I'm much more inclined to give to local Catholic schools and pregnancy centers than the CCHD. While I'm sure the CCHD has done much good, I have concerns about the complete vetting of organizations to which they make grants and their alignment with Catholic teaching. There really can't be any question about Catholic schools and pregnancy centers diverting from Catholic teaching (one hopes).
Probably not for pregnancy centers, but Catholic schools run the gamut. (Full disclosure: I'm starting as a Catholic schoolteacher this fall.) Some are little more than public schools with a coat of Catholic paint. Others are truly excellent and faith-filled.
I agree with you, though I will say that those "public schools with a coat of Catholic paint" could be converted with a little effort and a different vision. Too many pastors and principals--and parents--are unaware of how little difference there is between their public schools and their own Catholic school. They're also unaware of organizations like the Institute for Catholic Liberal Education that offer curriculum help, etc.
It’s a good idea, but honestly I wish they would also invest in Catholic continuing education. There’s no investment at all in catechizing adults unless they’re parents. Adults in poverty could also benefit from education and those who are parents could pass that on to their children. There are community colleges but I can’t think of any faith based colleges that focus on that.
Catholic schools do an absolutely excellent job at taking talented kids from disadvantaged backgrounds and preparing them for college and obtaining a professional position, of which is about 1/3rd of the workforce.
They have about zero in preparing kids for a rewarding career in the 2/3rds of the workforce that does not require a college degree or even giving such kids a good Catholic spiritual education.
We are not going to have a decent society when we leave back 2/3rds of the workforce.
The Christo Rey schools are fantastic. They do an amazing job taking kids from very underprivileged backgrounds and making them college material. I'm not knocking that, I'm very supportive of Christo Rey. And Sherri mentions a few initiatives. But I feel on the whole, we are underserving kids who are not college bound.
Have a look at St Joseph the Worker’s college in Stubenville. They run a general introduction to trades with further philosophical and theological formation on the dignity of work and the craftsman as a Christian. They’re new, but the idea is that they come to a specialised apprenticeship in 12-18 months with basic skills (like which end of a hammer to hold), safety protocols and some work experience, ready to step into greater mastery of a specific trade.
I think the kind of money a national fund could command would be well invested in trade schools as well as academic. A dignified way out of poverty is becoming a skilled tradesman. There are also lots of opportunities to partner with other institutions for apprenticing/cadetships nurses and midwives, teachers, social workers, engineers etc that would benefit from more hands on experience alongside skilled practitioners instead of pointless academic nonsense not core to the knowledge of the actual profession and world give greater opportunities to kids who might make excellent practitioners but don’t thrive in traditional education academics.
“So there are different models of Catholic education out there.” Emphatic agreement that this should be celebrated.
Good interview. I also think education alone isn’t the silver bullet. Secular data show that the best way for a child to avoid poverty later in life is to graduate high school, get married, and delay childbearing until after graduating and marrying. These things create stable households that in turn rear children without so many odds stacked against them.
Now, if Catholic schools wanted to emphatically and universally teach the truth of God’s plan for marriage and family and actually form students and families in those beliefs instead of presenting them as arbitrary restrictions on freedom, we’d probably really get somewhere. Many schools do this, I’m sure. And I’m equally sure, based on the culture, including among Catholic school graduates, that a great many do not.
Definitely feels like a weird thing to to need to centralize instead of letting local dioceses collect and distribute money. Doesn't subsidiarity apply here pretty obviously?
Yes, and yet subsidiarity can’t do everything. Somethings can be rightly supported by higher levels of organisation. A lot of Catholic schools in the US (and Australia despite government funding) are unaffordable for families with disabled kids. It’s absolutely unjust that they be denied a wanted full experience of a Catholic education for material reasons. A national fund to support these students and their families would go a long way when their local funding is insufficient.
They’re unaffordable to lots of families with kids who don’t have disabilities too.
The only way to balance the higher cost of catholic education due to lay teachers who deserve a living wage to support their OWN families (bc of no longer having lower paid religious) with the fact that many Catholics with large families can’t afford remotely near prep school prices is for parish/diocese subsidies.
