You start by saying that the letter was not about ALL and HLI and then conclude by asking why the letter said things about these groups being partisan. This doesn't make any sense. Was the letter written as an attack on these groups or as a response to others? If a response to others then your last "questions" seem out of place.

Hi Reymond,

That was actually an editing snafu -- the paragraphs were supposed to be deleted. We've corrected it.

Sorry for the confusion.

I did my own little investigation a few weeks ago, knowing that their solicitation weekend is coming up. I found that CCHD national lists their grant recipients on their website, so I did some spot-checking on 5-10 of them, going to their websites and reading a little about them. I didn't find any organizations that were explicitly pro-abortion or pro-homosexual, or anything I would characterize as violative of Church teaching.

HOWEVER, there was a recurring theme of "empowering the poor" in almost all their descriptions, numerous references to "the disenfranchised" and "marginalized", and a general spirit of activism with shades of a class warfare mentality. I was put off by it, and not inclined to support the CCHD if these were the groups they funded. But I'm doing some self-reflecting and asking myself "why?"

I tend to characterize certain people as "peace and justice" Catholics (as I know I am characterized as a "pro-life Catholic"), and "those types" make me uncomfortable. Am I made uncomfortable by the poor? Admittedly, yes, a little. But it is their advocates that make me really uncomfortable. Seeing the poor solely as victims of "society" or acting like it's the fault of the rich that some people are poor - this is the mentality that really turns me off. The community groups funded and supported by the CCHD (and presumably the CCHD shares these positions) all talk about addressing the root causes of poverty, but I'm not sure I agree with them as what those root causes are. It's hard to say, because I didn't see any of those root causes listed on the websites I visited. But I do wonder what the root causes of poverty are that are addressable by anyone other than the individual and their family?

More disturbingly, does my own struggle to improve my lot in life (to go from lower middle class to upper middle class) somehow harm others who aren't as successful at it? Those of us who are making incremental steps towards upward mobility while preserving our families and raising our children to be saints in the midst of depravity - we have all we can do to keep our own momentum going, and we (or at least, I) can't quite get what role a community organization like ACORN has to do with it. Strip away the patently offensive, unlawful and anti-Christian works of ACORN and reduce it to its stated mission, and what does it do that really helps people achieve upward mobility? HOW do these groups get people out of poverty?

I'm trying to put my finger on why these groups rub me the wrong way. I'm not opposed to helping the poor - I plan on donating to our parish St. Vincent de Paul Society this weekend instead of to the CCHD. But what's the difference between SVDP and the "good" version of ACORN I posited above? What is it about "community activism on behalf of the poor" that turns me off so badly? Maybe because it conjures up images of the "undeserving poor", and I resent helping them? I resent throwing money down the hole of "giving a man a fish" when I think he's squandered his fishing gear to buy beer. There's a difference between the quiet, humble poor who gratefully accept charity, and those who are agitating for and demanding "change". And I can't shake the image I have that SVDP serves the former, while the recipient organizations of CCHD donations tend to perpetuate not only class envy, but poverty itself.

If my own thinking is not properly confirmed to Christian teaching, I want to correct it. Maybe I'm creating all these excuses and straw men to describe a class of American poor that doesn't really exist. I'd love to hear from other commenters about this.

Is it too much to ask that when we put money in the coffers it goes to Catholic organizations? Isn't that the assumption most people have when they give to the Church? It seems unconscionable that we have countless Catholic run organizations pleading for donations while the Bishops take up a nationwide collection to give money away to secular entities. I appreciate what American Life League is doing, but think they are stopping way too short. We should demand that when we pool our money as Catholics at a national level that it goes to Catholic run institutions. There might be rare exceptions to this where we come together with other like minded organizations to solve a problem, but we should avoid just giving the money away for others to be in charge of. This practice by the Bishops is inept and naive.

Hi Jason,

I understand your thoughts and doubts completely, even if I don't share every one of them. For the most part, I sense it really boils down to something you alluded to in dividing up (American?) Catholics into "peace and justice" and "pro-life activist" sides. As many people have said on this site in different ways over the years, the small percentage who are the most fervent and engaged Catholics are the ones who would probably also characterize themselves in this way, whereas most, I sense, are somewhere in the "mushy middle" and don't necessarily get too involved in these internecine religious debates.

My sense is that since the 1980s (I'm young and can remember back only that far as a Catholic child, but perhaps it extends back even to the 1960s and Vatican 2?), American Catholics have really coalesced around two significantly opposing political philosophies in terms of their spiritual and intellectual formation, namely "conservative" and "progressive". Obviously in political terms these approaches are irreconcilable, even if Christ certainly never founded a Church intended to live such a dichotomy. This doesn't mean that there can't be valid differences among Catholics on prudential judgement issues, of course, but rather I think we've naturally come to view our faith and its rights and responsibilities in terms of our political and intellectual formation as individuals. I've lived in a number of states, conservative and liberal, as well as in Europe for a time, and I've travelled worldwide pretty extensively, and in the past I haven't noticed such sharp philosophical dichotomies among non-American Catholics, but it does seem to be occurring more and more now as the Western world (including Eastern Europe nowadays!) secularizes more and more. I spent time in Spain last summer, the country where I used to live, and the radically pro-abortion, secular Leftist administration/policies of Prime Minister Zapatero have caused Catholics there to begin coalescing around dichotomous poles very similar to those here in the U.S., i.e., with conservative or progressive approaches. Perhaps this is all part of natural human political processes as society scularizes to greater and greater degrees?

