And one that I ask hesitantly.
There is controversy brewing in Colorado about charities that receive state funding and employment practices.
Archbishop Chaput lays it out:
The Colorado General Assembly handles a vast amount of work every year. Nearly all of it is principled and well-intended, and most of it serves the common good. But every session has a few truly bad bills. House Bill 1080 is near the top of this year’s list.
In its effect, HB 1080 would attack the religious identity of religious nonprofits serving the wider community. And since Catholic nonprofits play a major role in serving the needy through organizations like Catholic Charities — in fact, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver is the largest non-government human services provider in the Rocky Mountain West — Catholics will bear a disproportionate part of the damage.
House Bill 1080 would greatly hinder any Catholic entity which receives state money from hiring or firing employees based on the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church. Many non-Catholics already work at Catholic Charities. But the key leadership positions in Catholic Charities obviously do require a practicing and faithful Catholic, and for very good reasons. Catholic Charities is exactly what the name implies: a service to the public offered by the Catholic community as part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church.
Catholic Charities has a long track record of helping people in need from any religious background or none at all. Catholic Charities does not proselytize its clients. That isn’t its purpose. But Catholic Charities has no interest at all in generic do-goodism; on the contrary, it’s an arm of Catholic social ministry. When it can no longer have the freedom it needs to be “Catholic,” it will end its services. This is not idle talk. I am very serious.
snip
What I hope Catholics and the wider community clearly understand about HB 1080 is this: Catholic organizations like Catholic Charities are glad to partner with the government and eager to work cooperatively with anyone of good will. But not at the cost of their religious identity. Government certainly has the right and the power to develop its own delivery system for human services. But if groups like Catholic Charities carry part of society’s weight, then it’s only reasonable and just that they be allowed to be truly “Catholic” — or they cannot serve. And that has cost implications that the public might prudently consider in reflecting on HB 1080.
In a press conference today in Rome devoted to Pope Benedict XVI’s message for Lent, which is on the subject of charitable giving, Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, head of the Vatican’s main charitable organization “Cor Unum,” expressed support for Chaput’s position. In response to a reporter’s question, Cordes said: “This bishop is doing the right thing.” (In Italian, his response was “questo vescovo fa bene.“)
“Theologically, charitable activity and the good deeds of the faithful are always connected to the proclamation of the Word,” Cordes said. “Jesus performed his works because he was moved by mercy, but also to proclaim the gospel. Service is always tied to testimony to the Word of God, and no one must break this connection.”
“This points to a great contemporary problem,” Cordes said. “Thanks to the generosity of many donors, the charitable agencies of the church are able to do their work. But this carries a risk that the spirit of a Catholic agency can become secularized, doing only what the donor has in view.”
Cordes then invoked the encyclical letter of Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, which dealt among other things with the Catholic identity of church-run charities.
“The pope’s encyclical was not just put together out of thin air. It was a response to a development in society,” Cordes said. “Catholic agencies have to be very careful not to lose their liberty, taking money from donors who later try to introduce a mentality that does not correspond to ecclesiastical objectives.”
In fact, Cordes said, “Cor Unum” will be sponsoring a spiritual retreat for the directors of Catholic charities in North and South America in June in Guadalajara, Mexico, precisely as a response to this perceived threat of secularization – which Cordes described as “not the fault” of the directors of Catholic agencies, but rather the surrounding culture.
Capuchin Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, the Preacher of the Papal Household, will lead the retreat, Cordes said.
To put his point into a sound bite, Cordes said, he wants the world to understand “that there’s a difference between Caritas and the Red Cross.”
Late last week, Cordes also gave an address to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, a Vatican body that deals with implementation of the Code of Canon Law,, in which he suggested that bishops may need more precise canonical tools to oversee and defend the Catholic identity of church-run charitable agencies.
Meanwhile in Colorado, the president of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver, Christopher Rose, published a letter in the current issue of the archdiocesan paper defending Chaput’s position.
Hiring religious believers to operate charities sponsored by those religious bodies, Rose argued, is not discrimination, but rather “the legitimate practice of faith-based agencies seeking to hire people of like faith to ensure that their mission of serving the poor is faithfully undertaken.”
This, of course, is not a new problem, nor an American one. It is popping up all over the place, and is felt most acutely in the area of adoption, as well as in hiring practices and insurance coverage for contraception. We’ve seen it in New York, San Francisco and over in England, most notably.
The Archbishop is, it should go without saying, absolutely right to fight this kind of encroachment. What else can the Church do?
But here is my question. I understand there is political maneuvering going on here, and I get Archbishop Chaput’s case -that the people of Colorado depend on the Church (and other religious bodies, of course) to deliver social services and thus help the…people of Colorado. Therefore it makes sense for the people of Colorado, via their state governments to support the religious bodies in providing these services.
But it is, of course, possible to minister to the people of Colorado without state funding.
It would be dramatically different and it would require the religious bodies providing those resources to dig deeper and call on their people to really sacrifice in order to continue serving the needy.
And in a sense, I suppose it would be “unfair.”
But it wouldn’t be impossible.
I suppose what I’m saying is that when religious leaders respond to pressures from governments to conform to certain standards as the price for accepting funding by saying, “Well, then, we won’t do it anymore” puzzles me. And frankly, it bothers me. Perhaps there are nuances I just don’t understand, so if that’s the case, please feel free to explain.
