I think, though, one can blame the Bishops for putting out very broad statements, which water down non-negotiable issues like abortion, with a bunch of economic stuff that’s subject to debate, which someone can use as an excuse to vote for candidates like Obama.
I suppose you could, but then you’d have to concede that Caritas in Veritate waters down some non-negotiable issues (e.g mentioning labor unions more than abortion). It’s all about helping others, especially the poor, and while the issues are prudential bishops receive special guidance by the Holy Spirit.
Yep. Living within your means is a must. Personally I can’t stand deficit spending.
Spending $500,000 in an appropriate and morally acceptable way does not change the $2.8 MILLION given to enemies of the Church.
Caritas is meant to be a comprehensive, academic document for in depth study and discussion, and it was targeted toward a specific aspect of Church teaching. Whereas the statements the Bishops put out to the public are meant to be read by, and provide guidance to, the average person in the public who doesn’t even know what an “encyclical” is. Kind of like the difference between an article in the New England Journal of Medicine vs. an article in one of those health magazines doctors have in their waiting rooms.
It depends how in depth a statement is. Imho when it comes to voter guides bishops should make them short and to the point, but in pastoral statements in general the other issues can come up.
The USCCB, as a bureaucracy, is still an extended arm of the Democrat party. Sorry, but I don’t buy the story that it is the liberal staffers within the bishops’ agencies that are letting things go hay-wire in giving money to pro-abort forces pretending to protect the poor. Those agencies believe in killing the poor in order to stop poverty.
I’ve found no mistakes at all - why shoot the messenger? It doesn’t change the message.
Didn’t seem like that this election. Doesn’t seem like that on their website. Try telling someone who is liberal that the Catholic bishops are liberal. I think you’ll find they’ll disagree.
Look back at some of these threads that deal with political realities like gun control and immigration and the economy and especially healthcare (all areas of prudential judgment) and see how closely the bishop’s conference aligned themselves with the current administration. It’s only been since the healthcare bill has been dissected and the HHS mandate looms to destroy religious freedom that we’ve heard resistance.
Let’s just say I’d sure like to know who’s minding the store at the CCHD (and the CRS for that matter!)
After watching the video of the interiew of Michael Hichborn, I changed my opinion about his research of the CCHD. But comments like yours are still a problem for me because I believe that some of the money from the CCHD collection does go to help the poor and other victims. I read that Archbishop Jaime Soto said that, I believe it was $500,000 from the CCHD was being given to the victims of Hurricane Sandy. I don’t think it helps to get the message across about the problems in the CCHD when people are throwing in things that seem like exaggerations as if the problems aren’t big enough already. What does Michael Hichborn have to save about this?
I apologize if I implied that NONE of the money reached the poor. I try to avoid jumping to extreme conclusions, or any comment that is unfair. I’m not accusing the CCHD of lying, but they are not correcting the common misunderstanding that the money is given under Catholic auspices, toward Catholic social teaching, toward self help programs, that would not exist except for the CCHD. None of this is true, for my 3 local recipient agencies. Since every other collection in church goes for Catholic purposes, people naturally think this is, also. The reality is that the CCHD money merely goes to provide a small share of the agency budget that is under heavy secular, not Catholic, direction. OK for individual Catholics who want to send a check to those agencies; not OK for a collection in church.
…and then we have this article from Kathy Schiffer, wife of a deacon and mother of three grown children, and currently works as Director of Publicity and Special Events for Ave Maria Communications, who writes about Hope and Change at the CCHD
The article refers to any disagreement with the CCHD as “attacks” and “dire warnings”. It applauds the latest process to reform the CCHD. The article doesn’t mention the several prior revampings, each one designed to tighten accountability, and protect Catholic teaching, and that the prior reforms failed.
(Echoes of Obama’s campaign slogan running thru my brain)
Well, it’s your **Choice **to put a bad name on good words"Hope and Change"…
…sorry, but I just have to say this…the very words make me shudder, suspicious mind that I have regarding all things political!
.A better example might be the term social justice. Under that banner we notice that many organizations working with the poor eliminate the Catholic message of truth and morality as being secondary to the cause of economic justice and equality when the primary mission of the Church is clearly evangelization. As the CDF warned in Libertatis Nuntius, the poor of the Scriptures must not be confused with the proletariat of Marx. They even went further in another document and said “the poor, from a Christian perspective, should not be narrowed exclusively to those lacking material goods.” (Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation.) If the bishops addressed this in the OP, I must have missed it.