All of which of course first presumes its a catholic education worth sacrificing for and not just a prep school with a great education that isn’t remotely catholic except for the descriptor 🤷🏽♀️
Agree with Ashley. Unless we focus on teaching the faith to adults, we are in trouble. It is the parents who have to raise the next generation of Catholics, and the parents are the ones who need the support to do so. It is the family that breaks the cycle of poverty as well.
Don't sell the little schools short. I went to a 2-room school in the middle of nowhere in Kentucky which had been created by the families of engineers who had been transferred into the area. We had the best standardized test scores in the diocese courtesy of people like my best friend's father teaching her multiplication and division while she was in the first grade. We memorized the Baltimore Catechism just like the kids everywhere did back then. I still don't know what the fruit of the spirit named benignity is, but I still remember that it's in the Baltimore Catechism.
“A preferential option for the poor” should be maintained in our Catholic Schools. If we find that we cannot afford to keep our schools open to the poor, the Church should be ready to use its resources for something else which can be kept open to the poor. We cannot allow our Church to become a church primarily for the upper classes while leaving the poor in public schools. The priority should be given to the poor even if we have to let the middle-class and rich fend for themselves.
Practically speaking, the Catholic Schools must give up general education in those countries where the State is providing it. The resources of the Church could then be focused on “Confraternity of Christian Doctrine” and other programs which can be kept open to the poor. These resources could then be used to help society become more human in solidarity with the poor. Remember, the Church managed without Catholic Schools for centuries. It can get along without them today. The essential factor from the Christian point of view is to cultivate enough Faith to act in the Gospel Tradition, namely, THE POOR GET PRIORITY. The rich and middle-class are welcome too. But the poor come first.
I never heard that the Church got along without Catholic schools. In fact, Pope Sylvester II, Pope in the year 1,000, was taught by the local monks. He came from a very impoverished background but his intelligence was recognized by his family and the local priest ... and the rest is history.
Further, the difference between children taught all day long in a Catholic environment today vs. all day long in public schools in terms of their faith is incredible. I saw a child move from Catholic school to public and fall steadily behind his contemporaries in the faith. An hour a week is simply not enough to "help society become more human".
Practically speaking, if you teach the poor how to be Christian and don't teach the rich, then the rich won't be Christian and of course, won't share. Why should they? Saint Madeleine Sophie Barat would like a word.
You can delete this once fixed, but I note below a couple spelling errors. Is there a better way to notify the author of things like this that isn't "public"?
"In your diocese, you’ve replaced the annual second collection for CCHD with something local — he Diocesan Campaign for Justice and Hope. "
"But my idea for my priesthood, and my support, is very strongly favoriting....."
Bishop Paprocki's idea of a national or diocesan collection for Catholic schools is not new nor unique. In the L.A. Archdiocese we have had over 30 years the Together In Mission annual collection that supports Catholic schools in the poorest areas in the archdiocese. CCHD is recognition and acknowledgment that education is not enough; folks are still disenfranchised, discriminated against, and left with little say in their communities. Community organizations funded by CCHD are intended to organize folks to vote, for voter education and basically hold public (and private) officials accountable to them, the taxpayer. CCHD also funds economic initiatives that provide employment and services to help lift people out of poverty. Catholic schools do a lot of good, but they cannot and do not provide that.
Paprocki has a law degree and I have two engineering degrees, but perhaps paradoxically his immediately casting the issue/problem in terms of organizational structures, appropriation of funds, and return on investment (ROI) rubs me the wrong way. He is a descendent of Christ’s apostles and his first response is - once again like the current USCCB - saying nothing about missionary discipleship. Many in the USCCB should leave program and project management to those professionals on their staffs and go back and read Galatians. And even preach about it (a shocking concept I know!). Poor poor optics in hacking the CCHD.
Galatians 5:13 - “…rather, serve one another through love.”
Or as Albert Cardinal Vanhoye SJ comments on Galatians: “Whatever is done for love is done not by constraint but in freedom and in joy.”
Paprocki casting education as a prerequisite for escaping poverty can be construed as contrary to Paul’s teaching that (as described by Cardinal Vanhoye): “true Christian service is service of ‘one another’ in a mutual relationship that does not leave room for unilateral domination. In this love there are no masters on one side (teachers) and slaves on the other (students trying to escape poverty and crime-ravaged communities like Paprocki’s example, Chicago?), but each person is simultaneously master and slave, being served in certain matters and serving in others, according to the capacity and needs of each. Paul’s wording points to a RADICAL TRANSFORMATION OF RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PEOPLE BASED ON A DYNAMIC OF LOVE THAT COMES FROM GOD- CHARITY UNDERSTOOD IN ALL ITS DIMENSIONS.”
Bottom line: Paprocki’s incrementalist thinking will not produce St. Paul’s radical transformation. Bishops are very expensive overhead for incremental and organizational management thinking. Preach the good news and make it happen not via incrementalism.
Your whole comment is rather unserious and misleading. Are you suggesting that Bishop Paprocki's suggestion is opposed to "serv[ing] one another through love"? That is a serious, and false, accusation. Whereas, some community organizers work on an "us-vs-them" basis that is the antithesis of serving one another through love.
Also, you inaccurately say that Bishop Paprocki says that education is a "prerequisite for escaping poverty", but that is false. What he said is, "the best way to break the cycle of poverty, to see someone rise out of poverty, is having a good education through which they can have gainful employment." The data support that contention. (E.g., https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/education-pays.htm) Moreover, he has demonstrated that his emphasis on education isn't just directed toward the college track.
You say that Bishop Paprocki's approach is incrementalist, and that is true. So what? The approach of CCHD has been incrementalist as well. So was Paul's, for example: "Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law—though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ—to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) Particularly, "I have become all things to all, to save at least some." Preaching and teaching are incrementalist; never after anyone preached or taught, even Jesus, was the whole world been converted. Engineering is incrementalist. (My wife is an engineer, and I've taught engineering students for decades.) Jesus, when he returns, will not be incrementalist, but until then that's what we've got.
I fail to see (because it is not there) that you have added anything constructive to the conversation. What is your purpose? It would appear that your purpose is to disparage his proposal with false or irrelevant accusations and calling into question his love for those whom he serves. If that was not your purpose, and especially if it was, you need to reexamine your motives, as well as what you say and how you say it.
I see his version of charity as constrained by the need to achieve good grades. Yes, education is a force multiplier, but some who need charity will not be able to achieve passing grades to emerge from poverty.
As a deacon, you have never met me and you call me a troll? Consider your own motives.
Finally, if all but 23 of the bishops and I ever find out what the secret proposal is, we can better assess. My bishop friends would sure like to know why secrecy is required here.
The CCHD is actually directly contrary to one of the foundational Catholic social teachings--subsidiarity. There are already diocesan Catholic Charities at that (diocesan) level and organizations like St. Vincent DePaul at the parochial level. They're doing great work. The CCHD needs to be disbanded.
CCHD does assume the CST of subsidiary. In fact, the projects CCHD is the embodiment of th the principle of subsidiary. CCHD funded organizations do not accept government funding. The boards of these organizations consist, as a requirement, the folks who are most impacted by the projects that are undertaken — poor folk!
It doesn't. We're funding an organization at the national level when there are those that do the same work at the local level. That's the principle of subsidiarity. The issue isn't whether they take government funding.
Respectfully, disagree (as a member of an advisory group for CCHD). Its true that local dioceses have an opportunity to fund certain local projects. Those they aren't go to a regional group that considers their request. The regional advisory groups consist of folks in that region and makes recommendations of whom to fund over and against other requests from the same region. I know it is done differently now, but to your point of subsidiary, all local funding requests must demonstrate their ability to raise funds within their own region. So, no, you are misinformed: the principle of subsidiary is alive and well within these group are requesting funds. All best, Cathy
He seems like one of the good guys, and he has good ideas. I'll bet he's also the sort to insist on financial accountability, setting a budget and living by it - you know, radical stuff.