(Cut services yes – I can see that threat being held up. And in some areas, the government is, frankly, heavily dependent on religious groups – refugee resettlement in our area, for example. The government doesn’t do it (although they fund it) – the churches do. So, yes, I see that. But the complete withdrawal? As a commentor remarks, it begs a bigger question.)
(A commentor suggests that I’m misreading Archbishop Chaput – that he’s not saying that CC would shut down – just those activities that utilize CC would shut down because they wouldn’t be taking government funding any longer.)
Unlike the government, charities can’t operate at deficits. You gotta pay the bills, and you can’t float bonds. Consequently, while it would be nice for the Church to dig deeper and keep providing services, at the minimum a substantial financing cut will correspond with a cut in services.
Of course, it does begs the bigger question.
I suspect that the reason the archbishop is using this heavy-handed tactic is because a withdrawal of public funding is only one step removed from enacting laws requiring Catholic Charities to do certain things that conflict with its Catholic identity.
And we’ve seen it happen before. First, the government says, “We’re not going to give public funds to an organization that doesn’t provide health coverage that includes access to The Pill.” And then it says, “We’re going to pass a law requiring all organizations to provide health coverage that includes access to The Pill.”
So, I think the archbishop’s tactic is intended to head off that next step. Because once Catholic nonprofits are pressured to do certain things not just by financial incentives but by law, then the only options are to go against Catholic teaching or to close up shop.
The ABP’s desire is understandable, but his arguments seem
overwrought. If he’s serious, decline state support.
It is not obvious that key leadership positions demand a practicing and faithful Catholic.
Isn’t the standard the bishop is being asked to conform to dropping the ‘Catholic’ and simply function as a secular, bureaucratic arm of the state charity? Don’t forget the state probably is trying to have it both ways: co-opting Catholic Charities and others while not cutting off the funding that comes from the pews. One wonders how or why the church would exhort the faithful to support a de-Catholicized Charities with their donations. ‘Round here Catholic agencies have been forced out of the adoption business by the state and of course there are all kinds of other intrusions on Catholic hospitals and the like.
From Amy: Of course. But my question is…why is part of the response fighting this (and it should be fought) the threat to shut down CC completely instead of perhaps adjusting to a Brave New World in which Catholic Charities operates without state funding, and therefore has complete freedom to be…Catholic?
I would assume the diocese would eventually re-establish these ministries without government money. Of course they would be doing a small fraction of what they did before. But they would do it as Catholics out of love for the poor. This might be a very good thing. But it would be a case of a good growing out of an evil. For the state to turn it’s back on the needy in the name of political correctness is just wrong. The bishop needs to say so. He needs to point out that the poor are the ones to suffer. The short term effect will be that ministry will have to stop. That is the reality that needs to be communicated. The church will still be the church and will still care for the poor. That is not at issue. The issue is does the state continue to support them or do they hinder them because they are Catholic.
I thought that was the response but that being the case CC will of necessity be a much smaller entity. Point being certain services will go away because CC will no longer provide them and it’s unlikely that the state can assume the abandoned services seamlessly if at all. The disruption in services is not nothing and were I the ABP I wouldn’t precipitously (sp?) pull the plug until my hand is forced…
Amy– perhaps that’s where this is really going. I don’t even pretend to understand the complexities of combined donated and government funds, non-profit status, employment laws, etc. But maybe if it became inevitable that Catholic Charities had to make a complete, clean break from government money, they might almost have to shut doors and rebuild as a new entity? I don’t know, that’s just what popped into my mind reading through all this…
The key portion of HB 1080 is this:
There are two problems with this. The first is that since money is fungible, even if the budget of an organization says that money given by government through a “charitable choice” initiative is for something other than a salary, this can be contested, resulting in litigation that will be costly and distracting.
Secondly, as anyone who has been involved in providing services knows, the main cost of such services is precisely the salaries and benefits of the professionals: counselors, nurses, etc.
If we want our Catholic charitable works to be pretty much volunteer, then sure, we can say forget Catholic Charities, let’s all just support our St. Vincent de Paul Society. That’s pretty cost effective; our Archdiocesan Society here in Boston employs just 6 people in the central office; everyone else is a volunteer. Of course, we (in the Society) can’t help with adoptions, can’t help with drug or alcohol addiction, are very limited in what we can do for the homeless, etc. But we are cheap!
The kinds of services that the most needy among us need require professional help, and such help is expensive. Without wide community support for such work, the Church will have to cut back. And if the Church has to cut back on the help it provides through agencies such as Catholic Charities, which continued encroachment on Church charities as represented by this bill and the Massachusetts adoption law of 2 years ago will make necessary, then the state will take over…at a higher cost, which it will extract by force from our pockets, which will leave a lot less there for us when we do dig deeper.
In short, I don’t think Catholic Charities can operate without state funding. Not doing the kind of work they have been.
Interestingly, the New York Times today has an op-ed piece on charitable choice, and, among other thigns, notes how the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to force religious charities to follow “fair” employment laws that would be contrary to their religious commitment. If even the Times can see fit to make this known, why does Colorado’s lawmakers see the need to push this.
That’s right. The Catholic Church never helped anyone with serious problems before government funding.
That’s ridiculous.
You can say, “the times were different” – and they were.
You had religious orders dedicated to such things. You had a Catholic community that took seriously that reponsibility of all to care for the poor – not the mindset of “shove it off on a bureaucracy that’s government funded anyway.”
