Boycott Catholic Charitable Giving

In NJ, this is the time of the year that we get a request for additional money to fund the Diocese's charitable causes. Evidently the money that we give every Sunday does not cover these causes. This request is called the Bishop's Annual Appeal. Just the other day I got another appeal to give money to my Diocese's Bishop's Annual Appeal.

As a dutiful Catholic, I have regularly given money to this appeal. However, after this election and some prominent Catholic Bishops demonizing John Kerry while ignoring Bush's atrocious human rights, civil rights and social justice record, I can no longer in good moral conscience give to any Catholic charity.

I will still give money to my Church's weekly collection, but probably less, because my church still provides a valuable service. But, the Catholic hierachy has to hear loud and clear that Catholics will not put up with their hypocrisy on moral issues and money is the only thing that they understand.

I therefore ask all Catholics who feel the same to divert all money that they give to any Catholic charity to some other social justice charity. If we divert enough money maybe word will get around and they will hear our message and start following the teachings of Jesus Christ once again. Until then it is like feeding the hand that bites us.

Please recommend this diary so that I can get this message out.

•  I don't give to religious

  charities anyway.  You can count that as half a yes from me.  :)

  by Loquatrix on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:22:07 PM PDT

•  You're missing a poll option

  "Never gave to Catholic charities in the first place"

  by MrSnrub on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:23:17 PM PDT

  •  Sorry about that

    I forgot to include that. I don't think I can add that now.

    by shark on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:33:57 PM PDT

•  Utterly disagree

  This is sort of like cutting social service funding to red states.  It seems just and appropriate in our anger, but it just isn't the right thing to do.

  This sounds like something the wingers might do.  We're supposed to be better than them.

  I'm not Catholic, but I have only the highest respect for what Catholic Charities does.  I would not let a few bishops' (and, to be fair, way too many parish priests') public comments prevent a hungry child from being fed.

  by Lucky Ducky on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:23:38 PM PDT

  •  even though the refuse

    to feed a hungry child in a gay family ?

    I don't think so

    by tiponeill on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:27:54 PM PDT

    •  I didn't think

      Catholic Charities discriminated against social service recipients (especially children) on such grounds.

      I thought such discrimination was the exclusive provence of the right's so-called "faith-based" groups.

      by Lucky Ducky on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:29:34 PM PDT

      •  You're Right, They DON'T...

        ...discriminate like that.

        My ex-wife worked for a mental health facility run by Catholic Social Services, and they took all kinds of clients, many of whom were sex offenders or victims of sex offenders.  Many of these people were there as a term for their release from jail or prison, and many others were there because it was the only place in the area that took welfare clients.  It was totally secular in approach.  CSS is primarily committed to charitable works, but other than the fact that the employee's health care didn't cover contraceptives, it would have been hard to discern any religious affiliation with the agency.  

        And I've volunteered in soup kitchens run by Catholic parishes, and they don't vet people about their moral and ethical choices before they give them a meal.  

        by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:37:19 PM PDT

        •  They have made certain,

          for instance, that the families of married gays will not receive the same benefits as married straights in Massachusetts.

          This is discrimination under MA laws, of course, but they transferred all of their policies to a federal one so that they could discriminate.

          by tiponeill on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:17:48 PM PDT

    •  They are not that discriminatory

      They may be many things, but they do not ask for your sexuality when dispensing social services. I don't think they even ask for your religous affiliation.

      by shark on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:40:37 PM PDT

  •  You miss the point

    I recognze that Catholic charities do some very good things.

    First of all, I don't expect all giving to stop, but we can cause them to see a drop which hopefully will get them to scratch their collective heads and wonder what is going on.

    Secondly, I did say that we should still give that money to some other social justice charitable cause so that we do not leave the needy out in the cold.

    by shark on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:31:59 PM PDT

    •  True

      And I am just as frustrated as you are.  Here in FL, the bishop of Orlando sent an op-ed to the daily paper here basically saying that it would be a sin to vote for Kerry.  Wenski is his name, I think.  He's written on the op-ed page several times to that effect over the past few months.

      In my town, some people actually picketed outside mass the Sunday before the election deriding Kerry voters.  In the other parish church, I'm told the priest said that a vote for Kerry is a sin.

      I'm just not sure how effective pocketbook warfare is in a battle for hearts and minds.

      by Lucky Ducky on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:36:09 PM PDT

      •  what other kind of warfare

        do you suggest? Nothing else seems to work.

        by mimi9 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:54:55 PM PDT

  •  Endemic in Catholic hierachy

    It isn't just a few Catholic bishops and priests that have expressed this opinion. It is endemic in the whole Catholic hierachy going right up to the Vatican and the Pope's right hand man, Cardinal Ratzinger.

    We need to find a way to wake them up. Do you have another suggestion?

    by shark on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:36:50 PM PDT

    •  How to wake them up

      Well, I don't know how to wake them up.  Not that I haven't thought about it.  In fact, I spent part of my master's program pondering this very question.  I took courses in Catholic theology and Catholic social teaching.

      One thing we can do is continue to remind the hierarchy of their own liberal and progressive stances on almost every issue not related to sex.  Hopefully faithful Catholics, lay and clergy alike, can be convinced that their liberal teachings on everything else trump their conservative teachings on human sexuality.

