Relations between the Obama administration and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops haven’t exactly been smooth, to say the least. For the past several years, beginning with the battle over the “Stupak amendment” and running through the ongoing dispute over the contraception mandate, the two sides have seemed to be locked in perpetual opposition. Now, a new decision by the Department of Health and Human Services to end a grant to the bishops’ Migration and Relief Services for an anti-human trafficking program promises to further escalate tensions between the government and the Church.
While HHS was in no way obligated to renew the grant to the bishops’ program, the sudden decision to shift the money away from a program which has assisted over 2,700 women seems like an irregular and studied choice on the part of government officials, who are generally accustomed to doing things by rote.
A government spokeswoman equivocated when asked whether the denial of the grant might have had anything to do with Catholic teaching on life issues:
Marrianne McMullen, spokeswoman for the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Administration for Children and Families, wouldn’t say whether abortion or contraceptive policy played a role in the awards.
“HHS’s primary focus in serving victims of human trafficking is ensuring that they have access to the high quality and comprehensive case management services they need,” she said in an e-mail. “These are individuals who have endured traumatic experiences in many cases and who face uniquely complex challenges.”
Though the administration has refused to provide an official explanation as to why the grant money was suddenly redirected, a longstanding ACLU lawsuit may offer another clue.
It looks as if a nasty bureaucratic campaign of attrition may be developing against the bishops for their moral consistency.
October 14th, 2011 | 1:40 pm
This inevitable eventuality is why I opposed Bush’s faith-based initiative from the start. When you accept government money, you serve your patron or you get cut off.
Proverbs 23:1-3 (KJV/AV)
October 14th, 2011 | 1:43 pm
So sad, and so petty. Seems to me the only answer is to campaign for a massive reduction in taxes combined with a push for much higher levels of charitable donations. Get the government out of the picture and idiotic nonsense like this ACLU lawsuit vanish as well.
October 14th, 2011 | 2:25 pm
When you accept government money, you serve your patron or you get cut off.
I agree.
Catholic charities are better off without government funds, even if that means they are smaller.
And they don’t really need access, either. If our government puts up artificial barriers preventing Catholics from helping people because they are Catholics, and the government only supports secular humanist institutions as those who help people, then Catholics should simply ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, and focus on helping where and how they can.
I am sure they will be able to find ways of doing good in the world, and maybe we’ll even have citizens noticing that their government is restricting what they may receive because for partisan reasons. Maybe if we’re really lucky, it will backfire in that it will become impossible to continue to present oneself as champion of the needy and vulnerably when you’re continually taking things away from the needy and vulnerable because the politics of “free abortions, no conscience allowed” is just more important.
October 14th, 2011 | 5:14 pm
I agree with George and Blake, but this law seems to require abortion and contraception be provided by for-profit businesses as well as universities, etc., so is still worth opposing because of that.
October 14th, 2011 | 5:53 pm
How can anyone be surprised when this administration proudly appoints anti-Catholics such as Obama’s Faith-Based Office appointee, Rev. Dr. Nancy Wilson, the esteemed author of “Our Tribe,” a look at “queer folks” and Jesus.
October 14th, 2011 | 7:23 pm
The government isn’t putting up artificial barriers preventing Catholics from helping people because they’re Catholics.
I’m pretty sure the U.S. Bishops’ Conference can try to help victims of trafficking even without the HHS contract. There’s no law stopping them from doing so. There simply won’t be federal funds for any such help now. Practically, yes, that means the U.S. Bishops probably won’t be involved to the degree they were. But the government not awarding or extending the award of a contract hardly amounts to “imposition of artificial barriers.”
October 14th, 2011 | 10:01 pm
Anonsters,
Why has this Administration stopped funding a program that was working?
Because it was working in such a way that shed light on – and in doing so undermined – a more far-reaching societal endeavor they wished to promote.
I think that’s pretty clear from the abruptness of the decision, the refusal to explain the decision… and indeed, based on the actual success of the program, the lack of any detectable reason for the decision.
October 15th, 2011 | 2:52 am
I also agree with Gregory. Blake says my own view better than I could. I think we all have became much too cozy with the government and culture in general.
October 15th, 2011 | 5:03 am
JDD, they didn’t stop the funding of a program that was working. They awarded the contract for the program to other bidders. Now three other groups will provide the services under the contract.
The story’s pretty clear: the USCCB won the contract for 5 years, starting in 2006. This is 2011. 2011-2006 = 5 years. Then “the contract was extended briefly in March.” The story doesn’t say how long the extension was for, but implies that the extension was expiring on schedule, since the USCCB had to submit another grant request to continue the program. That the USCCB didn’t complain that the funding was cut prior to the expiration of the extension also suggests that the March extension was expiring. As to why they would award the money to someone else, rather than just continuing with the USCCB in the program is pretty clear, too:
HHS’s written instructions for groups seeking grants through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act said that the agency would give “strong preference” to applicants willing to offer referrals for the “full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care,” including family planning services.
The USCCB was not so willing, and they said so explicitly before they were awarded the contract in 2006. Now that the contract was up, and it was time to award a new contract, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the USCCB didn’t win it.
Now, we may hate the HHS written instructions for groups seeking grants. But that’s certainly no reason to dream up some out-of-the-blue, totally unexpected revocation of funds signaling an “escalation between the government and the USCCB.” It sounds to me like HHS was doing business exactly how Matthew Cantirino suggests they, and every other government bureaucracy, do business: “by rote.” In this case, when it was time to award a new contract on schedule, they followed the written instructions promulgated under Obama’s HHS. That’s how government works.
October 15th, 2011 | 8:44 am
Many years ago, I worked for the US Agency for International Development. Our office provided food aid (vegetable oil, rice, etc.) to the poorest of the poor countries. We worked closely with Non-Governmental Organizations, many of which were Christian groups. One of the most useful was the Catholic group Caritas. The US government used these NGOs because they were there, on the ground, staffed mostly by locals who knew what they were doing and what was needed. Sometimes, Caritas was the only NGO in-country. Their US-based staffs were invariably professional and expert. The US government does not have a cadre of social workers—let alone volunteers—ready to distribute aid at the drop of a hat in all countries around the world.
I write this because some people seem to have the impression that the USG has been doing Catholic charities a huge favor by giving them grant money. It was not largesse—we were glad when Caritas and others agreed to distribute our aid (money or food) to people we wanted to help.
With the government we have now, I suspect Catholic charities are better off without ties to us, so I agree with Blake.
I just hope there are non-Catholic groups catering to the needs of the victims of human trafficking. I know that several anti-slavery groups are Christian. We will see if the USG has problems with them, too.
October 15th, 2011 | 2:44 pm
[...] Further Escalation Between Government & USCCB – Matthew Cantirino, First Things [...]
October 15th, 2011 | 3:37 pm
When the tax exemption is lost, then it will be morning.
October 18th, 2011 | 12:39 pm
It’s probably just as well that it become clear that the present administration is the enemy.
It has been clear to some of us for a long time. But the USCCB has been too caught up in political lobbying, and too close to the same government influences which promote contraception, abortion, and other abominations to be the prophetic voice for the good, which they should have been. Let them go back to basics of spreading the faith, encouraging real charity*, and evangelizing for the Kingdom of God. Not that they shouldn’t heckle the government for the common good. But it should come out of a grounding in the faith. They have for too long acted as if they were primarily a politcal entity.
* False charity: wealth is forcibly extracted by the government from the unwilling, skimmed by the corrupt, and the remainder thrown impersonally to the ungrateful. No one’s soul is saved.
October 19th, 2011 | 1:50 am
[...] money was suddenly redirected, a longstanding ACLU lawsuit may offer another clue. Continued- Further Escalation Between Government & USCCB __________________ Your socks stink. To view links or images in signatures your post [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact