|
Published: August 14, 2009
Sr. Carol Keehan
Catholic Health's $856,093 Nun
(Editor: The following comes from Jack Smith’s Catholic Key blog from the diocese of Kansas City.)
Thursday, August 6, 2009
 Since the election and during the buildup toward health care reform, Sister Carol Keehan and the Catholic Health Association she leads have come up for sharp criticism from prolife advocates. For her public support of the president's pro-abortion appointees to her campaign to enact health care reform now, she is accused of being at odds with the USCCB and the prolife cause, both of which have serious reservations about current health care proposals.
Part of this uproar is due to confusion over the nature of the Catholic Health Association and Sister Carol's role.
CHA is not a repository of Catholic social teaching with regard to health care or an association of moral theologians or a charity in service of the poor. It is a trade association. There is nothing wrong with a trade association, but too many reporters, including members of the Catholic press, have sought comment from CHA without recognizing they are primarily an organization with a vested financial interest in the outcome of the health care debate.
CHA does not represent patients or the poor. Their board is composed of, and Sister Carol represents, the very highly compensated chief executives of large health care conglomerates throughout the country. Lay-led corporations such as San Francisco-based Catholic Healthcare West and St. Louis-based Ascension Health run dozens of hospitals across numerous states which at one time were directly operated by religious orders.
The executives at these companies are compensated as you'd expect the heads of large corporations to be compensated. In the last year figures are available, the head of Ascension Health made $1,756,790 plus $599,744 in deferred compensation and benefits. Catholic Health East's top exec made $1,185,000 plus $693,000 in deferred compensation and benefits. Both execs are on the board of CHA, where they are joined by numerous execs from similar health systems.
But the biggest fish is Lloyd Dean, former Chair and current Speaker of Membership Assembly on the board of trustees at CHA. Dean is head of Catholic Healthcare West with 41 hospitals and clinics in California, Nevada and Arizona.
In 2006, the last year figures are available, Dean made $4,001,892 and the Chronicle of Philanthropy named him the second highest paid non-profit executive in the United States. Dean's compensation, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, is based in part on "improvements in the organization's finances". As well it should be. Dean also has made gobs in his position on other boards, including Wells Fargo & Co. Dean is non-Catholic and a donor to both the DNC and the Obama campaign.
This is not to begrudge these executives their salaries. It is only to point out that it is their interest that Sister Carol serves. And she serves them very much as a peer.
Sister Carol is a former longtime health executive herself, and her compensation at Catholic Health Association is $856,093. This in an organization whose expenses are only $17,660,797. Three other employees at CHA each make more than $300,000.
You can compare that compensation with the total program expenses and top executive pay at other national non-profits:
World Vision Intl.
Expenses $1,497,032,856
Top Exec. $281,316
Food for the Poor
Expenses $1,037,301,081
Top Exec. $301,200
American Medical Association
Expenses $234,654,866
Top Exec. $696,521
American Bar Association
Expenses $171,780,689
Top Exec. $791,472
Catholic Health Association
Expenses $17,660,797
Top Exec. $856,093
Sister Carol does not keep her salary. It goes to her order. It's noted here to demonstrate that her compensation at CHA is much more in line with a trade association lobbyist than the head of a charity.
Reporters and news consumers should keep that in mind when soliciting CHA for comment on health care reform. Moral concerns are not their bottom line. The bottom line is.
