Jesus and the homeless v. the Catholic Church

[Keith&Co.]

I'm saying exactly what I'm saying. And I would suggest anyone read my posts in this same manner.

But it's okay for you to read 'i hate the RCC' into other people's posts.
Okay.

 

[Perspicuo]

You forget the RCC is not only diocesan priests.

https://www.franoutreach.org/shelter/
http://www.stmarysfs.org/about.php
https://www.stfrancisbreadline.org/
http://www.capuchinfranciscans.ie/our-work/ministries/homeless/

And those are just a few of the ones with websites. Most are so poor they don't have websites. I know firsthand they work their fingers to the bone. Too much, too much for your cynical dismissal of what they do. I get it--you hate the RCC. I don't give a shit if you do. I know too well what I'm talking about to give it.

First, I am not trying to dis the RCC. They among others do quite a bit helping those in need worldwide. One of the difficulties in trying to discern just how much the RCC spending on actually helping those in need is their lack of transparency, never mind their ancient and huge international presence. They have tons of old buildings that are quite underutilized, and that must cost them a mint. The RCC also operates huge medical and educational institutions, and I don’t see anything that would help one break down what part is for helping the needy verses just providing good services for fair prices.

With that said, I can speak about what I saw years ago at the United Methodist Church (UMC) and their main charity arm UMCOR, which are far more transparent than the RCC. FWIW I’ve been on a local church’s budgetary board. UMCOR is interesting in that essentially 100% of the donations go to programs to help people worldwide (not promoting their faith). The UMC body fronts the money necessary for overhead/administrative functions. So non-Methodists or non-Christians can donate to UMCOR w/o feeling like they are promoting Methodism so much. With that said, I would presume that the UMC is much like many other churches/sects. When one digs down thru the budgetary details, one quickly finds that Church staff payroll, music programs, children programs, and facilities maintenance probably account for 90% of the budget. Sure there are pockets here and there that help people in need, but I doubt it ever really goes over 10% of Church budget, including any apportionments that go to the sect’s larger organizational body. And the Church staff spends the vast majority of its energy/efforts on supporting the Church club. So in the end, I have a hard time assuming that more than 10% of any church/sect’s funding ever gets to helping those in need. And I think that lots of the big evangelical churches do far worse. That is hardly something worthy of praise.

If one gives to a local food band, or other groups working with the homeless, Doctors w/o Boarders, or what not, any paid staff/management is spending the vast majority of their energy/efforts directly on the mission in question.

Here is a charity that works in my area that is not affiliated with any church nor Christianity (not that some churches don’t support them). The point is that it doesn’t have to be tied back to a church. And I’m sure lots of Christians are directly involved in supporting their programs.
http://joinpdx.org/about/

Well, how much of your income goes to those in need?
Cthulhu forbid we apply a double standard. Perhaps the Salvation Army puts 4 to 8cc of soup in their bowls... but that is immaterial, it's the effort, it's the dedication, the intention, it's what you put yourself to the task.

And what's that horseshit about Doctors without Borders? What does that have to do with anything? The Grey Fiars work with a medieval model of living in poverty and giving what they get to the orphans, the hungry or the homeless, while Médecins Sans Frontières has modern accountants. Have you lost all notion of what is being discussed here? Go back to the OP: we're talking about charity, the virtue of love in action, not efficiency.

Here is a charity that works in my area that is not affiliated with any church nor Christianity (not that some churches don’t support them). The point is that it doesn’t have to be tied back to a church. And I’m sure lots of Christians are directly involved in supporting their programs.
http://joinpdx.org/about/

Apparently yes, you have lost it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Where I live there have been a lot of RCC church consolidations because of dwindling church income and attendance. People contributed substantial portions of their incomes to build these schools and churches because these churches were portals, lifelines to life in a new world. You could come and cook your meals on communal stoves and do your wash in communal sinks because you were too poor to afford your own such luxuries. And you were thankful for this, even though your money is what bought those communal amenities. But it wasn't a bad setup.

Many of those people lived to see those schools fall into decay and those churches de-consecrated and sold off. But if those schools and churches helped lift people socioeconomically it wasn't such a bad thing.

I'd have to do some research to see how some of the links above are operating. It certainly apears they are operating in the spirit of those earlier efforts.

 

[funinspace]

First, I am not trying to dis the RCC. They among others do quite a bit helping those in need worldwide. One of the difficulties in trying to discern just how much the RCC spending on actually helping those in need is their lack of transparency, never mind their ancient and huge international presence. They have tons of old buildings that are quite underutilized, and that must cost them a mint. The RCC also operates huge medical and educational institutions, and I don’t see anything that would help one break down what part is for helping the needy verses just providing good services for fair prices.

With that said, I can speak about what I saw years ago at the United Methodist Church (UMC) and their main charity arm UMCOR, which are far more transparent than the RCC. FWIW I’ve been on a local church’s budgetary board. UMCOR is interesting in that essentially 100% of the donations go to programs to help people worldwide (not promoting their faith). The UMC body fronts the money necessary for overhead/administrative functions. So non-Methodists or non-Christians can donate to UMCOR w/o feeling like they are promoting Methodism so much. With that said, I would presume that the UMC is much like many other churches/sects. When one digs down thru the budgetary details, one quickly finds that Church staff payroll, music programs, children programs, and facilities maintenance probably account for 90% of the budget. Sure there are pockets here and there that help people in need, but I doubt it ever really goes over 10% of Church budget, including any apportionments that go to the sect’s larger organizational body. And the Church staff spends the vast majority of its energy/efforts on supporting the Church club. So in the end, I have a hard time assuming that more than 10% of any church/sect’s funding ever gets to helping those in need. And I think that lots of the big evangelical churches do far worse. That is hardly something worthy of praise.

If one gives to a local food band, or other groups working with the homeless, Doctors w/o Boarders, or what not, any paid staff/management is spending the vast majority of their energy/efforts directly on the mission in question.

Here is a charity that works in my area that is not affiliated with any church nor Christianity (not that some churches don’t support them). The point is that it doesn’t have to be tied back to a church. And I’m sure lots of Christians are directly involved in supporting their programs.
http://joinpdx.org/about/

Well, how much of your income goes to those in need?

Hardly relevant, as I am not a charity, nor do I pretend to be one. Though I still give more to charity than some of these so called charities.

Cthulhu forbid we apply a double standard. Perhaps the Salvation Army puts 4 to 8cc of soup in their bowls... but that is immaterial, it's the effort, it's the dedication, the intention, it's what you put yourself to the task.

And what's that horseshit about Doctors without Borders? What does that have to do with anything? The Grey Fiars work with a medieval model of living in poverty and giving what they get to the orphans, the hungry or the homeless, while Médecins Sans Frontières has modern accountants. Have you lost all notion of what is being discussed here? Go back to the OP: we're talking about charity, the virtue of love in action, not efficiency.

LOL…my my “what is being discussed here” is a thread started by Rhea, not your hobby horse defense of the RCC. Personally, I would much prefer to drop $100 in direct aid to a charity, than in a church platter. I consider the “virtue of love in action” far better aided when 90% of my $100 goes to actually help people, instead of just $25 trickling down… Efficiency isn’t a bad word, and blind love can be stupid.

Anyway, let’s simplify this a bit. Which would you rather support, a charity where the majority of money raised actually goes to help the type of people they claim to help, or ones that that enriches the organization and possibly its leaders?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/worst-charities/

The biggest difference between good charities and the nation's worst is the bottom line.
Every charity has salary, overhead and fund-raising costs.
But several watchdog organizations say charities should spend no more than 35% of the money they raise on fund-raising expenses.
The Make-A-Wish Foundation of Central and North Florida is one of dozens of Make-A-Wish chapters across the country.
Last year, it reported raising $3.1 million cash and spent about 60% of that -- $1.8 million -- granting wishes.
The same year, Kids Wish raised $18.6 million, its tax filing shows. It spent just $240,000 granting wishes -- 1% of the cash raised.

