Talk:Catholic Charities USA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Health care reform under Barack Obama[edit]

Some pro-life activists within the Church have criticized Catholic Charities for actively supporting health care reform under Barack Obama, given the fact that such reforms would presumably include provisions making it possible for American secular governments to publicly fund abortion procesdures with taxpayer money, something which is controversial when taken in light of the Church's strong opposition to direct abortion. [1] ADM (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Undue weight of criticism section[edit]

Catholic Charities is one of the biggest charity organizations in the world and does an extreme amount of good in fighting poverty, yet the article only focuses on criticism/accountability/controversies. I believe this should be expanded to show slightly less anti-Catholic bias... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.100.110 (talk • contribs) 26 May 2010‎

I've tagged the section for cleanup using {{Undue-section}}. As it is a legitimate criticism that is supported by multiple reliable sources, the section shouldn't be removed entirely; but, at the same time, the current wording places undue weight on that content, which currently represents more than half the content of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the disputes that is given too much weight. It's the history section that is given too little. In fact, none at all.

The best solution to undue weight is to expand the rest of the article. Let's see someone tell the history of the organization. The undue weight arises not from excessive coverage of the controversies but from the minimal coverage of the org's history and work. The wording does not place undue weight on the controversies. It's fairly straightforward. The rest of the article is oddly cryptic. Is seems to assume everyone knows what the org does. Isn't anyone interested in building it up?

Tearing down is easy. Try construction. Here are some sources for the organization's history:

  • Dorothy M. Brown and Elizabeth McKeown, The Poor Belong to Us: Catholic Charities and American Welfare (1997)
  • J. Bryan Hehir,ed., Catholic Charities USA: 100 Years at the Intersection of Charity and Justice (2010)

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When and until more history is added to this page the clearly Gay Agenda section should be edited down to a much less prominent section. The page is currently unbalanced and reads as a propaganda page for the Human Rights Campaign. All this criticism could easily be placed on their own pages and no one would complain. 19 September 2012

Quite the opposite, I'd say. Sections don't need to be built in tandem. Often one section is beefier than another. The question is whether or not the material gives undue weight to material in relation to the subject of this entry, Catholic Charities, or in relation to other opinions (if we were discussing contrasting opinions, which we are not), not undue weight in proportion to what other editors have gotten around to writing. And your real objection is to the content of the section in question. I tried to write it with precision and attention to what the participants actually said and did. I think shortening it -- and I assume it is the Boston section that is really at issue -- would do an injustice to the participants, a group that includes some noteworthy people who should not be short-changed, including Cardinal O'Malley and Gov. Romney and Bryan Hehir, who is the author of the centenary history of the organization. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section title[edit]

"Sexual orientation issues" or something else? In the case of Boston, it's unclear whether the policy in question related specifically to same-sex marriage or simply to single-parent adoptions by a gay or lesbian. That's why I think "Same-sex marriage issues" is a little too specific for the heading. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am switching the section title to include "gay rights" rather than "homosexual rights"; Google news search shows that this is used far more often in articles that include "Catholic Charities". --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too found the section previously titled "Same-sex marriage and gay rights issues" raising questions of undue weight, with a full three subsections devoted to policies of a social service agency and hardly a word in the entire article about the services provided. If "the last section was all about homosexuals but not all about adoption" as a recent edit comment indicates, that's because that was how it was written. Manya Brachaer covered this subject extensively for the Chicago Tribune, and it appears that the subject is a bit more nuanced. A careful reading of the many articles suggests that the issue in Illinois at the time, was a long-standing practice of not placing children with co-habiting non-married individuals, which issue became prominent in the spring of 2011 in light of Illinois' position on civil unions.
The caption "Policies regarding homosexuals" is no doubt accurate in an article about the agencies response to actions re adoption and foster care services that receive public funds. However, in a generic article about the umbrella agency, it suggests that there are policies re homosexual persons that are applicable throughout the agency, in every location, pertaining to every service. Surely, this cannot be the intent. I doubt that when distributing water and blankets at the scene of disasters, anyone inquires about sexual orientation. Nor, would I think it comes up at food banks, job training programs, nursing homes, or the HIV services offered by Rockville Centre and others. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have retitled it again; frankly, I had forgotten about this discussion of half a year back, and merely saw a section mislabeled. While I understand seeing the coverage of these issues as out of proportion, it is a major source of coverage of CC over the past twenty years. I think it would be unbalanced to say we cannot header policies in that blanket term because they are local events, when the services are also generally provided locally. The last section was not all about adoption because it covered the DC insurance issue, which was not about adoption. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Catholic Charities USA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Charities_USA&oldid=1198760915"