Update to Madagascar/Catholic Relief Services Story

Yesterday we reported on the PRI Report which claimed to have documented instances in Madagascar where CRS employees were offering contraceptives and abortifacients to the people there. We also linked to a PRI report which had quotes from a number of Madagascar bishops and other clergy.

But today the Catholic News Agency reports that one of the bishops quoted in the PRI Report, Archbishop Désiré Tsarahazana of Toamasina, has "distanced himself" from claims made in the report. The CRS story begins:

"A Madagascar archbishop has distanced himself from controversial claims that Catholic Relief Services distributed contraceptive drugs and abortifacients in his country, affirming that the agency’s actions do not violate Catholic teaching.

The U.S. bishops’ conference reported Aug. 2 that Archbishop Désiré Tsarahazana of Toamasina voiced his 'strong support' for the relief agency and confirmed that CRS does not provide or facilitate access to contraceptive or abortion-causing drugs in the region.

The archbishop, who serves as president of the bishops’ conference of Madagascar, spoke by phone Friday with Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, U.S. bishops’ conference president, and CRS chairman of the board Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson.

According to the U.S. bishops’ conference, Archbishop Tsarahazana said that there had been 'some confusion in his archdiocese that was quickly resolved.' He said Catholic Relief Services acted according to Catholic teaching and does not provide or facilitate access to contraception or abortion, which Catholic teaching recognizes as sinful."

While good news if true, it leaves his original quotes, particularly the first one reproduced below, unexplained. The phrase "some confusion," which His Excellency uses, certainly requires clarification and elaboration. Who was confused? About what?

 Here's what His Excellency Désiré Tsarahazana was quoted as saying by PRI:

“Even in my own diocese! Without my knowledge,...they [CRS] were working on an artificial contraception project here,” said Archbishop Désiré Tsarahazana of Toamasina.

“I’m not sure why, and I don’t want to exaggerate, but maybe 70% of its staff, or even more – is not Catholic,” said Archbishop Tsarahazana. “They’re not Catholic… I do understand that about CRS’s commitments to the U.S. Government…but, the question that remains is: Why are there so few Catholics on CRS’s staff…that I don’t understand so well.”

Archbishop Tsarahazana said he had been head of the Archdiocese for over three years before he even knew where CRS’ office was. “Just this year CRS held a very big meeting here in town – a ‘capacity-building’ meeting or something, at a hotel here – and I heard about it only accidentally, when I was up in the [town] of Diego, and somebody told me about the meeting to be held [in my own town],” he said. “I was embarrassed; I didn’t know anything about it.”

And the CNA article still leaves unexplained the quotes in the PRI report from the other Madagascar Bishops and clergy..

"“Jesus is merciful, but he is not stupid;”

Love it, from Catholic News Agency:

"Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, Ill., is defending his decision to cease funding of an immigration organization after it declared support and encouragement for same-sex “marriage.”

The board of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights “broke faith with its member organizations when it publicly supported so called 'same-sex marriage,'” said Cardinal George in a July 29 statement.

“For its own political advantage, it introduced a matter extraneous to its own purpose and betrayed its own members, who were not consulted....

Of those who signed the letter, he said that because they are Catholic, they know that “in a few years, like each of us, they will stand before this same Christ to give an account of their stewardship.”

“Jesus is merciful, but he is not stupid;” he said, “he knows the difference between right and wrong. Manipulating both immigrants and the Church for political advantage is wrong.”

Madagascar Archbishop on Catholic Relief Services: "I threw them the hell out of my office"

We had followed but not yet commented on the accusations made by the Population Research Institute against Catholic Relief Services' work in Madagascar.

Over the past few days we had read the PRI report, which claimed to document specific instances of CRS employees pushing contraception and abortafacient drugs in Madagascar. Because the report was quite specific, we were waiting to see CRS's response.

On July 30, the CRS published a press release written by John Rivera with the headline:"CRS Refutes Inaccurate and Misleading Report from Population Research Institute." But that is boilerplate: the headline is not backed up in any way in the body of the release. Had they replaced "refutes" with "denies" that would have been more accurate, because nothing in the release refutes the PRI report at all. The release begins:

"Catholic Relief Services (CRS) is a pro-life organization dedicated to preserving the sacredness and dignity of human life from conception to natural death. Every aspect of our work is to help life flourish. We are resolute in our commitment to the Church and its teaching.

Population Research Institute (PRI) has alleged that CRS has used funding from American Catholics to distribute contraceptive and abortifacient drugs and devices in Madagascar. This allegation is simply false. As a pro-life organization, CRS programming does not include the promotion or distribution of artificial family planning or distribution of abortifacients in any country in which we work."

That's fair enough although not responsive. It would be a fine preamble if the rest of the release went on to address the incidents documented by PRI. The release continues:

"We are confused by the strong allegations coming from PRI regarding CRS programs, as we simply do not engage in such work. All current CRS grants in Madagascar clearly delineate what activities CRS will implement within its programming portfolio, and artificial family planning and abortifacients are most definitely not included in any of our programming grants. At the end of every grant, a full report of our activities is submitted to the grant agency. Our reports clearly indicate that CRS did not engage in the distribution of contraceptive or abortifacients drugs or devices."