But I digress...at heart, those of us Catholics with a conservative political and intellectual philosophy tend to naturally apply those principles to the prudential judgements that our Catholic faith entails, while those with a progressive philosophy do the same thing, as well. Unfortunately, I think we've all seen times when both sides have NOT correctly viewed certain issues from the CATHOLIC standpoint, as opposed to the political one. For example, many conservatives view foreign policy (e.g., Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) in what people could call a "neo-conservative" way that doesn't fit true Catholic teaching. For their part, many progressive Catholics view some issues (e.g., health care reform, abortion and contraception, homosexual lifestyles) in ways that also do NOT conform to true Catholic teaching. When groups use their own political philosophies almost as a stick to beat on fellow Catholics with differing political philosophies, thence arises the discomfort that Jason describes so well in his post above.

In short, Jason, you and I naturally feel uncomfortable as Catholics with conservative political philosophies to approaches taken by progressive Catholic groups like those you researched under the auspices of CCHD funding. For me, a huge part of the discomfort also stems from the "class warfare" undertones of the rhetoric many such groups employ, as well as my natural reticence to support large groups that are quasi-governmental in approach or in structure. I much prefer to donate locally to my parish and to small organizations whose actions and results I can see for myself in my own community. This is not to say I never support large groups financially, but when I do, they also tend to be those whose values align most closely with my own, e.g., EWTN and even World Vision, which although a huge organization itself, takes a very micro and individualized approach to the helping hand it provides with my support, and that's something I really appreciate.

It would be very interesting and helpful to hear perspectives from some of the more "progressive-minded" Catholics who frequent this site about their take on these issues---Joe H and Tim Shipe, are you reading this?

Jason,

I can relate so well to everything you've said, and I so appreciate your honesty and candor. You're not alone in feeing turned off by the activism. I was so furious when I learned of the scandalous ways some CCHD money had been used, and I felt betrayed once again by those unscrupulous Catholics-in-name-only. A thorough house-cleaning is in order.

I'm also, like you, trying to look deeper at my own reactions and thoughts and make sure I am not developing an anti-poor attitude dressed as an anti-activist attitude. It's an easy thing to want to reach out and help the "deserving" poor, but it's another thing altogether to hold on to a charitable heart toward those who seem to be "undeserving." I'm praying the Lord will help me learn greater charity.

Thanks for your comments. God bless you, Jason. Keep seeking the truth, including the truth about yourself, and I'll do the same.

I will still find another places to support for the time being, thank you.

Mr. Hudson,

Thank you for this article, and for clarifying some of the issues for those who have only heard soundbytes of the controversy. We in the Reform CCHD Now coalition are grateful for Mr. Lund-Molfese's clarification, and we're encouraged to hear of the good things that are happening with the CCHD in Chicago.

We remain hopeful of such clarifications at the national level as well, as we were surprised by some of Bishop Morin's statements in his address to the USCCB on November 17.

In this address, he briefly acknowledged that some CCHD critics have good motives and legitimate questions, and then he made some strange claims.

He categorically denied that the CCHD funds any group "that is specifically involved in any activity contrary to church teaching". He also said that some groups "repeat or spread outrageous claims that the bishops are funding groups that are pro-abortion, groups that are not in support of the family, or other untruths."

With all due respect to Bishop Morin, no one who has actually read the evidence presented by coalition members ALL and Bellarmine Veritas Ministry coalition could possibly agree with him that no CCHD grantees have actively worked against the Church in such ways.

This is simply untrue. We have caught at least 15 groups red-handed doing exactly these things. Three of them have, gratefully, been defunded. Other charges have been brushed off, such as the Los Angeles CCHD-funded groups that we have since been assured were again recently "approved by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles". As evidence presented on www.reformcchdnow.com clearly shows, either the Archdiocese of LA now approves of "gay marriage" and "emergency contraception and other family planning services" as being "fully in line with Catholic teaching" or they are simply ignorant, and at this point, willfully so, of the evidence against the groups in question.

We apologize for those scandalized by such language, but we posit that the scandal is not in our pointing out these carefully documented problems and CCHD dissembling, but in defending or explaining away clear cases of opposition to Church teaching, as has been the case for many, but not all, CCHD reps to date.

It is our position that CCHD staff at the national and, in many cases, the local level are so deeply confused about Catholic teaching that they erroneously report to their bishops, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, that all CCHD grantees are in alignment with Church teaching.

