Cardinal says Church will support immigrant children if housed in Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Moritz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Disgusting the Drug Barons have made this happen with all the killings etic, The Countries like Mexico , Columbia have become unliveable due to the conditions set about by the Drug Cartels, what does the Bible say about harming children "woe to them better a " etc. etc.
 
From the article:

[Cardinal O’Malley] committed the Archdiocese of Boston to some support to the effort as well.

“We do not have Church facilities that are appropriate, but we do have social service agencies in the archdiocese with skilled resources to provide programs of assistance and support within the framework of a larger federal and state program providing finances and collaboration,” he said.

Let’s break down the bolded part of the excerpt above.

First of all, federal law (the Anti-Deficiency Act) prohibits the Federal government from accepting services for free.

The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal employees from
  • making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A).
  • involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose, unless otherwise allowed by law. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(B).
  • accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. 31 U.S.C. § 1342.
  • making obligations or expenditures in excess of an apportionment or reapportionment, or in excess of the amount permitted by agency regulations. 31 U.S.C. § 1517(a).

Just to show, in practice, how this works, the following screenshot is from the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston 2013 annual report.

i.imgur.com/CHoMaQi.png

This statement of revenue shows that only 22.5% of the revenue used by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston comes from the good people of Boston. If you add in corporate donations, that number swells to a massive 27%. The bulk of the remainder comes from the government (more on how that is problematic below)

Any time the Catholic Church (or Catholic Charities as an organ of the Church) accepts federal monies, there are strings attached. We’ve seen the recent controversy in regards to the Executive Order signed by Obama requiring that all contractors (including the Catholic Church) implement corporate-wide nondiscrimation policies that include active homosexuals (you can see discussion of that issue in this CAF thread). This does not include grants, but even grantees have their hands tied in some pretty serious fashion. From the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships:
What are some legal obligations that come along with a government grant?

Some of the legal obligations that come along with a Federal government grant include the responsibility to separate any explicitly religious activities from programs funded by direct government grants. Explicitly religious activities (activities that involve overt religious content, such as religious instruction, devotional exercises, worship, proselytizing or evangelism) must be clearly separated in either time or location from the federally funded program. These religious activities also must be privately funded and purely voluntary for program beneficiaries. Organizations receiving Federal funds may not discriminate against beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries on the basis of religion or religious belief. Further, if a beneficiary or prospective beneficiary objects to the religious character of an organization providing federally funded services, the beneficiary must be referred to an alternative provider.

So, in other words, performing the corporal works of mercy are OK, but the performance of the spiritual works of mercy better not be within sight of those corporal works of mercy. Personally, I find that a bit problematic.

Finally, I would refer you to Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio on the Service of Charity, where we read:

Art. 10. - … § 3. In particular, the diocesan Bishop is to ensure that charitable agencies dependent upon him do not receive financial support from groups or institutions that pursue ends contrary to Church’s teaching…

I, for one, can’t see how this government can’t be seen as an “institution that pursues ends contrary to Church’s teaching.”

Anyway, when looking at a story like this, we need to make sure that the facts are out there.
 
👍

This attitude and action is good for America!

Read this mornings First Reading for the Mass!

And, as much as I like bureaucratic and ideological mumble-jumble for the previous poster to justify ignoring the two most basic precepts of the Gospel (Mercy and Love), I prefer Matthew 25:34-46

34Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Peace and all Good!
 
Neofight said:
First Reading for the Mass!

And, as much as I like bureaucratic and ideological mumble-jumble for the previous poster to justify ignoring the two most basic precepts of the Gospel (Mercy and Love), I prefer Matthew 25:34-46
Click to expand...
I think we need to bear in mind two points from this Gospel that bear on this. The first, is that the sheep and goat are judged on what they do, not what they vote for other people to do or what they think others should do with other people’s money.

On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that even our attitude toward these children and their parents, translate to how we treat Jesus. When we have anger and vitriol toward these immigrants, we have anger and vitriol toward Jesus.
 
Celtic_Maiden said:
Disgusting the Drug Barons have made this happen with all the killings etic, The Countries like Mexico , Columbia have become unliveable due to the conditions set about by the Drug Cartels, what does the Bible say about harming children "woe to them better a " etc. etc.
Click to expand...
👍 I hope all who preach charity for the children likewise consider any harmed, killed, enslaved and exploited on their trek to the United States and that those who enable the lax enforcement on our borders may well have some responsibility in that regard.

