N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Oh come on, do you really have to insult the majority of bishops and priests with such posts?
- Status
L
lizaanne
Guest
I did not say anything of the sort - I simply refrained from comment because I feel you were clearly baiting me (and your most recent comment reinforces that). Given the moderator instruction above, it is best that I just say nothing lest it be interpreted as being uncharitable. That’s all - no hidden meaning or agenda. Just a straight “no comment”.
I do not wish to continue with this banter - we clearly disagree, and I don’t see that’s ever going to change.
~Liza
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
OK.
T
Teelynn
Guest
Yes, I do believe they do. I am wondering though how much they know about the issue, and/or about the groups that receive money. Our Pastor is strongly encouraging to contribute this weekend to CCHD, and after several long emails back and forth, he stated that this money only goes to our particular diocese. I am still very hesitant to contribute to this, and would rather give to our local charities that I KNOW what they do. As I stated in a previous post, I truly think the problem lies in the way in which umbrella charities are structured. There are so many different charities under one umbrella, that unless they are each individually vetted properly, or if someone in the office has an agenda, a small portion of our money may be going to anti Catholic groups. First of all, does CCHD really have the time to investigate every single organization they give to thoroughly? Do they have enough man power? I think the answer to both may be NO. With ANY charities that give to multiple groups, you really have to have some sort of watch dog. I really don’t understand why USCCB is so snarly with ALL. I mean…don’t shoot the messenger!
C
commenter
Guest
In my diocese, I think most people have the vague impression that this collection goes to “Catholic ministry to help the poor”. I had to go online to the national site to find out which local organizations get the money. These organizations support the Democratic Party, they work alongside unions and other organizations, some of which are pro-choice. They, along with many others, currently mobilize the “Occupy” movement in our downtown. Without the CCHD funding these organizations would continue as they are, with a little less money. If these CCHD groups did not exist, there are other groups doing the same thing, and they get heavy support from the daily newspaper. The CCHD groups have no serious opposition. There are other, Catholic purposes far worthier of support from the collection basket, including groups that face enormous secular opposition, with few allies.
T
Teelynn
Guest
This is very telling…thank you for so much more info. Yes, we even had a speaker yesterday at Mass from the local CCHD. I got the word out as much as possible not to throw money in the basket, and the reason why, but we still collected a little. I wrote to the Cardinal about this issue, but of course, I have not had a reply.
There are a number of Bishops who have opted out of collecting for CCHD, however and I think someone posted them early on in this thread. When I first read the report from ALL, I believe they named 14 Bishops country wide that had opted out. Kudos to them:thumbsup:
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
They believe ALL has blown the issue out of context and have made rather exaggerated claims. So its not about “shooting the messenger” but how accurate the message was to begin with…
14 out of 194? Not exactly bringing the CCHD to its knees. Any links to the info about which dioceses opted out in 2011? The list put up earlier in this thread was out of date since it listed Green Bay, WI yet that diocese re-established the collection in April of this year.
T
Teelynn
Guest
So I guess it’s ALL’s word against USCCB’s. The 14 Bishops that were referred to was from a site called “Better Catholic Giving”. It was published this year, but I would have to look again to see if what they gave as Bishops opting out was current. If I find it, I will post it. And no, 14 Bishops would not have much baring on the outcome, so I would imagine CCHD will be able to go on supporting their questionable groups, but at least there are others that we can support in lieu of, that are local to where we are (charity begins at home) and known to be faithful to Catholic principles. The USCCB supposedly cleaned house last year, after finding 5 different groups that were not in line. I would think after that they would vet all of the others and new ones to the hilt, and know exactly what they were all about. The impression I get is that they really don’t know.
C
Chipper
Guest
Exaggerated Claims???
A few years ago, I personally investigated some of those vile organizations that were funded by the CCHD.
I downloaded and saved their website Mission Statements etc… What kills me is that their websites were very clear on supporting Abortion, Homosexuality, and other political agendas, and even Mother Earth Worship.
I then fired off a letter to my Bishop, citing these organizations, asking that our diocese no longer support CCHD.
That letter was intercepted, by, the underling in charge of his office. I got a response back from the underling, stating, that there was nothing wrong with these organizations, and they continue to deserve our support.
It turns out these organizations “SCRUBBED” their websites, concerning their MIssion Statements. So when the underling viewed the websites, she couldn’t find anything wrong with these organizations. And even though I told the Bishop that this would happen, she still took sides with them, instead of me.