Emphasis in original. That, too, is not responsive. If it is the policy of CRS is not to distribute contraceptives or abortifacients, of course it will not appear in the report.  The question is not: did it appear in the report? the question is: did it happen? In the next paragraph, Mr. Rivera writes:

"Yet in order to remain vigilant, we are reviewing the allegations to ensure that all CRS programming is consistent with the teaching of the Church. This review is ongoing, but this is what we have determined so far regarding PRI’s allegations:

"PRI reported it interviewed a program manager for USAID-SantéNet named Jean Patrick Bourahimou, who made statements about CRS and USAID’s work. However, CRS staff in Madagascar do not know this person, and the USAID Madagascar office reported that Jean Patrick Bourahimou is not a USAID employee and therefore could not make statements on USAID’s behalf about programming related to CRS and USAID. Mr. Bourahimou worked for the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), a contractor on the SanteNet2 project that PRI references."

So nowhere are Mr. Bourahimou's words "refuted" or even challenged. All that this portion of the CRS release does is say Mr. Bourahimou "is not a USAID employee and therefore could not make statements on USAID’s behalf about programming related to CRS and USAID." But that does not address the issue--it does not matter who exactly he is working for, the question is, was what he was saying in the PRI report true?

Mr. Rivera then writes:

"PRI also quotes two CRS staff, Nicolas Ragalison and Jean Ferlin Nambana, describing family planning activities. Both were short-term contractual employees who are no longer with CRS. Note that the two short-term contractual employees are native speakers of Malagasy and may have a low level of French-speaking ability. We are concerned that there may have been some misunderstandings during the interview if not conducted in their native language. We find their statements posted on the PRI website extremely odd since CRS simply does not engage in any artificial family planning activities. Still, we are looking into these reported statements very carefully and trying to reach these former employees." Emphasis added.

That they were "short-term contractual employees who are no longer with CRS" is utterly irrelevant.   Mr. Rivera then expresses concern that there may have been a language problem between the interviewer and Mr. Ragalison and Mr. Nambana. That is certainly possible. But the more important fact is that Mr. Rivera is stating that he has not spoken with the two, and that CRS is still looking into the reported statements. In other words, despite his claim to have "refuted" the PRI report, he simply does not know whether it is true or not.

_____________________________________________

Jump forward to today, and our headline "I threw them the hell out of my office," taken from a statement by Archbishop Odon Razanakolona of Antananarivo, Madagascar's capitol. On July 26, as the story began to unfold, CRS had issued a press release, with the title "CRS Responds to Concerns About Programs in Guinea and Madagascar." The release began:

"CRS works in many countries throughout the world to protect human life and human dignity. Within each of the countries where we work, we approach our mission of serving the poor and vulnerable very seriously. Committed to our Catholic identity, we review all organizations via a vetting process that begins with our local Bishops in-country."

But LifeSiteNews today covered PRI's latest report, which was the responses of at least two Madagascar Archbishops, plus a number of other clergy who have very serious problems with CRS's work in Madagascar. Please read the whole article. And here is the full quote from Archbishop Razanakolona, part of which we used as our headline:

"Archbishop Odon Razanakolona of Antananarivo, Madagascar’s capital, expressed concern over the Catholic agency’s apparently tight relationship with the U.S. government.

'One time, for ‘visibility’ purposes, they [CRS-Madagascar representatives] came in here [to my office] and asked me to put up this thing, this sign, with ‘USAID’ on it; to put it up behind my desk,' he said. 'I threw them the hell out of my office: ‘Take your sign and your money out of here. I don’t need it. I’ve lived in my poverty; leave me in my poverty.’ ”

We've been down this road with Catholic Charities, with the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, and with Development and Peace (Canada's version of the CRS). Denial, stonewalling, sometimes an admission of improper oversight when confronted with overwhelming evidence, then reform. 

The entire Church should be thanking groups like Reform CCHD Now the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, LifeSiteNews, and now PRI.

Contact info:

Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11, 00193 Roma, Italy
phone: (011) 39-06-6988-3357
phone: (011) 39-06-6988-3413
Fax: (011) 39-06-6988-3409
E-mail: cdf@cfaith.va

Find contact information for all U.S. Bishops here.

Holy Father Warns Catholic Charities: Sometimes Must Say NO to Partnerships

Patrick Crain writes in LifeSiteNews:

"ROME, Jan. 22, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI says Catholic agencies must sometimes refuse partnerships that would even indirectly support activities opposed to the Christian view of the human person.

'We must exercise a critical vigilance and at times refuse funding and collaborations that, directly or indirectly, favour actions or projects that are at odds with Christian anthropology,' the Pope stressed in a Jan. 19th address to the Pontifical Council Cor Unum and its president, Cardinal Robert Sarah, in excerpts released by the Vatican Information Service.

The remarks come only a month after the Pope’s surprise release of a formal legislative document, known as a Motu Proprio, stipulating that Catholic charitable organizations must fully comply with Catholic teaching.

His address on Saturday reiterated many of the points he made in the Motu Proprio, which came amidst growing concern from the Vatican over scandals at national agencies in the Church’s Caritas network that have been caught funding partners promoting legal abortion, contraceptives, and the normalization of homosexual activity."

The Holy Father Teaches It: Catholic Charities Must be Catholic!