It reminds me of the 2nd reading today at Mass:
While everyone was asleep his enemy came
and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off.
When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well.
The slaves of the householder came to him and said,
‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field?
Where have the weeds come from?’
He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’
Click to expand...
usccb.org/bible/readings/072614.cfm
 
markomalley said:
From the article:

[Cardinal O’Malley] committed the Archdiocese of Boston to some support to the effort as well.

“We do not have Church facilities that are appropriate, but we do have social service agencies in the archdiocese with skilled resources to provide programs of assistance and support within the framework of a larger federal and state program providing finances and collaboration,” he said.

Let’s break down the bolded part of the excerpt above.

First of all, federal law (the Anti-Deficiency Act) prohibits the Federal government from accepting services for free.

The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal employees from
  • making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A).
  • involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose, unless otherwise allowed by law. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(B).
  • accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. 31 U.S.C. § 1342.
  • making obligations or expenditures in excess of an apportionment or reapportionment, or in excess of the amount permitted by agency regulations. 31 U.S.C. § 1517(a).

Just to show, in practice, how this works, the following screenshot is from the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston 2013 annual report.

i.imgur.com/CHoMaQi.png

This statement of revenue shows that only 22.5% of the revenue used by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston comes from the good people of Boston. If you add in corporate donations, that number swells to a massive 27%. The bulk of the remainder comes from the government (more on how that is problematic below)

Any time the Catholic Church (or Catholic Charities as an organ of the Church) accepts federal monies, there are strings attached. We’ve seen the recent controversy in regards to the Executive Order signed by Obama requiring that all contractors (including the Catholic Church) implement corporate-wide nondiscrimation policies that include active homosexuals (you can see discussion of that issue in this CAF thread). This does not include grants, but even grantees have their hands tied in some pretty serious fashion. From the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships:
What are some legal obligations that come along with a government grant?

Some of the legal obligations that come along with a Federal government grant include the responsibility to separate any explicitly religious activities from programs funded by direct government grants. Explicitly religious activities (activities that involve overt religious content, such as religious instruction, devotional exercises, worship, proselytizing or evangelism) must be clearly separated in either time or location from the federally funded program. These religious activities also must be privately funded and purely voluntary for program beneficiaries. Organizations receiving Federal funds may not discriminate against beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries on the basis of religion or religious belief. Further, if a beneficiary or prospective beneficiary objects to the religious character of an organization providing federally funded services, the beneficiary must be referred to an alternative provider.

So, in other words, performing the corporal works of mercy are OK, but the performance of the spiritual works of mercy better not be within sight of those corporal works of mercy. Personally, I find that a bit problematic.

Finally, I would refer you to Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio on the Service of Charity, where we read:

Art. 10. - … § 3. In particular, the diocesan Bishop is to ensure that charitable agencies dependent upon him do not receive financial support from groups or institutions that pursue ends contrary to Church’s teaching…

I, for one, can’t see how this government can’t be seen as an “institution that pursues ends contrary to Church’s teaching.”

Anyway, when looking at a story like this, we need to make sure that the facts are out there.
Click to expand...
Bookmarked. Thank you for your earnest discussion and thoughts on this issue. Edifying is the word I think.
 
pnewton said:
I think we need to bear in mind two points from this Gospel that bear on this. The first, is that the sheep and goat** are judged on what they do, not what they vote for other people to do or what they think others should do with other people’s money.**
Click to expand...
Ref the bolded text, above. That is exactly the point!

It is exceedingly easy to be charitable with other peoples’ money.

As a side note, it is interesting how providing social services using government grant money or providing social services under a government contract can be viewed as “Christian Charity” – that seems to be missing the “gratuitousness” component (as Benedict XVI discussed in his encyclical, Caritas in Veritate)
On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that even our attitude toward these children and their parents, translate to how we treat Jesus. When we have anger and vitriol toward these immigrants, we have anger and vitriol toward Jesus.
Click to expand...
Is it possible to simultaneously have anger and vitriol toward the people in this country who are not only facilitating this but encouraging it…while feeling great pity toward those who are being used as pawns (the refugees themselves, minus the MS-13 and 18th Street Gang members who are coming up with the poor souls seeking refuge)

I understand that this may beyond the grasp of most leftists, but I wonder if a distinguished poster like yourself (decidedly not a leftist) can comprehend the distinction.
 