      Look at the growth/decline paterns of global Christianity, though.  The liberal European Church is virtually dead, with the liberal American Church also in decline.  But what do you find in what we used to call the Third World?  An explosion of doctrinally and sociall conservative churches - Catholic and Protestant.

      The point you raised in your diary is important (and I apologize for my hasty negative comment), but it's just a symptom of a much larger problem.

      by Lucky Ducky on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:01:15 PM PDT

    •  A friendly Episcopal church ?

      by tiponeill on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:22:46 PM PDT

  •  You can donate to secular charities

    and still be providing benefit. I give to my local food bank, which has no religious affiliation.

    by soultaco on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:44:51 PM PDT

  •  Catholics aren't the only ones who help people

    You're not hurting people by giving _to a different cause_ and telling Catholics why.  I am Catholic and they will not get a dime from me.  Meanwhile, I am trying to organize a charitable wing of the Democratic Party here in my state.

    by stephdray on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:04:37 PM PDT

•  Salvation Army?

  I know it's not a Catholic charity.. but does it count?  And can some make fake dollar bills where we express our position, similar to the dollar bills that expressed concern over their anti-gay policies?

  by JenAtlanta on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:25:15 PM PDT

  •  Salvation Army is EXTREMELY Anti-Labor...

    ...at least here in Michigan.  I haven't given to them for years.  

    If you're going to give to one of the big mainstream social-service/charitable groups, you're usually best off giving to the United Way.  Yes, yes, I know about the problems a few years ago with the national United Way, but in most places, they do a fairly good job of dispensing funds in an equitable and effective way.  Some of the groups aren't the best, but on balance, they're very good at pooling resources and getting those resources to wide array of diverse but deserving organizations that do good work.  This is espcially true where organized labor is strong, because a high percentage of United Way funds come from large employers, many of whom are organized, and labor has a strong voice on a lot of United Way boards in the Northeast and industrial Midwest.  

    by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:30:56 PM PDT

  •  On Our Own

    We should start our own Charitable Organization(s).  The Catholic Church, in general, has been really good at taking care of the neediest folk, but, yes, some Bishops and Priests have gone over to the darker side of their faith.  And all the other religious charities have problems, too.  There should be a large Progressive Charity Fund.  What if all of us Progressives channeled our giving to them instead of the reglious charities and United Way?

    by SlowNomad on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:36:11 PM PDT

  •  Salvation Army sucks

    They are not only anti-labor, but they are also anti-gay.

    DO NOT DONATE to Salvation Army

    by dataguy on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:41:58 PM PDT

•  other Catholic giving options

  You might consider giving to an organization associated with the Catholic Worker movement:
  http://www.catholicworker.org/

  or Paul Farmer's organization, Partners in Health:
  http://www.pih.org/index.html

  They are both Catholic-affiliated (well, not officially), and you might find them much better in line with your morals.  I do.

  Not all Catholic charities (that's with a little "c") support homophobia.

  by oh velveteen on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:34:27 PM PDT

•  Catholic Charities is the largest

  faith-based org. in the US and provides to the needy without regard to religion, age, race, sexuality, or any other factor.

  If they have enough money to provide, they give it to whoever asks.

  In fact, without Catholic Charities, the US govt. would be even further in the hole financially than it is !

  If somebody thinks the money would go to paying sex abuse settlements, think again. These funds are strictly for direct services to the needy.

  by murphy on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:35:17 PM PDT

  •  Bush admin: CC not faith-based

    Look at their rhetoric:

    Ashcroft (prinary sponsor of 1996 welfare reform law that introduced "Charitable Choice") and Bush argued in 2000 that conservative Protestant (aka "faith-based") groups have been excluded from competing for government contracts for social services.

    Truth is, such groups were only excluded because they don't want to abide by federal nondiscriminitaion statutes.

    Catholic Charities, as well as countless Jewish, black Protestant, and mainline Protestant groups have been doing the Lord's work with Uncle Sam's money for decades, at least since the Internal Revenue Act of 1953 established 501(c)(3) nonprofits.

    One fortunate (for them) byproduct of this whole faith-based debate is that the public is beginning to forget about these vast and effective groups like Catholic Charities, and assume that only the fundie groups are "faith-based."  It's all about semantics and framing, and they've pulled this one over on us.

    Funny thing is, even with the promise of tons of free money, the response of the fundies to the faith-based initiatives was remarkably underwhelming.  Face it: generally speaking these people don't care about providing social services.  "Faith-based organizations," that is.

    by Lucky Ducky on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:41:08 PM PDT

  •  That is garbage

    Money is FUNGIBLE - you can't say that the money does not go to sex abuse settlements.

    DO NOT DONATE TO CATHOLIC CHARITIES.

    by dataguy on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:43:04 PM PDT

    •  What?