God Bless our good Pope Benedict! He is asserting control over the out of control "Catholic" charitable organizations, many of which are really government organizations with "Catholic" in their names.

This is very important to us, because one of the original aims of this website was to call attention to, and to change, the horrific situation at Catholic Charities of San Francisco, where children were being given to adoptive homosexual couples.Newcomers can read about that at the Catholic Charities CYO page of our sister website Homosexual Activism in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

LifeSiteNews has the story:

Pro-life leaders praise Pope for ‘huge move’ of ordering Catholic Church charities to be Catholic

By John Henry Westen

WASHINGTON, December 4, 2012  “I’m elated beyond words.” “An early Christmas present.” “Deo gratsias!” “It is a welcome and huge move…” “One of the most important papal directives in the last half-century”. These were some of the reactions of pro-life leaders to Pope Benedict XVI’s directive called ‘On the service of charity’ released Saturday which mandated (ordered) that charitable activities undertaken by the Catholic Church never offend Catholic teaching.Kathleen Gilbert/LifeSitenews

In the directive, the Pope stated: “I order that everything I have laid down in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio be fully observed, notwithstanding anything to the contrary....”

And God bless the good folks at LifeSiteNews, who have been fighting this battle for years (particularly in regards to the Canadian "Development and Peace" group) in the face of ecclesiastical opposition.

LifeSiteNews Reveals More Abortion Ties at Catholic Relief Services

They are rotten. Stiff them when their second collection comes around. There are plenty of anti-poverty groups whose employees don't assault pro-lifers. From today's LifeSiteNews:

"WASHINGTON, D.C., August 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As Catholic Relief Services responds to criticisms over its partnerships with pro-abortion anti-poverty groups, LifeSiteNews has discovered that the aid organization also has a history of hiring employees with strong ties to pro-abortion and pro-contraception organizations.

One CRS employee lists the pro-abortion Pro-Choice Resources and Institute of Women and Ethnic Studies as former employers on her LinkedIn resume, while another was hired by the Catholic aid organization directly from the pro-abortion Population Services International.

Former CRS employee Charisse Glassman was convicted of assault after driving her car into a crowd of March for Life participants.

Another former employee was convicted of assault last fall after ramming her car into a crowd at the DC March for Life in January 2011 as the pro-lifers traversed a crosswalk.

The latter employee, Charisse Espy Glassman, was a Democrat candidate for the DC school board as well as a legislative assistant with CRS-Haiti. Despite assault charges, she remained at CRS until August 4th, 2011. In a statement on Facebook responding to queries, CRS said they had “operated on the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty.” A victim of the assault, who suffered two herniated disks, reported that Glassman had seemed to laugh as she drove into the crowd."

Read the whole story.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

"Proclaiming the Gospel is an Integral Part of Charitable Activity"

On July 15, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Cardinal President of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, discussed the proper role of the charitable arms of the Catholic Church. From his address:

"It is significant that even (c.1970) then Paul VI had identified the response to some of the misunderstandings that undermined the proper understanding of charity within the Church and that would unfortunately be confirmed in time: the witness to charity finds its measure in Christ. The search for justice does not fulfill the task of charity. Proclaiming the Gospel, which is not proselytism, is an integral part of charitable activity.....

"Confirming the divine dimension of charity, and therefore its connection to evangelization, does not mean disregarding human poverty. Rather, on the contrary, it indicates deeply searching within the needs of man, as Paul VI affirmed in his Encyclical, Populorum Progressio (n. 21). It means looking to the heart of his pain, loneliness and state of abandonment, to then announce to him, at that point, the presence of Christ who loves him. Benedict XVI also stated: 'Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God” (DCE n. 31). This too is the role of the Church and institutions of charity of the Church. I believe that this deep insight allows for the activities of the Church in this field to be so successful and so generally appreciated. For a society that often does not know Him, we can in this way allow others to concretely experience that God is Love and that He takes care of His children. Cor Unum carries out this mission through specific interventions in the name of the Holy Father, but above all by keeping the true meaning of the pastoral works of charity alive in the Church.'"

Bishop Robert Vasa to Santa Rosa!

Bishop Robert Vasa, 59, has been named co-adjutor bishop of the Diocese of Santa Rosa, immedietely to the north of us. This is good news.

The Santa Rosa Press-Democrat reports:

"Bishop Robert F. Vasa has been named to succeed Bishop Daniel F. Walsh as head of the Catholic Diocese of Santa Rosa.

Pope Benedict XVI made the appointment, making Vasa, 59, in line to become the sixth bishop of Santa Rosa. Vasa has been the bishop in Baker, Oregon since 2000.

“I am really delighted with the appointment,” Walsh said at a press conference Monday morning at the Santa Rosa chancery."

The diocese of Santa Rosa is geographically enormous--11,711 square miles with 170,000 Catholics. His Excellency is well known as an uncompromising defender of life and the Catholic faith. KTZV in Bend, Oregon reports:

“In more than a decade as spiritual leader of central and eastern Oregon’s Catholics, Bishop Vasa has gained a national following for efforts to uphold Catholic teaching in the face of what he considered threats and laxity from inside and outside the church,” the Sentinel reported.

“He had lay ministers sign an oath of fidelity of Catholic teaching and erased the Catholic identity of a Bend hospital where doctors performed sterilizations,” the newspaper said. “He criticized pro-choice Catholic politicians and once warned against a group of ‘schismatics’ that denied the Second Vatican Council.”

