus over money.

This is true. Unfortunately, the only way to stop them is to create a modern Inquisition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Respectfully, Br JR, an Inquisition wouldn’t stop people. Many people themselves are beyond the reach of the Church. They wouldn’t listen to anything she says on the topic and there is no way to compel them to do so that they would consider binding.

 

[iloveangels]

This thread is interesting in light of what’s about to happen here in the US. The compliance date for the HHS mandate was put off a year, if I understand it correctly, to August 2013. This is after the next presidential election.

At that point, if the law is still on the books, there is going to be a huge scramble. We are probably going to see some of it before that time. Example: Franciscan University in Steubenville has already cancelled student insurance plans. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

A lot of these charity programs are going to be affected. The number of grants that we might be able to accept will drop off like a cliff. The number of people employed in these programs ought to drop dramatically too. Even if we do continue to employ some of them, we will have to pay penalties for not insuring them for birth control, abortion and so on. And since the amount of meaningful work will crash because of decreased grants…well, you see the picture.

If this goes forward, it will a trial for the Church. And there’s one other thing no one’s talking about. As this thread hints at, not very many Catholics in the pews are really aware of how much the Church has really invested in all this grant-accepting and all that. It’s going to be interesting. I think it’s possible that many lay Catholics were surprised about the unanimity coming from the USCCB and attributed it to reasons other than what the real reasons were. We’ll see how this turns out.

 

[wcknight]

Well, a “campaign” in a non-profit is usually a specific targeted fundraising drive, so, it would fit but… I’m curious as to what sort of federal employee you were and if you were able to give through your job.

I worked at several agencies during my 33 years, Census Bureau, Dept of ENergy, Navy, IRS, NIH. I was a computer specialist, project manager, team leader. ANd yes I was able to give through my job through payroll deductions.

 

[JReducation]

Respectfully, Br JR, an Inquisition wouldn’t stop people. Many people themselves are beyond the reach of the Church. They wouldn’t listen to anything she says on the topic and there is no way to compel them to do so that they would consider binding.

I wasn’t encouraging an inquisition. I was making a tongue in cheek remark.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[iloveangels]

I wasn’t encouraging an inquisition. I was making a tongue in cheek remark.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Sorry, Br JR. Working in text all the time, it’s hard to read intention, aka “tongue in cheek.”

 

[Julia_Mae]

How is it off topic? We’re seeing people on these threads defend the government and throw the Church under the bus over money.

I don’t know who the “people” are or which threads, but this specific thread has a topic and it does not entail anything in the above sentence. So, unless there is some direct connection you can make to Catholic Charities getting more than half it’s funding from US government grants, I ‘d appreciate it if you would not go off on what you think of some unidentified, or even identified, persons’ attitudes.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I worked at several agencies during my 33 years, Census Bureau, Dept of ENergy, Navy, IRS, NIH. I was a computer specialist, project manager, team leader. ANd yes I was able to give through my job through payroll deductions.

That’s interesting. Was a Catholic charity listed or was it something you could write in? I’m curious because it sound like the way my job used to have a big United Way push, which I never gave to, mostly because I loathed being pressured about charitable giving by any employer. Also, I didn’t think they did a good job with the money.

 

[iloveangels]

RE: United Way

One of the problems with all this is that people recognize the “brand names” of charities, in and out of the Church, but don’t know where the money goes, or what relationships one organization has with another. United Way money is actually given out by means of grants too, and some of it ends up going to other charities, including the ones run by Catholic boards of directors, but also other ones at odds with Catholic teaching.

People have accepted this confusing state of affairs in much the same way they just download the latest update on their computer, without asking questions, thinking about it critically or looking for accountability. So whatever the market will bear. As long as it works to raise money, it’s going to happen.

These outfits like United Way are all non-profits. The non-profit world is a business, albeit not to create corporate profit. However, the staffs of are paid and they compete for promotions just like anywhere else, unless they are religious, in which case their orders get the wages, or in the case of volunteers who work for free. People make careers out of this–sometimes lucrative careers if they are good non-profit managers.

Do non-profits do a lot of good? Yes, they do. A tremendous amount of good. But outfits like United Way don’t guarantee that doctrine is going to be dispensed with the good that they do. They’re very secularly oriented.

United Way gets used as a work charity specifically because it’s generic and they have great advertising and programs that have been built so they’re easy for companies to use. They’re ready to use, and cheap to administer. A lot of work by experts within United Way has been done to make them this way intentionally. It gets them in the corporate door.

 

[iloveangels]

The non-profits that actually end up providing the care to clients get their funding from a lot of different places, really: grants from various governmental agencies–federal, state and local, various charitable foundations associated with rich people or big companies, big umbrella non-profits like United Way and the Red Cross, private donations and donations from Churches and so on.

In fact, some of the Catholic charities we think are ours are only under our administration pending funding from some of these sources. The amount that actually comes from private Catholic donations can be pretty small, although the church may be providing some volunteer work and the use of the property and so on.

Here’s a pretty good example. See the first pie chart.

catholiccharities.com/aboutus/annualreport2011lowRes.pdf

You can see that United Way is contributing to them in a small way too. A fair amount of the government funding may come from the state of Nevada. Some of the requirements to provide this stuff to the population come from that level of government. That’s true for all the states.

 

[iloveangels]

The other thing about this is that I think people have the wrong idea totally about what non-profits do. Here is a job posting that’s probably pretty typical for Nevada Catholic Charities:

catholiccharities.com/aboutus/employmentopportunities/nutritionistWIC.pdf

Yes, it’s for a nutritionist. She’s not preaching the Gospel in the conventional way. And since the agency doesn’t discriminate by age, race or religion, either in clients or in employees, or for that matter in funding, it’s probably not getting preached.

