USCCB accepting money from HHS for Illegal Immigrants?

[Mumbles140]

1. Catholic Charities, using tax payer money, is failing to advocate for the citizens and is instead favoring those who seek to harm them. There is a way to enter the US legally and there are good people waiting in line.
2. As for “getting them educated, teaching them English, teaching them job skills, etc.”- there are many citizens who need these skills too! The poor and neglected in our cities would LOVE to have this help.
3. If we, as a Catholic Church, are going to use a country’s money, we should be directing our efforts towards helping those in that country! Because we are called, as Catholics, to help ALL people, we are called to help these aliens, too.
4. However, I feel it is immoral to do so while stealing the money that could be helping citizens. We should fund this effort with the illegal aliens with donations from Catholics.
5. A country’s money is not infinite and a country is not a charity!
6. Use the US dollars to help the citizens- yes, the panhandlers, prostitutes and inner city children. Use the Catholic donations to help the illegal immigrants.

1. So blame the government for giving money that they know is being used on people who are not American citizens. The Church helps people, not citizens.
2. Is there evidence that the Church is neglecting the needs of citizens who need to learn English, job skills, etc? If not, then I repeat: The Church helps people, not citizens.
3. I repeat: The Church helps people, not citizens.
4. Stealing? Enough with this nonsense and re-read my response #1.
5. The political debate of how money should be spent, including on social welfare programs (which is a form of charity, no?). Consult your congressmen if you are concerned about how this money is being spent.
6. You accuse the Church of neglecting citizens with her help above, but then tell her to only target people who are not citizens. Also, if you don’t want federal dollars going to charities that assist people who are not citizens, see #5.

Where does it stop? Should we stop sending aid abroad for countries suffering from natural disasters, famine, disease, war, etc because those people are not citizens?

 

[marbleartist]

1. So blame the government for giving money that they know is being used on people who are not American citizens. The Church helps people, not citizens.
2. Is there evidence that the Church is neglecting the needs of citizens who need to learn English, job skills, etc? If not, then I repeat: The Church helps people, not citizens.
3. I repeat: The Church helps people, not citizens.
4. Stealing? Enough with this nonsense and re-read my response #1.
5. The political debate of how money should be spent, including on social welfare programs (which is a form of charity, no?). Consult your congressmen if you are concerned about how this money is being spent.
6. You accuse the Church of neglecting citizens with her help above, but then tell her to only target people who are not citizens. Also, if you don’t want federal dollars going to charities that assist people who are not citizens, see #5.

Where does it stop? Should we stop sending aid abroad for countries suffering from natural disasters, famine, disease, war, etc because those people are not citizens?

You seem to be misunderstanding all that I wrote- and I apologize if I am being unclear. I am not attempting to enter into a debate- nor am I advocating not helping anyone, whether citizen or illegal, prostitute or homeless, you name it, I am ALL FOR HELPING!! I think it is a moral obligation- and a definite focus of Catholic Social Justice- to respect the sanctity of every single life- no exceptions. I am also against abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, unfair labor practices and anything else that marginalizes or kills a person. My problem is with the acceptance of government money (a very significant amount, by the way) to achieve these goals. If we, as Catholics, are going to help others, I think we need to remain autonomous and not be in partnership with any government in regard to money. The church does indeed help people, not citizens. The government helps citizens. The government is not the church and the church is not the government. The government has an obligation to help its citizens- and, of course, other countries following disasters if the money is available. The government’s first priority is it’s citizens. The church is exactly the opposite. It has an obligation to help all people everywhere, regardless of citizenship, color, legal status, etc. and to spread the love and word of God. I feel that, although the money to help others is nice, by partnering with a government, the church becomes very limited in achieving the mission of spreading the word and love of Christ- we instead become another organization. We marginalize our religious calling- which, although the helping of other people is very important- the saving of souls and leading others to God should always be our priority. You and I can certainly disagree on the acceptance of government money for a religious organization- and I respect that. I feel that this money dilutes our mission- and I think you feel it strengthens it. It saddens me- and surprises me but, then again, that’s just me.