Deacon Keith Fournier writes in Catholic Online:

"He also does not back down from exposing infidelity in Catholic institutions under his Episcopal oversight. Last year he removed sponsorship of St. Charles Medical Center-Bend when the hospital refused to follow Catholic teaching on sterilization. He wrote, 'It is my responsibility to ensure the hospital is following Catholic principles both in name and in fact. It would be misleading for me to allow St. Charles Bend to be acknowledged as Catholic in name while I am certain that some important tenets of the Ethical and Religious Directives are no longer being observed.'"

Jim Graves has a very informative interview with His Excellency in the Catholic World Report.

Very good news on this Pro-Life weekend!

Good Bishop Soto to lead CCHD

Let's pray for him. Bishop Soto is a great champion of the unborn (leading a vigil and procession to a Sacramento abortion business). He's also a great defender of natural marriage and strong teacher of the (he articulated the Church's teaching on marriage, sexuality and the sinfulness of "homosexual" acts at the 2008 National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries conference, to a hostile response).

We hope he can ensure that all the grant monies distributed by the CCHD go to organizations that share his stand. The problem is, of, course, that that may require denying monies to groups that do good work in other areas.

We'll pray for the Bishop, and hope the necessary changes are made at the CCHD. For our past posts on the CCHD, go here.

The Story of Rey Flores & Why I Won't be Giving to the CCHD Second Collection

Rey Flores’ story is remarkable. In November 2009, at the height of the CCHD funding scandal, Mr. Flores, as the incoming Program Director of Chicago’s Catholic Campaign for Human Development, joined in signing an open letter taking issue with those who had challenged CCHD’s funding practices. The letter contained some forceful passages:

"Recently, CCHD has come under attack from certain groups whose motivations and objectives are rooted in partisan politics, rather than faithfulness to Catholic teaching and concern for the poor. These groups have gone so far as to call for the elimination of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, making erroneous and inflammatory statements about the program, its supporters, and the projects it funds. Despite efforts on the part of the CCHD staff to reach out to these critics and respond to their concerns, anti-CCHD rhetoric has only become more fervent and hateful, and the time has come to rally in defense of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.”

The letter also referred to “the deceitful cries of these detractors, whose partisan agendas supersede their faith.” The intensity of the letter makes Mr. Flores subsequent actions all the more striking. Unfortunately for the uncritical supporters of the CCHD, but fortunately for the Church, Mr. Flores proved to be a man of good faith and a responsible director. He actually took the documentation provided by groups such as Reform CCHD Now and the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry (not to mention CCHD’s own guidelines) seriously, and discovered that they were not “allegations” at all but provable statements of fact. Flores went further. According to LifeSiteNews, he personally investigated a group called the Southwest Organizing Project (SWOP). SWOP received CCHD grants in 2008 and 2009. Among other things, the SWOP was implementing a school program called Elev8 at Marquette Elementary School. The Elev8 clinic provides sex education, distributes condoms and oral contraceptives, and refers for abortion. Access Community Health, which provides contraceptives to children without parental guidance, was chosen by SWOP to operate the clinic.

Flores acted. On November 12, 2010, LifeSiteNews reported: “When vetting SWOP, Flores called the health clinic at Marquette, posing as the father of a grade 7 student who might be pregnant. The nurse told him ‘in no uncertain terms’ that if his ‘daughter’ was pregnant, they could refer her to the nearest abortion provider. ..Otherwise they could get her ‘the pill’ if he wanted.” Armed with this information, Flores strongly opposed the continuation of any CCHD grants to SWOP. One would have thought that his diligence and proactive approach would have been applauded, but that turned out not to be the case. Over his objections, the group received a $45,000 CCHD grant for 2010. LifeSiteNews quoted Flores: “Despite strong recommendations against this funding and clear requests from the Chicago CCHD office that the national CCHD further investigate SWOP and its Elev8 activities, the national CCHD saw it fit to award the grant anyway.”

Mr. Flores is now the former director of the Chicago CCHD. Details of his firing or resignation have not been made public, but his position as director ended sometime in October. Despite this, he continues to believe in the work of the CCHD, but has also noted that "the lack of respect for the sanctity of life and the destruction of the necessary societal institutions of traditional marriage and family are the major reason for the moral, physical and spiritual poverty we suffer in the western world.”

Mr. Flores is an “on-the-ground” Catholic social activist, and he is not alone. On January 19, 2010 California Catholic Daily released a portion of an email from a former employee of the Mission Neighborhood Health Center (MNHC). The MHNC was the recipient of funding awarded at the behest of the San Francisco Organizing Project, a group that has received funding from the San Francisco CCHD, and is in partnership with the Archdiocese of San Francisco. The email said in part: “As a former employee of this agency I can affirm that they are doing referrals to Planned Parenthood. I could no longer tolerate these practices and I had to part ways with them…. What is sad is that the majority of Hispanic underserved and homeless patients are Roman Catholic and other Christian denominations opposed to abortion ….”

The author shared Flores’ moral clarity “There is absolutely no ‘good work’ which outweighs the sanctity of life. It is the holy intent of God the Father, creator and source of all life that his children with all their potential to cure the ills of this world be sent here to do his will.”