Maybe – just maybe – if these bishops modeled deeply sacrificial lives and made such a thing the central point of preaching and alerted Catholics to the fact that no one really needs a 50,000 SUV…Catholics would give more and be able to fund these kinds of efforts without a dime from the government.
As I said, it’s been done before. Through most of Christian history, as a matter of fact.
Terry,
Actually, through most of Christian history, I think it’s the case that the Catholic Church did its work with government help, not without. The United States is a little unusual.
Excellent post. I’m worried that some within the secular culture will not tolerate a truly Catholic Charity. For example England, imposes on adoption agencies, forcing them to allow same sex couple adoptions. Also some state governments have considered laws that would force druggists to dispense abortion pills. The secular extreme will attempt to applied restrictions even if Catholic Charities extricate themselves from the strings required by accepting government money.
Amy, I have often wondered similar things myself. I lived in the UK for eight years. The Church of England was constantly angling to make sure it had government money for its schools. It never seemed to cross anyone’s mind that if the faithful learned to tithe, then huge resources for creativity would be unleashed, and the problem of government dependency (with all its inherent compromises) would be radically diminished. Back in the US, I now feel the same way about a host of Catholic institutions – hospitals, universities, schools, as well as charities – just about anything that depends either on government money or market forces (attracting tuition paying students) to function. There is another way to fund these things, and Benedict’s Lent talk on alms giving is a clue. We won’t change the culture of Catholic funding overnight, but leadership on these issues ought to be trying to steer us in the right way. And, as you so helpfully note, Chaput missed this opportunity. But another opportunity will come.
I didn’t read the Archbishop’s statement as saying he would shut down Catholic Charities. I read it as saying “We won’t accept the funding under these terms and so will cease the activities the funding supports.” That might be 90% of the activities, if that much of the funding comes from the state.
The legislators apparently think they can impose these conditions on Catholic Charities – maybe because they can’t conceive of someone turning down state funds. It’s probably never happened before.
Good for Archbishop Chaput.
Terry,
The monasteries did do work for the poor. But providing hospitality, food and work, in a non-money based economy, is not the same as providing substance abuse counselors. And we don’t have those religious orders and monasteries any more, do we? They are much fewer in numbers than in the past.
When Frederick Ozanam, founder of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, was reproached by an atheist with “Sure the Church did great things in the past, but what are you doing now?” he founded the Society and he and his companions went to the poor. They did good work…they fed hungry people, helped people with wood for their fires to keep warm, etc. The Society continues that work, with mostly volunteers.
But I’m telling you, a bundle of firewood isn’t going to help anyone in my neighborhood today when they call our conference up because they have no heat. They don’t even have a fireplace! We need oil, at $3.40/gallon. And if it weren’t for Fuel Assistance, many of these folks would freeze to death. We scratch some money up and help when FA runs out, but it doesn’t go far. And even with Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, etc working on it, it’s not enough.
People suffering from the serious problems I mentioned before, substance addiction, mental illness, etc., need trained professionals, and those professionals have to be paid a just wage. (This is really the same problem we’ve had over the past 40 years with Catholic schools–we can’t afford to pay the school teachers a just wage, so we have to close schools.) The Church is reluctant to close Catholic Charities or wean it from gov’t money that enables them to carry out their work and help those people. Can you really blame them?
We can’t revert to the non-professional ways we “helped” people with drug problems or alcoholism in, say the 19th century or earlier–having our priests tell them to stop doing it. Well, that worked well, didn’t it?
I don’t know about your area, but around here Catholic Charities has many volunteers. As does the St. Vincent de Paul Society…and a local, but large scale Catholic charity called “My Brothers Keeper”…and several other charitable groups. I don’t think that the principal mindset is “shove it off on a bureaucracy…etc.”
But even were a diocese to refuse government funding and then downsize, it still would not solve the larger question of a religious organization in a secular society.
For example, under federal and state civil-rights laws, it is illegal to take various actions based on certain characteristics, e.g., race, religion, creed. The applicability of those laws does not turn on whether the organization receives government funding.
Similarly, if the Legislature decides that all employers in the State employing more than 20 workers must provide health coverage, with that coverage including abortion or contraception, the law will be applicable whether or not one receives government funding.
Chaput’s position highlights the problem, and puts pressure on the Legislature, but it doesn’t resolve the issue.
Amy mentioned a few places:
Colorado, New York, San Francisco, England.
I would suggest that you look at another very large “case study”
in Church-State interactions:
China.
If you push the Archbishop’s arguments too far,
you get an underground church doing its own
underground social work.
This is no longer America of the 19th Century
where you can just go to a new territory and ignore
the government.
It is not even America of the 20th Century where
a modern “Dorothy Day” can work in relative isolation.
Today the Church must work with the Government,
and learn how to be faithful while accommodating various
officials that actually don’t like the Church,
or it will become a threatening, underground entity
that does not play well with others in the society.
And the argument can go far beyond just
“receiving government funds.”
After all, the Churches and their social programs
also enjoy infrastructure like water, electricity,
sewage services, communications, etc., that all,
in some way, involve government funding and
authorizations.
The Church cannot exist without a peaceful
relationship with the State in our modern world.
The Catholic Church should be as able to receive government funding as any other organization and even with the influence of government—which is often bad—they will still do a better of job of helping people than the secular organizations who receive government funding.
As a treasurer for my SVDP conference in the Boston area, I can echo some of the comments here. There is work we volunteers are not qualified to do, that needs to be done by certified people or agencies. But there is work we are positioned to do that those people/agencies cannot do as well. The key is it takes us time – to verify facts, to visit homes, to contact the people who are to receive payments (who are not the clients themselves since we don’t normally give cash to our clients), to seek an alliance with another charity (like we have with a local charitable trust), et cet. This requires patience on the part of the clients, and does not lend itself to helping in certain emergencies (for example, we have adopted guidelines about helping people transition from homeless shelters because of the ease of fraud in such situations).
Why are the only two choices dependence on government funding (and that is what it is – dependence) and volunteerism?
Yes, the third alternative – attempt to provide the same level of services dependent on the sacrificial generosity of Catholics and others in the community – is radical.
But it’s not unthinkable.
Yes, we can’t give people a load of firewood. At the same time, we’ve watched “Catholic” organizations bend more and more to the demands of the state – hospitals, foster care agencies, etc. And the price in many cases has been the evolution of agencies that do worthwhile work and are indistinguishable from non-religious or other denominations’ non-profits.
I understand the desire to continue caring for the poor, the sick, the uneducated. At the same time, where does it stop? And the state won’t stop – there will always be another demand, another inch it wants to take.
If our work is no different from anyone else’s, perhaps we need to examine the work again. And I think we need to stop underestimating the willingness of a “catechized and aware” Catholic population to support works that are clearly and unambiguously Catholic. Think of the pregnancy homes that take no funds. Think of Greymoor’s work with substance abusers. I think people would put their money where they believed it would be used well. And we might try believing that God would help as well.
D.H. Lukenbill said: “The Catholic Church should be as able to receive government funding as any other organization . . . .” Why is this true? What if the Catholic Church, or any other organization, follows practices that run counter to the values as determined by the people’s representatives. Should someone’s tax dollars be used to fund what the Legislature determines is a wrongful, discriminatory practice? If the Ku Klux Klan is more efficient in running a local daycare center, does that mean the government should fund it?
But, as Old Zhou points out, it is more than just a question of funding. Simply by organizing itself in accordance with state corporate law, Catholic Charities, for example, becomes a “person” subject to state law.
In theory, the people, acting through their elected representatives, prevent the Church/State relationship from breaking down. But what happens when you have an ultraliberal governor such as NY’s Spitzer who has no qualms about running roughshod over those in his way?
Like Bernardo, I also understand the Archbishop’s words to mean that it will end those services for which it requires government funding. It will shrink, that’s all. And I don’t think that’s a threat, but just reality.
As for the bigger question – how Amish to become – I don’t think it’s a black and white issue, of course. But there are lines to be drawn, limits to be set, somewhere. Exactly where is perhaps best determined case by case, by perhaps those more qualified than I.
I do have a soft spot for the Amish, though.
As a practical matter – what changes does this piece of legislation require Catholic Charities to make other than to add burdensome HR tasks? Does Colorado Catholic Charities make sex-based distinctions in its hiring? Does it have preferences in hiring in favor of Catholics? Does it fire gay employees? I’m not aware that Catholic Charity organizations necessary do any of the above three things. If that is true for Catholic Charities, then it seems that all that’s left is the slippery-slope argument – requiring Catholic Charities to perform gay adoptions, make abortion referrals, etc – which is a pretty weak argument.
A salient objection would be that this piece of legislation is a “solution” in search of a “problem” to be solved – and that legislators have no business enacting laws that have no point. The legislation seems to be “busywork” designed to impress antireligious constituents that one is “doing something about” those nasty faith-based charities.
Unless I’m mistaken, most religious charities in this country primarily serve those who share their religious beliefs. As Catholics, it’s nice to be able to say we are better than that, but it’s getting to be more difficult each day. As long as Catholic Charities allows itself to be pushed around by the various legislatures, there will be anti-Catholic legislators who will lead the pushing. And they will never stop.
Archbishop Chaput is right. I’d like to see CC reject government funding, restrict its services to Catholics only, ask affluent Catholics to pony up a little more and, in Colorado, hand each non-Catholic who shows up for services the address of the pol who fashioned HB 1080 and tell them to go there for their drug counselor and/or supermarket voucher.
The last time I looked, we still had a First Amendment in this country and its Establishment Clause still went both ways.
I think Abp. Chaput’s point is that Catholic Charities and other Catholic social services organizations DO discriminate in favor of Catholics in hiring, at least at the top levels of the organization. And if they can’t hire Catholics exclusively to the top tiers of the organization then they can’t take government funding, and the consequences will be dire both for the organization and for the people they serve. There will be a fundamental change in their ability to serve.
Furthermore, if they want to prefer clergy (not that they necesssarily do, but if they want to), that might be interpreted as sex discrimination, might it not? What if they want to require that their employees live in accordance with the precepts of the Church (setting aside for the moment hypocrisy with regard to contraception), then that might indeed be perceived as discrimination against gay employees.
And, yes, there are consequences to yielding to this proposed legislation, both in terms of Catholic identity and the alternatives. Haven’t many been scandalized by the CT bishops, who tried to find a way to live with “emergency contraception” legislation? Didn’t they leave many (me, for one) wondering whether they really mean it when they state that life begins at conception? And yet if they had stated that they wouldn’t treat rape victims, or would close their emergency rooms, they would have been doing what Abp. Chaput is threatening to do — curbing their mission in order to preserve the Catholic identity of their hospitals.
Given the alternatives, I would rather see resistance to the law and the inevitable legal battle. At least then we’d know whether we still have a viable First Amendment, or whether the legislatures and the courts are going to take over definition of what it means to be a religious entity in this country. At which point we know to go underground.
Mary Jane (#20),
I think the Archbishop is trying to say, “Here’s where it stops”.
Patrick (#23),
A few years ago I was working as part of our Archdiocesan Central Council for SVDP in Boston, and most of the members felt that they couldn’t have a requirement for a practicing Catholic for our executive director. They were afraid of state antidiscrimination laws–I argued they didn’t apply, but even the counsel we had couldn’t give a definitive answer. This, in an organization that requires, and always has required, that its volunteers (members) be Catholic.
Catholic schools and Catholic organizations have fired people (see here and here for examples) who engaged in public behavior that is reprobated by the Church, whether that be the “Gay Pride” marches or working in the local abortion mill. The controversy over well-known politicians who identify themselves as Catholic but vote or rule in such a way as to betray Catholic teaching is an example of the same. And the result is a public that thinks the Church is discriminating against people for not following the Church–instead of seeing it as the Church saying there are certain requirements for being a Catholic, or heading a Catholic institution, and we are discriminating in favor of those who meet those requirements.
Terry,
Unthinkable? No it is not. But as Karen pointed out (#10), historically, the Church has worked hand in hand with government. (Ever since Constantine, anyway, and there were no public institutions of charity prior to him.) And in the Middle Ages and down to the French Revolution the church was funded by holding land and the wealth that was derived from that. Monasteries were funded by bequests and doweries. Even today, the French aren’t burdened with the upkeep of their churches…they are owned by the State. American Catholics dig far deeper than most other Catholics (although we trail behind American Protestants in this regard). More sacrifice is needed. But many people are sacrificing a great deal already. Your comments seem to assume that that is not the case.
One approach would be for Catholic organizations not to accept any money from government agencies in the first place. Once you accept vouchers for your schools, then the government can tell you to teach pro-homosexual courses to your students. Once your hospital accepts medicare, then the government can tell you to provide abortions. Once you accept tax-exempt status as a church, then the government can tell you not to preach about abortion or euthanasia from the pulpit. Better to never accept the money in the first place.
This would be an extreme response. However, I think Chaput is right to say that one will stop accepting any money that comes with strings attached that compromise the gospel.
A few years ago, Georgetown U. announced that D.C. laws required them to support a gay student association. This wasn’t true. D.C. law required them to support the gay association, or stop receiving money from the D.C. government. In short, the Jesuits at Georgetown announced that it was a relatively small price for which they were willing to sell out their faith — just a few pieces of silver.
One wonders about the bishops in Connecticut as well.
Bravo to Chaput.
The reality of this world is that “he who provides the money sets the agenda”. This is why I have long opposed the funding of Catholic schools with government money. Yes, it does put a Catholic institution (school, college, charity, etc.) at a disadvantage financially against government funded institutions, but it preserves the right of the Catholic institution to remain Catholic. I think it is better to diminish somewhat in the scope of activities than to have those activities dictated by persons who are often hostile to Catholic values and doctrines. We’ve seen plenty of it already in formerly Catholic universities that, in their eagerness to obtain federal grants, have sacrificed their Catholic identity in the process.
It is my understanding that Catholic Charities takes on services at the request of Government because the State hasn’t the resources and/or knowledge to build and support the necessary infrastructure to provide the services; sort of an outsourcing of services.
In exchange for state funds, Catholic Charities agrees to provide the services the state isn’t in a position to provide.
So, my read here in Colorado, is that Archbishop Chaput will discontinue receipt of state funds; and services will be reduce significantly to support only what tithing and the laity can provide.
Or, . . . the state stop this unnecessary mandate on how the Archbishop’s charitable arm is constituted.
I support the Archbishop’s position because I see this Colorado House Bill setting the standard in the US, which could lead to the same strong arm anti-discriminatory laws we’re seeing in the UK today.
In the age of the welfare state supported by taxation of all citizens , does our faith really require the Church to be a para welfare state? Why can’t we in good conscience cut back to what we can legally do without running afoul of government laws and depending on government money? Let government expand its welfare role. Isn’t that what Protestant Christian churches wanted of government in the Progressive Era early in the 20th century and largely got? Wasn’t the creation of the welfare state under the spur of the Social Gospel folk the triumph of the Gospel mandate to feed the hungry etc.? Christians didn’t just hand over the job to the state. They created the biggest apparatus in history for doing the job and involved everyone in it through taxation and taught that unwillingness to see its expansion was unchristian. Catholics jumped on the bandwagon a bit later but jumped on hard. Social Gospel became Social Justice.
And yet there is this insistence of churches doing the job on a large scale anyway, an unwillingness to abide by laws of the agency, the welfare state, the creation of which the churches demanded, and the constant demand for more and more government (taxpayer) money without strings attached to do the work themselves at the same time that they demand that the state does it too.
The Catholic Church in America needs to think through its role very carefully in regard to all its activities outside of the four walls of a church building. What do we want, what price will we pay to the state to get what we want? It’s not a question of the way it OUGHT to be but rather of the way it’s going to be.
In Illinois, Catholic Charities provides foster care and medicaid funded services in many counties. The state maintains contracts with Catholic Charities because it is able to provide services at rate that is substantially lower than similar services provided by the state or community mental health center. If CC were to stop providing those services it would result in a substantial financial strain on the state, the foster care and the mental health care systems.