      Your comment is ridiculous.  Of course you can say that, and if it weren't true, it would be hard to conceal.  There are audits, and in a lot of the lawsuits, the plaintiffs exercise the right of discovery, including the financials of the dioceses.  Maybe they don't send money from the diocese into the charitable funds--my guess is that's largely dried up, as donations in parishes and to dioceses have dropped off dramatically--but there's absolutely NO evidence of them shifting funds from the charitable organizations to the dioceses.  

      by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:48:11 PM PDT

    •  For pity's sake, educate yourself !

      http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/about/faqs.cfm

      by murphy on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:40:43 PM PDT

  •  Yup

    The Catholic charitable funds are completely separate from the funds that cover operations for the dioceses and archdioceses.  

    In a lot of dioceses people don't give weekly donations and save it until Christmas, because that's the one week of the year that all the money stays in that parish and doesn't go to the diocese.  

    by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:44:14 PM PDT

    •  is that true

      about Christmas donations? I have never heard that before.

      by mimi9 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:56:25 PM PDT

•  This is why Kerry lost the Catholic vote

  I'm sorry, but I am so fucking sick of the Catholic bashing that I see on "progressive boards" like this. I am a Catholic who tries to go to mass on a weekly basis.

  I fully understand why many of my fellow Catholics supported Bush. It's due to the hostility that many on the far left have toward all Catholics.

  I really resent how some people generalize about all Catholics. I'm pro-choice and don't have issues with gays. I disagree with the Church's teachings on those issues.

  But what I resent is the outright contempt that all too many people have toward Catholics. You want to know why Kerry lost the Catholic vote--the first time in ages, if ever, the Democrats have lost a majority of Catholics?

  It's because of the attitudes of some people here on this board.

  by jiacinto on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:40:58 PM PDT

  •  Equal opportunity bashing

    I don't want to eliminate the tax dodges of the catholic church.  I want to eliminate the tax dodges of ALL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.  Now.

    by richard on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:43:39 PM PDT

  •  Catholics to get a bad rap

    But in this case the Catholic hierachy deserves it. How can any bishop say that a vote for Kerry is sinful when Bush is way beyond the pale when it comes to sin.

    The Catholic Hiearchy is well known for being stuck on one viewpoint for decades if not centuries. But there is much more to Catholic teaching than abortion. Yes abortion is wrong, but many other things are wrong too. When you have a president who is as miserable as this president is on life and social justice issues then there is no contest as to who is better for the country. Add to this that Bush is all bluster and no action then you know that he does not mean what he says we he claims that he is pro-life.

    But the Bishops forget their own teaching when it comes to abortion. According to the Vatican's Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." I sometimes wonder if this is just meant to be politically correct or if they really mean it.

    In fact, according to this test using the US Bishops', Bush's and Kerry's statments it is extremely obvious who comes closest to the US Bishops statements. If you answer the questions as Kerry and Bush would then Kerry is in 64% agreement with the US Bishops and Bush is at 28%. That is why Bush is absolutely wrong for anybody who is Catholic. That is why the Catholic hierachy has to realize how hypocritical they are being. They contradict how they say Catholics should vote. We have to call them on this.

    by shark on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:12:07 PM PDT

    •  Don't bash all the bishops

      The idiots get all the press, true, but some of them are good guys, working hard to do the right thing.

      by murphy on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:43:49 PM PDT

  •  Yep

    that contempt keeps rearing its ugly head around here --

    Catholics are historically working class Democratic voters, and Bush siphoned off too many of them, which we'll need to win next time, But no! rather than reach out to them, let's 'show 'em' by boycotting charitable giving??

    How those dots gets connected in someone's head, is truly beyond me.

    by PhillyGal on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:16:04 PM PDT

    •  It makes perfect sense to me

      I can give charitably to Catholics and others while telling them that I do not trust our leadership to execute their spiritual duties properly and therefore not allowing them to be intermediaries between my charity and the recipients.

      by stephdray on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:08:39 PM PDT

  •  Kerry lost Catholics...

    because some people on progressive boards bash Catholics? I'm sorry that just doesn't make any sense at all.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe I ever heard Kerry bash either Catholics or Christians in general, or Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc. Nor did I hear Edwards bash any religion. In fact, I think they are both men of faith who are respectful about their own faith as well as the faiths of others.

    Look, you may be very frustrated with some of these comments, but it simplistic and overreaching to say that K/E supporters that posted disparaging things about religion (any kind) are what cost the Democratic party the presidential election.

    What the Bush campaign did was to skillfully exploit a few key issues of religious/ethnic groups to cause their normally cohesive Democratic voting blocs to fracture. As a Jew, I clearly saw this happen this year.

    For instance, here are just a few:

    Catholics - abortion/stem-cell
    Jews - Israel
    Blacks - gay marriage

    Add up all the extra % Bush picked up from these groups, and that could have been the difference. And, if we don't stop attacking one another, we will have Republicans running the show for a long time.
    

    by Proud SW FL Lib on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:37:01 PM PDT

    •  Well

      You write:

      "Look, you may be very frustrated with some of these comments, but it simplistic and overreaching to say that K/E supporters that posted disparaging things about religion (any kind) are what cost the Democratic party the presidential election"

      I've been posting here since about February. And I've seen many posts where people disparage religion, especially Catholicism or other facets of Protestantism.

      The far left does have hostility toward religious people. I've seen here it on these boards many times. For example some people here are obsessed with the Pledge of Allegiance and want to force their athiest version of it on the other 95% of patriotic Americans who don't have a problem with the "Under God" phrase.

      It's attitudes like this which have turned religious people away from the Democrats. It's the condascending attitude I see from athiests and other non-Christians that have hurt the party.

      Now I am not fundamentlist. I'm pro choice and support gay rights. I am for stem cell research. So too are many Catholics. What I resent is the blanket denunciations and generalizations from posters here.

      by jiacinto on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:08:31 PM PDT

      •  You want to see hostility?

        Try being Jewish. If you are pro-Israel, you get into battles with some on the left who accuse you of being a Zionist who wants to deprive Palestinians of their rights. And then the fundamentalist right trys to co-opt you to bring about their fantasies of the rapture. I try to avoid most of Israeli/Palestinian battles on this board - like the entire thread about Arafat.

        All I'm trying to say is that there are many ways one can feel marginalized and/or victimized in this world. Of course there are people that don't like religion and post distasteful things about it - but so what? For the most part, they're lashing out because they feel marginalized as well - it's not as if everybody in the U.S. shows tolerance for those who have no religion. Or they could be just thoughtless. Or angry. Who knows?

        But there are really cool people on this board like PastorDan who openly talk about their faith and are not ridiculed for it. Avoid threads that piss you off - it's usually not worth it. Or, take the time to educate people - it's your choice.

        But do you honestly think that random people posting insensitive comments on boards had more influence on the Catholic vote than did bishop's proclamations from the pulpit? And do all Catholics vote as Catholics first and foremost vs. any other identity they may have - I suspect not.  

        Peace.

        by Proud SW FL Lib on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:29:59 PM PDT

  •  So angry you had to post it twice?

    Anyways, there's no Catholic bashing in this diary entry, only bashing of the Catholic leadership, which even most Catholics recognize has been, frankly, quite deficient in many areas.

    I don't believe anyone on this board truly has hostility towards the Catholic people, many of whom clearly don't listen to the bishops anyway (how many Catholics use birth control, for instance?). But many of us are very angry over the clergy's decisions, and it is driving some people away from the church.

    by soultaco on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

    •  OK

      perhaps I was wrong about no one on this board having any hostility towards Catholics - clearly some do. But I don't consider it the mainstream view.

      by soultaco on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:55:39 PM PDT

  •  Disagree

    I'm Catholic and I don't mind people being angry at the hypocrisy in our church.  We lost the Catholic vote because Karl Rove has spent four years courting our clergy to use the bully pulpit to their advantage.  I have not seen the Church so intrusive before in any election in my lifetime.  I resent it, and I think if the Pope were not too old and sick to understand what was going on, he would put his foot down about this.

    In the meantime, to my surprise, the Catholics have become the more reasonable religion in the country compared to their fundamentalist counterparts.

    If we continue to slide towards oblivion, I will not donate one dime.

    by stephdray on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:07:05 PM PDT

  •  Do you expect a gay person to have a GOOD opinion

    of the church ?

    We're supposed to go "Oh go ahead and stomp on us,
    spend millions of dollars campagning against us,
    still we wouldn't want to say any thing bad about u"?

    by tiponeill on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:22:24 PM PDT

  •  Wow, really?

    I am Catholic and I had not noticed it.  I was sincerely unaware.  This is, however, getting to be a terribly familiar refrain after the election - we lost because the far left hates this, that, or the other thing.  Is that really true?  I mean, who exactly is it that hates and bashes Catholics?  (In my experience it was always certain closed-minded conservative evangelical Christians..)  

    Honestly, though, I have heard repeated ad nauseum that the "far left" has caused so many people to vote for Bush because they have offended so many people, but I rarely find anything remotely resembling facts or evidence to support this claim.  This diarist, after all, is a Catholic!  I mean, if you think at heart that most people on this site are crazy moonbat far-left hatemongers, why not just come right out and say it?

    Look, Kerry lost the Catholic vote because there was a systematic campaign within the Catholic community focusing on abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage that heavily implied - if not always saying outright - "vote for Bush." This included leaflets and flyers distributed in local parishes (I've seen them myself), op-eds and letters published in prominent Catholic newspapers and magazines, and in some cases, direct appeals from parish priests and Catholic bishops.  It disturbs and saddens me greatly that it happened and I do wonder what the Pope thinks about the contemporary American Catholic church, but those are the facts.  

    by daria g on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:38:58 PM PDT

    •  Also

      If you really want to vote Republican, than vote Republican.  This isn't an attack on you or an attempt to push you out of the Democratic Party, because I value more moderate and conservative voices and I think we desperately need them.  

      Still, I know plenty of Republicans who I respect and like, and if your gut is telling you that the GOP better represents your views, then that's what your gut is telling you.  But saying that people will vote Republican out of pure spite because they've managed to find a minority opinion on the left that offends them?  What should one do when confronted by a minority opinion on the right that calls all Catholics cult members, or says only evangelical Christians are going to heaven?  