Path_Finder said:
👍 I hope all who preach charity for the children likewise consider any harmed, killed, enslaved and exploited on their trek to the United States and that those who enable the lax enforcement on our borders may well have some responsibility in that regard.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting take. I know where Jesus (the only one who can decide moral responsibility) spoke of us being judged on how we treat strangers. What did he say that makes you think responsibility will be imputed for those officials who enable lax enforcement? And by lax, do you mean following the law they are tasked to enforce when it is lax, or failing in the duty they are charge with? The latter has some support from the Catechism, but I do not think it applies to many people, if any.
 
markomalley:
Any time the Catholic Church (or Catholic Charities as an organ of the Church) accepts federal monies, there are strings attached.
Click to expand...
The problem with your assessment in this situation is that as far as I know, its not Catholic Charities i.e. the Church, which will be accepting funds from the federal government, but the Church providing services to the children house on government facilities.

I understand your concern however.

Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley, a couple of years back brought a law-suit against Catholic Charities, when their adoption services would not accept gay couples applications. Catholic Charities was driven out as an adoption service agency.

In the case of the immigrant kids on military bases, Cardinal O’Malley is supporting the move, but also offering services to the kids where needed.

My suspicion is that being many of the kids are teens, you can bet that contraceptives and sex education will be part of the government’s role in what it provides.

Will the Church be implicated in this if it happens ?

Have to wait and see, but I don;t think the Church can refuse aid in humanitarian areas, while another agent, the government, provides services that are morally objectionable to the Church.

But again, in this case as far as I know, the Church is not receiving money from the government.

Jim
 
Great comments by the Cardinal from the great Archdiocese of Boston. 👍
 
pnewton said:
That is an interesting take. I know where Jesus (the only one who can decide moral responsibility) spoke of us being judged on how we treat strangers. What did he say that makes you think responsibility will be imputed for those officials who enable lax enforcement? And by lax, do you mean following the law they are tasked to enforce when it is lax, or failing in the duty they are charge with? The latter has some support from the Catechism, but I do not think it applies to many people, if any.
Click to expand...
It’s already being discussed in Washington to allow a way the children of Honduras to come to the USA without having to go on the death train and through the desert and deal with criminal figures, in other words, to do the paperwork in Honduras and maybe even fly them in. Though I don’t know if I’m for this until it is worked out, it certainly sounds better than the other way which also sees a lot of others come in. Hence, because of a relatively open border, a number of persons have been harmed.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
markomalley:

The problem with your assessment in this situation is that as far as I know, its not Catholic Charities i.e. the Church, which will be accepting funds from the federal government, but the Church providing services to the children house on government facilities.

I understand your concern however.
Click to expand...
Remember the words of the Cardinal, himself (from the Boston Pilot article cited in the OP):

[Cardinal O’Malley] committed the Archdiocese of Boston to some support to the effort as well.

“We do not have Church facilities that are appropriate, but we do have social service agencies in the archdiocese with skilled resources to provide programs of assistance and support within the framework of a larger federal and state program providing finances and collaboration,” he said.

He, himself, says that the larger federal and state program will provide finances.
 
Path_Finder said:
It’s already being discussed in Washington to allow a way the children of Honduras to come to the USA without having to go on the death train and through the desert and deal with criminal figures, in other words, to do the paperwork in Honduras and maybe even fly them in. Though I don’t know if I’m for this until it is worked out, it certainly sounds better than the other way which also sees a lot of others come in. Hence, because of a relatively open border, a number of persons have been harmed.
Click to expand...
I prefer the approach advocated by the Holy Father (Jul 15th):

…This humanitarian emergency requires, as a first urgent measure, these children be welcomed and protected. These measures, however, will not be sufficient, unless they are accompanied by policies that inform people about the dangers of such a journey and, above all, that promote development in their countries of origin. Finally, this challenge demands the attention of the entire international community so that new forms of legal and secure migration may be adopted.

It seems that processing people overseas and then shipping them here goes against that. It also seems that people will continue to flood in this country via the southern border.

It seems to me that the best way for us (the Church) to spend our money would be to help development in these Central American countries. It would also seem to me that the best thing that the US Government could do is to support these countries in their efforts to establish rule of law (so that drug gangs don’t have such free reign there).