 

[Mumbles140]

You seem to be misunderstanding all that I wrote- and I apologize if I am being unclear. I am not attempting to enter into a debate- nor am I advocating not helping anyone, whether citizen or illegal, prostitute or homeless, you name it, I am ALL FOR HELPING!! I think it is a moral obligation- and a definite focus of Catholic Social Justice- to respect the sanctity of every single life- no exceptions. I am also against abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, unfair labor practices and anything else that marginalizes or kills a person. My problem is with the acceptance of government money (a very significant amount, by the way) to achieve these goals. If we, as Catholics, are going to help others, I think we need to remain autonomous and not be in partnership with any government in regard to money. The church does indeed help people, not citizens. The government helps citizens. The government is not the church and the church is not the government. The government has an obligation to help its citizens- and, of course, other countries following disasters if the money is available. The government’s first priority is it’s citizens. The church is exactly the opposite. It has an obligation to help all people everywhere, regardless of citizenship, color, legal status, etc. and to spread the love and word of God. I feel that, although the money to help others is nice, by partnering with a government, the church becomes very limited in achieving the mission of spreading the word and love of Christ- we instead become another organization. We marginalize our religious calling- which, although the helping of other people is very important- the saving of souls and leading others to God should always be our priority. You and I can certainly disagree on the acceptance of government money for a religious organization- and I respect that. I feel that this money dilutes our mission- and I think you feel it strengthens it. It saddens me- and surprises me but, then again, that’s just me.

Your argument was quite unclear, I must say, particularly when you accuse the Church of stealing money from the citizens to help non-citizens. Several statements implied that the Church did not assist citizens in need, and that by accepting federal funds, the Church should serve the State.

I get that people feel worried about this, especially where the majority of the funding comes from the government, but Catholic Charities is not the Catholic Church. So what if they can’t speak about Jesus with those they help - true Christian charity comes from our actions. Show them the love of Christ shining within us, and it will shine in their hearts as well.

Also related to the amount of funding is the basic point that, if this money wasn’t coming from the government, would Catholics increase their donations that much to sustain these programs that help the poor? If not, is it better to accept funding from the government to run these programs than to not run them at all?

I also don’t feel that accepting this money ‘strengthens’ us. I believe it enables a charity to continue its work - that is no reflection on the Church, as I feel the suggestion of such a thought could imply a dependence upon the government. But countries, kingdoms, and empires have all fallen over the past 2,000, but the Church has reigned through persecutions, heresies, wars, globalization, and everything else. We have Our Lord; that is all the strength we need.

 

[GaryTaylor]

A few days ago, a friend sent me an article stating that USCCB had been accepting a pretty large sum of money beginning in 2010 to help illegal immigrants. This money was used primarily by Catholic Charities and included training, clothing, shelter, food, etc. for those who arrive in the U.S. illegally. What do you think?

I think I didn’t read the two pages, but I see right away “for those who arrive in the US”. Catholic relief services does the same where the children come from.

The church is exactly the opposite. It has an obligation to help all people everywhere, regardless of citizenship, color, legal status, etc. and to spread the love and word of God. I feel that, although the money to help others is nice, by partnering with a government, the church becomes very limited in achieving the mission of spreading the word and love of Christ- we instead become another organization.

I don’t know that we partnered with anyone but Christ. I think when like causes are obvious as above it aids the Church. It doesn’t seem consistent historically the Church becomes subjected to contrary causes as a result?

 

[marbleartist]

I get that people feel worried about this, especially where the majority of the funding comes from the government, but Catholic Charities is not the Catholic Church. **So what if they can’t speak about Jesus with those they help - true Christian charity comes from our actions. ** Show them the love of Christ shining within us, and it will shine in their hearts as well.

Our priority as a church IS to speak about Jesus with those we help! Without this ability, we are just another government funded charity organization. ( Catholic Charities, by the way, receives the money from the USCCB who applies for the government money). I would rather listen to the advice of Pope Francis:
“Our Lady also wants to bring the great gift of Jesus to us, to us all; and with him she brings us his love, his peace, and his joy. In this, the Church is like Mary: the Church is not a shop, she is not a humanitarian agency, the Church is not an NGO. The Church is sent to bring Christ and his Gospel to all.”
I oppose receiving government money, as you know. I feel we should take a bold stand and help people while also being free to speak of Christ. And I wish we felt we could trust Him to give us the resources we need to do this!

 

[on_the_hill]

I can see, however, people’s concern about wanting to help the needy who are nearby.

 

[Mumbles140]

Our priority as a church IS to speak about Jesus with those we help! Without this ability, we are just another government funded charity organization. ( Catholic Charities, by the way, receives the money from the USCCB who applies for the government money). I would rather listen to the advice of Pope Francis:
“Our Lady also wants to bring the great gift of Jesus to us, to us all; and with him she brings us his love, his peace, and his joy. In this, the Church is like Mary: the Church is not a shop, she is not a humanitarian agency, the Church is not an NGO. The Church is sent to bring Christ and his Gospel to all.”
I oppose receiving government money, as you know. I feel we should take a bold stand and help people while also being free to speak of Christ. And I wish we felt we could trust Him to give us the resources we need to do this!