While the church would continue to be able to provide services to people in need, it would not likely be providing servcies to children in foster home, treatment centers, or to the many mentally ill that are not served by community mental health centers. Many working poor do not have insurance and are not eligible for Medicaid. They rely on non-profit religious and community counseling centers. State revenue helps keep those counseling centers afloat.
Quite an interesting dilemma to say the least. IT will be quite interesting to see how this plays out. I recall the SAlvation Army going through something similar.. What ever occured with that case? Anyone know??
I pray that the folks of Colorado come together and lobby against this bill- it definately goes beyond just Catholic Charities.. It would hit every other organization as well–including Boy Scouts..
When living in Illinois- this story was HUGE news…I know its a bit off track but it’s still a great story..
Here is a snip for those of you that may have missed the story a few years ago..
U.S. Health Plans Include One With Catholic Tenets
By MILT FREUDENHEIM
Correction Appended
The Bush administration has broken new ground in its “faith-based” initiative, this time by offering federal employees a Catholic health plan that specifically excludes payment for contraceptives, abortion, sterilization and artificial insemination.
The new plan, announced last week, combines two White House priorities. It is part of a $1 billion project seeking to involve religious organizations in all types of federal social programs. At the same time, the plan is a new form of coverage – a health savings account combined with high-deductible coverage – that is being promoted as a centerpiece of President Bush’s health care policy.
The plan, which will begin enrolling federal workers in 31 Illinois counties in November, is sponsored by OSF Health, a unit of the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, which runs the St. Francis Medical Center in Peoria and five Roman Catholic hospitals in Illinois and Michigan.
This is the first plan for federal workers “that has tailored its benefits in line with a set of tenets that are supported by the Catholic church,” said Abby Block, a senior official in the Office of Personnel Management, which manages the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, the nation’s largest purchaser of health insurance. It is also the first to be to marketed as “faith-based.”
Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said the Office of Personnel Management was one of a number of federal agencies, including the Housing and Urban Development, Justice and Agriculture Departments, that were directed to seek opportunities for faith-based programs.
“Over $1 billion has been made available to faith-based programs,” he said. Faith-based organizations have, for example, been involved in job training and transitional services for former prisoners.
Ms. Block said that until now all federal employee benefit plans offered similar standard options and exclusions. Under a 1984 law, plans in the federal program are prohibited from covering abortions, except in cases involving rape, incest or danger to a woman’s life. And while a 1999 law requires the plans to offer contraception coverage, Congress has repeatedly exempted insurance plans affiliated with Catholic organizations from that provision.
None of those restrictions, however, have been promoted as a way to appeal to a specific religious audience.
Kay Coles James, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, said last week that the new additions to federal employees’ health benefits would “empower” workers to control their medical spending. Ms. James, a former spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee, which advocates anti-abortion policies, added that the program gave federal employees “more opportunities to make choices in the private sector.”
But some critics expressed concern that this trend in health care might grow into a wider phenomenon. Is this “explicit denial” the first step in “denying federal employees a normal benefit that has been traditional for 30 years?” asked Philip R. Lee, a professor of social medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and a former assistant secretary for health in the Clinton administration. “Is this simply the opening wedge?”
Four million federal workers across the country will have 249 choices of health plans for 2005. Those plans are sponsored by dozens of insurers, including Catholic health systems in Missouri, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin, as well as Illinois. Federal workers in Illinois can, of course, still select a health plan that does not have religious-based restrictions. But the OSF plan will be the only health savings account plan available to them.
The Bush administration has promoted health savings account plans as a way to hold down costs, give consumers greater control of health spending and increase personal savings.
The OSF plan has two parts. It couples a tax-free savings account for enrollees to use to pay for routine care with a high-deductible health plan that offers coverage only after the annual deductible has been reached – $1,050 for individual or $2,100 for family coverage. As part of the benefit, a portion of the premium that the government will pay to OSF will be deposited into each enrollee’s savings account.
The government’s total contribution to the new OSF plan will be $240.89 a month for individuals and $599 a month for families. The employees’ monthly premium contribution will be $80.30 for individuals and $199.66 for families. By comparison, federal workers enrolling in a more…
to read the rest: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/business/25care.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&position=&oref=slogin
Catholic Charities needs to cut back whatever it has to in order to stay authentically Catholic. Catholic citizens need to push for much more generous tax exemptions for people who give to charitable causes.
I don’t think most Catholics would know that Catholic Charities exists, except that we heard about it during the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. I never had heard of Catholic Charities until I started frequently a building where they had an office; and I never saw anything particularly Catholic about it, or any sign that they wanted money from Catholics. They got all their money from the mysterious Archbishop’s Fund Drive, which is the only time all year we hear about most Catholic charities, and the United Way.
St. Vincent de Paul I hear about all the time, because they have a shelter in town, and the little pro-life charities, and stuff like that. But not Catholic Charities.
My basic impression for my entire life was that, if you were Catholic and needy, you went and applied for government help like everyone else, or you asked your family, or you were proud and didn’t take anything. It never even occurred to me that you would ask your parish for help, much less any of the mysterious Archbishop’s Fund Drive entities.
Anyway, my point is that people would probably be more interested in giving if they knew these things existed and needed help, instead of assuming that the United Way money covered everything.
Ditto the religious orders that do service. Nobody ever comes around to young people and says, “Darn it, there’s a lot of suffering poor people out there, and we desperately need folks willing to serve Christ in them! Will you please help?!” You get the impression that the government takes care of everything, and basically that nobody needs help from nobodies like you. (Or at least, you did when I was growing up.) Service projects are always makework and the most important social justice work is lobbying and demonstrations, so there must be no real need, you assume.