Yes, financial accountability is the highest priority! And, I cannot speak to that overall, except to say, the most stringent standards of financial, as well as CST accountability, were applied when I served on an advisory group for CCHD.
I don't mean financial accountability in the pure sense of balancing the books; it's not surprising that the CCHD complied with such standards. I mean "not blowing through cash reserves", as the recently resigned director had done over the last few years. I'd add "don't spend money on programs that don't produce results", or at least don't KEEP spending money on those programs. Probably another term, like "prudent expenditure," would be better.
Most Catholic schools have no ability/capacity to help kids with common learning disabilities, much less more difficult cases. And around me, at least, there are programs to cover tuition for the poor, but the middle class increasingly cannot afford the high tuition. And the "Catholic" options often aren't very Catholic, with some staff openly mocking Church teaching at archdiocese trainings (as told to me by a friend at some trainings). I think we need to take a good look at the state of Catholic education! It can and has helped the poor, but is it now?
If it was such a “big idea” why did he wait until AFTER the closed-door USCCB session to propose it? An op-Ed for a “big idea”?
No wonder a retired bishop friend who shepherded 3 different dioceses for > 20 years told me, “None of this makes any sense. I join you in praying for the Church.”…….
“While the closed-door discussion last week was only a first step, one bishop proposed after the meeting a big idea.”
The US Bishops should immediately stop taking Federal funds for social engineering projects that fund a host of community organizations that are hostile toward the Gospel (and don’t work).
The US Bishops take over $1 billion in Federal funding every year and sprinkle it with the generous donations from Catholic faithful. The Federal Government has transformed the American Catholic Church into the largest recipient of Federal funding for social engineering programs. The US Bishops are a huge Federally funded Social Services Organization that also administers Catholic Sacraments and runs Catholic schools as a much smaller side gig.
No wonder they considered their Divine Commission to administer the Sacraments and preach the Gospel as non-essential.
I'm much more inclined to give to local Catholic schools and pregnancy centers than the CCHD. While I'm sure the CCHD has done much good, I have concerns about the complete vetting of organizations to which they make grants and their alignment with Catholic teaching. There really can't be any question about Catholic schools and pregnancy centers diverting from Catholic teaching (one hopes).
Probably not for pregnancy centers, but Catholic schools run the gamut. (Full disclosure: I'm starting as a Catholic schoolteacher this fall.) Some are little more than public schools with a coat of Catholic paint. Others are truly excellent and faith-filled.
Seconded (as a Catholic schoolteacher).
I agree with you, though I will say that those "public schools with a coat of Catholic paint" could be converted with a little effort and a different vision. Too many pastors and principals--and parents--are unaware of how little difference there is between their public schools and their own Catholic school. They're also unaware of organizations like the Institute for Catholic Liberal Education that offer curriculum help, etc.
As a 12 yr product of catholic schools who is now a homeschooler there can be a LOT of questions about catholic schools sadly. A lot.
It’s not enough to have the proper adjective or even be physically attached to a parish.
It’s a good idea, but honestly I wish they would also invest in Catholic continuing education. There’s no investment at all in catechizing adults unless they’re parents. Adults in poverty could also benefit from education and those who are parents could pass that on to their children. There are community colleges but I can’t think of any faith based colleges that focus on that.
Here parishes often have classes for adults.
Catholic schools do an absolutely excellent job at taking talented kids from disadvantaged backgrounds and preparing them for college and obtaining a professional position, of which is about 1/3rd of the workforce.
They have about zero in preparing kids for a rewarding career in the 2/3rds of the workforce that does not require a college degree or even giving such kids a good Catholic spiritual education.
We are not going to have a decent society when we leave back 2/3rds of the workforce.
There are vocational education partnerships happening between Catholic high schools and community colleges (at least in Nebraska).
Have you heard of Christo Rey schools? Are they any different?
The Christo Rey schools are fantastic. They do an amazing job taking kids from very underprivileged backgrounds and making them college material. I'm not knocking that, I'm very supportive of Christo Rey. And Sherri mentions a few initiatives. But I feel on the whole, we are underserving kids who are not college bound.
