Would you target your tithing this way?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TechieGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KJW5551 said:
Hasn’t it been established that many people knew of his “indiscretions” and did nothing? I think that’s what the author is getting at here.
Click to expand...
First of all, we do not know if “many people” knew of his “indiscretions”, since it seems like all the indiscretions that have evidence took place back when he was in New Jersey, which is at least a couple decades ago now. Without evidence, it’s just a big fat rumor.

Second, people obviously didn’t “do nothing” if two cases involving adults were settled a long time ago (this involves lawyers and legal processes) and the third one resulted in an independent investigation that ended with his resignation.

We also do not know what the Church might have said or done with this Cardinal in private; I would think at the very least someone high up would have told him that he needed to stop getting into trouble if he wanted to have a high-profile position. This Cardinal also obviously must have gone to confession from time to time and we do not know what advice he got there, or whether he received spiritual direction.

In any event, as I said above, even the people who donated in New Jersey back when he was there were giving to their local parishes and charities. not to McCarrick personally, and not to his personal charity, or personal order, or personal anything. This isn’t like some business where if I get mad at Ben and Jerry’s for supporting abortion, I use my money to go buy Baskin Robbins. There is no “alternative” to the Church for a good Catholic. If I don’t donate to my parish, then my parish church will close down, and maybe some poor people will not get their meals or their charitable services. How does that help anything? It doesn’t.

Agree with Anikins that this woman sounds very angry, like she had a very bad experience. I have read that she was a Wall Street banker and a fallen-away Catholic who decided to come back to the Church and start a very conservative magazine. I have known a lot of people who worked on Wall Street or in the NYC financial industry. It’s a bad place - bad things happen, you have to be very strong to keep yourself safe in that environment. (It is doable, however; one of my friends there was a very good Catholic and he seems to have kept it up right to the end when he died.) Something happened to make this lady this way. I will pray for her.
 
Last edited:
Except that she provides no right avenue for accountability. Cardinal McCarrick has been retired since 2006. The Archdiocese of NY determined there was a credible charge against him. The Vatican has removed him from active ministry.

He is being held accountable for his actions. I don’t see how withholding funds from the diocese is going to do anything to hold him accountable.
 
Last edited:
KJW5551 said:
Hasn’t it been established that many people knew of his “indiscretions” and did nothing? I think that’s what the author is getting at here.
Click to expand...
I imagine that’s the larger point she’s trying to make. McCarrick was well known among priests and bishops at least all along the East Coast for his slumber parties with seminarians, there were two settlements paid by dioceses he headed for his behaviors, etc. Several journalists tried to write stories but couldn’t get enough on the record to publish it. And still, most of the laity had no idea, and no one stopped McCarrick. Not even the Vatican, when a group reportedly appealed to Rome directly to not appoint McCarrick to Washington DC.

So, I kind of understand her point. At what point is enough enough? At what point do Catholics vote with their wallets and say – stop covering up this kind of stuff and start trying to actually live the faith and avoid sin?

I wouldn’t use the words the author does, and I think that she goes too far. Withholding donations is far more likely to hurt your local parish. But the general outrage over McCarrick’s actions and those who covered up for him by their silence I think is justified. I just don’t know how to go about translating that outrage into useful action, or whether that’s even possible.

May God have mercy on His Church and purify us all and lead us all closer to Him.
 
Last edited:
TechieGuy said:
Well that’s awfully convenient for the clergy
Click to expand...
Any clergy that come before the Throne of God having abused the trust of the laity and betrayed the vows they made before God and His People are not going to find anything “convenient” about the consequences. They have accepted a huge responsibility and they will be held to the strictest account.
 
emilysue said:
So, I kind of understand her point. At what point is enough enough? At what point do Catholics vote with their wallets and say – stop covering up this kind of stuff and start trying to actually live the faith and avoid sin?
Click to expand...
Yeah, this…
 
TechieGuy said:
Well that’s awfully convenient for the clergy
Click to expand...
From what I’ve heard, very few people give any money to the Church regardless of what is or is not “morally forbidden”. Most people give zero, claiming they can’t afford it.

I’m basing this on actual statistics from my parishes and elsewhere. Several parishes to which I donate send out a fundraising letter from time to time showing exactly how many families in the parish give within certain brackets. Invariably, a large number are “zero”. There are also large groups of people giving a very small amount per year.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
From what I’ve heard, very few people give any money to the Church regardless of what is or is not “morally forbidden”.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was touched on in the linked article, that 5% of the donors make up 95% of the funding.

Probably an exaggeration and not the actual numbers, but goes along with your point
 
I consider donating a spiritual act that helps me overcome my attachment to matter. In case of abusing priests and bishops why can’t they be confronted directly? As in person? Stopping donations to all the church is suicidal. Are Christians mistaking charity with indiference most of the times lately? Yes I think so. But why commit suicide as a community because big church members are abusing the funds too? This has happened in Europe - upset with the church even rightfully so the people stopped giving her money. This meant the physical end of it all generations later. The Church is for us not for God. He is omnipotent He does not need the church. By destroying her we hurt ourselves not the very proud clergy we try to correct. The corrupted always find money. Financial boycott always ends up hurting the ones who are not corrupted or not that badly.
 
Last edited:
Mary888 said:
Stopping donations to all the church is suicidal.
Click to expand...
True - the linked article discusses creating a ‘vetted’ list of organizations that people can have more confidence in that their donations would be put to better use.
 
TechieGuy said:
True - the linked article discusses creating a ‘vetted’ list of organizations that people can have more confidence in that their donations would be put to better use.
Click to expand...
Betcha the next article in Wall Street Lady’s magazine will be a Vetted List that she and her buddies wrote and then she will use that to get even more hits to her website and wave it around as a big show of power as she singlehandedly reforms the Church from misdeeds committed by 80-year-olds dating back to 1972.

Jesus, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
 
If the parishes are bankrupt they will sell the land and building of the church to the city hall (probably even more huriedly given the corrupted leaders on top should there be any). The city halls will either tear down the churches themselves to make something more profitable out of it, or turn them into night clubs or sell to private investers who may or may not be Christian. The higher bidder will win. Highly unlikely those parallel organizations will be able to match a higher offer. The new owner will do whatever they please with land to maximize profit. Highly unlikely that will mean keeping the church. This has already happened in UK, Germany, France. There is no mystery as to what will happen.
Ok then there are home altars and God is everywhere after all. If the lady who wrote that plan is ready to have Mass into the great wild open then she is realistic. Otherwise she is just dispaired, which I feel for, but silly and blind.
 
Interesting, that’s not what I see at my church during the basket collection…I see old African immigrant women giving coins (because that’s all they have), most families giving envelopes, and nearly everyone else giving a dollar or two. What exactly are you basing that off of?
 
Catholics are far worse “givers” than our non-Catholic counteparts.

This has been the subject of reports, books, and if your parish does a Stewardship drive you will get the results for your parish.

The folks on your Parish Finance Council likely have these reports and books where they can share the studies with you.

https://icl.nd.edu/assets/96494/unleashing_catholic_generosity.pdf">unleashing_catholic_generosity.pdf

This article speaks of a Dynamic Catholic report with even more shocking stats:

 
Ok, that may be true. But I wouldn’t go around saying 90% of people give nothing. That’s just plain untrue.
 
Ask your parish for the stats of how many households are giving households. You will likely be shocked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top