From Amy: Maureen – THANK YOU. I agree completely. An example from our area. Our CC office does the bulk of refugee resettlement in this area. Late last summer, it became known that hundreds of Burmese refugees were going to be coming – several times more than usual, maybe by a factor of five or so, at least. There was an article in the secular newspaper about it – but nothing in the diocesan paper. The article said this was going to be difficult for CC to handle, that they were needing help and resources, and so on. I hunted through local bulletins, looking for some sort of “alert” that the Catholics of the area were needed to step up to the plate and produce household items, practical assistance, and so on for these hundreds of new refugees. Nothing. I took some stuff down to the office myself, and it was appreciated, but I think that’s a good example of what you are talking about, and for the life of me, I don’t understand it.
Sorry for the ramble above, but my point was this: if Catholics find out that there is a need and that their donations don’t just vanish into the mysterious aether, Catholics will probably donate more and do it more regularly. It’s not like most people tithe, so there’s room. Likewise, parishes could organize giving and volunteering a lot more systematically. Maybe parishes could sponsor paying people’s wages (symbolically adopting them, at least). And yeah, you could probably persuade some of us single people with degrees to enter religious life and do service, if they had any idea they were wanted. (Heck, right after people leave college and they’re working crud jobs, you could probably sign people up pretty easily for life, much less to volunteer for a while if they got free room and board. But nobody ever asks.)
Of course, this would probably mean that Catholics would tend to donate less to non-Catholic charities.
Amy, you must have missed the story on the refugees that I saw in the Cath paper (can’t remember when it was.) they asked for donations and volunteer help (teach English etc).
But I haven’t seen anything in the parish bulletin. The parish is involved with many charities already, of course, and may have felt they could not add another.
Hi Steve,
I read your comment about the firings of Catholic school teachers for one thing or another. However, what may be a meaningful and significant personnel matter in the context of a Catholic school, where teachers are held out as “examples” to the young, may not be meaningful in a Catholic Charities operation? Does it matter, for instance, if the substance abuse counselor at CC is divorced and re-married or if CC’s operating officer is a Lutheran? If so, why, and if not, why not?
I don’t have an answer, I’m afraid, but the answer may turn on whys and wheretofores of having a “Catholic” Charities in the first place. Cardinal Hickey said on several occasions in my hearing that Catholic Charities doesn’t engage in charity or social work for sake of making people Catholic, but because WE are Catholic. Unpacking that nice sounding statement, however, raises as many questions as it answers. Does the “we” mean the Church as institution? By “we” do we mean the identity badge of the “good-deed doers” (for lack of a better term) as Catholic – as opposed to Jew or Episcopal? Does the “we” mean “good” Catholics as “the good deed doers” and not “bad Catholics” doing “good deeds?” If that is the case, then is one accenting “Catholic” identity to the point that needs aren’t being met that otherwise would be? Is that a desirable outcome?
Or, is the paramount consideration that it is that “good deeds” are being done or unmet needs being met that otherwise would not be done or not be met if it were not for CC? That certainly would make the proposed legislation rather irrelevant. But if that is the point of CC, then what does the “Catholic” part mean, exactly, if anything?
This should give pause to those who support “faith-based” initiatives and syncretistic civil-religion amalgams. Every time the government is involved the result is never a happy one. And no matter how benevolent the cooperating groups appear to be (whether the government or representatives or those of Christian denominations), the day will come when a disagreement morphs into either a call for censure or a dilution of doctrine.
I’m no expert on this, but if I understand it correctly, the church/state “separation” was begun not to keep churches out of public work, but to keep government out of meddling with churches. If our country really is “of the people, by the people, for the people,” then the money isn’t really government money. It’s our money, everybody’s, religious and secular. Religious folks pay taxes just like everybody else. So why shouldn’t our organizations be able to benefit from our taxpaying? If the government takes away funding unless we hire non-faith people, it is infringing both on our religious liberty and on our rights as taxpayers. Or so it seems to me.
Doesn’t this problem make evident the need for a federal law that would protect Church agencies from state legislation that infringes on the agencies’ religious identity?
Also, in lieu of such a federal law, the best course of action might be for the Catholic agency to break the law openly, let the state prosecute, then contest that prosecution in the Federal Courts on the basis of Free Exercise.
Finally, I wonder if adoption agencies in Catholic-friendly states can expand their reach so as to compensate somewhat for the closing of adoption agencies in states with laws inimical to Catholic morals.
I was just going to write Aimee’s post. Consider also that the level of taxes we pay to help people is quite high by historical standards. That’s another reason why people can’t just dig deep. Nowadays if you want to help someone you have to give them new stuff, no hand me downs. The result of this is that clothes I’d give my own second or third child to wear I toss because Goodwill won’t take them.
Re: 25 Ferde’s post — you would, i’m quite certain, be incorrect in the assumption that “most religious charities in this country primarily serve those who share their religious beliefs.” I’ve worked with LDS (Mormon) relief services in West Virginia, Catholic Social Services in Ohio, and Lutheran charities in those and two other states in the course of pastoral work, and i’m Disciples of Christ myself — never has it been the case that the focus or even any attention at all has been on who’s getting services, let alone their own tradition. I’ve had glancing experience with Southern Baptist and Assemblies of God aid programs in the wake of natural disasters and in areas with severe economic need, and haven’t picked up a bit of selectivity in their aid offerings.