Have a look at St Joseph the Worker’s college in Stubenville. They run a general introduction to trades with further philosophical and theological formation on the dignity of work and the craftsman as a Christian. They’re new, but the idea is that they come to a specialised apprenticeship in 12-18 months with basic skills (like which end of a hammer to hold), safety protocols and some work experience, ready to step into greater mastery of a specific trade.
I think the kind of money a national fund could command would be well invested in trade schools as well as academic. A dignified way out of poverty is becoming a skilled tradesman. There are also lots of opportunities to partner with other institutions for apprenticing/cadetships nurses and midwives, teachers, social workers, engineers etc that would benefit from more hands on experience alongside skilled practitioners instead of pointless academic nonsense not core to the knowledge of the actual profession and world give greater opportunities to kids who might make excellent practitioners but don’t thrive in traditional education academics.
“So there are different models of Catholic education out there.” Emphatic agreement that this should be celebrated.
Good interview. I also think education alone isn’t the silver bullet. Secular data show that the best way for a child to avoid poverty later in life is to graduate high school, get married, and delay childbearing until after graduating and marrying. These things create stable households that in turn rear children without so many odds stacked against them.
Now, if Catholic schools wanted to emphatically and universally teach the truth of God’s plan for marriage and family and actually form students and families in those beliefs instead of presenting them as arbitrary restrictions on freedom, we’d probably really get somewhere. Many schools do this, I’m sure. And I’m equally sure, based on the culture, including among Catholic school graduates, that a great many do not.
Definitely feels like a weird thing to to need to centralize instead of letting local dioceses collect and distribute money. Doesn't subsidiarity apply here pretty obviously?
Yes, and yet subsidiarity can’t do everything. Somethings can be rightly supported by higher levels of organisation. A lot of Catholic schools in the US (and Australia despite government funding) are unaffordable for families with disabled kids. It’s absolutely unjust that they be denied a wanted full experience of a Catholic education for material reasons. A national fund to support these students and their families would go a long way when their local funding is insufficient.
They’re unaffordable to lots of families with kids who don’t have disabilities too.
The only way to balance the higher cost of catholic education due to lay teachers who deserve a living wage to support their OWN families (bc of no longer having lower paid religious) with the fact that many Catholics with large families can’t afford remotely near prep school prices is for parish/diocese subsidies.
All of which of course first presumes its a catholic education worth sacrificing for and not just a prep school with a great education that isn’t remotely catholic except for the descriptor 🤷🏽♀️
Agree with Ashley. Unless we focus on teaching the faith to adults, we are in trouble. It is the parents who have to raise the next generation of Catholics, and the parents are the ones who need the support to do so. It is the family that breaks the cycle of poverty as well.
Don't sell the little schools short. I went to a 2-room school in the middle of nowhere in Kentucky which had been created by the families of engineers who had been transferred into the area. We had the best standardized test scores in the diocese courtesy of people like my best friend's father teaching her multiplication and division while she was in the first grade. We memorized the Baltimore Catechism just like the kids everywhere did back then. I still don't know what the fruit of the spirit named benignity is, but I still remember that it's in the Baltimore Catechism.
“A preferential option for the poor” should be maintained in our Catholic Schools. If we find that we cannot afford to keep our schools open to the poor, the Church should be ready to use its resources for something else which can be kept open to the poor. We cannot allow our Church to become a church primarily for the upper classes while leaving the poor in public schools. The priority should be given to the poor even if we have to let the middle-class and rich fend for themselves.
Practically speaking, the Catholic Schools must give up general education in those countries where the State is providing it. The resources of the Church could then be focused on “Confraternity of Christian Doctrine” and other programs which can be kept open to the poor. These resources could then be used to help society become more human in solidarity with the poor. Remember, the Church managed without Catholic Schools for centuries. It can get along without them today. The essential factor from the Christian point of view is to cultivate enough Faith to act in the Gospel Tradition, namely, THE POOR GET PRIORITY. The rich and middle-class are welcome too. But the poor come first.
I never heard that the Church got along without Catholic schools. In fact, Pope Sylvester II, Pope in the year 1,000, was taught by the local monks. He came from a very impoverished background but his intelligence was recognized by his family and the local priest ... and the rest is history.