I GIVE UP.
Writing the Bishop does no good, since it is intercepted by Left Wingers in Charge, the Bishop never sees the letter.
So I will never, ever, no longer, no way, ever again, put donations in the basket for CCHD.
Thank you very much.
T
Teelynn
Guest
No, I will not either. CCHD last year admitted to a few of these groups that they should not fund. All well and good, but they have found others this year that violate Catholic principles. The Bishops say no that ALL has an “ideological agenda”. To tell you the truth, I don’t think they vet these groups thoroghly enough to even know.
C
commenter
Guest
In 1970, there was very little support for “community organizating” efforts from society as a whole. The money provided by CCHD facilitated efforts that might not otherwise have taken place. Today there is enormous support from society for community organizing. The funds provided by CCHD duplicate the efforts of government, unions, and many other movements. Even if we give CCHD the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue - assume CCHD does not support it - the larger issue is that the American needs of 2011 are very different from 1970. In 1970 anti-Catholicism was a small problem, today it is a huge problem in government, education, the media etc. The money we are giving to CCHD should be redirected to the 2011 priority, to organizations opposing religious bigotry against Catholics, and others.
M
markomalley
Guest
I am one who feels very, very uncomfortable with CCHD. Always have. And it doesn’t have anything in particular to do with whether or not grants go to groups that support abortion, homosexual marriage, or anything else. Even if the grantees passed muster in all of those areas, I still have a problem with it.
Here’s why. When I’ve asked the question on the USCCB Facebook Page, it gets deleted. So, since you appear to be a CCHD defender, maybe you can give me a rationale.
First, CCHD grants are divided up into two types of grants: community development grants and economic development grants.
Community development grants are described as follows:
A program of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the Catholic Campaign for Human Development’s (CCHD) Community Development Grants Program is focused on promoting the mission of Jesus Christ and moving forward the priorities of the USCCB; in particular, protecting human life and dignity, strengthening marriage and family life, and nurturing diversity. The Community Development Grants Program does this by supporting organizations that are led by poor and vulnerable people and bring individuals together to change structures and policies that perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
That sounds really nice on the surface. Breaking the cycle of poverty is a good thing.
Then there are the Economic Development Grants, with the following listed as goals:
- to support low-income people as they empower themselves through the creation and operation of economic development institutions
- to develop alternative economic structures that effect equitable access to income and a just balance of individual- and community-held assets.
More on that in a little bit.
What really makes me feel uncomfortable is this:
Not Eligible for Funding
(In the case of Community Development Grants) Organizations with primary focus on direct service (e.g. daycare centers, recreation programs, community centers, scholarships, subsidies, counseling programs, referral services, cultural enrichment programs, direct clinical services, emergency shelters and other services, refugee resettlement programs, etc.)
(In the case of Economic Development Grants) EDIs whose primary focus is direct service (e.g. job training, business consulting, financial literacy, savings programs, or homeownership education programs by themselves are not eligible). Such services may complement an eligible EDI, but they cannot be the EDI’s primary focus.
The reason I have a problem with that restriction on grants is that the best way in the world to lift a person out of poverty is for that person to get a job. A decent paying job. The way to get a person a job is to provide the education and training to that person so that he can fill the skill sets that are needed in the local marketplace and to eliminate or minimize problems that could disqualify the person: giving the person marketing skills, “dress for success,” resume writing, job placement, and so on. Providing daycare so that the person can go get the training, job seek, and start employment until that person can pay for daycare him/herself. And then, when a person has income coming in, helping the person with financial literacy so that the person learns how to manage his/her own money…
But, for some reason those efforts are excluded. Honestly, I have a problem with that.
I could go on: but the fact of the matter is that the above, taken directly from the USCCB’s CCHD website, makes me feel extremely uncomfortable with CCHD.
Care to address my concerns? I hope that I wrote them in such a way as to not appear to be an “attack”
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
What you are objecting to are not areas of relevance to the OP…
M
markomalley
Guest
Thanks very much.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
The letter is not “intercepted.” The bishop does not read all his mail. He places people in charge of getting directly to him those things that he needs to directly deal with and he leaves everything else in the hands of his administrative assistants.
Your letter went to his office and his office handled it as they saw fit. That’s not “intercepting” the letter, that’s simply how things are done.
K
KSU
Guest
T
Tigg
Guest
I just received this e-mail from ALL.
L
lizaanne
Guest
May God bless them for their good work!! 
~Liza
~Liza
- Status