Now, when it’s an insurance body like Thrivent, they serve 90% their own tradition, but the social service/mission projects they do are also non-selective as to religious background of recipients. I understand that the LDS has a specific “Bishop’s Storehouse” program in each stake which their relief workers have access to, but is mainly for member relief, but that’s because LDS members in good standing are not supposed to go to any civic body for assistance/welfare, but can count on their church to provide their needs. A good chunk of the staffing for the Storehouses are people who need to work off their tithe in hours rather than dollars, so are “volunteers” in a rather unique fashion.
Regarding #38 – we do it because we’re Catholics, and because if there are people with physical needs unmet, we’re commanded by Christ to help. We always have. (some of us anyway.) It goes back to the very beginning – there’s a report by a bemused Roman that’s one of the earliest non-Christian documents about Christians, and the charitable works are mentioned there. (Pliny wrote it, I think.)
It’s the ‘whatsoever you do” command. Or see also the Letter of James. Yeah, we could give our loose change to the beggar in the street. But we’ve also founded hospitals, St. Vincent de Paul, Catholic Charities, etc. to do larger jobs.
(dangit. I just accidentally posted my reply to this on Terry Nelson’s blog and then asked him to disregard. Humility is not my favorite virtue because I only ever get it by doing Something Really Stupid. Again.)
Anyway, in “Deus Caritas Est”, Pope Benedict addressed this question in Part II, our obligations vs. relying on the State to handle these things. I think getting out from under the government’s thumb is good; we’ll get back to the idea of personal involvement, instead of throwing tax dollars at problems. We have to remember that the primary goal is getting ourselves and those around us to Heaven, not health insurance.
I agree with this post wholeheartedly.
It’s fair to generalize that, whenever the Church receives money or assistance from the government, she runs the risk of having that money or assistance come with strings attached.
It’s also fair to generalize that, when the Church has been less entangled with state authority, it has generally been spiritually healthier. (Anyone care to review the history of lay investiture?)
So, when strings are attached, Christians can just do without government involvement, thank you very much! We might be slightly less effective that way…but we’ll be pure of purpose, not entangled with power, and more closely following Christ.
We must remember that Jesus advised the “rich young ruler” to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor, and then to come follow him. The “rich young ruler” declined. Jesus responded by…letting him go!
Why? Was Jesus unsure of the justice of his command? (No.) Did Jesus lack the power to compel the young man to do as he said? (No.) Did Jesus lack the proper authority to take the young man’s property and give it to the poor against his will? (No; it all came from the Lord anyway!) Did Jesus lack the wisdom to distribute that money fairly? (No.)
And, notice this: Did some of the poor suffer because the “rich young ruler” did not obey? (Probably.) Couldn’t Jesus have prevented that suffering by forcing the young man to obey? (Yes.)
So why didn’t he?
It seems to me that Jesus commanded voluntary giving; He made charity the responsibility of each individual Christian. We are to give out of our own pockets. Jesus said nothing whatsoever about giving out of other people’s pockets (i.e. via taxation of the community at large). I fear to put words in the Lord’s mouth, but…if we “give” out of money collected by force from others through taxes, to make up for a lack of our own voluntary giving, I daresay the Lord doesn’t approve.
If Jesus found it inappropriate to use force to compel charity, how can we think it appropriate for us to do so? Is the servant greater than his master?
Our Lord does not come to us and say, “Use the sword of the state, and its tax collection apparatus, to collect by force from others the money necessary to carry out your charitable deeds.” Our Lord comes to us and says to us, as individuals and as Members of His Body, “Feed the Hungry, Clothe the Naked, Teach the Ignorant, Love the Unloved and Help the Helpless.”
That is, He asks us to (a.) perceive the needs of others with whatever insight He has given us, and then (b.) meet those needs with whatever resources he has made available to us. Does that require the sword of the state to accomplish it?
“But,” some might say, “if we don’t get our share of tax revenues, we won’t be able to help as many poor people.”
Perhaps. But that assumes that we, ourselves, are already voluntarily donating as much as we can. Is that true?
“Maybe not,” some would answer, “but we have to be practical, here. Churchgoers are just not giving like they ought, and that isn’t going to change. So, we NEED the additional money the government takes from non-Christians to use at our discretion, or else the poor will be hurt!”
Perhaps. But then many evils, which an omnipotent God could halt instantaneously if He chose, continue because He chooses not to force His creations to behave righteously. Evil exists, apparently, because God thinks free will matters more than the risk of evil.
Using the sword of government to compel righteous charity from those who otherwise would not give at all, or insufficiently, may seem like a good idea. But it is not Jesus’ style, for the Son “does only what He sees the Father do.”
“How, then, are we to make up for the absence of government funding?” you ask.
Well, that is where we find out how Christian the Christians actually are, isn’t it?
What would happen if every Christian in the United States were to (a.) tithe reliably, and (b.) give above and beyond tithing, to the poor, a portion of their incomes equivalent to, say, a third of their income percentile? (That is, if people in the 99th, or highest, income percentile gave 33% of their income, but people in the 12th percentile only gave 4%.)
Would we be concerned at all with this bill? Would there even be a need for a welfare state at all?
Let us by all means argue (calmly, peaceably) for a change to a bad bill.
But let us also acknowledge that, if we were all doing our bit, the whole question of government would be moot, because there’d be too little poverty around for government to bother fighting it.