      I have to say, I don't understand spite voting - there are deeply offensive things said by some members of every single political party in this nation, and the Internet makes it incredibly easy to find a way to be offended by extremes of either party and, thus, reinforce one's own wavering views with the certainty that the other guys are worse.  Perhaps, though, our challenge is to at least balance the spite by going after people like Falwell and Dobson and then informing the GOP establishment, "it's people like them that are driving me out of the GOP and made me want to vote Democrat!"

      by daria g on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:54:18 PM PDT

      •  Well

        I am not a Republican. I don't agree with the GOP on a whole variety of issues. That being said I think that many people perceive the left--and to a greater extent, the Democratic Party--as being hostile to religious people. Many of these people would vote Democratic in spite of that.

        by jiacinto on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:11:00 PM PDT

  •  Nonsense

    All the Catholic-bashing I saw on this site was after the election.

    There was bashing of conservative bishops who campaigned for Bush, but that hardly counts as Catholic-bashing.  

    This site does regularly condemn voters of all faiths who vote Republican -- but the issue is their Republicanism, not their religion.  

    We don't bash anyone who votes for us.

    by tyronen on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:57:59 PM PDT

  •  Catholics too feel that way

    Hey, let's look at this in the clear light of day. As a Catholic I haven't been happy with the way Catholics and the Catholic higher ups have politicized this election or handled matters in the past

    As a woman, I haven't felt welcomed by a church that feels it can do what it wants:

    *threaten eternal damination for my following my conscience about issues such as who should control what happens to my body
    

    • ostracize me for my beliefs
      
    • marginalize and negate my friends - good people - who are gay
      
    • not coming down hard on priests and bishops for threatening and denying sacraments to John Kerry
      
    • siding with sinners (abusive priests) rather than victims and those in need
      
    • encouraging a climate of hate among those who are anit-choice

    The truth is many Catholics in this country and worldwide have serious problems with the out of touch, ultra-conservative nature of the current Vatican leadership. In the US they are so single issue, that the overwhelming issues of poverty and health and economic justice that the many priests for decades have championed have been lost in this interference with the working of our political system on access to women's reproductive rights.

    You are upset by the contempt  you sense from people about the views of the Catholic Church? I am upset that the Catholic Church has put dogma over people.

    You say you don't agree with the Church on some of these issues. What do you do about it? Do you actively disagree at your parish level? Do you raise your concerns with your priest and bishop? If you do, you are in the minority. Most Catholics bite their tongue or leave the Church because it doesn't reflect their lives or beliefs. Because change and questioning and opposition to the established order is discouraged.

    How ironic, because Jesus Christ was the ultimate in challenging the established religous order - for saying that whatever the religious heads may say, one should live according to the true beliefs of compassion and inclusion and social conscience.

    by dmmteacher on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:41:05 PM PDT

    •  Oops - This response

      was to the post below - "This is why Kerry lost the Catholic vote, not to the one I actually replied to.

      Sorry for the misunderstanding

      by dmmteacher on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:03:11 PM PDT

•  This is why Kerry lost the Catholic vote

  I'm sorry, but I am so fucking sick of the Catholic bashing that I see on "progressive boards" like this. I am a Catholic who tries to go to mass on a weekly basis.

  I fully understand why many of my fellow Catholics supported Bush. It's due to the hostility that many on the far left have toward all Catholics.

  I really resent how some people generalize about all Catholics. I'm pro-choice and don't have issues with gays. I disagree with the Church's teachings on those issues.

  But what I resent is the outright contempt that all too many people have toward Catholics. You want to know why Kerry lost the Catholic vote--the first time in ages, if ever, the Democrats have lost a majority of Catholics?

  It's because of the attitudes of some people here on this board.

  by jiacinto on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:41:41 PM PDT

  •  Not Really

    Democrats have lost the Catholic vote, especially the non-Latino Catholic vote, many times.  But historically they haven't won if they lose the Catholic vote.  

    But I think you're paiting with a wide a defective brush when you blame the Catholic vote going to Bush on the antipathy that some on the left feel toward the religous.  And I think you also give a pass to the Buchanans and the Novaks who do plenty of their own hating, especially directed at Catholics more liberal than them.  

    Kerry lost the Catholic vote for lots of reasons, but I doubt it has much to do with what might be said on blogs, in The Nation, or on Air America.

    by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:09:11 PM PDT

    •  Well

      You would have a point if this were the only Catholic-bashing thread to ever appear here. However, these threads appear here on a regular,  if not daily basis.

      What I resent is the blanket denunciation those on the far left project onto Catholics and other Christians. We all aren't fundies or right wingers.

      I don't agree with some church teachings, but I don't attack every religious person with a broad brush. The hostility shown to all people of faith is disgusting here.

      This is one of the reasons why we lost. Many Americans, who should be Democrats, aren't because they perceive that many on the far left ridicule them for their religiousity. And it is a problem.

      by jiacinto on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:59:43 PM PDT

•  Catholic Conversations

  One of my fellow parishoners suggested that we start more of a dialogue within the community about more issues than abortion.  That issue has so completely dominated Catholic politics that is hard to get other voices into the conversation.

  I went to Church last Sunday with such a heavy heart.  I was scheduled to lector (a volunteer gig that I love) & told the Priest that I was upset about the election.  "Well, the sun still came up on Wednesday?  God blesses the elected leaders."   IIICCIKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK  Well the Choir played "Eagles Wings" for Communion - I was bawling by the end.  I rarely cry & had not had the opportunity since the resounding defeat here in Missouri.  Felt good.

