eChurch Blog

2 Responses to “Catholic Care’s latest appeal request is refused”

1. Roger Pearse Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 1:29 pm

   They need to get this case to Europe. It is very unlikely that the European Court of Human Rights will uphold this invidious attack on Christians, given that much of Europe is Catholic.

2. Peter Says:
   June 22nd, 2011 at 12:50 pm

   Why oh why, as Roger demonstrates above, is this seen as an attack on ‘Christians’? As I note on my own blog, this Leeds based charity receives the bulk of its income from the tax-payer (see for the actual accounts of the charity http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=513063&SubsidiaryNumber=0 and for my comment http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/05/leeds-catholic-care-debacle.html). This charity’s ‘voluntary’ income, i.e. that which it raises in donations, is 2.6% of its income; the bulk of its income comes from – surprise, surprise, when it comes to faith-based organisation – the taxpayer. (‘Charitable Activities’ is Charities’ Commission speak for ‘the services which the charity makes a charge for – usually it is the taxpayer who is charged.)

   You can’t have your cake and eat it, you can’t be so heavily reliant on secular income which results in a profile, scope of work and ‘social capital’ you couldn’t enjoy if you were just reliant on the Catholic faithful of Leeds to do the ‘do-gooding’ and then get picky about what bits of legislation you are going to accept and what you are going to reject. There is nothing to stop this organisation – as is the case with many other faith-based charities heavily reliant on government funding – going it alone. In this case its income would be £110K as opposed to its present £4.29M – but the charity is perfectly free to do this – it could become a not-for-profit company. Of course this would mean putting its money where its mouth is and having to rely on the Christian faithful to fund its services (tho’ it could also charge, those who are willing to use the service, tho’ we like ourselves to be ‘free’, forgetting someone (usually the taxpayer) actually meets the main cost). Curious how very few Christian (or other religions’) organisations want to do this. But there is, to my mind, a very simply reason why: many faith communities are happy to believe they are having a far greater impact and place in society than they would do if they were solely reliant on their own faith community to fund the service – or depend upon the public to directly pay for the organisation’s services. Though there are other reasons too.

   There are some organisations (http://www.prospects.org.uk/ for example) that are heavily reliant on government income yet only employ practicing Christians in their frontline services (tho’ as someone told me from Prospects, until the recession it was hard to find staff that fulfilled this criterion). The Law is quite happy for them to do this, which again demonstrates that there isn’t the ‘discrimination’ against Christians that some of our ‘victim mentality’ (here read ‘inverted pride’) brethren imagine (it is certain few of those most vocal about ‘discrimination’ of faith-based charities have ever worked for one – hence the temptation for imagination to supplant awkward facts…).

   There are others (e.g. the Jesus Army’s Jesus Centres, see http://www.jesuscentre.org.uk/london/ ) that have purposefully rejected government money and chosen to do that rare thing, enact Christian charity through their own community, asking for nothing from the State, staffing their centres with members of their own church/community and funding the work from their own pocket. In my view it is such projects that really fulfil the prophetic nature of Christian charity. Many of the faith-based organisations that are heavily reliant on the tax-payer and a paid, often with a bias towards a non-believing staff team (too few Christians like to work for low paid, in low status jobs!) exist as ‘charity by proxy’ for many faith communities. It is interesting to look at Leeds Catholic Care’s employment requirements: http://www.catholic-care.org.uk/jobs/ :

   “[Catholic Care] recognise and are committed to equal opportunities in our employment practices. Society policy is to make no distinction to potential or existing employees on the grounds of race, colour, and ethnic, nor on the grounds of religion, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability or physical appearance. We base selection and promotion decisions solely on the ability to meet the essential requirements of the post.”

   I hear some say ‘ah but it is the government that makes the organisation have this equal opportunities’ policy’. Yet Prospect’s Care (itself heavily reliant on government income) states:

   “Under Employer Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, Section 7), these posts have a Genuine Occupational Requirement to be a Christian. The successful applicant will be committed to the Mission ethos, aims and objectives of Prospects and will be able to demonstrate clear evidence of Christian commitment.” (see http://www.prospects.org.uk/index.php/getinvolved/5/6)

   So it is obvious that the accusation of ‘victimisation’ of a faith-based organisation isn’t really true, is it? It is probable Catholic Care, like many faith based organisations, just wouldn’t be able to employ enough Catholics wanting to work for the organisation who possessed the appropriate skills. Have a see for yourself – go onto the website of a faith based organisation, look up vacancies and again and again you’ll see many faith based organisations choose not to follow Prospects’ example of adopting ‘Employer Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, Section 7’ and instead go for adopting secular ‘equal opportunities’. Of course trustees, senior management and those all important ‘vice presidents’ you want named on your headed note paper, are often members of the faith community the charity is aligned with, but the hands on work can be carried out by anyone. Is it any wonder – how many Christians (or Jews, Muslims etc.) want to work for £6.50 an hour for wiping someone’s bottom or cleaning up a drunk’s vomit or facing and suffering abuse and even violence in the course of their work (yet this is a service the charity usually charges the state the full market rate – £350-750+ a week!)?

   So please, please can we stop this nonsense about ‘Christians being the poor victims’ of the wicked secular state. The state funds faith-based charities to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds a year (we’re into the billions, when it comes to faith schools). But is this really ‘faith in action’ – given the paucity of front line workers who are actually members of the faith – not to mention the fact the market rate is charged for the service; hence it isn’t really ‘charity’ in the sacramental or prophetic sense of the word associated with Christian philanthropic theology. Sure, many of these organisations do good work, but is it faith in action or charity by proxy?

   Whatever, the Leeds Catholic Care debacle is far more complicated than just a case of ‘Christians being discriminated against’. My advice, to all those whingers out there, is to club together, set up your own, private, not-for-profit adoption agency and you can adopt to who you like. But that is far more costly, in terms of commitment, time, money and personal involvement isn’t it? It also means getting your hands dirty – and as faith-based welfare demonstrates, it is far better to pay someone else, using someone else’s money (the taxpayer) to do this, than have the inconvenience of actually ‘doing’ charity oneself. It is far better to set up a direct debit, pay your £10 a month ‘guilt money’ and think you are doing your bit. Perhaps this is the main purpose of many faith based organisations?

   This is a rather cynical conclusion – and negates the VERY good work many of these organisations do. Yet as is often the case with cynicism, it could also be an uncomfortable truth. I would even argue that much professional charity (not just faith-based) is in fact little more these days than a product we can ‘buy’. We can fulfil our desire to help, we can feel we are a part of something, but we don’t have to get our hands dirty or give up our free time. The real question, that needs to be asked of such stories, like the Catholic adoption story, is what IS faith based welfare? What purpose is it REALLY fulfilling? Is it REALLY Christian to expect the taxpayer and organisations to fulfil what the Gospel asks me to do? Yet this is a difficult question and one that might – indeed will – have costly answers. So let’s shout ‘victimisation!’ and tell ourselves a lie we almost believe…

   P.