Further, the difference between children taught all day long in a Catholic environment today vs. all day long in public schools in terms of their faith is incredible. I saw a child move from Catholic school to public and fall steadily behind his contemporaries in the faith. An hour a week is simply not enough to "help society become more human".
Practically speaking, if you teach the poor how to be Christian and don't teach the rich, then the rich won't be Christian and of course, won't share. Why should they? Saint Madeleine Sophie Barat would like a word.
You can delete this once fixed, but I note below a couple spelling errors. Is there a better way to notify the author of things like this that isn't "public"?
"In your diocese, you’ve replaced the annual second collection for CCHD with something local — he Diocesan Campaign for Justice and Hope. "
"But my idea for my priesthood, and my support, is very strongly favoriting....."
Bishop Paprocki's idea of a national or diocesan collection for Catholic schools is not new nor unique. In the L.A. Archdiocese we have had over 30 years the Together In Mission annual collection that supports Catholic schools in the poorest areas in the archdiocese. CCHD is recognition and acknowledgment that education is not enough; folks are still disenfranchised, discriminated against, and left with little say in their communities. Community organizations funded by CCHD are intended to organize folks to vote, for voter education and basically hold public (and private) officials accountable to them, the taxpayer. CCHD also funds economic initiatives that provide employment and services to help lift people out of poverty. Catholic schools do a lot of good, but they cannot and do not provide that.
Paprocki has a law degree and I have two engineering degrees, but perhaps paradoxically his immediately casting the issue/problem in terms of organizational structures, appropriation of funds, and return on investment (ROI) rubs me the wrong way. He is a descendent of Christ’s apostles and his first response is - once again like the current USCCB - saying nothing about missionary discipleship. Many in the USCCB should leave program and project management to those professionals on their staffs and go back and read Galatians. And even preach about it (a shocking concept I know!). Poor poor optics in hacking the CCHD.
Galatians 5:13 - “…rather, serve one another through love.”
Or as Albert Cardinal Vanhoye SJ comments on Galatians: “Whatever is done for love is done not by constraint but in freedom and in joy.”
Paprocki casting education as a prerequisite for escaping poverty can be construed as contrary to Paul’s teaching that (as described by Cardinal Vanhoye): “true Christian service is service of ‘one another’ in a mutual relationship that does not leave room for unilateral domination. In this love there are no masters on one side (teachers) and slaves on the other (students trying to escape poverty and crime-ravaged communities like Paprocki’s example, Chicago?), but each person is simultaneously master and slave, being served in certain matters and serving in others, according to the capacity and needs of each. Paul’s wording points to a RADICAL TRANSFORMATION OF RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PEOPLE BASED ON A DYNAMIC OF LOVE THAT COMES FROM GOD- CHARITY UNDERSTOOD IN ALL ITS DIMENSIONS.”
Bottom line: Paprocki’s incrementalist thinking will not produce St. Paul’s radical transformation. Bishops are very expensive overhead for incremental and organizational management thinking. Preach the good news and make it happen not via incrementalism.
Your whole comment is rather unserious and misleading. Are you suggesting that Bishop Paprocki's suggestion is opposed to "serv[ing] one another through love"? That is a serious, and false, accusation. Whereas, some community organizers work on an "us-vs-them" basis that is the antithesis of serving one another through love.
Also, you inaccurately say that Bishop Paprocki says that education is a "prerequisite for escaping poverty", but that is false. What he said is, "the best way to break the cycle of poverty, to see someone rise out of poverty, is having a good education through which they can have gainful employment." The data support that contention. (E.g., https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/education-pays.htm) Moreover, he has demonstrated that his emphasis on education isn't just directed toward the college track.
You say that Bishop Paprocki's approach is incrementalist, and that is true. So what? The approach of CCHD has been incrementalist as well. So was Paul's, for example: "Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law—though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ—to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) Particularly, "I have become all things to all, to save at least some." Preaching and teaching are incrementalist; never after anyone preached or taught, even Jesus, was the whole world been converted. Engineering is incrementalist. (My wife is an engineer, and I've taught engineering students for decades.) Jesus, when he returns, will not be incrementalist, but until then that's what we've got.