Both of these admirable and experienced men believe in the CCHD, but they also realized that there were groups funded by the CCHD whose activities were simply incompatible with the Catholic Church. When men such as these have to leave their jobs at the CCHD or at CCHD funded organizations, it's hard for me to believe that the CCHD is the best place for my donations.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

CCHD Lauds Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexuality Group in Document Promising to Distance Self from Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexuality Groups

They are beyond belief. On October 26, I commented on the CCHD's new guidelines:

"I sincerely hope the CCHD will get its house in order. But I will wait a year before I consider donating again."

Even I'm surprised that my skepticism would be justified so quickly. From today's LifeNews:

"The Reform CCHD Now (RCN) coalition, a collection of various pro-life groups with a Catholic mission, has released a report detailing multiple problems with the Coalition of Imokalee Workers (CIW). CIW is the featured in a document intended to outline the review and renewal of the CCHD program.

CIW has not been awarded another grant yet, but could be, and the coalition is complaining CCHD organizers have not yet released the 2010 grantee list, although they are proceeding with the collection. They are featured in the renewal document as a great example of the work of the CCHD.

Michael Hichborn, lead researcher for RCN member American Life League, told LifeNews.com today that CCHD officials are still not doing due diligence on grantees before assigning them funds from the fundraising campaign.

“The very idea that the CCHD would praise CIW in a document that apologizes for funding pro-abortion, pro-homosexual organizations in the past and promises to make a stronger effort to avoid doing so in the future undermines their credibility,” he said. “If CCHD can’t get it right at the beginning of this process, what confidence can we have that it will be able to do so later on.”

RCN’s report outlines in specific detail how CIW participated in the US Social Forum 2010; something the pro-life groups noted in June. The US Social Forum ran a collection of workshops, many of which were devoted to abortion and other political ideas that run counter to the teachings of the Catholic Church. RCN’s report also specifies three of CIW’s coalition and network partnerships are pro-abortion and have the mission of encouraging cross-issues advocacy of their members.

Rob Gasper, founder of RCN member Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, also commented on the Coalition of Imokalee Workers becoming a Catholic Campaign for Human Development grantee.

“The CIW’s participation with these groups directly violates the CCHD Renewal documents restriction on participating in coalitions which have positions or actions which contradict fundamental Catholic moral and social teaching,” he said. “The CCHD’s lack of oversight even in its renewal document underscores our concern and call for a delay in the national collection until the 2010 grants list is released.”

The CCHD's incompetence, if not worse, is truly amazing.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

CCHD Issues New Guidelines

Just in time for their nationwide November second collection (more on this below), the Catholic Campaign for Human Development has published new guidelines that will, hopefully, prevent the funding of groups who act in opposition to Catholic teaching. The new guidelines can be found in full here, the Executive Summary here.

#9 of the CCHD's new "Ten Commitments" includes:

"Ethical Guidance – No group that advocates or acts in opposition to fundamental Catholic social and moral teaching is eligible for or will receive CCHD funding. CCHD is developing greater capacity for ethical guidance in applying Catholic moral teaching to matters of funding, collaboration, coalitions and relationships. This includes regular consultation with moral theologians and the use of a Review Board to advise bishops, CCHD and dioceses in disputed cases."

On the face of it, that would rule out, for example, the San Francisco Organizing Project's receiving grants from the CCHD. When the CCHD uses parishioner's money to fund a political action group (the SFOP) which uses its muscle to advocate (acquiring $200,000) for another group (the Mission Neighborhood Health Center) which offers "emergency contraception" to young women in its youth clinic, that is a clear violation of Commitment #9.

We mention the proximity of the document's publication to the CCHD's nationwide second collection because last year, in the week of the CCHD second collection, Catholic San Francisco published a long letter to the editor by Ms. Monica Landeros, associate director of the Office of Public Policy and Social Concern at the Archdiocese, in which she tried to defend the CCHD's funding of the SFOP:

"The San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) is a community organizing group that has always maintained a strong relationship with our office and the Archbishop. SFOP has not engaged in any activities contrary to Church teaching."

Stop. False. See above.

"Most recently, SFOP has worked to expand access to health care to children and low-income communities. SFOP is fully aware of the Catholic Church’s position on health care, and they in no way support or endorse funding for abortion or any other life issue that would be contrary to the Church’s teaching."

Stop. False. See above.

The new guidelines cannot be dismissed out of hand, of course, but the previous guidelines should have prevented the SFOP from receiving funding from the CCHD, and they didn't. It's not the plan, but the execution. Commitment #9's reference to "moral theologians" does not cut much ice, either. It was moral theologians who advised His Excellency Archbishop Niederauer to allow the Catholic Charities/Family Builders by Adoptions disaster to go forward. As Monsignor William Smith, professor of moral theology at St. Joseph's Seminary, said at the time "Bishops could find a moral theologian to tell them that water runs uphill."

I sincerely hope the CCHD will get its house in order. But I will wait a year before I consider donating again.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

What to do about the CCHD?

Jude Huntz, Director of the Human Rights Office of the Diocese of Kansas City - St. Joseph, offers some suggestions. Excerpts below is from "The Catholic Key."

