Tim Townsend has the story at STLToday. He attempts to paint the Church in a bad light by juxtaposing this donation against the layoffs this summer at Catholic Charities:
_____________________
The St. Louis Archdiocese released the following statement to the Post-Dispatch:
In June of this year, Archbishop Richard Malone of Portland, Maine sent a letter to all U.S. bishops asking for financial support for issues the church considers to be moral issues. Archbishop Robert J. Carlson approved a donation for $10,000 which was charged to the special needs fund. This fund has traditionally been the archbishop’s for discretionary spending, not for formal operations, and is funded by private gifts. These funds were already available when Archbishop Carlson arrived in St. Louis. Archbishops of St. Louis have made donations in the past to help other dioceses around the world for various causes ranging from disaster relief, to pro-life issues.
Carlson was installed on June 10. The contribution from the St. Louis Archdiocese was received by the Portland diocese on July 16.
Less than a month earlier, on June 22, the archdiocese eliminated four positions at Catholic Charities, the largest private provider of social services in Missouri. Catholic Charities president, Monsignor Mark Ullrich, said at the time that the job cuts were “due to our need to economically downsize.”
The archdiocese has been stung by the struggling economy. In January, it eliminated 25 part-time and full-time positions - representing 6 percent of the jobs within its administrative and educational offices, not including Catholic Charities. Last November, the archdiocese said its revenue had dropped 37 percent because of decreases in investment income and contributions.
Posts
13 comments:
This is the same kind of accusation thrown at Bp. Braxton by the rebel priests and media. For some reason the press doesn't seem to accept or understand that there really are separate funds for a variety of functions of a diocese. These media guys ought to try to run an operation, profit or nonprofit, to get an idea as to how budgets and dedicated funds work.
My thoughts: http://www.lifeisaprayer.com/blog/2009/other-old-news-p-d-online-anti
I don't think I'll ever enjoy reading something from the Post. I used to, about 5 years ago... but those dratted anonymous comments leave me feeling like my intelligence has regressed.
I had the privilege of meeting the Archbishop earlier today, at a Catholic Charities function no less.
I was left with the impression that he is a man of strong convictions, willing to uphold the teachings of the Church, no matter how unpopular they may be in today's society.
We are blessed to have him.
Catholic Charities...in name only. Most of the posts are Run by Urselines, who I would call anything except orthodox.
You know, I bet if that money was given to something else, no one would care.
What if it was donated to volunteer.org or whatever its called? With if some liberal bishop donated to Obama's next campaign.....would they still care? I have a hard time believing that.
We live in a double standard. Yes go give... be charitable, but only in the way the "Party" dictates.
Okay, rationalize if you want. But the money could have gone to helping the poor, and instead it was used to fight for a ban on some people's marriages. That's really pretty straight-forward. Clearly many people do think that banning some marriages is a worthwhile, even vital, effort. But I'm just trying to think, right now, about which issue Christ gave more attention to in the Gospels: helping the poor, or getting all riled up against people who are homosexual. Maybe He gave equal time to both themes? Hmm. Maybe not.
Other major contributors include Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop Finn, and Bishops Tobin and Olmstead. But I wonder... Is this manufactured "controversy" (Catholic bishops giving money to support Catholic teachings! Horrors!) going to tie into the recent threats concerning the Church's tax-exempt status made by House Democrats upset over the Stupak amendment? Can the progressive Catholics who are criticizing the bishops for interfering with politics turn around and with a straight face defend the CCHD later this month?
The annual budget of Catholic Charities of St. Louis is around $80,000,000. The Catholic Church, through agencies like Catholic Charities, is the single largest charitable organization in the world. The $10,000 which Archbishop Carlson gave to the defense of marriage in Maine is only the smallest fraction of what agencies throughout the Archdiocese provide each and every year for the poor in our city. Furthermore, even amidst the financial crisis, Catholic Charities has not cut their charitable giving. I think that the Archdiocese is living the message of the Gospel through their service to the poor and, through a small donation to defend the sanctity of marriage, they contribute to the larger society and defend a sacrament which was instituted by Christ himself.
anon 15:50, the money could have gone to the poor instead of an effort to ban sodomy, but in my book there is no greater poverty than someone who doesn't know the difference between marriage and sodomy, unless of course it is the poverty of thinking you can kill children as a matter of convenience. do you really consider poverty and homosexuality "themes"? do you understand that Jesus Christ was fully present when fire rained from the sky on sodom and gomorrah? you are way off on this one and you are also sounding a little like judas.
