A Fireside Chat with Cardinal George

myself | 8 March 2004 | myself

[sinkspur]

With vouchers, the secular trend will reverse.

I think you're dreaming. Just as Catholic Charities in San Francisco thought accepting government money would enable it to spread its influence.

Instead, Catholic Charities now has to provide insurance coverage for contraception.

[St.Chuck]

bump for later

[Barnacle]

There is a political reality to running one the largest diocese in the United States. I used to live in the Chicago Archdiocese and I have to say, he is the best bishop they've had in my lifetime.

During his tenure, he's said some things that I take issue with. But, as can be seen in the posting of this story, he seems to be coming around.

He asks that we pray that he will be a better shepherd. That's something we can do.

[WOSG]

""Just as Catholic Charities in San Francisco thought accepting government money would enable it to spread its influence."

What a horrid comment of yours. This isnt about 'spreading its influence', this is about doing charitable work.
Our babies were born in the Catholic hospital (Seton) here in town, and though we are catholic and they have a chapel there, I dont recall a single instance of proselytization.

This wasnt about proselytization, this was about being able to be a charitable organization wihout having to subscribe to rules and regulations that offends one moral dignity.

Whether or not they took money is moot. They still would have to abide by whatever rules and regulations the socialists want to impose. Equal employment rights for LGBT; must include any 'spouse' (same-sex, shack-up spouse) in health care; etc.

Just try to see if two can play at the game. Planned Parenthood gets millions from the Federal Government, State and local Government. I urge you to write letters calling on the Government to defund PP and any abortion provider. Texas' recent law is a model law. Then find out which of the ACLU-types would be on your side. And more importnaly, find out the ARGUMENTS THEY USE TO DEFEND THIS "NO-STRINGS" FUNDING OF ABORTION PROVIDERS.

The fact that secularists want to ram their narrow minded prejudices down the throats of religious charities is nothing new. oyu are a fool if you think merely taking Government money is some dividing line - heck, they regulate employer-provided health care plans as rigorously if not more so, Democrats have demanded this on a *national* basis. Discrimination against religious education and charities? We've been living with it since the anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments that the secularists are now using to disciminate against religious schooling. The fact that the secularists want a free ride for their 'favored' groups is nothing new too. "Defund the Left!" is a slogan that we should never tire of shouting, because the leftists feeding at the trough is so pervasive.

But what is unique in the political battlefield is our own self-defeatism - there are people like you who claim to be friendly to conservative ideals but are letting the liberals tilt the battlefield in a way that makes their victory inevitable.

Let us not talk about what is "possible" in a far-gone cesspool like San Fransisco, let simply talk about what public policy is CORRECT:
- It is RIGHT for students and parents to have choice in schooling, to preserve their rights and duties in education, to spur educational competition and improvement, and to provide a means for reforming monopoly school systems and failing schools
- It is RIGHT for there to be a voucher system where the funding for students is portable from school to school
- It is RIGHT that this portable funding be available for the student whether they attend public school, charter school, or private school
- It is RIGHT that the private school may be a secular school or religious school (so long as all the funding goes for the public purpose, ie, education
- It is RIGHT that the accreditation of schools be made solely on educational performance and accountability of budgets (as is done with Colleges today)

What this leads to is for K-12 to be no different from how our Colleges and Universities funding is channelled, mainly through the kids and parents. And if students and parents are capable of making college decisions, surely they can decide on what a good 1st grade is.

Which gets to your point, which is to express the myth that somehow giving public money to private organizations somehow represents more regulation than of student's education than if it is spent by the govt itself.
Are Colleges more or less regulated than K-12 education?
If you think our monopoly K-12 is less regulated you are the one who is dreaming.

Vouchers are the most important innovation we could make to save the next generation. It is so important that you should not let your misguided notions concerning the abuse of purse-string powers by Liberals to dictate immorality. wake up! The Liberals will do it *anyway* !

[sinkspur]

What a horrid comment of yours

I stopped reading right there. Have nice day.

[WOSG]

You improperly insulted Catholic Charities' motivations and I merely called you on it. If you dont want your positions disagreed with, FR aint the place for you.

[sinkspur]

You improperly insulted Catholic Charities' motivations and I merely called you on it.

Catholic Charities should not take government money if it does not want interference from the government. Period.

And that includes school vouchers.

You and I disagree.

[WOSG]

Yes we disagree.

But you went further than mere disagreement by alleging Catholic Charities takes the money to 'spread their influence'.

This unfairly maligns Catholic charitable organizations:
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/news/content_displays.cfm?fuseaction=display_document&id=415&location=3
"As the social service arm of the Catholic Church, Catholic Charities agencies nationwide answer God’s call to help the least among us by providing help and creating hope to more than seven million people a year. As a Roman Catholic institution that has a deep and abiding belief in the dignity and worth of every human being, we have an obligation to reach out and help the most vulnerable in our society, regardless of religious affiliation. We also have an obligation to engage the broader community both in service and in partnership in helping to lift people out of poverty and address their needs."

For more on what they do, see:
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/news/stats.cfm

[heyheyhey]

Please, see,

Taking the "Catholic" out of Catholic Charities
He who pays the piper calls the tune

[sinkspur]

Your description of Catholic Charities is saccharin nonsense.

Catholic Charities is knee-deep in government money, and is on the road to becoming a virtual puppet of the public sector.