"In recent years the Catholic Campaign for Human Development has come under a great deal of scrutiny and criticism. CCHD had a relationship with the national organizing group ACORN that was problematic, and when a variety of problems were discovered with ACORN the national CCHD office took steps to defund the organization. Yet, the relationships with community organizing groups across the country have been the fundamental problem with many CCHD grants in all parts of the country...

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development offers two possible national grant opportunities: community organizing grants and economic development grants. In studying the various problems with CCHD grants nationally, we noticed that the problematic grants all fell under the community organizing area. These organizations have traditionally attempted to create a voice for populations that have historically had no voice in the political and economic decisions of society. This goal is laudable in itself, but as time progressed the nature of organizing evolved. Many organizing groups began to develop a partisan edge to their work. What is more, many organizing groups began to advocate for causes that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, most notably in the areas of abortion, same sex marriage, and health care reform."

Of course. I've described before how in my (and Fr. Malloy's) experience with a community organizing group the organizer refused to say what goals the created power structure would pursue, only that he wanted to create one. And, as Huntz says, what happens when the structures start pursuing goals contrary to the teaching of the church? You find out that you have funded your enemies.

Unfortunately, the two remaining groups being funded by the CCHD in the Archdiocese of San Francisco seem to fall into this category: the San Francisco Organizing Project certainly, and Nuestra Casa probably.

For a good counterpoint to the CCHD, visit the page of Fr. Robert Sirico, President of the Acton Institute, on Reclaiming the Culture.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

CCHD UPDATE: Two More Bishops Cancel Special Collections

The fallout from the irresponsible behavior on the part of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development continues. LifeSite News is reporting that Bishop Joseph Adamec of the diocese of Altoona-Johnstown will discontinue the CCHD collection in the fall of 2009. The CCHD collection will be replaced with one for the local Catholic Charities. Archdiocesan spokesman Tony DeGol said that the Bishops decision has nothing to with the ongoing scandal of CCHD's funding of groups which violate its own funding guidelines by opposing Church teaching, particularly on abortion, contraception, and marriage.

Perhaps, but Bishop Kevin Rhodes of the Diocese of Harrisburg is also replacing the CCHD collection with one titled "Matthew 25," which will benefit the poor in the diocese. Peter Biasucci, Assistant Director of the diocesan Catholic Charities' said, regarding the switch“I think that there were some issues regarding the ability to control some of the national grants and the applications.”

Yes, indeed. At least 10 dioceses have now discontinued the CCHD collection.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also reported that Bishop David Zubik, who sits on the committee overseeing the CCHD, had prepared a preliminary report (not yet released to the public) which was sent last month to the U.S. bishops' administrative committee. The report said that the campaign needs to "clarify its Catholic identity and principles and clearly tell applicants what types of activity recipients cannot engage in."

The Post-Gazette said they had obtained the report "from a source outside of the Pittsburgh diocese."

This is good news, but we note that two of the cases where funding has been pulled took place right here in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. We also note that the CCHD continues to provide grant money to the San Francisco Organizing Project, an entitiy which, we contend, continues to be in violation of the CCHD's own funding guidelines. Our previous posts on this issue are here.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

CCHD, Show Some Gratitude

The CCHD ought to be thanking the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry (BVM), et al, for their work in exposing some of the groups that the CCHD was improperly funding with parishioners money.

The latest unworthy grantee to be defunded is Homeless Voices for Justice (HVJ), an advocacy program run by Portland-based Preble Street. Preble Street has been funded by the CCHD for 13 years. LifeSiteNews reports:

"Homeless Voices for Justice (HVJ), an advocacy program run by Portland-based Preble Street, had received funding from the CCHD for 13 years. But Preble Street joined a “No on 1” coalition in the fall, which fought to uphold the state's recognition of same-sex “marriage.” Maine voters overturned the law on November 3, but Preble Street's support for it prompted the Portland diocese and Bishop Richard Malone to revoke their $2,400 grant in December.

"We regret the collaboration must end at this time," wrote Sandra Thompson of Catholic Charities Maine, according to Portland Press Herald. "Accountability to the Catholic community requires this."

CCHD national director Ralph McCloud then wrote to the group on January 27th, advising them they had disqualified themselves from CCHD grants and would not receive the remaining half of this year's $30,000 grant. McCloud also asked them to return any unspent funds from the first $15,000, though he was later informed that there weren't any."

The BVM alerted the CCHD to potential problems with Preble Street back in November 2009. They informed the CCHD that Preble Street was offering "family planning services" through a shelter. Rob Gasper of the BVM requested that the CCHD investigate the group to determine if Preble Street met the CCHD's funding criteria. It turns out they did not.

It would be proper for the officials at the CCHD to thank the BVM for doing what is the CCHD's job, but I would be surprised.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

"Main Problem for CCHD--Community Organizing Involves Lying"

Must read column today from Jack Smith at "The Catholic Key", addressing one fundamental problem with the CCHD/USCCB's embrace of the "community organizing" model.

UPDATE: In his post, Jack tells about his experience with the Bay Area Organizing Committee. Fr. Malloy and I both have had experience with the BAOC, too, which we shared in a long post called "Shadow 'Churches'" on June 8, 2009. This excerpt from our post is relevant:

"But let’s suppose that in Connecticut, Bill #1098 had passed, and that the activists had succeeded in restructuring the administration of parishes in that state. Who would have taken over? Are there any power structures being developed in or around the Church who could have stepped in? A power structure is simply a group of persons organized for common action...