Maybe He gave equal time to both themes? Hmm. Maybe not.
There is a perfectly good reason for this: in that time there was no massive onslaught to make squares into circles by legislative fiat. That is, pretending that two people of the same-sex shacking up is a marriage. Even the ancient Greeks, probably the most permissive society regarding homosexual acts didn't entertain that such an arrangement could be a licit marriage. Thus, no need to speak out then against what didn't exist. So the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage is entirely proportionate to the attempts to ratify it. As I've often noted: if there is ever a Thieves' Pride Parade, the Church will be more aggressive in insisting on the wrongness of stealing.
Dear Just Wondering: In case you didn't notice, the issue in Maine was not whether or not the Catholic church or any church would accept same-sex marriages. The issue was one of civil marriage. Why don't you, as a faithful Catholic who disapproves of divorce (which Christ did teach against, certainly) fight for a ban on divorce? In fact, why doesn't the Archbishop fight for such a ban? For that matter, why does he not use donations to contribute to a fund to ban adultery in civil law? More heterosexual marriages have been torn asunder due to heterosexual adultery than someone else's same-sex marriage. Put your money and energy where your belief is. Take that cause public and demand that divorce and adultery be banned in the laws of the land. Sure, some people will say that church law and civil laws are separate entities, but you seem to be convinced otherwise. So go out and fund a legal fight against those very real threats to heterosexual marriage. And call upon Archbishop Carlson to lead the effort to ban divorce and adultery in civil law. (They once were banned in most states. Then some "progressives" demanded that these laws surrounding marriage and morality be changed. Come on, stand up. Take hold of the civil law if you're really motivated by something other than prejudice against people who are gay or lesbian.)
SD
Entertaining for a moment divorce, which is a complete change of subject, the fact is that the Church recognizes that there is such things as invalid marriages. Also, married folk are not necessarily required to stay together, it's only if they attempt at re-marriage that trouble begins. One can't call for a overall ban on divorce without accounting for these subtleties.
There are no subtleties with same-sex unions, they are simply formal approval of intrinsicly immoral behavior. They are false right out of the gate. Also, the Church has explicitly stated that no state can legitimize them no matter what name they are given and that the state has an obligation to protect traditional marriage.
Scott, actually, when you're talking about things that may or may not be threats to heterosexual marriage, divorce and adultery are not "a complete change in subject." Perhaps those subjects just hit closer to home for many people who are heterosexual.
And no, the church teaches that divorce is something that should be avoided. It is not viewed in morally neutral terms. Jesus himself said that divorce is wrong and to be avoided, except for when a spouse commits adultery. I'm not out to condemn divorced people here. My point is that opposing same-sex marriage because it's against God's law (as most opponents say) is disingenuous if those same folks are not equally willing to force changes in the civil laws on threats that are more directly related to heterosexual marriage: namely, adultery and divorce. And as you said, the "state has an obligation to protect traditional marriage." Want to sign a petition to get legal bans on adultery and divorce on the ballot for 2012? We shouldn't "legitimize" those things by tolerating the repeal, many decades ago, of the laws that banned them--right? No matter tolerant some people are of those things (e.g., adultery), they should still be banned under civil law--right? And no doubt those who commit adultery (which is undoubtedly against God's law, and completely unnatural, right?) should face legal sanctions.
S.D.
Very well, elaborate what a ban against divorce that manages to incorporate what I said about the validity of marriage looks like(which you sailed right over), and I'll support it. Now, back to the facts at hand: Marriage is real. Two people of the same sex shacking up together and calling it marriage is no more real than me putting on a funny general's hat makes me Napoleon. "Civil Unions" between such amounts to the state's formal cooperation with evil. The Church is explicit that no state law can legitimize them and that there is a duty to oppose them. The archbishop was entirely right to help defeat the measure. Bringing up a list of other societal problems the Church needs to address and haggling over which gets priority is not an argument.
But if one believes that homosexual acts are not really wrong, then this whole what-about-divorce tack is a red herring.
Post a Comment