[Say all you want about “preaching with actions and all that,” there’s nothing to it. There’d be nice people doing the nutritionist work if the place was run by the state of Nevada or some other charity foundation, instead of Catholic Charities. Honestly, it’d stand a very good chance of even being the exact same nutritionist behind the exact same desk doing the exact same work for the exact same clients, either way. And not only the nutritionist work but all the other jobs too. Lab technician, janitor, secretary, and on and on and on.]

Now, you may think that the Catholic church shouldn’t be managing this kind of thing, or that we shouldn’t have the word “Catholic” plastered all over the front of the building if we’re not going to preach. That’s a matter of opinion, really. There is probably about as much merit to that contention, as there is to the opposite point of view.

The only thing that’s really sure about this is that the number of people who need these services is huge. Do some people abuse these things, yes. But society would probably break down if they were lost. If we don’t do it, someone else will. Our laws say these things must be done by someone.

PS. What are the chances that we could pull something like this off all alone, using our own donations and leaving ourselves free to preach the Gospel? ZERO. Catholics, nominal + practicing, are less than 25% of the population of the US, and the % is probably far lower in Nevada. And Catholics don’t donate for *****.

Besides, in the USA, the levels of government-state, federal & local-are the structures that have been designated to do this kind of work, especially since the 1960s. That’s traditional in the US. We are a diverse country and always have been.

 

[Julia_Mae]

PS. What are the chances that we could pull something like this off all alone, using our own donations and leaving ourselves free to preach the Gospel? ZERO. Catholics, nominal + practicing, are less than 25% of the population of the US, and the % is probably far lower in Nevada. And Catholics don’t donate for *****.

Besides, in the USA, the levels of government-state, federal & local-are the structures that have been designated to do this kind of work, especially since the 1960s. That’s traditional in the US. We are a diverse country and always have been.

An interesting series of posts. And I think your conclusion is very reasonable. The thing is, if all or most of catholic Charities lose because of the health care mandates, there will be others looking to pick up the grants.

I’m thinking they are likely, in many cases, to change their name to something that doesn’t include “Catholic,” distance themselves somewhat from the Church and carry on.

 

[iloveangels]

An interesting series of posts. And I think your conclusion is very reasonable. The thing is, if all or most of catholic Charities lose because of the health care mandates, there will be others looking to pick up the grants.

I’m thinking they are likely, in many cases, to change their name to something that doesn’t include “Catholic,” distance themselves somewhat from the Church and carry on.

I’m not sure what’s going to happen, actually. A lot of things could.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’m not sure what’s going to happen, actually. A lot of things could.

Me, neither. Maybe we’ll get lucky and the Apocalypse will finally arrive and we won’t have to find out.

 

[wcknight]

That’s interesting. Was a Catholic charity listed or was it something you could write in? I’m curious because it sound like the way my job used to have a big United Way push, which I never gave to, mostly because I loathed being pressured about charitable giving by any employer. Also, I didn’t think they did a good job with the money.

Years ago, one could write in just about any charity they wanted, BUT in the last 20 years of so, you have to either select from a list of approved charities, of which CRS and Catholic Charities were included or you could give to the general campaign fund. the CFC was (and I think still is) part of the United Way organization.

The thing I liked about the CFC was the CFC folks screened the organizations and required them to disclose what percentage of their funding was going into overhead and advertising and administration. The bad thing was that the CFC organizational costs were about 5% of the gross. Giving directly to an organization was more effective, but then you had no way of knowing if they were legit. Plus you could not do so easily with payroll deductions.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The thing I liked about the CFC was the CFC folks screened the organizations and required them to disclose what percentage of their funding was going into overhead and advertising and administration. The bad thing was that the CFC organizational costs were about 5% of the gross. Giving directly to an organization was more effective, but then you had no way of knowing if they were legit. Plus you could not do so easily with payroll deductions.

And now we are all online and have Charity Navigator to tell is us all this stuff! And even donate online so easy.

 

[iloveangels]

Me, neither. Maybe we’ll get lucky and the Apocalypse will finally arrive and we won’t have to find out.

Well, that’s certainly one way of approaching it…and all the rest of our problems. But not a very good problem solving technique. LOL

 

[epan]

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.

True. It is a system of checks and balances. Congress in turn, can mandate, limit, and otherwise cut off or control funds at any time, a power which the President does not have. The executive decisions are constrained by the Congress. I would not want just one branch solely making these decisions.

It seems that our republic has muddled along pretty well, in spite of how incompetent any particular leader may be at any point in time. I wonder if every generation has had the grave reservations about the contemporaneous state of affairs, as many do now.

 

[Julia_Mae]

It seems that our republic has muddled along pretty well, in spite of how incompetent any particular leader may be at any point in time. I wonder if every generation has had the grave reservations about the contemporaneous state of affairs, as many do now.

People are better informed now. But people are subject to more incoming manipulation of ideas. It’s almost impossible to tell, much of the time, what is a fact and what is just something someone said.

About 10 years ago, “George Washington’s Vision” was making the rounds of the internet, unsubstantiated and unreferenced. People kept posting as if it were historical fact. The was before Snopes.com which has the vision and explanation here: snopes.com/history/american/vision.asp Years ago, I chased down every instance of it’s appearance and link back and ended up with … well… air. Cyber air? It’s like Padre Pio’s vision now: no substance can be found.

Interestingly, the Washington thing it was an attempt to influence public opinion at the time it was written. Now, we have people paid to post in comboxes and forums and write blogs. In any case, just because something looks like it might be dishonest or corrupt, doesn’t mean it is, anymore than some politician seeming honest makes him that.

I think this money going to these Catholic Charities has some interesting implication for the future of the work and the attachment of the charities to the Church. I don’t think it’s bad or good, just significant.