Another useful reference:
http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches

As noted in the Tampa study, churches fall into the category of ‘charitable’ entities. This is often a stretch. The researchers calculated the Mormon church, for example, spends roughly .7% of its annual income on charity. Their study of 271 congregations found an average of 71% of revenues going to ‘operating expenses,’ while help to the poor is somewhere within the remaining 29%. Compare this to the American Red Cross, which uses 92.1% of revenues for physical assistance and just 7.9% on operating expenses.

So churches are getting roughly $100 billion a year in donations. Of which, no more than 30% (and probably quite a bit less) does anything other than support a social club.
http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/2011-giving-estimated-at-298-42b/

The subsectors
At $95.88 billion in 2011, religion retained its spot as the largest type of recipient at 32 percent of the total. But, measured in current dollars it was a decline of 1.7 percent and an inflation-adjusted decrease of 4.7 percent.

I’m sure that one can donate directly to some of the RCC charities directly and be sure that the money will stay there, and not go to some Bishops multi-million dollar mansion. And like I already said, just as one can give to UMCOR, one can give to many church charities without that money going to support the general church. These groups do commendable work, and I haven't said otherwise.

Here is a charity that works in my area that is not affiliated with any church nor Christianity (not that some churches don’t support them). The point is that it doesn’t have to be tied back to a church. And I’m sure lots of Christians are directly involved in supporting their programs.
http://joinpdx.org/about/

Apparently yes, you have lost it.

And just what do you think I have lost, by pointing out a quality local charity that I like, and happens to not be run by a church? I thought it was pretty cool that they helped 560 individuals transition from homelessness to permanent housing, including 114 families with over 200 children under the age of 18.

 

[Perspicuo]

Yeah, RCC is my hobby horse. LOL

Rhea was making fun of "Catholics" because one church (the priest, one would guess) was gushing the homeless with water. The issue is charity (or charity versus assholery, the virtue versus its corresponding vice).

Though I still give more to charity than some of these so called charities.

You give more than these charities? Who are you, Warren Buffett? I didn't know your wallet was that big, my apologies. (And you missed the point again, BTW, again, it isn't about how many cc goes into the soup bowl)

 

[funinspace]

Yeah, RCC is my hobby horse. LOL

Rhea was making fun of "Catholics" because one church (the priest, one would guess) was gushing the homeless with water. The issue is charity.

No, the issue as I gathered from Rhea's opening post, was the callous way one church responded to a valid concern about all the homeless in their church doorways. Your defense of the RCC, almost makes it sound like that if a group does some good, then one cannot criticize them for other bad actions. You made it an issue about love and dedication, more so than even charity. If "charity" is your big issue, then I don't see how you would want to defend the multi-hundred billion dollar RCC operation, especially considering how very non-transparent the RCC financing/budgeting is. The RCC does like its secrets.

Though I still give more to charity than some of these so called charities.

You give more than these charities? Who are you, Warren Buffett? I didn't know your wallet was that big, my apologies.

Good grief, all the numbers in discussion were in percentages. And yes, I give more to charity, as percent of my gross income, than Kids Wish does as a percent of their gross revenue.

 

[Perspicuo]

No, Funinspace, I did not "almost sound as if". That is disingenuous as hell. I said only what I said. The rest is a big load of bullshit which I am fed the fck up.


I'm done. And for the record I will repost what I did say:

Let's play a game... How many charities for the homeless can you find on this page:

http://www.catholiccharities.net/GetHelp/OurServices/Homelessness.aspx

And it doesn't list all of them. I fear the OP is using ambiguous language about Catholics. If there is one thing that would be just wrong to criticize Catholics about is their charity. I'll be darned if any other group is more devoted to helping people in need, despite their many and profound shortcomings.

Main point, and I quote from the quotation above:

• If there is one thing that would be just wrong to criticize Catholics about is their charity. I'll be darned if any other group is more devoted to helping people in need, despite their many and profound shortcomings.