But, of course, that makes me a xenophobe, a racist, and a “know nothing.”
 
markomalley said:
I prefer the approach advocated by the Holy Father (Jul 15th):

…This humanitarian emergency requires, as a first urgent measure, these children be welcomed and protected. These measures, however, will not be sufficient, unless they are accompanied by policies that inform people about the dangers of such a journey and, above all, that promote development in their countries of origin. Finally, this challenge demands the attention of the entire international community so that new forms of legal and secure migration may be adopted.

It seems that processing people overseas and then shipping them here goes against that. It also seems that people will continue to flood in this country via the southern border.

It seems to me that the best way for us (the Church) to spend our money would be to help development in these Central American countries. It would also seem to me that the best thing that the US Government could do is to support these countries in their efforts to establish rule of law (so that drug gangs don’t have such free reign there).

But, of course, that makes me a xenophobe, a racist, and a “know nothing.”
Click to expand...
What I am thinking too is an aspect that changes this issue is I have a hard time believing some politicians really really care about the children, there may be nefarious reasons and not that they are doing this because there heart is in the right place.

Let’s remember other Bible verses and I usually don’t care to get into Bible verses that much however, if we are commanded to love the stranger as I believe we are, let’s also remember Paul tells us in Galatians 5:14, "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” And we can all read that for ourselves.

And how do we describe our leaders in Washington? Do they really care or are they like Nero fiddling while Rome burns??
 
markomalley said:
Remember the words of the Cardinal, himself (from the Boston Pilot article cited in the OP):

[Cardinal O’Malley] committed the Archdiocese of Boston to some support to the effort as well.

“We do not have Church facilities that are appropriate, but we do have social service agencies in the archdiocese with skilled resources to provide programs of assistance and support within the framework of a larger federal and state program providing finances and collaboration,” he said.

He, himself, says that the larger federal and state program will provide finances.
Click to expand...
Right, the feds are providing the housing and basic needs, i.e. food and medical care.

The Church will provide what the state doesn’t.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Right, the feds are providing the housing and basic needs, i.e. food and medical care.

The Church will provide what the state doesn’t.

Jim
Click to expand...
Look at the quote above about the Anti-Deficiency Act. The feds are not legally allowed to accept voluntary services from the Church (or anybody else).

Here is the actual law on the subject:

31 U.S. Code § 1342 - Limitation on voluntary services

An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property…

Again, I ask you to look carefully at what Cardinal O’Malley said. In essence: we’ve got the social workers, the feds have the money.

Frankly, I don’t see a thing wrong with that statement (leaving aside Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio on the Service of Charity).

What I particularly DON’T care for is the title of the Boston Pilot article, Cardinal says Church will support immigrant children if housed in Mass. And, well, that is sort of deceptive. It should, more accurately, read: Cardinal offers to contract with the government to provide social services to illegal alien children if housed in Mass.
 
markomalley said:
Look at the quote above about the Anti-Deficiency Act. The feds are not legally allowed to accept voluntary services from the Church (or anybody else).

Here is the actual law on the subject:

31 U.S. Code § 1342 - Limitation on voluntary services

An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property…

Again, I ask you to look carefully at what Cardinal O’Malley said. In essence: we’ve got the social workers, the feds have the money.

Frankly, I don’t see a thing wrong with that statement (leaving aside Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio on the Service of Charity).

What I particularly DON’T care for is the title of the Boston Pilot article, Cardinal says Church will support immigrant children if housed in Mass. And, well, that is sort of deceptive. It should, more accurately, read: Cardinal offers to contract with the government to provide social services to illegal alien children if housed in Mass.
Click to expand...
A government officer or employee can not accept personal service from the Church.

This does not mean that the Church or other charities can not provide services to the immigrant children, for they are not employees or officers of the government.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
A government officer or employee can not accept personal service from the Church.

This does not mean that the Church or other charities can not provide services to the immigrant children, for they are not employees or officers of the government.

Jim
Click to expand...
The Obama Administration is taking the responsibility for transporting these people at various and sundry parts of the country. The Refugee Act places that responsibility with the Office of Refugee Relocation (within the Department of Health and Human Services).

In serving the immigrants, the Church is providing services for the government. (Why do I say this? If the Church was unwilling or unable to do so, the government would either need to do it themselves or find somebody else to do it for them)

This is not controversial or unusual in any way. Just look at history:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top