Much has been said lately of the massive amounts of government money going to Catholic Charities, and some are beginning to awaken to the grotesque salaries taken by their CEOs.”
In the 1951 film, “People Will Talk,” Dr. Noah Praetorius (an unconventional doctor, played by Cary Grant, who questions a medical industry that treats patients like machines) asks a colleague (Dr. Baker, played by Walter Slezak), “What is my business?” Dr. Baker responds with a rather conventional answer: “To diagnose the physical ailments of human beings and to cure them.” Dr. Praetorius immediately retorts that he is wrong, saying: “My business is to make sick people well. There’s a vast difference between curing an ailment and making a sick person well.”
This little dialogue (in what is truly a wonderful, pro-life movie) provides a philosophical question to the nature of the real purpose a doctor has in practicing medicine. The difference between “curing an ailment” and “making a sick person well” has less to do with methodology and everything to do with relationships. “Curing an ailment” places the focus on the ailment, whereas “making a sick person well” places the focus on the person, and in this post-modern world it is well and right to apply this difference to the question of charity.
Many organizations throughout the world claim to be “charities” or “charitable organizations,” and if you asked those who worked for them what their business is, they would respond with something akin to, “ending poverty,” or “relieving poverty,” or “ending the root causes of poverty.” As with Dr. Baker, such answers place the focus on the ailment, rather than the person. However, if one were to ask a Traditional member of a mendicant order what his or her business is, the response would be, “to serve the bodily needs of the poor while instructing them in the Faith in order to draw them to Christ.”
This little difference is subtle, and what it amounts to is a motive of love. When one is working to end an ailment, the motivation is the banner of a cause, whereas when one seeks to treat a person, the motivation is compassion and love. It’s easy to fight for a cause, while it is often difficult to love a person. Furthermore, when one fights for a cause, there are often expectations placed upon the outcome and remuneration for work done. On the other hand, when one is motivated by love to do some good, there are no expectations placed upon the outcome and remuneration is not only not expected but is rejected.
Simply put – love is characterized by the desire and pursuit of the good for someone else without any recourse to the self. Purchasing and handing out sandwiches to the hungry, giving away clothing to the naked, and providing shelter to the homeless without any sense of payment for these acts are all acts of love. Conversely, being paid to do these things is simply a job, and while there may be true compassion in the midst of the act, the material payment for the action merits little in Heaven. As our Lord said of those who perform righteous deeds so that others may see them, “they have received their reward.” And so, much the same is true of those who perform the works of charity for payment.
If those who perform works of charity for payment will have already received their rewards here on earth, and have not stored them up in Heaven, what of those who are actually getting rich in the name of service to the poor? Much has been said lately of the massive amounts of government money going to Catholic Charities, and some are beginning to awaken to the grotesque salaries taken by their CEOs. Here, we will examine ten Catholic Charities organizations, analyzing their reception of government grants, the salaries paid out, and the payments received by their CEOs.
Continue reading at the Lepanto Institute