  I am not sure if there is a Peace & Justice group at my church but I am going to get active & also more active in Church politics.  My church has a school, so there are a ton of young parents who are socially liberal.  

  Money - still give to Church for school & church - but nothing extra.

  ag

  by aimeeinkc on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:44:10 PM PDT

  •  Good idea

    If half the churches in America had some kind of peace and justice caucus group, that would be huge.

    Usually you will find in the Catholic Church and the mainline Protestant churches, there are templates in place for this kind of group at the denominational/jurisdicional/diocesan level, but we need laypeople with passion and leadership/organizational skills to take the ball and run with it.

    For my part, I'm hoping to start a Church & Society committee/group at my local UMC church.  I already taught an 8-week study on the UMC Social Principles.

    by Lucky Ducky on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:04:04 PM PDT

  •  My Catholic pastors were just as upset

    at the election results as I was. Our whole pastoral council was upset !

    Please don't assume all Catholics and Catholics priests and bishops are like the fundies. We ARE NOT !

    by murphy on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:45:41 PM PDT

  •  The Catholic Church is Anything But Universal

    What all of these comments are pointing out is that there is no such thing as one Catholic Church.

    1. There is the hierarchical church of the Vatican, highly conservative under John Paul II, and almost obsessive about sex ever since Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968 by Paul VI.  Prior to this encyclical the church wasn't overly interested in sex or contraception or abortion (though it was always anti-gay), and IMO Paul VI was elevating the sanctity of life in all forms and phases because the church realized it had failed to protect life strongly enough during the Holocaust.  Paul VI was also trying to make sense of new technology allowing safe abortions and easy birth control, but unfortunately chose a theology of purity that outlawed any technological intervention in the development of life (the church also has strong anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia principles consistent with this theological purity).  John Paul II has brought to this picture strong conservative instincts that are not dissimilar from those of the communist apparatchiks he suffered under for many years, and this has led to a hierarchy that is all anti-abortion, all the time.

    2.  At the diocese level, the European and US churches, which operate for the most part independently of the Vatican other than on theology matters, have been struggling with declining enrollments in church, schools, and the priesthood/sisterhood.  They've accepted an increasing number of gay priests to maintain some basic level of clergy, and then unfortunately did not police the abusers within the clergy who have done terrible damage to the moral standing of the church.  Meanwhile churches and schools continue to be shut down throughout Europe and the US.

    3.  At the parish level, there is still a great variety of culture from liberal to conservative, depending on the local priest and the community.  Any clergyman who is ambitious, however, must follow the conservative line, and so overall the shrinking white catholic church has moved much to the right, to the point where the intervention in the election in the US was not only unprecedented but dangerous for the church's identity.

    4.  Then there's the third world church, which in Africa is on some issues even more reactionary than the Vatican.  Unfortunately this is where the growth of the church has been for three decades, bringing about a major cultural change that threatens the church's connections to its roots in Europe.  The third world church, for example in Latin America, has had to fight off inroads by the protestant evangelical and pentecostal sects.  This is also happening in the US, so that the Latino churches in the US have become more conservative as well.

    So if you donate to Catholic Charities, which church are you hurting?  For the most part, the hierarchy of bishops, who have a conservative moral and now political agenda, would notice first, and it makes some sense to boycott Catholic Charities if you want to send a message.  If you still want to support the church's charitable work, find a soup kitchen looking for volunteers or money and make sure the money stays there.  The church still does plenty to feed the hungry and clothe and house the poor (some people in the church still remember the ministry of Jesus) - but the church hierarchy makes it hard for you to be sure that this is where your charitable dollar is going.

      Boycotting Catholic Charities

    by Numerian on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:21:22 PM PDT

•  Not a one-size-fits-all answer for this

  As a practicing Catholic, I would differentiate between different types of charities and the actions of my diocese's bishop during the campaign. For example, were I in the Newark archdiocese, I would probably not donate to the archbishop's appeal since Myers was one of the more outspoken anti-Democrats this year. Not all bishops took that kind of position, though; here in Washington, Archbishop McCarrick has been much more circumspect and even-handed in his approach to voting as a Catholic. To me there is a line between issue advocacy and partianship, and it's only when a bishop strays into the latter that there is a problem.

  Catholic charitable organizations do a lot of good work and should continue to receive funds regardless of disagreements with a diocese's bishop. One solution might be to give directly to reputable organizations, such as Catholic Charities, and bypass the Bishop's Appeal. Or you could give to secular charitable organizations instead.

  by jbindc35 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:52:29 PM PDT

•  I've known about this for awhile

  It's worse that what you think. The Church uses some of the money to promote anti-birth control nonsense. I don't mean anti-abortion, I mean anti-birth control.

  The other issue is that your parish may be required to send money to the diocese or archdiocese to fund their projects. What that fund is called in San Francisco escapes me, but my parish is stuck paying it whether or not the members of the parish pay enough to cover it. Most of it goes to good causes, but I don't know where all the money goes.

  by mimi9 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:53:25 PM PDT

  •  That was my compromise

    I realize that not all my Sunday collection money goes to my church, but the lions share does and I still want to support my church. They are good people.

    The Church is extremely birth control. That has been a sore point for decades. But, most Catholics ignore it, even devout Catholics. There isn't much we can do about their anti-birth control programs. But when they influence our elections by all but saying who to vote for is where I draw the line.

    by shark on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:24:01 PM PDT

    •  oops!

      I meant anti-birth control.

      by shark on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:24:30 PM PDT

    •  that's not the problem

      Whether Catholics ignore birth control or not (yes, most do), the problem is that these programs are trying to ban control for everyone, even non-Catholics.

      I have had a very hard time even supporting my parish church after the child molestation cases came out. Yeah, they are decent people but I hate to support any of this garbage. Trouble is, if you don't support your local church, they might have to close it down due to lack of funds.

      by mimi9 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:37:33 PM PDT

•  fascinating!

  as callous as this sounds, i think a massive boycott of any religious charitable donations is an astoundingly brilliant idea!  allow me to defend my horrific position:

  in bush's "faith-based" reality, caring for the less fortunate is not an obligation or duty of the government.  the bush cabal steadfastly claims that such assistance is the exclusive purview of charitable organizations.

  so, once again, our reality is reduced to going to extremes to get these people's attention.  when the charitable organizations become completely overwhelmed by it, something might change.

  i know that my suggestion is entirely unfeasible - i mean, who could really withhold help from those who need it just to make a point - but its tenet still stands.  is there some way to do this without hurting those who need help?

  by Cedwyn on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 12:54:32 PM PDT

•  The catholic church is a faternal hierarchical

  organization . parishioners have no direct input into the decisions of the church . the hierarchy gets its authority from god through the pope . the only influence catholics have , other than refusing to participate , is by withholding money from the catholic church and the instituions it supports . i agree with the post . don't give them one red cent until they reform themselves and stop using the beautiful theology of the church to advance their personal agenda . if you must give to the needy through other charities .

  my bishop in South Dakota stood up in church , as God's representative , and in front of a bunch of republican politicians whose grandparents cursed catholics under their breath , stated that voters should either vote for anti-abortion candidates or leave the church .

  come to think of it , i want my money back too .

  by shel on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:07:26 PM PDT

•  We have a CSA (Catholic Services Appeal)

  Cardinal Maida has already received a letter from me saying that I will no longer give them a cent (Especially because the Catholic church in Michigan funded the anti-gay hate amendment to the tune of $500 K.)

  However, there are many outstanding soup kitchens and other catholic charities that work directly in Detroit's inner city. Bishop Gumbleton (look him up if you don't know who he is) is the pastor for a parish in the poorest section of a poor city, and there is no way I would cut off funding to him and his church/soup kitchen. I am, however, cutting out the middleman. Gumbleton gets direct donations from me from now on, as well as the Capuchin soup kitchen.

  by frey60 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:12:53 PM PDT

  •  Addendum

    Gumbleton also had an opinion column in the Detroit Dailys the Sunday before the election, where he basically ridiculed the idea that you had to vote for Bush if you were Catholic, and went on to call Bush one of the least pro-life presidents we've ever had.

    by frey60 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:15:42 PM PDT

  •  Not $500K...

    ...it was over $1 million.  The archdiocese and the other six dioceses in Michigan gave money in late September, and then they gave a whole other round of cash in mid October.  The Archdiocese alone gave $270,000 the first time, and another $260,000 in October.  

    BTW, the Gumbelton letter wasn't just from him, there were about 30 other priests and religious who signed it.  

    by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:20:50 PM PDT

    •  PUKE

      that makes me even more pissed.

      by frey60 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:26:45 PM PDT

•  I've RECOMMENDED

  this diary -- it may be constructive to air out the many opinions on this issue.

  by PhillyGal on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:17:56 PM PDT

•  d

  
  i'm a catholic, and i don't take offense to the "raping choir boys" comment at all -- at all.

  frankly, i share that sentiment.

  the catholic church has been an accessory to rape for years.  it was institutional, even if it was hush-hush.  it's astonishing that the catholic church took it upon itself to hush up what were crimes.  actual crimes.   not just social scandals.

  i perceive little to no catholic bashing among the left.  the left is very welcoming.

  i would also advise against donating to the bishop's fund.  in fact, i would suggest writing letters to the diocese offices explaining what amount you would have been contributing, and where it's going now instead.  they understand money very well.

  lastly, i am unsure of what the local parishes have to give to the dioceses.  that unsurity also makes me reluctant to give.

  yes, it is true that catholic charities do incredible work.  they really get in there and slog it out with some of the most unfortunate.

  if you have questions, call up the charities and ask.

  cheers --

  by njgoldfinch on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:17:58 PM PDT

  •  You Rape Choir Boys?!???