One of the recent developments in church life is the appearance of local “organizing committees” who work with groups of parishes. In the San Francisco Bay Area there are three: the “Bay Area Organizing Committee,” the “Marin Organizing Committee” and the “North Bay Sponsoring Committee.” In Los Angeles the organization is called “One LA.” They exist all over the country, including Connecticut.

They charge a fee, not small, for a parish to join. As it happens, I have some experience with one such group. In 2000, my parish signed up with the Bay Area Organizing Committee. We held some meetings. I, and a lot of the more active parishioners, were invited. I asked the leader of the BAOC what we were going to try and accomplish. The answer was that we were going to join together for common action. But for what aim? I asked. He responded that we were going to try and build an organization that would work on issues affecting the community. In other words, I got no answer. (Read this page from the “One LA” website to see what I mean.) This left me suspicious. Anyway, our relationship with the BAOC soon ended, because Fr. Malloy came in as Pastor the next year, and his idea was that the Catholic Church is all the organization you need.

What I did not know back in 2000, but I know now, is that every one of these "organizating committees" are all part of the Industrial Areas Foundation, an umbrella organization founded by the famous community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Certainly, some of the things the IAF pushes may be good, but so what? Remember that homosexual activism at Catholic Charities was a result of the organization’s admirable response to the AIDS epidemic. That response was a good thing too, but it also resulted in the development of an alternative power structure within the Archdiocese that has been a disaster.

Those activists did not want the Church to go away--they wanted to use it for their own ends. They had allies in government who could pressure the Archdiocese in such a way so that the activists seemed to be the ones able to offer a way out--thus strengthening their position. They were working together. The IAF affiliates are even more dangerous, because they are about developing power structures pure and simple. And nobody has any idea what they will use their power for."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Recommendation for the CCHD

More scandal at the CCHD.

Lots of coverage of their current disaster: Bellermine Veritas Ministry, LifeSiteNews, American Life League, Real Catholic TV.

Inasmuch as their recurring claim is "we didn't know," there's an obvious solution: hire somebody who does know. Just put those guys from Bellarmine Veritas Ministry on the board that approves grants. Solve the problem in no time.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

SF Archdiocesan Paper Whitewashes SF's CCHD Scandal

The November 20 issue of Catholic San Francisco, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, has both an article about the CCHD's funding missteps and a long letter to the editor from Ms. Monica Landeros, associate director of the Office of Public Policy and Social Concern at the Archdiocese. The article is on the front page and Ms. Landeros letter is on page 12.

You will read the entire article and letter without learning that two of the most egregious examples of CCHD-funded groups are right here in San Francisco. You would also not learn from Catholic San Francisco that the two groups, the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association made national news. You would also not learn that the CCHD was forced to pull its grants from these groups only a few weeks ago. In fact, from reading Catholic San Francisco, you would never learn anything about the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association at all. They are not mentioned in any issue of the newspaper.

That's using a newspaper to try and hide news instead of publishing news. It's a foolish strategy in the age of the internet.

Ms. Landeros letter to the editor is even worse. She repeats the CCHD's "For the Record" talking points which have already been debunked, but we will gladly do so again. Ms. Landeros states:

"All grant applicants are thoroughly screened and funds are only provided to those groups and projects with objectives that are clearly in line with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. If evidence of non-compliance is discovered at any point during the term of an organization’s grant, they will be defunded immediately, and all monies will be returned to the Campaign."

Obvious question: if all groups are "thoroughly screened" how did the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Organization end up getting funding? And Ms. Landeros cannot simply blame the CCHD. The CCHD's guidelines, published on November 11, 2008, clearly state:

"CCHD’s current (emphasis in original) criteria and guidelines prohibit partisan activity and funding of any group that engages in activities contrary to Catholic moral teaching, whether or not those activities are funded by CCHD."

So someone at the Archdiocese did not do their job in properly vetting the Young Workers United and Chinese Progressive Association. Instead of writing a self-justifying letter, Ms. Landeros should be apologizing to the parishioners whose hard-earned money ended up going into the collection basket for such groups.

Ms. Landeros could say, well, we made a mistake. But she doesn't. Addressing the issue of unacceptable local groups receiving CCHD funding, she writes:

"Locally, the Campaign has been attacked for funding two of our organizations."

But wait. Are those organizations the two we have mentioned, which were defunded? No. Nowhere in her letter is there an apology for funding, or even a mention of, the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Organization. The two groups Ms. Landeros chooses to mention are one called "Nuestra Casa" and the San Francisco Organizing Project. And with her mention of the San Francisco Organizing Project Ms. Landeros goes into fantasy land:

"The San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) is a community organizing group that has always maintained a strong relationship with our office and the Archbishop. SFOP has not engaged in any activities contrary to Church teaching. Most recently, SFOP has worked to expand access to health care to children and low-income communities. SFOP is fully aware of the Catholic Church’s position on health care, and they in no way support or endorse funding for abortion or any other life issue that would be contrary to the Church’s teaching."