We have not criticized the bishops and we know that they are not unclear on life issues. We are glad reforms are being considered at the CCHD and we are sure of Bishop Morin's good intentions in leading the CCHD. But those who truly want to know the truth and who rightfully trust Bishop Morin deserve a clarification both about the claims brought by Reform CCHD Now coalition members and about the intentions of those of us who are trying to serve both Truth and the Church that we love.

questions about what makes you uncomfortable with giving to entities like the CCHD.

I thought about the question and came up with this: social justice, charitable giving, assistance to the poor involves more than just its material aspect. I believe that Christ calls us to engage with the poor person to person. Aren't we called to see Christ in the poor and to seek to reflect his image to them as well? How many who provide money to the poor or who work in the poverty industry actually even know the names of the people being helped? I suspect that the first thing the Samaritan in the Gospel did when he stopped to help the man beaten by thieves and left on the side of the road to die was to ask the person his name.

When the Church's charity becomes institutionalized, the poor are likely to be objectified, we can lose sight of what it is we're doing, and run the serious risk of those involved at superordinate levels ending up serving just ourselves. Worse than this, we can unwittingly dole out all sorts of millions of dollars to organizations that actually are instruments of Satan.

I wonder how many of those who earn their living from charity work would be willing to continue with the same ministry on a voluntary basis? If not, then what was it they were actually doing I would ask?

The Abbott column appeared Nov. 13, not Oct. 13. The brouhaha arising from publication of the Chicago CCHD letter arose within the last week, not month.

The bishops really should just abolish CCHD entirely and start over. While they are at it, radically pruning the USCCCB bureaucracy would help.

I'm sure that CCHD does fund some very deserving groups. I have not doubt whatsoever that Nicholas Lund-Molfese and Cardinal George would like to turn CCHD in Chicago around and that other bishops, probably Bishop Morin, would like to do so nationally.

I just think that's not a prudent strategy.

The USCCB needs to admit to the depth of malfeasance at CCHD in the past. They need to start over again after first establishing some solid and practical, nitty-gritty guidelines for a CATHOLIC approach to helping the poor. And it wouldn't hurt for them to involve actively in that guideline-writing process, some free-market subsidiarity, yes, gasp, Republican, Catholics who care about the poor.

The US bishops could do the Church a great service by bringing left-leaning social activists into real and genuine conversation with free-market, gasp, Catholic Republican conservatives whose vision for helping the poor is a legitimate Catholic voice.

Though this would require at first a delay, in the long run it would do far more for the unity of the Church and for the needy in America than trying to put lipstick on the pig that currently is CCHD. The bishops need to admit that they have really blown it on this one. Instead, they are making a half-way admission and trying to refashion the existing CCHD.

It won't work. The sooner the bishops recognize it, the sooner we can subsidiarily get on with the work of fighting poverty Catholicly.

And while they are at it, the bishops might make subsidiarity more prominent in the Catholic social teaching efforts and back away from backing the Big Brother approach to problem-solving that they still, 30 years after the Reagan revolution, blindly back.

Is that too much to ask?

CCHD exists to give Catholic money to non-Catholic groups, some of whom help the poor.

SVDP is a Catholic group dedicated to helping the poor.

I think the reason that the former leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the REASON the various groups help the poor.

When the organizations funded by CCHD 'help' the poor, they treat the poor as a monolithic group, a political force to be harnessed. Essentially, they dehumanize the people they're claiming to help. They don't see them as individuals deserving of love, but as 'the masses.'

SVDP, on the other hand, is authentically Catholic. They don't help 'the poor.' They help individual people with specific needs. They are dedicated to the works of mercy. They give out of love, not out of a desire for power.

It's not that the SDVP poor are more DESERVING, than the CCHD poor. It's that the SVDP sees the poor as deserving because they are children of God, not because they are voters.

We can't have authentic 'Human Development,' unless we see the poor as PERSONS first of all, deeply beloved by God and deserving of our love as well. This is where the CCHD falls flat, and where SVDP and various religious orders really shine.

The problem with CCHD is only the MONEY is Catholic-- the philosophy is secularist.

I'll check in with SVDP to find out more about them. In the meantime, your point is perfect: treatment of the poor as persons in the image and likeness of God must be the first priority. All charity comes from there.

Kevin in Texas,
Your thoughtful comment is much appreciated. Pray that there are many more Catholics like you, who think, judge with prudence, and love the Church. As a European who has lived in the US for 13 years, let me point out one difference between Catholics on both sides of the Atlantic. The split between "conservatives" and "progressives" in the US is rather unique. It follows party lines, which is in itself a non-Catholic attitude. The teaching of the Church cuts across these lines, as one could see in the successful intervention of the American bishops in the health care debate: pro universal healthcare, contra any funding of abortions. Believe me, none of the people working for the Curia in Rome have any appreciation for Republican vs. Democrat games, and this makes the influence of American Catholicism on decisions in the Universal Church actually weak. In Europe, secularization (as you correctly say about Spain) is much more advanced. While this is a sad state of affairs, it has also had a good impact: tepid "progressives" have been pretty much weeded out, they have simply left (and there are no Episcopalians or Unitarians to join). The Catholic Church in France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Austria, etc., is smaller than before, but whoever goes to Mass wants to go and knows why. Pope Benedict has written much about Catholics as "creative minorities" in secularized societies. Europe is already there, and yet all of the new movements in world Catholicism (Opus Dei, Focolare, Comunione e Liberazione, Emmanuel, Arche, etc.) are of European origin. American Catholicism is headed in the same direction. The tepid will break off, though this may take a decade or longer. Creative and faithful minorities will remain. And what this means is that they will have to pool their resources more judiciously. Hundreds of Catholic schools around the country shut down every year. This is why, for my part, I will not donate to CCHD. The risk that the funds get into the wrong channels is just too high. I will be happy to do whatever I can to support faithful Catholic organizations I can trust.

The answer lies with the statements of many nuns which have triggered the current investigation by the Vatican. These nuns speak of "the need to move beyond Christ". "the need to move beyond the Church". Formerly, Catholics were the poor! Through education, they have moved largely into the middle class and they now find Catholicism parochial and boring. These people (maybe we also?) have lost the Faith. They have become Americans and they emulate the leaders (political, governmental, business) they work with every day. THEY CANNOT AGREE, BECAUSE NO ONE KNEW WHAT TO TELL THEM FOR THE LAST FORTY YEARS, WHAT BEING A CATHOLIC MEANS. This is why Benedict is returning to Tradition. It was the last time Catholicism was relevant and had a purpose.

Over the years, as our family grew to six children, we had to think very carefully about where our charitable giving would best be utilized, my husband and I did come up with a strategy. We donated to our parish, to local pro-life groups, and to Food For the Poor. On occasion we have also given contributions to our local Catholic communities for specific projects. Years ago we donated to the diocesan capital campaign, but after the bishop "lost" 15 to 30 million dollars, we no longer contribute.

Any time we, as Catholics, turn over our money to some other person or organization for charitable purposes, we have to realize that our money might be grossly misspent. That is no fault of our own, though once we have evidence that this is happening, we have a responsibility to make donations elsewhere. For the time being, the evidence is that CCHD is not following Catholic principles and should not be funded. As the old adage says, sometimes "money speaks louder than words," and a shortage of money in certain areas may be what the bishops need to reevaluate their programs.

I too am often rubbed the wrong way by these activist groups who claim to advocate for the poor. Many are in the Saul Alinsky/ACORN tradition of community organizing and their real goals are not to help the poor but to gain political power.

I once heard Father Mitch Pacwa discuss this very topic on EWTN radio. Father Mitch trained as a community organizer at one point in his life and was discussing his experiences. He said that one of the first steps of a community organizer was to construct an enemy or villain in the community. It could be a business or a businessman or maybe a local politician. The enemy could then be attacked, defeated and a vicotry could be claimed to rally the masses. Father Mitch's comment was that a tactic such as this puts enmity between people in the community and violates the principle of solidarity. This point has always stuck with me. Although we are to have a preferential option for the poor, true solidarity means we must welcome the rich and the powerful and the businessmen and politicians as well.

For Wolfgang:

One word: Subsidiarity. You hold up for emulation for us poor, benighted American partisan Catholics the holy grail of welfare-state solutions. Our bishops meet with your approval when they support "universal health care"--but in the statist form that denies subsidiarity.

Our bishops and European bishops talk a pretty tale about Catholic Social teaching.

But until European bishops and our bishops really, really, really, really grapple with Subsidiarity as an element of Catholic social teaching, their feet need to be held to the fire.

CCHD is a subsidiarity approach. It funds local, face-to-face groups. It would be laudable if its Subsidiarity thrust were combined with real scrutiny of the groups it funds, because many of these local face-to-face groups are as anti-Subsidiarity as it gets.

Sound incoherent?

Yeah. That's the problem. CCHD funds local groups that undermine the very Catholic Social Teaching under which CCHD funds them. The Catholic faithful are fed up. Now there's some grassroots activism for you.

And it DOES NOT arise from partisan politics. Catholics were uniformly Democrats and Republicans were anti-life until Roe v. Wade in 1973. At that point, the entire political landscape was reshaped. Catholic Republicans are Catholics first and Republicans second. The Democrat party abandoned them to embrace Death. Unless pro-life Catholics are simply to abandon efforts to end the Culture of Death, they have to be active in the political, party process as well as outside of it. Since the Democrats have unblinkingly sold their souls to Death (witness just yesterday, Harry Reid once more reinserting government funded abortion back into the "universal healthcare" bill), that doesn't leave many choices.

We still have a fighting chance here in America to follow Catholic Social Teaching as a culture, including Subsidiarity. You can proclaim that European Catholics are above such partisan fray only because the political battle there has long ago been lost to Big Brother, indeed, was lost 450 years ago when the State Churches emerged.

Andy- Saint Vincent De Paul Societies are usually organized at the parish level. They run food pantries, clothing drives, etc. They help families out in emergencies (rent/ heating bills/etc.) Chances are, your parish already HAS one-- they're just particularly flashy and glamorous--- just ordinary Catholics taking care of the poor in their community.

The charge is commonly made that if one is opposed to something it is not out of conviction but out of mendacity, a charge that is effective primarily with those to whom it least applies. Those who, like yourself, are concerned enough with doing the right thing that they bend over backwards out of (an unfounded) fear that the charge might have some foundation.

Don't. Such charges are base - and baseless - insults. They are the tactics of those who lack other resources to support their opinions. Such attacks are not just vicious but vacuous as well since the validity of a position is not dependent on the integrity of the person who chooses it. It is moral intimidation and should be dismissed out of hand.

I think I may have misread Wolfgang's comment. Perhaps he is not advocating European solutions. For that I apologize.

However, even within the US setting, his claim that Catholic teaching cuts across partisan lines represents a misunderstanding of what party politics is.

Being involved in partisan politics is very Catholic. Wolfgang said Catholicism is above partisan politics.

In our particular system, parties are necessary means to achieve any legislative or governing goal. They ae not intrinsically evil. Party politics involves human beings using their minds and bodies. Nothing God made can be evil.

The challenge is not to avoid getting tainted by party politics but to engage in them whether merely as a voter or as an activist, Christianly. I get tired of "pox on both your houses" claims that Catholic social teaching somehow rises above the sordidness of party politics.

We have a party system. One cannot work for social good without at some level engaging it. The bishops in fact are constantly engaged in party politics, even endorsing specific legislation. They should be doing the teaching of Catholic Social doctrine and Catholic lay people, active in party politics, should do what they can to implement it.

But avoiding party politics is not an option. It is Manichaean and Gnostic to think that we could. And the Catholic "Third Way" preachers who proclaim their superiority because they are not "joiners" and that all Catholics must not be joiners or they betray Catholic Social teaching, only help to ensure that one of the parties, the party of Death, will dominate.

No,we dare not put our hope in party politics. That would be to make it an Idol. But neither can we avoid being involved in it if we are to take the Gospel to the society. Like all created things, from sex to war to art to medicine, party politics can be used morally and Christianly and can be used immorally and unchristianly. It's up to Catholic lay people to discern the difference.

this discussion. In addition to the aforementioned principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, we must also look at the issue of what stewardship implies.

God is the source of all that is good and all our blessings. He expects that we will use our resources for the alien, poor, widow, children,etc - those most vulnerable. But God expects for us to use our resources in the most judicious ways we know how. Simply to insert a check in an envelope without scrutinizing where that money is going and how it is going to be spent is simply not being a faithful steward. It can even verge on morally objectionable wastefulness for which we will have to give account.

To those who level criticism against the ones who seek to be good stewards of God's resources, I would suggest that they think again. It is our duty to scrutinize. Our obligation to give to the poor does NOT end with parting with our money, time or talents. It requires us to be faithful stewards as well. And what applies to the Church's use of our money also applies to the money we give to the government - that too belongs to God.

To Jason and Kevin,

I have not read the information given out by CCHD, nor do I read my local Diocese's social campaign information either. I dont donate much to services here in America at all. The only place I give is a couple of scholarships at Catholics schools, a few dollars for my alma maters, and then the rest goes overseas with Catholic Relief Services and the Vincentian Food for the Poor.

I think I hear what you are saying about your perceptions of a "certain kind" of Catholic that is different from you. I remember feeling a sense of separateness and even tribalism that was almost deliberately conditioned into me at a few points when I was younger. I feel as though I am mostly through dispelling it, now.

I am a pro life Catholic who still prays at clinics, and I volunteer at SVdP dining rooms twice a month. I am not uncomfortable around the poor, nor do I feel odd at Pro-Life rallies.

My take, as ever I guess, is that there is too much misunderstanding, false categorizing, and possibly some lazy self-identifying going on among Catholics who feel they have to label themselves within the family of Christianity.

Internecine debates was an apt phrase, Kevin. It is unfortunate that many permit or even allign themselves with.
these categories. In my opinion, they only serve to separate, and most probably continue misunderstanding.

So, I can't really speak to the CCHD issue directly, but I do think there is a need for more listening. I am glad this site exists for Catholics to air out their feelings and ideas for just this kind of debate.

Jason's earnest questions provide a prophetic nudge for any who read him to be honest themselves about how they feel and why they are motivated the way they are. My thanks to both of you for your candor, patience and witness.

I first heard about the latest on the CCHD from EWTN. I got on
line and found out that what they said was true. I know of some of the groups funded here in the city and finally decided to put a coupon in the basket on Sunday. I will contribute
(extra)to SVDP and a pro-life ministry for unwed mothers and
mention that in my statement.
I hope enough do this to change, really change CCHD.

Thanks for your response, Rich, and Amen! Also, I promise I didn't mean to exclude you from my list of progressive Catholics on the IC Web site!

As a self-avowed pro-life activist, I would strongly suggest donating your money to the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Having been involved with them in the past, they are the best example of the principle of subsidiarity at work.

You know it's a Catholic organization.

You know they do social work, ie, helping the poor and homeless.

What more do you need? Even if the CCHD does grant money to worthy organizations, put your money in a Catholic org, not a secular org.

I won't hesitate for a second to donate my money to them on Sunday after Mass instead of giving money to the CCHD.

It's good to be Catholic. :)

Wolfgang, you make some excellent points here, and I hadn't really pondered before the European origins of many orthodox Catholic movements like those you mention--how true! By the way, I've never heard of Arche at all. Is that a French-based movement? I'll have to read up on it.

I used to work as a teacher at an Opus Dei school for boys in Bilbao, Spain, and there became very close to the Work, as it is called "from the inside"--I was blessed back in the 90s to be travelling in Europe when St. Josemaría Escrivá was beatified by JP II in Rome, so I was able to attend the beatification Mass at the Vatican, which eventually brought me the opportunity to live and work in the Basque Country and really changed my life. Now in Texas I know many students whose families are affiliated with Opus Dei, C & L, and the Neocatechumenal Way, and the truth is that such groups are doing God's Work in attracting many poorly catechized and nominal Catholics to the Faith and back to the Church. Notably, and relating directly to this thread discussion, many of these groups work with and attract the poor and working poor, and do much charity work among them. They also seem to share an approach that I find appropriate: namely, they empower their beneficiaries to help themselves and improve their education and work situations at the family level.

Your mention of the Church becoming smaller and more orthodox also seems to be bearing out in much of what we see in the West, and I wonder if Papa Benedict XVI also understands and is encouraging this in many of his pastoral actions. At the same time, the Church seems to be growing significantly in Asia and even in Africa--just look at India, Vietnam, China, and much of sub-Saharan Africa. Perhaps those new Catholics have much to show us in the est about how to reconcile solidarity, subsidiarity, and orthodoxy/conservative social values all in one faithful Catholic package?!

It's the UNQUESTIONED PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTION BEHIND EVEN HAVING SUCH A PROGRAM that is the error. Namely, the ABSTRACT idea that one can overcome the underlying structures of poverty (and what are these?) by giving funds to ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH like some PHILANTHROPIST and lo an behold INDIVIDUAL NEEDS WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF AUTOMATICALLY! So, they DON'T ACTUALLY HELP THE POOR DIRECTLY, but ASSUME A BUREAUCRATIC ACTION REMOVED FROM THE POOR AND REMOVE THE CHURCH HERSELF FROM THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE POOR WITH THE GOOD NEWS. This is the FAVORITE METHOD OF SOCIALISM. "The poor you will always have with you" Who said THAT?! That truth of Revelation is IGNORED and these bishops supporting such a waste of donations have just ASSUMED that they CAN actually remove the undedlying causes of poverty etc by throwing money into secular ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. But the Church is concerned FIRST AND AS MUCH WITH THE SALVATION OF SOULS OF THE POOR, which the leftist philosophy DENIES while thinking it can build a material heaven on earth WITHOUT GOD, CHRIST, THE CHURCH! I suspect this UNQUESTIONED ASSUMED PHILOSOPHICAL ERROR DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING THE TRUTH OF REVELATION is part of the ignorance of the bishops DUE TO SHALLOW THINKING AND UNAWARENESS OF HISTORY, because it does not even dawn on them that this is PRECISELY THE SECULARIST REBELLION AGAINST CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH that John Paul the Great referred to as the coming conflict between the Church and the Anti-church, Christ and Antichrist! These prelates are NOT seeing that RELIANCE on such assumptions IS NOT THE CHARITY OF CHRIST, NOR THE LOVE OF NEIGHBOR, NOR THE SOCIAL JUSTICE OF THE CHURCH PRECISELY BECAUSE THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THEY GIVE GRANTS TO ARE WITHOUT THE DIVINE CHARITY THAT COMES WITH GRACE. Doing good without Christ, this is the PHILOSOPHY OF THE FREEMASONS

Is this whole issue another instance of a Church that cannot admit error?!

The Catholic faith attracts and the institutional Church drives away.

The institutional Church is rarely receptive to constructive criticism. Why cannot the Church admit errors?

And,please do not tell me that the Church does not make errors or is incapable of error.

Who are the poor? Has the Church developed a working definition of this that satisfies modern economics? Is it limited to earned income? Is it relative to the financial situation of a region? Since a doctor in Uganda earns less than a convenience store clerk in the United States yet has a higher quality of living than those around him should I send him money? Is the convenience store clerk, whose works for a little more than minimum wage, yet has a quality of life significantly higher than the gutter beggars in Thailand still poor?

Aren't we all a little bit poor? Isn't the wealthy man who cannot enter through the eye of the needle really poor and to be pitied even more, for he has everything and nothing simultaneously.

I have to wonder if the current understanding of the poor is adequate.

I did not say Catholics should not be involved in party politics. The Church as such -- and here I agree with you -- must teach her faith and do so above all parties. Let us see which politicians of any party are willing to support her teaching. It was wise that the Holy See now prohibits priests from running for political office. It is not the Church that joins; she invites others to join her, or walk a few steps on the same path. Catholic Social Teaching has for decades advocated subsidiarity and healthcare for all. Successive popes have derived this position from human dignity. If this sounds more "European" than "American", I cannot help it. It need not, and I prefer not to think in such categories. The principle of solidarity is as important as is that of subsidiarity. The position of the American bishops is, I humbly submit, fully in line with Catholic teaching, whatever any political group may say. And as concerns "state religions" -- this is a red herring. Countries with a Catholic majority hardly ever did declare state religions. During the Thirty Years War, as Bohemia was again won for Catholicism, it was for about a century the only permitted religion. Today only small states like Andorra, Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Malta, and Monaco, are officially Catholic, and have been for centuries. Quite on the contrary, historically state religions were the hallmark of Protestantism, with England, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and some German states leading the way. Scandinavian countries (with the exception of Sweden, which de-established her Lutheran church only two years ago) and England still have state churches. Where 90% or more of the population is Catholic and has over centuries developed a Catholic culture, why would an official religion even be necessary? Of course the situation in the US is quite different, but the record on this issue needs to be set straight. I don't think I have much disagreement with you, Phil. My point was simply that the tendency in the US, too, goes in the European direction, whether we like it or not. The erosion of religion in America is slower, but it is going on -- just look at the data published by the Pew Center or CARA. Judging by experience elsewhere, the "progressives" will increasingly break away, leaving a smaller but hopefully more committed core. This is what Benedict XVI has predicted in many of his speeches and homilies, not with glee but with prescience. And this is a challenge for all who are faithful to the Church to rally around her and spend their resources wisely. I do this in my American parish. Asking too much?

In my home diocese, the CCHD has funded three groups that co-hosted a rally in August 2009 with Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee: The Tennessee Health Care Campaign, the Tennessee Disability Coalition, and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition. See link to PP:

http://tinyurl.com/yhhstd3

These groups also advocate for the current health care bills that include taxpayer funding of abortion, euthanasia and the stripping of conscience protections for health care workers.

This is what you fund when you give money to the CCHD.

I must admit that our little faith based parish organized inmate resettlement program requests and receives money from our Diocesan CHD. Although started as a parish outreach we now include women from other faith traditions.
Have any of you writers ever sat with a mother in an emergency room while we prayed that her 16 year old would live? The mother, an ex-inmate after serving 3 to 5, did not insist her child go for treatment because Mom owed around $50000 to various state hospitals, and was afraid of landing in prison again. Irrational you folks with your fancy slogans would say and I would agree, but then we are not walking in that woman's shoes.

Have we partnered with a pro homosexual organization? you betcha A client 5'10" and probably 160-170 pounds was HIV positive. Best place to go for rent money, technical assistance, advice for us on how to navigate the social service was this sympathetic pro homosexual marriage group. The lady is still clean after 8 years and is working as drug counselor in the Savannah area. But her success is at least partially due to our working with a group outside the pale. Does this mean me and this lady's mentor are going to Hell?

Try telling a mother who is cut off from her children to get more education to improve yourself when she is working 40 hours a week at two jobs (to work more than 20 means the employer will have to give some very spartan benefits) + working for cash at a neighborhood deli as a fill in. AND she makes about $25000 to $30000 gross!! Because i suggest the outreach hands-on program at an evangelical church for help with child care as a possible solution to convincing a court to give her back her two children am i headed to hell?

We push our clients to go to Church and we hold weekly meetings where we at least try to God Talk. if they are Baptist or evangelical or anglo-catholic we will discuss God in their terms, but always using the RC tradition where possible. Because i will use a King James bible do you think i am going to hell?

How many of you middle class visit the prisoner, or clothe the naked? i am not saying give money to those agencies who will only give money to those you approve of, but get your hands dirty? I mean drive a woman to the church of her choice? i mean next Sunday morning visit one of the local shelters and invite one of their clients to attend church with you and then go to breakfast with him or her. in fact over coffee you might explain yourposition why no matter what jesus said you really cannot pay another $200 or $300 a year in taxes so he or she can have some health care.
Since many of you seem to be very heavy in reading church documents and advancing somewhat fallacious arguments from these documents, i suggest you start where it all began with Matthew.
We do not ask what is their religion, nor what is their sexual preferences, nor their race nor education, our little group only asks can we help. I suggest you all do the same

Folks, I spent many years as a radical leftist activist. I know their language---and as I pore through the 24-page printout of 2009-2010 CCHD grantees, I see all the old leftie cliches and buzzwords over and over and over. My eyes are starting to glaze over! The language is so similar on so many of these that you start wondering if quite a few of them were all written by the same person.

I could talk and write about CCHD for days--but suffice it to say that even though they're not funding ACORN anymore, they fund PLENTY of other Alinskyite groups--including groups affiliated with the Gamaliel Foundation, People Improving Communities through Organizing (PICO), the Direct Action Response Team (DART), and of course, Alinsky's very own Industrial Areas Foundation. Also, since ACORN has a web of hundreds of groups with other names, it's possible that many of the groups on the list actually ARE affililates of ACORN.

Even in my radical days back in the 1980s, I refused to have anything to do with ACORN because of their reputation for unethical behavior. Years later, after I'd become Catholic, and then, politically conservative, when I realized that CCHD was funding ACORN, I quit donating to CCHD. Even though CCHD did FINALLY quit funding ACORN itself, it's still funding lots and lots of groups that share the ACORN philosophy of class-warfare and its strategy of bullying, harassment, intimidation and "direct action."

Let us not forget that ACORN activists often bullied banks into making home loans to people who were horrible credit risks---and the defaults triggered the housing/banking collapse of September 2008, which then dominoed into a more general economic collapse. How many millions of people have lost their jobs because of this and are now unemployed and impoverished? And since the global economy is so interconnected, how many more people in the poorest countries are starving because of the global economic downturn? IS THAT HOW WE HELP THE POOR, BISHOPS?

I have to admit that many of the grantees do look like good groups doing good work. If CCHD funded only these, I might give it another look. But for right now? Too darn many ACORN-like, Alinskyite groups. Let's call those what they are: SOCIALIST. And in every case I can think of, socialist governments ALWAYS end up sooner or later persecuting the Catholic Church. Socialism always leads to tyranny. IS THAT HOW WE "EMPOWER" PEOPLE, BISHOPS? IS THAT HOW WE PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIGNITY?

ACORN was only defunded by the USCCB after the scandal became so very public. Their hesitation was rather telling.

That's how evil prospers, by inter-weaving itself among good works--through compromise & "invisibility," unless you are familiar with the revealing organizational language.

If one child in your city goes to sleep tonight in tears because he or she is hungry, and you do nothing to try to change that you are self damned by your indifference.

But poverty isn't only material want. It can be lonliness, anxiety, feeling unwanted, unappreciated and unaffirmed.

Try this. Next Sunday look at each one of the people sitting in your pew. And look at each one in the pew in front of you and the pew behind you. Ask yourself: what is their "poverty"? What "rock are they pushing up a hill"? Each one of them has a heartache. Do you care? Do you want to know them well enough to be challenged to do what you could, however little, to ease their heartache, to lessen their "poverty"?

Ask yourself. Is the church you turn up in on Sunday located at the end of the "road to Jericho"?

discussion, lots of food for thought, thank you all for your comments. For now, I'll be going with the St V de P approach - it just fits my view of 'how to help' better. God bless you all.

Call Joe Scheidler’s hot line message of support for the Chicago CCHD at 773-777-2525 or at the Pro-Life Action League’s website: http://prolifeaction.org/hotline/current.php

LifeSiteNews.com has a great piece about the CCHD reformation in Chicago http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112005.html . Given that the Chicago collection is the largest, the national tends to follow suit with whatever Chicago does.

Why wouldn't a pro-life group take CCHD money? It may have something to do with people such as Sr. Donna Quinn, OP.
Her order, the Sinisawan Dominicans "sponsors" two Catholic girls high schools 17 and 21 mins. away from the ACU Health Center in Hinsdale, IL. Trinity, in River Forest seems pretty Catholic. Queen of Peace reeks of all the peace and justice/liberation theology everyone feels so uncomfortable about.
A number of orders, including the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, Inc. actually support CEDAW. Charming bunch - they officially chided Bush for being against "reproductive rights."
Check out every religious order and see what theire doing on their Websites. You won't find them advocating for the unborn - a group singularly unworthy of peace and justice.
From all the hysteria about the death penalty among the peace andjustice group you'd think 50,000,000 adults had been executed after trials and lengthy appeals instead of 50,000,000 innocents in their mother's wombs.

Jason must feel overwhelmed by the responses to his well-expressed questioning.

I think he and I have some affinities. It's been a long time since I considered myself a theological liberal, but I retain some strong contacts with people of that sort. Here's how I see their reasoning.

They largely take their progressive social agenda from the secular left. They strongly deplore the condition of the poor, whom they think must be liberated, largely by our efforts. But into exactly what state the poor should rise (except no longer being poor) they have no real idea. So they have a strong susceptibility to the Marxist and socialist pseudo-solutions, which they believe will produce more equality. With little conception of how wealth actually is created they are intensely suspicious of Capitalism, much more than of Marxism. I find many of these people sincere, but they have no real idea of what they are looking for. Their approach to the poverty problem tends to be subjectivist and to revolve around feelings and "compassion." While I now realize that compassion is indispensable it is hardly even a start on a real solution. Most of the social activists in the Church and organizations connected with it are "liberal" in this sense. They are agitating for "liberation" and "empowerment" of the poor by means that have little chance of working. It can be very depressing. Yet I have to say: they have a better idea of what troubles the poor face than most of those who criticize them.