Is the Catholic Campaign for Human Development “Catholic”?
…That’s the doubt angry conservatives are trying to sow as a way to undermine the CCHD, the principal anti-poverty program of the U.S. bishops conference, and the Roman Catholic Church in America. Some bishops are among the harshest critics, though a group oddly named “Laity for Life” (they apparently find poverty pro-life, at least for others) is leading one charge against the CCHD.
It is an ugly political fight led by the likes of Father Richard John Neuhaus at “First Things”–he has claimed that the CCHD dropped “Catholic” from its title, though that’s not true–and it derives from the ongoing internal church warfare over secular politics. The opening for conservatives was of course the revelations that the CCHD had funded ACORN, the anti-poverty community organizing group that Republicans sought to tie around Obama’s neck, as they tried to disparage “community organizing” and other forms of Christian witness as somehow un-American. God help us if that’s the case.
God help the poor too–this anti-CCHD campaign comes just ahead of the CCHD’s annual collection this Sunday. Read my take on the controversy over at “America Connects,” the web-only portion of America magazine. And don’t let false accusations and innuendo be an excuse for not donating.
Crosspost with Pontifications.
I just noticed this news item on the USCCB site the other day: “Catholic Campaign for Human Development Ends All Funding to ACORN.” Another report from the recent bishops’ assembly. They cite the “voter fraud” allegations, but the main reason is this:
ACORN aside, I think it’s noteworthy that the U.S. bishops are endorsing withholding funds as a response to “concerns about…financial accountability, transparency, governance and organizational integrity.” I’m grateful for their leadership, because I can think of at least one organization that likes to ask me for money but isn’t terribly interested in accountability, etc.
There is much that can also be said in a positive vein about how CCHD has impacted the lives of people, through its modest and influential initiatives in communities around the country. The Campaign sends a quarterly bulletin to donors that reports on the program’s success stories. I think it is an intelligent way to package the small donations of those of us who cannot be philanthropists in our own right. It broadens our vision so that we see not only the utterly destitute (helped by CRS), but also those of modest means who are lifting themselves and their neighborhoods. Finally, it helps free us of our sectarian blinders, to see the pluralistic society in which we live. It may be time to amend the litany of poverty in Matthew 25 to include: “I had a dream and you encouraged me realize it.”
I’m glad this thread made its way here as well.
Questions:
-How many think “Laity For Life” is a fringe group?
-How many think the USCCB removal of ACORN funding had no political base?
How many think “First Things” is acting on political considerations basically?
And so on….
If CCHD, or something like it, is alien to Catholic practice, then I am indeed a monkey’s uncle.
I don’t see why it is “ugly” or “unjust” to oppose a Catholic charitable umbrella that by its own lights seems to have a left-wing orientation? It seems non-controversial that IAF and ACORN are political and left-leaning, Jacques Maritain notwithstanding. Unless being politically on the right is inconsistent with being Catholic –it’s not, is it? — why can’t a right-leaning Catholic oppose the giving of dollars to an organization that largely funds left-leaning causes?
Where is Neuhaus coming from with this claim that they dropped the “Catholic” from the name? From what I can find, it looks like he has it backwards — the “Catholic” got added to the name some years ago. (And it started out as the “National Catholic Crusade Against Poverty.”)
Of course, that whole column is an exercise in distortion. But I think it is indeed ugly to call for the total disbanding of the program and its efforts, as if no other course — like, for example, the course ultimately taken — could be satisfactory. (I mean, imagine applying that standard to every church program!) Fine, suggest that the program’s pedigree is too left-wing, and recommend that those suspicious of its ends keep their cash. But to call for its total abandonment based on naked distortions? What else is that but ugly and unjust? And Neuhaus accuses the CCHD bishops of abusing people’s trust. Unbelievable.
What is it that the CCHD does that Catholic Charities does not do?
Is it a good idea to fund other organizations?
Don’t our own parishes have programs to help the poor?
As an organization of the bishops’ organization, might we not be justified to have some suspicions of it? The bishops’ organization is not in good odor these days.
Ms. Mollie – I have a bias also. Hoping not to get Mr. Boudway enraged, but given the very close, frequent, and “hidden” relationship between JPII and Neuhaus in the closing months of his life, I have never placed much objectivity in the views expressed in First Things. I do review it (not daily) and some writers have something to add to on-going catholic thinking and action but I have a hard time figuring out how they contribute to the common good – too often it is an advertisment about Neuhaus’s upcoming book, supports their own right wing agenda or a piece that could easily be on EWTN.
I have in the past done brief CCHD talks in parishes asking for financial support, explaining how CCHD worked, where their resources went, success stories, etc. This is even before the various name changes. Folks were very interested in this organization and its outcomes.
I especially liked its orientation toward the Preferential Option for the Poor; its support of education, and as others have said, it comes across as non-denominational which I think is a plus in terms of supporting the universal need to reach out to the disadvantaged whatever your ethnicity, creed, race, etc.
Now it appears to be another lightening rod for our ongoing cultural wars and internal polarization.
“What is it that the CCHD does that Catholic Charities does not do? ”
Catholic Charities, and parish-based outreach organizations like St. Vincent de Paul give fish to the needy. CCHD teaches the needy to fish. At least, that’s the theory.
The fraud is something over which CCHD can exercise some due diligence. But really, the nub of the conservative problem seems to be in this chain of relationships:
Catholic parishioners donate money to CCHD –> CCHD grants money to ACORN –> ACORN uses the grant to fund voter registration drives in states that Obama must win to be elected –> Obama is elected.
It’s a situation that is worth a very close look. Questions that spring to mind:
Is it part of Catholic social teaching to register voters? (As a general proposition, surely the answer is Yes). If the answer is yes, then should the Church support the registration of voters who are likely to vote for outcomes that are contrary to the common good, i.e. that support the culture of death, that are contrary to the church’s teaching on marriage, etc.?
It’s not a no-brainer.
Anyone?
Jim, I think your questions more or less speak for themselves. (Or maybe everyone has moved on from this thread?) Yes, the Church should be in favor of registering people to vote and encouraging them to exercise that right and responsibility. And yes, we should be in favor of registering people to vote regardless of how we judge them likely to vote.
“If the answer is yes, then should the Church support the registration of voters who are likely to vote for outcomes that are contrary to the common good, i.e. that support the culture of death, that are contrary to the church’s teaching on marriage, etc.?”
Yes, it should. It also should take the time and effort to preach the Gospel and those parts of the Gospel that lead voters to agree with the Church’s Culture of Life teachings. If the Church can’t do this successfully, I’d suggest the bulk of the failure is not the fault of the new voters.
Hi, Mollie and Joe, thx for the engagement. I think I’m in agreement. Even though that sounds really hard. :-)
Is Neuhaus correct in writing this?
Not sure about shutting down CCHD, but giving funds to inner-city schools strikes me as a good idea (I can’t think of many worthier causes).