That's not only false, it's stupid, because the falsehood has already been exposed. We repeat that last sentence:

"SFOP is fully aware of the Catholic Church’s position on health care, and they in no way support or endorse funding for abortion or any other life issue that would be contrary to the Church’s teaching."

1) Simply visit the webpage of the San Francisco Organizing Project. It's "Healthcare" page boasts of "winning" $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center.

2) Now simply visit the "Youth Services" page of Mission Neighborhood Health Center. It boasts that its Teen Clinic offers "emergency contraception," which will sometimes be abortion, to young women. (Added bonus: follow the links to "Reliable Health Information" at the bottom of the "Youth Services" page).

3) Just in case anyone is a little slow, that means: yes, the SFOP does support funding for abortion and other life issues contrary to the Church's teaching. Not only do they support it, they delivered it.
_________________________________________________________

There were other letters on this issue sent to the editor of the CSF this week. None were published. I know this, because one of them was from me. Here it is:

"Editor:

On October 30, 2009, every parish in the United States was sent a letter by the US Catholic Bishops regarding HR 3962, the healthcare bill passed on November 7. The letter directly requested that priests and parishioners tell their representatives that unless the bill specifically removed funding for abortion, the bill must be opposed. The Bishops thus articulated a clear moral hierarchy--healthcare is good, but if the cost of healthcare is funding abortion, the evil outweighs the good.

Unfortunately, that same moral clarity is not being applied within Catholic institutions. On the weekend of November 21-22, the Archdiocese has mandated a second collection for the California Campaign for Human Development. For the past 5 years, right here in San Francisco, the CCHD has funded a group called the San Francisco Organizing Project. The website of the SFOP lists 20 Catholic Churches, and the Archdiocese itself, as either “organizing committees” or “partners.” The same SFOP website also boasts that it “won $200,000 for the “Mission Neighborhood Health Center.” Well, the MHNC offers “emergency contraception”-- which, depending on the circumstances, may in fact be abortion. The MNHC also offers referrals to other “reliable” health organizations, the first of which is called the “Center for Young Women’s Health,” whose “contraception” webpage directs young women to Planned Parenthood. Other referrals are to equally objectionable organizations.

The Archdiocese is obligated to apply the same clear moral standards to its own behavior that it applies to members of congress. Why then are they partnering with, and devoting parishioner’s money to, a group that supports “emergency contraception”? Why is the CCHD, which for five years has funded the SFOP, being allowed to take up a second collection from parishioners?"

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

A Response to the CCHD’s “For the Record” Report

The recent exposes of the funding missteps by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development have provoked the organization to issue a November 13 “For the Record” response. We reported on the CCHD’s funding problems in the Archdiocese of San Francisco on September 22 and November 11. In responding to the CCHD’s report, we confine ourselves to those instances we had previously covered.

We begin by quoting from the CCHD’s own funding guidelines, specified in the very first paragraph of the “For the Record” report:

“All grant applicants are carefully screened and funds are provided only to projects with objectives and actions that are fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. The local CCHD diocesan director and national grants staff evaluate every proposal. Every project recommended for funding requires endorsement by the local bishop.”

But it is obviously not true to say: “All grant applicants are carefully screened and funds are provided only to projects with objectives and actions that are fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.“ If that were true, the CCHD would not have to write on page 4 of the report:

“ALLEGATION: The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association, both of whom produced voter guides which took a position contrary to Church teaching.

FACT: After a joint investigation with the Archdiocese of San Francisco, CCHD determined both organizations in question had in fact produced voter guides that included positions contrary to Church teaching. CCHD immediately cancelled both grants, and both organizations returned all of the funding they received from CCHD.”

Here the CCHD is trying to spin the issue, and doing so in an embarrassingly inept manner. First, that the CCHD funded the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association, is not an “allegation,” it is fact, printed on the CCHD’s own 2009-10 “Grantees” page. Secondly, examine the “Fact” entry: “A joint investigation"? What they mean is, somebody from the CCHD or the Archdiocese of San Francisco looked at the groups’ websites. We did that “investigation” ourselves--it took about 90 seconds. But note that the CCHD admits it did fund groups not “fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church,” thus giving the lie to their statement in the report’s very first paragraph.

We all make mistakes. The point is to learn from them. Is there any sign the CCHD has done so? No. Examine the entry for the ongoing funding of the San Francisco Organizing Project on page 3. The CCHD justifies the ongoing funding with this non-sequiter:

“The Archdiocese of San Francisco strongly supports the work of the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) to expand access to health care to children. Both Archbishop Levada and Archbishop Niederauer have spoken at SFOP events; SFOP has met regularly with Archdiocesan staff to coordinate work on health care access and other issues that affect the poor and immigrant families.”

Consider: two groups funded based on a recommendation from the Archdiocese of San Francisco just had to have their grants pulled. And what does the CCHD use to justify its ongoing funding of the SFOP? A recommendation from the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Nobody is that stupid by accident.

But worse than that, the statement is deliberately deceptive. It does not even mention the reason why CCHD’s funding of the SFOP was newsworthy. It does not mention that the SFOP, funded by the CCHD, “won” $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center-- an organization which, right on its webpage, tells young women it will provide them with “emergency contraception.” Once again, the CCHD is violating its own funding guidelines.

Why such a transparent whitewash? Simple: The CCHD’s nationwide second collection is this weekend, and they want to squeak through.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney