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

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

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, 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

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

Chicago Archdiocese Complains About CCHD Critics

Today Matt C. Abbot published a letter from the Archdiocese of Chicago Office of Peace and Justice and the Campaign for Human Development. The full letter can be found here. The authors (Rey Flores, Program Director, Catholic Campaign for Human Development; Nicole Wooldridge, Program Assistant, Catholic Campaign for Human Development; Nicholas Lund-Molfese, Director, Office for Peace and Justice; and Adrienne Curry, Program Director, Catholic Relief Services) object to the recent revelations about CCHD’s funding practices. The content of the letter, if that word can be used, can be summed up in this excerpt:

“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."

Putting the judgment of motives in the first clause of that sentence aside, we note that the letter itself has no substance--it is simply a complaint so vague as to be meaningless. “Certain groups"--but no one is named. The letter also describes objections to CCHD’s funding practices using the words “erroneous, inflammatory, deceitful, lies”--but no erroneous, inflammatory, deceitful, or lying statements are ever quoted. The letter is simply wind. Read it for yourself. As we will show, that’s quite a contrast to those of us who have been working on the CCHD story.

Let’s recap:

Our first article on CCHD funding appeared in the California Catholic Daily on September 22, 2009. On the same day, we covered the story on “A Shepherd’s Voice.” We had discovered, independently of the more comprehensive investigation by the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development had been funding two groups here in San Francisco who supported and engaged in activities contrary to the teaching of the church, and thus in violation of the CCHD’s own funding guidelines. Those groups were the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association. We named these groups, exactly described the objectionable activities in question, showed where they violated the CCHD’s own funding guidelines, and indicated to readers where they could examine the evidence themselves. We also PDF’d the original documents, and will be happy to send them to anyone who asks. Subsequent to our and the BVM’s report, the CCHD stopped funding these two groups.

The Bellarmine Veritas Ministry’s more comprehensive report uncovered other examples of CCHD funded groups engaged in activities in opposition to church teaching, and thus in violation of the CCHD’s own funding guidelines. There was nothing insubstantial about their work: they were not “making charges,” they were providing incontrovertible documentary evidence. Names, dates, activities. Nothing vague about it, anyone can check it.

This week, they uncovered another group right here in San Francisco, the PICO affiliated “San Francisco Organizing Project” which “won” $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, a group that provides “emergency contraception.” Following the BVM’s lead, on November 11, we covered the story in the California Catholic Daily, followed by a slightly longer version the same day in "A Shepherd's Voice." In addition to the information uncovered by the BVM, we had learned that the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, through their “reliable health information” page, directs young women to a site that recommends Planned Parenthood. We also showed that the MNHC’s “reliable health information” page also directs young people to websites thoroughly in conflict with Catholic teaching. Once again, we provided links, so that any reader could see the evidence themselves.

Quite a contrast to the letter from the Chicago Archdiocese.

h/t "Curt Jester"

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

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

Catholic Campaign for Human Development UPDATE

There are two stories online today about how the Catholic Campaign for Human Development is funding organizations that take positions contrary to Church teaching on abortion and same-sex "marriage." The CCHD will be allowed to hold a nationwide second collection the Sunday before Thanksgiving at nearly every parish in the United States.

One of the stories (disclosure--written by us) is in the California Catholic Daily, and the other by Patrick B. Craine is in LifeSiteNews.

We reported that in San Francisco the CCHD is funding two organizations (the Chinese Progressive Association and Young Workers United) who are on record as opposing Proposition 8. We also reported that the Young Workers United were on record as opposing Proposition 4, (which would have required the parent or guardian of an underage girl to be notified before she undergoes an abortion).

Mr. Craine's story reported that the Chinese Progressive Association was also on record as opposing Proposition 4. He also linked to a report prepared by the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry which documented other grants made by the CCHD to organizations which were in violation of their own funding guidelines. Those guidelines, created by a panel chaired by Bishop Roger Morin in the wake of the CCHD's ACORN funding scandal 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. These criteria are actively enforced and have led CCHD to deny funding to many groups and to quickly terminate any group that violates these prohibitions. The Bishops’ CCHD Subcommittee and staff are reviewing these existing CCHD’s policies, grant agreements, and other safeguards in order to reaffirm and strengthen our protections in areas of Church teaching, financial and organizational accountability, and partisan political activity.”

Obviously, those guidelines are not being enforced. And it's not as if the disqualifying information for these groups was hard to find. As we said in the California Catholic Daily article "...it is impossible to see how the application from Young Workers United made it through the levels of the Catholic Campaign scrutiny."

One look at the homepage of their website should have set off alarm bells, and the link to the voter guide recommending opposition to Propositions 4 and 8 was the first item on their "Social Justice" page.

For more info, and suggested actions, please visit the comprehensive "National Campaign: Addressing the CCHD" page on the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry's website.

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: Some Success!

The CCHD is pulling funding from the two objectionable San Francisco organizations we had reported on in Tuesday's California Catholic Daily.