[harrowup]

Catholic Charities is knee-deep in government money, and is on the road to becoming a virtual puppet of the public sector

I listened to their spokesman and did not get that impression.

Do you have a source for this claim?

I might add that I am amazed that Francis Cardinal George is so depressed about the future and worried that 5 SC Justices are going to impose ordination...

[heyheyhey]

When Francis George was the Archbishop of Portland, Oregon he fought the case of a prisoner's taped confessions used in the court as incriminating evidence.

He has experienced first hand the power-grabbing attitude of the state.

[sinkspur]

From heyheyhey's #109:

IN FEBRUARY 1997, PENNSYLVANIA Senator Rick Santorum sparked a debate on the role of government money in private charity that has yet to settle down. The senator was in New York City to receive an award from the Catholic Campaign for America for his leadership against abortion. Early into his acceptance speech, he launched into a pointed critique of Catholic Charities.

Because Catholic Charities receives almost two-thirds of its funding from government sources, the senator said, it "can do little that is uniquely Catholic. They have to do what the government dictates, which means they can't talk about the Catholic part of the charity."

[harrowup]

...IN FEBRUARY 1997, PENNSYLVANIA Senator Rick Santorum sparked a debate on the role of government money in private charity that has yet to settle down....
Because Catholic Charities receives almost two-thirds of its funding from government sources, the senator said, it "can do little that is uniquely Catholic.

Ah. In the latest financial statement I can find for Catholic Charities I was taken aback by the fact that they list $1.2 Billion in government revenue for the FY 2002.

Of course that is roughly nine percent (9%) of the $13.6 Billion in total revenue. That is a far cry from two/thirds (67%).

Now, had it been anyone but Senator Santorum, possibly the dumbest politician in Pennsylvania since Tom Ridge, I would have thought that perhaps it was true five years ago.

But, on further inspection it turns out the pretty boy dunce was talking about one program specifically directed to members of the United States Armed Forces...Color me biased, but to my thinking that is fair enough.

So, for the future may I suggest you think more carefully about using a twit like Santorum as a reliable source.

You may not like Catholic Charities because they didn't pay your heat bill ten years ago, but stick to the facts and your point would have been made.

I personally had no idea they obtained that much money from government grants and like my old friend Senator Dirksen used to say, "...a billion here and a billion there, and sooner or later we are talking big money...", or words to that effect.

[johnb2004]

Now, had it been anyone but Senator Santorum, possibly the dumbest politician in Pennsylvania since Tom Ridge

Santorum is a faithful Catholic, Ridge is not.

[harrowup]

Are you implying that faith bolsters ignorance?

[johnb2004]

You may infer what you wish. I am implying that Santorum is correct about Catholic Charities.

[Dumb_Ox]

But if natural law reasoning belongs to the Legislature, should not the courts adopt similar reasoning in determining Constitutionality of legislation?

Good question. Here's how one of the theorists I mentioned would reply:

"[...] preoccupation with judicial appeals to natural law can easily fall into the trap that Aquinas himself discussed. Recall that in the passage cited earlier Aquinas pointed out that insofar as a judge proceeds case by case the laws are apt to be disconnected. The business of a judge is litigation, and, on the whole, litigation is not the best context for taking stock of what the natural law requries: (1) litigation gives the judge little time for reflection; (2) it moves along according to adversarial procedures, which are not the best way to develop a systematic position on the moral quality of laws; and (3) the interests of the various parties are usually narrowed so drastically that it is difficult to find generalizable principles for the common good. -Russell Hittinger, "Natural Law in the Positive Laws," The First Grace

[harrowup]

Don't take a job which requires math. Nine percent does not equal 67%.

There is a fine line between exageration and lying. Ignorance is no excuse.

You may not like Catholic Charities and Ricky Ticky may not like them but they are not awash in federal funds.

If you're going to argue politics, tell the truth and you won't get hammered so easily.

Can it be argued that taking any government money precludes complaining about government influence? Of course. Do they lose all rights to appeal? No. Does Francis Cardinal George really think the SCOTUS will force the ordination of women on the Catholic Church? I most certainly hope that he was misquoted and/or misunderstood. That event would be more than a problem for the RC Church. It would tear apart the very essence of our constitutional republic...and should such event evolve in my life time I hope I still have the strength to show what an old Harry Truman liberal does when he gets annoyed.

[GirlShortstop]

Vouchers are the most important innovation we could make to save the next generation. It is so important that you should not let your misguided notions concerning the abuse of purse-string powers by Liberals to dictate immorality. wake up! The Liberals will do it *anyway* !

Good morning.  I would like to share a thought with you.  My mother was the most conservative, and most faithfully Catholic person I have ever known.  I have seven brothers and sisters for whom my mother worked as an RN; nights, and weekends she worked in order to earn enough to afford to send every one of us to Catholic schools.   IIRC, it was in the late 1970's that talk radio discussion included vouchers.  She was firm in her position that a move like this would invite government intrusion, and despite "promises", the effect would be undesirable.  Is not Catholic Charities an example of government involvment (imposed requirements) where it ought not be?  I have no reason to trust that some, or any bureaucrat would put Catholic (or any other faith) above the "bottom line" and/or abiding by a "holy" secular (and we've seen immoral!) law.  Apparently, sometimes those apples don't fall far from trees.  :-)