I fail to see (because it is not there) that you have added anything constructive to the conversation. What is your purpose? It would appear that your purpose is to disparage his proposal with false or irrelevant accusations and calling into question his love for those whom he serves. If that was not your purpose, and especially if it was, you need to reexamine your motives, as well as what you say and how you say it.
Unless you're just a troll.
I see his version of charity as constrained by the need to achieve good grades. Yes, education is a force multiplier, but some who need charity will not be able to achieve passing grades to emerge from poverty.
As a deacon, you have never met me and you call me a troll? Consider your own motives.
Finally, if all but 23 of the bishops and I ever find out what the secret proposal is, we can better assess. My bishop friends would sure like to know why secrecy is required here.
The CCHD is actually directly contrary to one of the foundational Catholic social teachings--subsidiarity. There are already diocesan Catholic Charities at that (diocesan) level and organizations like St. Vincent DePaul at the parochial level. They're doing great work. The CCHD needs to be disbanded.
CCHD does assume the CST of subsidiary. In fact, the projects CCHD is the embodiment of th the principle of subsidiary. CCHD funded organizations do not accept government funding. The boards of these organizations consist, as a requirement, the folks who are most impacted by the projects that are undertaken — poor folk!
It doesn't. We're funding an organization at the national level when there are those that do the same work at the local level. That's the principle of subsidiarity. The issue isn't whether they take government funding.
Respectfully, disagree (as a member of an advisory group for CCHD). Its true that local dioceses have an opportunity to fund certain local projects. Those they aren't go to a regional group that considers their request. The regional advisory groups consist of folks in that region and makes recommendations of whom to fund over and against other requests from the same region. I know it is done differently now, but to your point of subsidiary, all local funding requests must demonstrate their ability to raise funds within their own region. So, no, you are misinformed: the principle of subsidiary is alive and well within these group are requesting funds. All best, Cathy
He seems like one of the good guys, and he has good ideas. I'll bet he's also the sort to insist on financial accountability, setting a budget and living by it - you know, radical stuff.
Yes, financial accountability is the highest priority! And, I cannot speak to that overall, except to say, the most stringent standards of financial, as well as CST accountability, were applied when I served on an advisory group for CCHD.
I don't mean financial accountability in the pure sense of balancing the books; it's not surprising that the CCHD complied with such standards. I mean "not blowing through cash reserves", as the recently resigned director had done over the last few years. I'd add "don't spend money on programs that don't produce results", or at least don't KEEP spending money on those programs. Probably another term, like "prudent expenditure," would be better.
Most Catholic schools have no ability/capacity to help kids with common learning disabilities, much less more difficult cases. And around me, at least, there are programs to cover tuition for the poor, but the middle class increasingly cannot afford the high tuition. And the "Catholic" options often aren't very Catholic, with some staff openly mocking Church teaching at archdiocese trainings (as told to me by a friend at some trainings). I think we need to take a good look at the state of Catholic education! It can and has helped the poor, but is it now?
If it was such a “big idea” why did he wait until AFTER the closed-door USCCB session to propose it? An op-Ed for a “big idea”?
No wonder a retired bishop friend who shepherded 3 different dioceses for > 20 years told me, “None of this makes any sense. I join you in praying for the Church.”…….
“While the closed-door discussion last week was only a first step, one bishop proposed after the meeting a big idea.”
The US Bishops should immediately stop taking Federal funds for social engineering projects that fund a host of community organizations that are hostile toward the Gospel (and don’t work).
The US Bishops take over $1 billion in Federal funding every year and sprinkle it with the generous donations from Catholic faithful. The Federal Government has transformed the American Catholic Church into the largest recipient of Federal funding for social engineering programs. The US Bishops are a huge Federally funded Social Services Organization that also administers Catholic Sacraments and runs Catholic schools as a much smaller side gig.
No wonder they considered their Divine Commission to administer the Sacraments and preach the Gospel as non-essential.