The Church is not any one of those things, because Catholic Charities is not the Church. That is one aspect of the Church’s mission. Her preservation and offering of the Sacraments is much more global, much more emphasized, and very much in line with

From the language used, it seems as if Pope Francis is addressing those who expect the Church to focus on all of these ‘other’ aspects that is not specifically the salvation of souls. I’d say that the Church has not lost that focus. I would also add that, by serving those in need charitably, as Christ commands of us, we are working towards that end by delivering His love to those who may not know of it or open themselves to it.

 

[Mumbles140]

I can see, however, people’s concern about wanting to help the needy who are nearby.

Again, is there evidence that the Church is neglecting these people? Turning them away?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
Best not to put to much faith in government.

What government giveth, government can reduce, eliminate or require “favors”. We see it with the Fed Gov withholding federal funds from states for not “playing the game” expected from them.

Catholic Charities should graciously refuse government help and rely exclusively on Catholic generosity. The USCCB should follow suit.

The USCCB could volunteer to take charge of all the unaccompanied children crossing our border. It would be no problem to distribute these children to various dioceses and parishes for Catholic families to take them in. Since this is a moral obligation, no government assistance would be needed and Catholics would happily provide for these kids.

::

That’s an excellent idea! And what a powerful witness it would be to the sanctity and value of each child of God! :clapping::clapping:

Thank you for the kind words and more importantly your understanding.

After re-reading my post I got a sinking feeling that it would be taken sarcastically. I am glad you did not see it that way.

Thinking about it…I wonder how many Catholic families would be willing to take in one or two of these kids and raise them.

 

[marbleartist]

I can’t speak for others, but we would probably adopt a couple of kids, if they were available for adoption- and if we were eligible (our kids are grown, so maybe we could adopt some of the older ones). We already have “adopted” one at Mission Honduras and are currently paying tuition for a young adult in Mexico. I’m sure other Catholics would love to raise some of these children. I seriously thought your idea was brilliant!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can’t speak for others, but we would probably adopt a couple of kids, if they were available for adoption- and if we were eligible (our kids are grown, so maybe we could adopt some of the older ones). We already have “adopted” one at Mission Honduras and are currently paying tuition for a young adult in Mexico. I’m sure other Catholics would love to raise some of these children. I seriously thought your idea was brilliant!

And to tell you my own opinion, we in the US created this issue with the drugs, gangs, and so forth. Should be no surprise the police in central america can’t handle them,we have problems with them here too. Slightly different story, the good are martyred and suffer and quickly there, and many of the more difficult of these cases’s the Church is involved with Catholic relief.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I can’t speak for others, but we would probably adopt a couple of kids, if they were available for adoption- and if we were eligible (our kids are grown, so maybe we could adopt some of the older ones). We already have “adopted” one at Mission Honduras and are currently paying tuition for a young adult in Mexico. I’m sure other Catholics would love to raise some of these children. I seriously thought your idea was brilliant!

I have to be honest, and I hope it does not reduce your opinion of me.

Zoltan’s “secular side” says…pack these kids in 747’s and fly them home ASAP. Then reduce foreign aid and trade to their respective countries by an amount equal to all the expense incurred. I hold the parents, as well as their governments, responsible for child endangerment.

But…

If my Bishop showed up at my door with two little kids and said: “Here you go…” I could not refuse. Of course if I had them for three years they would be completely “Americanized”. No diversity allowed in Zoltan’s compound.

 

[markomalley]

I hold the parents, as well as their governments, responsible for child endangerment.

Just something to consider:

From Politico (7/15):

Kay Granger: Countries want kids back

Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), who along with other lawmakers met with leaders of Central America over the weekend, said that those officials “want their children back.”

“This is not an immigration problem, this is a crisis,” Granger said on “Fox and Friends” Tuesday after she concluded the trip. “What we should be dealing with is this crisis and not blaming either Congress or these countries.”

Granger, who is chair the House group working to address the immigration crisis, met with President of Honduras Juan Orlando Hernandez and President of Guatemala Otto Pérez Molina.

“We found out that the president and the first ladies of Guatemala and Honduras want their children back and they’re willing to cooperate with us to send their children back as quickly as possible,” Granger said.

(I would refer you to this post over in the News Forums…where we’re allowed to name names as far as politics are concerned)

It seems to me that these countries’ governments may have some rule of law issues because of smugglers basically operating freely, but it is not a situation where the countries are encouraging people to send their kids – either with parents or without – to the USA. I try to put it together a bit in the post referenced above…I would do so here, but that would be a violation of the political proscription on the SJ forum, so I’ll just refer you there.

 

[on_the_hill]

Again, is there evidence that the Church is neglecting these people? Turning them away?

I was referring to people of the opinion that we ought not help immigrants/outsiders/the stranger when our own are in need; not referring to the Church.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Just something to consider:

From Politico (7/15):

Kay Granger: Countries want kids back

Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), who along with other lawmakers met with leaders of Central America over the weekend, said that those officials “want their children back.”

“This is not an immigration problem, this is a crisis,” Granger said on “Fox and Friends” Tuesday after she concluded the trip. “What we should be dealing with is this crisis and not blaming either Congress or these countries.”

Granger, who is chair the House group working to address the immigration crisis, met with President of Honduras Juan Orlando Hernandez and President of Guatemala Otto Pérez Molina.

“We found out that the president and the first ladies of Guatemala and Honduras want their children back and they’re willing to cooperate with us to send their children back as quickly as possible,” Granger said.

(I would refer you to this post over in the News Forums…where we’re allowed to name names as far as politics are concerned)

It seems to me that these countries’ governments may have some rule of law issues because of smugglers basically operating freely, but it is not a situation where the countries are encouraging people to send their kids – either with parents or without – to the USA. I try to put it together a bit in the post referenced above…I would do so here, but that would be a violation of the political proscription on the SJ forum, so I’ll just refer you there.

I wouldn’t worry about the “political” aspect of this discussion…this is 90% pure Social Justice. Actually this subject is the reason social justice and politics don’t mix.

SOMEONE encouraged these kids (and/or their parents) to travel to the U.S. with a promise of amnesty. Back in January our State Department requested bids from private contractors (bus companies) to transport large numbers of children to various locations within the U.S. SOMEONE knew this was underway before it became a
border/immigration crisis.

But…hey! They are kids…what can we do? They are here now and need help. We can get to the bottom of this later…through the courts, the ballot box…or maybe the impeachment process.

 

[donsnow]

Good evening, marbleartist,

I’m with you, in that I think the USCCB should not, repeat not, accept any government money. Doing so cramps our style of bringing Christ to the people.

God loves you,
Don

 

[markomalley]

But…hey! They are kids…what can we do? They are here now and need help. We can get to the bottom of this later…through the courts, the ballot box…or maybe the impeachment process.

They can be properly taken care of until they can be returned to their families and their homeland.

 

[markomalley]

By the way, sort of related to the subject,

Catholic Relief Services received $1,609,113,260 in grants and contracts from the US Government since 2012. Source: USA Spending. (Mostly from the US Agency for International Development and the US Department of State.

Catholic Charities (various entities) received $997,456,398 in grants and contracts from the US Government since 2012. Source: USA Spending. Mostly from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Health and Human Services.

You can click on either link and see exactly what the contracts or grants were for, when they were signed, and how much they were for.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

By the way, sort of related to the subject,

Catholic Relief Services received $1,609,113,260 in grants and contracts from the US Government since 2012. Source: USA Spending. (Mostly from the US Agency for International Development and the US Department of State.

Catholic Charities (various entities) received $997,456,398 in grants and contracts from the US Government since 2012. Source: USA Spending. Mostly from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Health and Human Services.

You can click on either link and see exactly what the contracts or grants were for, when they were signed, and how much they were for.

Seems like the “wall of separation between church and state” is beginning to crumble.

 

[marbleartist]

By the way, sort of related to the subject,

Catholic Relief Services received $1,609,113,260 in grants and contracts from the US Government since 2012. Source: USA Spending. (Mostly from the US Agency for International Development and the US Department of State.

Catholic Charities (various entities) received $997,456,398 in grants and contracts from the US Government since 2012. Source: USA Spending. Mostly from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Health and Human Services.

You can click on either link and see exactly what the contracts or grants were for, when they were signed, and how much they were for.

Today, Obama signed an anti-discrimination executive order that prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against gay people. A quote from the article about this law states

“The executive order would prevent Christian and other religious organizations with federal contracts from requiring workers to adhere to the tenets of their religious beliefs. And that includes religious Christian colleges and universities that provide financial aid to students.”

My question ( and I really don’t have a clue to the answer!!) is this: Will Catholic Charities now have to open adoptions to same-sex couples because Catholic Charities has received so much federal money? How about same-sex marriage since the USCCB accepted so much federal money? Can we be forced to violate the beliefs of the church because of the money we’re receiving, maybe not now but in the future?