The CCHD investigated the claims of the ALL and found most of them to not be accurate and defunded the group(s) where ALL was accuarate.
I watched your linked video and many of the claims seemed tenuous at best and had a rather broad definition of “pro-homosexual activities.” My Ordinary trusts the CCHD and thus so do I.
Different issues. Parishes are supposed to be self-sustaining.
No group is ever funded without the explicit approval of the diocesan bishop where the group does its work.
The issue is not questioning where the money goes. Everyone has the right to ask such questions. However, reasonable and faithful Catholics can disagree over the merits of contributing to the CCHD.we can legitimately question the morality of organizations that use those gifts that we have donated in good faith we can therefore legitmately question tithing to the Church generally? There are many worthy organizations competing for our dollars.
I agree with you here. But this is a hypothetical statement. I am pretty sure the poster did not mean that the Bishops had this in mind.
I couldn’t agree with you more on this!!!
I have emailed both our Cardinal and our Pastor with information, and personally will not give to this. We (H and I) will give directly to groups that are known to be faithful to Catholic teaching…starting out with the basics…our local soup kitchen…and go from there. You are so right about the “umbrella” groups. I do not think that the USCCB has any knowlege of monies going to anti Catholic groups. I think they just maybe haven’t been fully informed. I think they need to clean CCHD’s house but to their defense, I am sure this is a very complicated and time consuming job. I also think that ALL has very good and noble intentions by calling attention to this matter. For some reason it just wasn’t received very well by USCCB.
I don’t think that’s true. CCHD did respond to ALL’s first report by instituting more stringent guidelines, by immediately defunding a few groups that slipped past their radar, and by involving a moral theologian in their review process (a moral theologian who works at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary – one of the most orthodox seminaries in the country). So I think it’s unfair to say that it “wasn’t received very well.”I also think that ALL has very good and noble intentions by calling attention to this matter. For some reason it just wasn’t received very well by USCCB.
I believe you may be refering to last year’s campaign. Yes, they did in fact defund several groups that were judged to be questionable from last year to this, but they added different ones that were not faithful to Catholic teachings for this year’s campaign. ALL brought it to their attention and to be quite honest, I cannot call their response to them anything but lambasting them for having some kind of an *ideological *agenda. I guess I should clarify myself and state that this year’s communication was not well received. When the USCCB states that ALL has a “ideological agenda”, I guess I would call that not very well received.
How is asking posters to post charitably being restrictive?Hey Moderator you have so many restrictions there that you are starting to sound like a modernist. Sometimes in telling the truth someone might be “offended”
Its not that but its a FACT that Vatican II has flaws and it is a FACT that there are bad priests out there so it should be ok to point it out so that the laity and clergy reading can help the Church recover from its weaknesses.How is asking posters to post charitably being restrictive?
The local bishop can veto a specific organization if it directly opposes Catholic teaching. But once an organization is funded once, he or his successor has to have a very strong reason to de-fund it - and then get bashed in the media.
You are correct - many of these groups operate under the category of community organizers, are truly political in nature and contra to church teaching.
And this is why I’m eternally grateful to my priest for NOT participating in this collection.
This statement confuses me. The bishops (who are the people of authority for the Catholic Church) have discerned and most have endorsed it (with some exceptions, as noted above). And for those bishops who don’t endorse it, no collection is taken in their diocese.
I don’t think this list is complete, or at least it might not represent the way things are fully. In my own diocese, the bishop allowed the collection, but also said people could alternatively contribute to the newly-formed diocesan charitable program, which alternative, in truth, he greatly encouraged over the CCHD. To my knowledge, neither of my parishes even had the collection for CCHD, and you had to out of your way to contribute to it.
Yes…this is last year’s list - sorry I couldn’t find a more current one. Good for your bishop and ours. The trend seems to be going in the direction of encouraging donations to local charities and I know the needy just in our own area has grown due to the economic downturn. Heard just this week that more and more are experiencing problems in even paying their heating bills.
Holy priests take up the collection too…