    I'm going to assume that you don't, and just need to reread that comment and see that the clear implication, intended or not, is that Catholics rape choirboys.  He didn't talk about priests, he said Catholics.  As a Catholic, you have almost no ability--except through witholding your money or leaving the church--to affect the decisions of your diocese.  I'm not willing to say that you, as a Catholic, are responsible for the actions of some priests, who were then protected by the church hierarchy.  And frankly, you should be offended that somebody would insinuate that you're responsible for rape when chances are you don't know any of the priests, any of their victims, and may, like me, be appalled at the actions of the hierarchy.

    by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:26:11 PM PDT

    •  Emotional

      This is a very emotional issue.  I share the original commentor's disgust with the legacy of sexual abuse among priests in the church.  First, there was the crime of the abuse.  Then there was the shame of the denials, the cover-ups, the bankruptcies to avoid payments to victims and then the Pope and Ratizinger turning their heads and not confronting the issue head-on.

      Running around saying that "Catholics rape boys" is of course not true, hurtful and absurd.  However, the church must bear responsibility for the actions of its priests and, in my opinion, it has not done so.  I felt that the "anti-abortion/pro-Republican" face of the church in 2004 was an attempt to reclaim moral ground by changing the subject, rather than addressing the pressing issues at hand.

      And yes, I'm a Catholic.  My family has been Catholics for a thousand, plus years.  That is not going to change.  I'm willing to look the abuse issue straight in the eye.  The Pope and the American bishops have not.

      by bink on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:38:05 PM PDT

      •  Agreed, I Think

        Agreed with all your points, except if by  original poster you meant the person who made the Catholics/choir boys comment.  I don't think that person had disgust only about the sexual abuse by priests and the coverups by the Church, I think he's simply disgusted with the Church and possibly religion and all people of faith.  

        The delicious irony in all this, BTW, is that that poster has commented several times that he opposes gay marriage, and will "NO LONGER SUPPORT any candidate who supports gay marriage.  It's a loser issue."  No comment on the justness or injustice of the issue, nothing but the belief that it's a "loser issue."  What a paragon of serious ethical and political thinking...
        

        by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:47:24 PM PDT

    •  i took the meaning of that statement to mean...

      
      ...the church at large.  the beaurocracy (i always misspell that word).

      i don't have to know the victims personally to be outraged for them.

      cheers --

      by njgoldfinch on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:23:55 PM PDT

  •  Much of what they send in is for health, car

    and basic liability insurance for which the dioceses get a group rate.

    People have a very weird idea of church finances. Most parishes don't forward much of anything to the diocese.

    My parish's line item for "seminary and diocesan assessments, universal and designated collections" is $30,600 out of total expenses of $459,300 estimated for FY 2004-2005.

    by murphy on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 01:53:59 PM PDT

•  I can't stand it

  I believe this is the official website of the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Correct me if I am wrong.

  http://www.sfarchdiocese.org/news.html

  At the bottom of this page is a link to a "voter's guide" which is a link to this website that has been discussed on dKos before:

  http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp
  Check out the "Five Non-negotiable Issues"

  I don't care if my parish only gives the archdiocese 6% of their annual collection. It's still too much, if they are going to keep encouraging that kind of nonsense.
  

  by mimi9 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:52:37 PM PDT

  •  Euthanasia

    This 'issue' bugs me. It keeps getting batted around in Catholic circles as something to oppose, yet I have not heard of anyone who is actually advocating euthanasia, nor exactly what the bishops mean by this.

    by jbindc35 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:18:41 PM PDT

•  All this national Catholic angst

  without nodding to the crucible of Catholic angst--the Massachusetts reality.

  First off, let me say that I'm secular humanist, but I'm steeped in Catholicism simply by dint of the fact that I was raised in and currently live in the most Catholic state in the nation.  Now we--and I use that first person plural intentionally--have endured much from the  Boston Archdiocese, Cardinal Law, Father Geoghan, ad infinitum, and still, still we re-elected all of our Democratic state legislators and turned four over for good measure in the only state in the nation with legalized gay marriage.  The Catholic vote can, and indeed does, discern real issues when framed in a reasonable way despite calls from the pulpit to tow the Catholic line.

  Is the Catholic church in this state under seige?  Yes, indeed, and for very good reason.  Are people like me who have virtually no use for organized religion sickened by the abuse debacle here?  Yes, without question, don't even get me going.  But I'm nevertheless convinced that if the Catholic vote in Massachusetts can act responsibly and thoughtfully, then there's hope for the Catholics around the nation.  Indeed, most of the nation's Catholics have not had to deal with the blurring of politicoreligious lines as we have historically here in Massachusetts, so the political machinery that would preclude or quash individuality in political decision-making elsewhere is less of an issue.    

  Groups like Voice of the Faithful are agents for real change within the Catholic community.  Their efforts should be supported, and through activist Catholics, a solution, at least in the U.S., is possible whereby Catholics will remain comfortable with and supportive of the Democratic Party and its core ideals.  

  by lightiris on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:04:30 PM PDT

•  good points

  Agreed, they way john kerry was treated, the first catholic in over 40 years to be nominated, was disgraceful.  The knights of columbus didn't even invite him to speak at their convention, but layed out the red carpet for george bush, a man who spoke at bob jones university.  What a embarrassment the church i was raised in is becoming.  

  by mullen on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:51:49 PM PDT

  •  i find it ironic that the most anti-kerry/catholic

    
    i find it ironic that argueably the most anti-kerry/catholic feeling came from the catholic church itself.

    cheers --

    by njgoldfinch on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:43:07 PM PDT