From today's Catholic News Service:

"CCHD pulls funding from two agencies, investigates two others

By Dennis Sadowski
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The Catholic Campaign for Human Development has canceled grants to two organizations after learning about their involvement in activities contrary to church teaching and is studying the actions of two other groups.

Ralph McCloud, executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' anti-poverty program, told Catholic News Service Sept. 23 funding was canceled for two San Francisco-based organizations, the Chinese Progressive Association and Young Workers United.


Public service announcement from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. (CNS/CCHD)

The Chinese Progressive Association, which works to improve working conditions and advance social and economic justice for Chinese immigrants, was set to receive $30,000. Young Workers United, a coalition advocating for the rights of low-wage service-sector employees, was awarded a $25,000 grant during the 2009-10 funding cycle, according to CCHD records.

McCloud said the funding was canceled after he learned that both organizations had advocated that its members vote "no" in the November 2008 election on an amendment to the California state constitution that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In the same election, the workers group also urged San Francisco voters to adopt a citywide proposition that would have decriminalized prostitution."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

The CCHD, PICO, and the Archdiocese of San Francisco

A slightly shorter version of this article appeared in this morning's California Catholic Daily.

SF Archdiocesan Partner Raised Funds for Group Offering “Emergency Contraception"--"San Francisco Organizing Project” Also Hopes to Honor Nancy Pelosi

On October 30, 2009, every parish in the United States was sent a letter by the US Catholic Bishops in reference to HR 3962, the healthcare bill passed last Saturday by Congress. 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.

But that same clear moral distinction is not being applied within Catholic institutions. On September 3, 2009, California Catholic Daily reported on the infiltration of the Church by the “community organizing” group PICO and its affiliates. One PICO affiliate mentioned was the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP). At that time we noted “22 Catholic churches are listed on the website of the San Francisco Organizing Project, and the archdiocese is listed as ‘a partner.’”

In September, the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry revealed that a number of groups being funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development had acted in direct opposition to Church teaching--and thus to the CCHD’s own funding guidelines. The BVM report caused the CCHD to pull funding from some of these groups. Last week the BVM issued a new report. The new report revealed that one group still being funded by the CCHD, and which shouldn’t be, is the San Francisco Organizing Project: “This PICO affiliated grantee has been funded by the CCHD for at least five years for a variety of projects. However, they have given major support to health clinics which provide family planning and emergency contraception services to both adults and minors.”

The BVM report continued: “The SFOP lists several major accomplishments in the health care field including ‘Won $200,000 for Mission Neighborhood Health Center and Excelsior Clinic for Women and Children. Saved Excelsior Clinic and the public pharmacy at SF General Hospital.’”

The Mission Neighborhood Health Center’s webpage states: “Our Teen Clinic offers Sensitive Services that are FREE and CONFIDENTIAL for all young people of all genders from ages 12 to 21. Services offered cover sexual and reproductive health…” The services then listed include “emergency contraception” (which can be early-term abortion) and “general counseling and referrals.” What kind of referrals? The Mission Neighborhood Health Center provides a series of links to “reliable health information.” The very first link provided is to the “Center for Young Women’s Health,” whose “contraception” page directs young women to Planned Parenthood. Other links provided by the Mission Neighborhood Health Center include coolnurse.com (which hosts the sponsored link “Buy Condoms Online“), amplifyyourvoice.org (“’Law and Order’ episode about Dr. George Tiller insults his legacy“), and scarleteen.com (“Birth Control Bingo” and “The Bees and the Bees…a Homosexuality Primer for You“). The Mission Neighborhood Health Center also informs readers “If you are a young person over the age of 12, you can register for Teen Clinic services on your own, without the consent of an adult.”

The SFOP webpage also includes an announcement for their 2010 “Soul of the City” fundraiser. The announcement expresses the hope that the fundraiser will be held on February 21, but cautions “this date may change as we are working with Speaker Pelosi’s office to ensure her presence…” This past Saturday, Speaker Pelosi voted to include funding for abortion in the recently passed Congressional Healthcare bill--in direct opposition to the clear directive of the
bishops. The SFOP slideshow also features admiring pictures of openly homosexual San Francisco Supervisors Tom Ammiano and Bevan Dufty, both of whom voted for Resolution 168-06, which condemned the Catholic Church as hateful and discriminatory.

While some of the services provided by the SFOP may be good, some of the provisions in the recently passed Congressional health bill were good, too. That did not stop the bishops from saying that no matter how well-intentioned some of the provisions in the bill were, if the bill provided funding for abortion, it must be opposed. Why then, are Catholic churches, and a Catholic Archdiocese, duespaying members of the San Francisco Organizing Project, which boasts of raising $200,000 for an organization that provides “emergency contraception” and which refers young women (albeit at one remove) to Planned Parenthood? And why are the bishops pushing a nation-wide second collection this month for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which for five years, has funded the San Francisco Organizing Project?

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Four SF Parishes Sponsor CCHD Grantee Dinner

Event to Honor Nancy Pelosi

This Sunday, February 21, four San Francisco Catholic parishes, Corpus Christi, Mission Dolores, St. Patrick’s and St. Peter’s are sponsoring the San Francisco Organizing Project’s 2010 “Soul of the City” Dinner. The dinner will honor Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The San Francisco Organizing Project is one of the two remaining recipients of CCHD grant money in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, although its eligibility for CCHD funding is open to question. Two other organizations whose grant requests were approved by the Archdiocese of San Francisco have since had their funding pulled. Those two organizations were the Chinese Progressive Association and Young Workers United. Both lost funding after it was revealed they were promoting positions in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching. The eligibility of the San Francisco Organizing Project has been challenged ever since it was revealed that the SFOP won $200,000 worth of funding for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, a group which, according to their webpage and the testimony of a former employee, provides abortion referrals. Subsequent investigations revealed that the SFOP was instrumental in two San Francisco health initiatives that provided publicly funded abortion and contraception. Mr. George Wesolek, the CCHD Director for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, is on the honorary committee for the Pelosi dinner. The Honorary Committee is chaired by San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty.

While the usage of Catholic parishioners’ money to fund a group doing abortion referrals might have originally been excused on the grounds of ignorance, that excuse is no longer possible. And in fact it’s no longer being offered. The position of the Archdiocese is “yeah, we know they won money for a group doing abortion referrals, but we support them because they do other good stuff, too…” Still, it’s breathtaking to see parishioner’s money being used to sponsor a dinner honoring Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi’s championing of abortion is well known to every conscious American. According to Project VoteSmart: Pelosi was a 100% supporter of the interest of NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2001. Also, according to Project VoteSmart: Pelosi was a 100% supporter of the interest of Planned Parenthood in 2008, 2006, 2002, and 2001—but of course that just refers to her voting record. Voting is just a small part of Pelosi’s supporting the culture of death. But I guess the same argument applies: “yeah, we know she’s an absolute champion of abortion, but we support honoring her because she does other good stuff, too…”

On February 5 Jack Smith of “The Catholic Key” wrote a widely discussed column on the methods of community organizers and their penchant for claiming to speak for large numbers of people when they actually represent far smaller numbers. Mr. Smith specifically mentioned his experience with the SFOP during his time in San Francisco, and how they inflate their numbers in order to magnify their influence:


“…for instance, the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) claims to represent 40,000 San Franciscans through 30 different Catholic, Protestant and Jewish congregations. But only a very small number of parishioners from each of those congregations have had any involvement with SFOP. Many will have no idea that the organization exists and most would be surprised to know that, by virtue of their parish membership, they are among the 40,000 people who make up SFOP.”

I bet they’d be even more surprised to find out that their money is being spent to honor one of the greatest enemies of innocent life in American history, Nancy Pelosi.


Published by Gibbons J. Cooney

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.

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

SFOP Honoree Nancy Pelosi Flat-out Lies

On Sunday Nancy Pelosi was honored at the San Francisco Organizing Project's "Soul of the City" dinner. Sponsors of the dinner included four San Francisco Catholic parishes: Corpus Christi, Mission Dolores, St. Patrick, and St. Peter. The Archdiocese of San Francisco is a "partner" with the SFOP, and the Archdiocese is responsible for determining the SFOP's suitability to receive CCHD funding.

Nancy Pelosi today at the Health Care "summit":

"My colleague, Leader Boehner, the law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills and I don't want our listeners or viewers to get the wrong impression from what you said," Pelosi asserted.

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, responded:

"Speaker Pelosi has her own idiosyncratic dictionary, in which federal agencies can pay for abortion on demand without spending 'public funds' or 'taxpayer funds' for abortion," Johnson said. "In ordinary English, however, this is deceptive claptrap."

More at LifeNews.

On a happier note, the Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin is withholding funds from the CCHD this year.

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

About those "Moral Theologians"...

On Tuesday we commented on the CCHD's new funding guidelines, and indicated that we were not impressed by the fact that the CCHD honchos promised to have their funding choices vetted by "moral theologians."

Right on cue, Fr. Charles Curran and Fr. Thomas Resse prove that our concern is not misplaced.

Fr. Curran was giving a lecture at SMU called "The U.S. Catholic Bishops and Abortion Legislation: A Critique From Within the Church." From the Dallas Morning News:

Essentially, (Fr. Charles Curran) said, being in favor of a woman's right to choose is not the same as being pro-abortion.

"God has given human beings our free will. All of us will use free will at times to commit sin," he said. "But God does not advocate sinning."

Of course there is nothing in that argument that is not applicable to other forms of homicide, or to rape, or any other crime. The difference, now, is that the crime of abortion is legal.

Fr. Reese supported Fr. Curran:

"The Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at Woodstock Theological Center in Washington D.C., had a chance to read Curran's paper.

'His argument is within the mainstream of current thought by Catholic moral theologians,' Reese said. 'He makes a sophisticated and complex argument that Catholics can disagree over the prudence of various legal approaches to abortion while still holding that abortion is immoral.'"

Yes, it's all so sophisticated.

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.