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 5:28 AM By Central Valley
The bottom line is MONEY. Sister would be wlecomed into the diocese of Fresno by Bishop John T. Steinbock. MONEY first and foremost, faith second.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 7:33 AM By Charles O'Connell
This is similar to the "raison d'etre" for AARP. While it masquerades as a Seniors' organization, it is in reality an insurance industry shill. That fact alone explains its behavior in the Obama healthcare tumult: First going along publicly with the rest of the elite forces arrayed around the table (unions, pharmaceutical and insurance companies), as soon as AARP's cover was about to be blown by its "members" demanding that their interests Actually Be Represented !, it backed off and took the line that it opposes Obama. This historical moment has been carefully prepared for many years ahead of time. The elites have now made their decisions, and we slaves must obey.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 7:37 AM By JLS
That steroid look ... I wonder what her secret is.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 8:04 AM By Laurette Elsberry
Jack Smith is a good investigative reporter. You will not find this information in the National Catholic Reporter, or any average diocesan newspaper!......I wonder how many Sisters of Charity remain who share Sr. Carol Heehan's bounty.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 8:37 AM By The original Frank
When we read about the early Christians, do we trust Roman stories about the Christians or do we trust writings handed down by the Church Fathers themselves? Jack Smith has never even met Sister Keehan. So just who is it who accuses Sister "of being at odds with the USCCB and the prolife cause"? Why Jack Smith, of course! The USCCB has made no such accusations. Readers who want to read a more honest account written by someone who knows Sister Keehan will google "Why Would Anyone Attack Sister Carol Keehan?" and read the first search result, written by Micheal Sean Winters.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 8:39 AM By Abeca Christian
Why is a nun making this much money. I am in shock. There are so many poor and middle class families who need this money and this amount being paid to the top Exec. is just wrong.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 9:02 AM By The original Frank
Abeca C, you seem to have no clue what it means to be a Catholic nun! With so many poor and middle class families who need this money, why aren't you giving all YOUR income to the Daughters of Charity, as Sister Keehan does with each paycheck? Why haven't you forgone marriage and children so you can devote YOUR life to serving the poor? Even Jack Smith acknowledges "Sister Carol does not keep her salary." She could walk out of the DoC and live a lavish life on an executive salary, but she chooses every day to live a life of poverty.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 9:38 AM By d.b.wheeler
Thanks for the insightful information about the aarp, Mr. O'Connell. I never joined because of an instinctive distrust of their organization with no real knowledge of how it worked. Perhaps it's just as well Obama was elected as it has awakened our perceptions to all these hidden middens of corruption . We've all been too complacent while all these cheats and power brokers have been growing like cancer. (thinking of quasi Catholic universities, convents, politicians, etc., as well)
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 9:47 AM By Wynette Sills
Here in Sacramento, our local Mercy Catholic Hospital gives Hospital Privileges to known abortionists, even promoting them on the hospital website as "caring physicians" for pregnant women to select for their ob-gyn care! Unfortunately and very sadly, hospital administrators and our own Sacramento Diocese are fully aware of this tragedy, claiming that legally, there is nothing they can do to protect women and children from these abortionists, as long as the killings are done beyond the Catholic hospital property. We pray that our Church leaders will courageously defend LIFE, quickly rescinding Catholic Hospital Privileges from these known abortionists! We also pray that our Church will provide on-going education and adult catechesis for all hospital staff regarding the Sanctity of Human life, so that conversions may occur. I plead for our Shepherds to protect the flock, especially the most vulnerable, the unborn, the immigrant, the poor, the weak, the imperfect, and the aged, from this dangerous, ubiquitous culture of Death, now infiltrating even our Catholic health-care system!
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 10:25 AM By RR
JLS: Your comment @ 7:37 made my day(which today is my birthday). I laughed so hard my eyes watered and my stomach hurt!
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 10:43 AM By hopeful
I am stunned that you would allow a comment "that steroid look" to appear as a comment about Sister It is mean-spirited and serves no purpose. Read today's gospel "love one another"
Sometimes I am stunned at the meanness of these sharings.
By the way - the article was well-written
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 11:41 AM By John
At one time, nuns went into the caring fields of education and nursing in order to minister to the young and the inform. As more nuns embraced feminism rather than Catholicism, they went over to the dark side. Maybe Sr. Carol gives most of her money to pro-life causes???? No way.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 12:01 PM By Frank
The "original Frank" is back defending the indefensible, such as nuns being paid astronomical sums to promote health "reformation" (also costing bank-busting astronomical sums), in which there is more than a hint of what some have called "death panels" and government funding (directly or indirectly) of abortion. Sounds similar to his earlier defense of that notoriously active homosexual "Catholic" journalist who preaches his message about the "promised land" in San Francisco and London.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 1:43 PM By JLS
ToF, why do you take everything at face value if it purports to be rosy, but reject it if it is critical?
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 1:58 PM By Kathy
I don't think it is fair to cite her salary as the reason she is supporting Obama's health care. Couldn't someone also do the same with opponents to Obamacare? Turning the tables, some could cite Supreme Knight Karl Anderson's huge salary as a reason why he is so vocally opposed to Obama. He has more to lose afterall if the Catholic Church loses Her influence. Sr. Carol *may* be trying to protect her slarary, but I don't think it is fair or charitable to assume that unless there is more evidence. A bit more in depth jounalism is needed. These kind of articles get folks mad, but generally don't get them thinking reasonably.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 2:07 PM By John Feeney
Why worship God when worshiping money pays so well?
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 2:28 PM By JJ
"Sister Carol does not keep her salary. It goes to her order. It's noted here to demonstrate that her compensation at CHA is much more in line with a trade association lobbyist than the head of a charity. From news article.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 2:58 PM By Paxchristi3
Keehan and American Life League's president, Judie Brown, will debate Obamacare with Raymond Arroyo on EWTN at 5 p.m. tonight. It was Brown who exposed the scandal of CHA's support of the plan that, according to her, "includes a mandate for tax-subsidized abortion, euthanasia, contraception, rationed care and sex education. Where is social justice in that? Where is the mercy, love and compassion for the weakest in society?” I have to agree with Brown that Catholics simply cannot such an Obamanation. I look for Keehan to deliver her usual serpentine semantics.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 5:15 PM By Mark from PA
The top exec. of Food for the Poor makes $301,200. That sure buys a lot of food. I have given money to them but it looks like I need the money more than they do. People deserve a living wage but this is living off donations.
|
Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 9:17 PM By The original Frank
Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, Director of Communications for the USCCB, stated: "Sister Carol and the USCCB share and promote the pro-life position as they work for quality health care. Both want quality health care that covers all in the United States from conception to natural death, no matter where born or at what stage of life. Sister Carol and the USCCB are working together to keep in place current restrictions on abortion, abortion mandates and funding for abortion and to maintain conscience protection for individuals and institutions."
|
Posted Saturday, August 15, 2009 5:41 AM By Richard Flores
I have TWO problems here: How is a nun working for a non-religious company? How is this secular, greedy company labeled as "Catholic"? Once again, the church leadership fails to publicize false connections with the church! They need to openly acknowledge that there is NO connection with the church! This also addresses the REAL problem with health care, the execs are sucking up most of the money that should be spent on care! The execs are corrupt and are simply another form of organized crime! If the democrats did not continue to allow previously illegal cross-influence with boards, this type of thing would not be allowed! It is simply evil. We need to return to the old ways of restricting the inappropriate influence of corporate boards! They use all kinds of games to hide compensation and illegally inflate salaries! The net result is that their greed takes away from the money that is available for health care! The greedy get fat while to needy suffer!
|
Posted Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:02 AM By Grisha
The practice of religious who earn significant professional wages or fees donating them back to the order is commonplace. It should be noted that this doesn't apply to diocesan priests who don't take a vow of poverty. Sister isn't doing anything wrong.
|
Posted Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:15 AM By JLS
PA, ditto. Looks like we've got a small bit of common ground.
|
Posted Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:17 AM By JLS
Keenan will be no match for Judie Brown.
|
Posted Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:23 AM By The original Frank
Richard F: Regarding your two points, I'm not sure what you mean by a "non-religious company." CHA is the association of Catholic hospitals in the US; these hospitals are now run predominantly by lay administrators rather than the religious orders that founded them. I don't understand what makes CHA "greedy" or "corrupt" or non-Catholic. While I agree with you about excessive pay for executives relative to "ordinary" workers, I don't understand what you expect of Sister Carol. Do you expect her to be paid less than the other execs? Since she doesn't receive the money herself, that would reduce the money available to her community. Do you expect her not to work as an executive? That wouldn't be consistent with her giving her best to God. Do you expect CHA to cut its executive compensation across the board? I suspect that might impact the quality of lay managers who would make themselves available to the Catholic hospitals. I'm not aware of "old ways of restricting the inappropriate influence of corporate boards" that are no longer in force. Did you mean a mode of governance in which religious orders alone ran the hospitals? If anything, federal law is much more restrictive than it was 95 years ago when CHA was founded. I think your comments about corporate boards, compensation "committees," the pay disparity between the greedy and the needy are very much on point. I'm just unclear what you think Sister Carol's part in this is.
|
Posted Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:42 PM By Abeca Christian
Grisha your right, she isn't doing anything wrong. So it seems. I still think it is wrong for anyone to make that much money from an organization that is suppose to help the poor. The more money these executives are making, the more they are taking away from the cause. This helps me re-think where I put my donations at, and I definitely don't want to donate my hard earned money to organizations that help reap wealth to the top exec's, and take from the poor. I need that money too.
|
Posted Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:16 AM By Alfonso
At this time when our country and the west is threatened with an advancing culture of death how essential it is that all catholics remain united to the teaching of the Pope. Individual catholics and even priests and religious can be deceived but the magisterium can never be deceived. Cardinal Rigali WHO SPEAKS FOR THE USCCB said: "the present reform proposal is "seriously deficient". "Much needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an 'abortion rights' agenda or reversing long standing policies against federal funding and mandated coverage." The cardinal praised the STUPAK/PITTS AMENDMENT which prohibits federally funded government bodies from discriminating against providers and insurers who decline involvement in abortion. Both Sister Carol, Sister Walsh and all of us MUST follow the teaching church in the fight against abortion,and euthanasia. From what the Church has told us through a great shepherd Cardinal Rigali, I say the STUPAK/PITTS AMENDMENT would be an essential place to start.
|
Posted Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:15 AM By The original Frank
On defining "indefensible" in regard to the Aug 14 post by "Frank": "Indefensible" is these unwarranted attacks on a woman who has given 100 percent of a large salary to her community rather than spending it on herself (Mark 12:44, Luke 21:4). "Indefensible" is inventing or repeating the fiction of "death panels" and distracting the health care discussion from how we'll care for each other and spread the load of paying for it (John 21:15-19). "Indefensible" is losing sight of the underlying reasons why so many women chose abortion over motherhood, of ignoring the fact that harsh judgment violates Jesus word in the scriptures (Mat 7:1, Luk 6:37, John 8:15, John 12:47, Letter of James, 1Cor 4:3, Romans ch 2) "Indefensible" is straight people who focus their attention on the ungodliness of homosexual behavior rather than addressing their own faults (Mat 7:1-4, Luke 6:41-42).
|
Posted Monday, August 17, 2009 8:28 PM By Brian M.
One wonders what are these underlying (presumably acceptable) reasons implied by one of the posters here that a woman has for murdering the child in her womb. One wonders what the likes of Catherine of Siena or Teresa of Avila (or all the other nuns and female saints in history) who devoted their unpaid attentions to helping the poor and disadvantaged, while encouraging real reform in the Church, might think of the highly paid activities of this modern nun, who apes her over-paid secular peers. The Palinesque phrase "death panels" seems to have hit a nerve with many thoughful Americans, even if they are not aware that section 1233 of HR 3200 was written at the instigation of the "assisted suicide" Hemlock Society in its new disguise. Modernists seem to have great difficulty with the concept of judgement (for example, in the Particular and General Judgements), particularly when it is used to differentiate between the morally good and the morally evil; the latter they seem to "tolerate" with little effort. Surely, the Church is rightly judging when She looks at the homosexual act as intrinsically evil. And where did this strange word "straight" come from that one assumes is used to describe heterosexuals? If heterosexuals are referred to by people with an Orwellian cast of mind as "straight," do they also think of homosexuals as "crooked" ? And do they believe that "gays," with all their health problems, pandemic domestic violence, and sex-driven, narrowly constricted lives, should more accurately be described as "sads"? Ah, the contortions of the modernist when it comes to the plain old English language and the Bible.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:35 PM By The original Frank
Hello Brian: In my earlier post, I quoted Mat 7:1-4 and Luke 6:41-42 (and many more) because I take Jesus' command very seriously: "Do not judge." Christian scripture repeats this theme many times, and we could have fun listing all the chapters and verses. It's important not to misinterpret my obedience to Jesus as an inability to "differentiate between the morally good and the morally evil," since doing so could blind you to this important teaching. Not-judging must not be construed as not caring; it means keeping focus on my own spiritual issues, on the plank in my own eye rather than trying to remove specks from other people's eyes. Nor does not-judging deny the Church's authority to set standards of right from wrong for us. --||-- "Underlying reasons" must not be mis-read as making evil acceptable. Underlying reasons are root causes which must be addressed if we are to deal with the issue rather than casting judgment and in the blindness of that judgment failing to address life issues. In the specific example of abortion (an issue not brought up by me), underlying reasons include: Twisted sexuality coupled with harsh judgment and severe economic penalties for unwed motherhood, general denial that "there's a problem here," lack of prenatal health care, materialism, unrealistic attitudes and expectations around parenthood and responsibility... Name your own 'cause my 1500 characters are just about up.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:37 PM By Catherine
" original Frank" not only sounds like a Sola Scripturaist run amok and a user of vague and imprecise language (some of which borders on the Orwellian), but he also appears to have a very selective memory. On August 16, he wrote: " Indefensible is losing sight of the underlying reasons why so many women chose abortion over motherhood." On the 18th, he wrote: " In the specific example of abortion (an issue not brought up by me),..." Huh? As two Brooklyn Existentialists once wrote: "Go figger, reader.Street ridicule is indeed the enlightened reponse to bad (which are frequently inarticulately expressed) thoughts."
|
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:51 PM By Laurette Elsberry
Lloyd H. Dean, President and CEO of Catholic Healthcare West, a nonprofit hospital provider, provided a Special to The Sacramento Bee editorial "Dare to imagine better, cheaper care." which was largely a list of platitudes about the joy of having a universal nanny state health care system to track and direct our lives. That is the kind of healthcare system President Obama has been promoting.
That should be no surprise, CEO Lloyd Dean was an early fan of Obama, having given the maximum $2,300 to Democratic Party Presidential Candidate Barack Obama for America campaign on September 17, 2007, before any of the primary elections around the country and more than 13 months before the November 4, 2008 Presidential election. Dean also contributed to the Democratic National Committee.
Candidate Obama had already publicly promised abortion champion Planned Parenthood on television that the first thing he would do as President is to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) which would wipe out all restrictions on abortion in all the states.
With this record, why is Mr. Dean, who is not Catholic, the CEO of the largest Catholic hospital system in California and on the Board of Directors of the Catholic Health Association?
In 2006, the last year figures are available, Mr. Dean received $4,001,892 from non-profit Catholic Healthcare West, and the Chronicle of Philanthropy named him the second highest paid non-profit executive in the United States. Dean was also a director of Wells Fargo & Co and Premier, Inc.
It looks like Catholic Healthcare West and USA needs some serious reform and cost-cutting. Where is the preferential option for the poor?
|
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:35 PM By JLS
ToF, when you say, "Underlying reasons are root causes", this is only valid in a Freudian realm. And Freud never could absolve anyone from sin. The root cause of sin is the assent of the person's will to commit the sin. Temptation is not the cause of sin.
|
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:46 PM By Bud
Some CEO salary, what order does she belong to? "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" in San Francisco?
|
Posted Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:46 PM By The original Frank
Catherine: If you find my prose "vague and imprecise" it would help if you point out what's imprecise so we can make an effort to understand each other. May I suggest something like: "Frank, what do you mean by,..." Some feedback would surely help me learn more effective and clear self-expression. Doesn't it seem odd that you accuse me of over-reliance on Scripture, while JLS accuses me of relying on Freud? I think there's a lot of misunderstanding here.
|
Posted Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:48 PM By The original Frank
JLS: I agree with you that for an individual, "temptation is not the cause of sin." Yet Jesus instructs us to pray "...lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." When a fifth of all children conceived are at stake, doesn't this go beyond any one individual's resistance to temptation? The abortion rate among mothers living below the federal poverty level is more than four times that of middle and upper-income mothers. Isn't it more important to save babies than to rely on the willpower of mothers who are already under stress?
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|