It is true. It is well documented the RCC has at least 1000 years of applying the virtue of charity, which is in fact exercised every single Mass (the donation plate). And where there are people who barely give a coin or not a single coin, there others, such as the fratres minimi (the smallest brothers) who vow to poverty and work their fingers to the bone.

In no way is this a defense of the RCC, as I explicitly mention "their many and profound shortcomings". I do not say "few" but "many", I do not say "small and exceptional details" but "profound shortcomings".

But even that isn't enough. I deserved a barrage! Speaking of charity...

 

[funinspace]

No, Funinspace, I did not "almost sound as if". That is disingenuous as hell. I said only what I said. The rest is a big load of bullshit which I am fed the fck up.

Dude, I’m only responding to what I read from your posts (note the plurality within this thread), and that is how it read to me. Again, I’m not even hostile to the RCC generally and I’m not going to play guessing games as to which “the rest” is what. I’ve been as up front and clear as I know how. So, just much of that devoted RCC donor annual revenue, gets down to helping people in need? You never got around to addressing that. It will be a tough question to answer, as the RCC is one of the least transparent churches around….

 

[Perspicuo]

I did address it, from an ethical POV.

And where there are people who barely give a coin or not a single coin, there others, such as the fratres minimi (the smallest brothers) who vow to poverty and work their fingers to the bone.

I believe that says it all. How much does that sum up in terms of ledgers? I'm a Starfleet doctor, not an accountant, and I don't need one. The moral situation is already laid out. I think I speak for most of us that if I ran into, say, Paul McCartney, we would gladly shake his hand with a smile so big it would hurt for meeting such a talented and historical figure as there can be alive today, and not give a thought about the morality of being yet one of the richest musicians in UK. How much does the pig keep without giving it away?? We don't generally think like that.

Also, there seems to be a bit (to put it mildly) confusion about what RCC means. It means many things. Organizationally and theologically they are very different. If you take church to mean (as it does) ekklesía, the laity belongs and the nuns and friars belong. From the point of view of organization, the laity do not belong but the congregations either. A congregation like the brothers minor (a Franciscan congr.) will swim or sink all on their own, their only "organizational" link to the Vatican is (1) being approved by the Holy See and (2) vowing fedelity to the Pope.

You will now understand why this discussion seems weird to me. It has no one answer, but the accusations of "the Church" being "[fill in the blank]" is odd. Who is this Church? The Vatican? The laity? The nuns? The friars? The diocesan priests (who are economically independent from the Vatican, and depending on the country are paid workers like most people)?

Who is to blame for this or that? Perhaps you mean the Vatican? What if I told you the Spanish Inquisition was performed by the Franciscans, the Dominicans and the Crown--all Spaniards and none members of "the Vatican"?

In any case, back to the question, my quote up there sums it up pretty well. Some are Scrooges, some are vowed to poverty--meaning, whatever money and goods get to their hands they pass to their beneficiaries, keeping nothing, while their "house" (where they live and gives them orders about everything concerning their work and their life) makes a level of saving and bookkeeping to feed and clothe each friar.

To mock the supposed charity of "the Catholics" is to mock these poor souls whose only fault in life is not having the character to doubt, and whose numbers are dwindling at the pace undereducated peasants (from which most are recruited) dwindle. And I don't mean to insult them with the term "peasant", as I reverence their heroic selfllessness, bighearted joviality and ironclad work ethic, knowing a few in person as I do.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I did address it, from an ethical POV.

And where there are people who barely give a coin or not a single coin, there others, such as the fratres minimi (the smallest brothers) who vow to poverty and work their fingers to the bone.

I believe that says it all.

To me it means that some catholics are good humanists and some aren't, which is true of lots of members of lots of organizations. Catholics aren't special.

Most I know are secondarily interested in acts of kindness and primarily interested in their own glorification in their pretend afterlife.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also, if you're fighting vampires, you don't want to be stuck with a frigging Methodist or the like. It's old school Catholic priest or nothing when you're battling the undead.