Catholic Relief Services Scandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter MHichborn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MHichborn

Guest
Can someone please explain to me what possible justification CRS can have for being a dues-paying member and on the board of an organization that spends half of its budget on family-planning-related projects? And more to the point, can someone explain why CRS apparently vetted a document that heavily promotes condom use?

redstate.com/svkenney/2012/08/02/scandal-redux-catholic-relief-services-edition/

If this article is accurate, CRS is now guilty of the following:
  1. Using donation money to pay membership fees to an organization that spends half its budget on family-planning-related projects.
  2. Being on the board of an organization that spends half its budget on family-planning-related projects.
  3. Vetting a document that promotes condom use.
I don’t think the following statement rings true if the above is accurate.

“We do not fund, support or participate in any programming or advocacy that is not in line with Church teaching, including artificial birth control.” - John Rivera, CRS Communications Director
 
Not really. If you read the article, this isn’t about CRS’s funding of CARE, this is all bout CRS’s dues-paying membership … with oversight on the board of directors … of an organization that spends half its budget on family planning projects.

And what I would REALLY like to know is what possible justification there is for CRS to have vetted and allowed the publication of a document that so heavily promotes condom use.
 
First, all of this “news” is old hat, and I think the comments to the article in the NCR are by people who are trying to be more Catholic than the Catholics.
That being said, and living in the real world, I will put my trust in whatever our Bishops decide.
 
George, this looks like new information. I have not seen anything reported on CRS’s membership in CORE-Group before today. I am familiar with the story about CRS giving money to another organization named CARE, but this is different and looks worse.

I also trust the bishops, but I suspect in many cases they do not know the details of what some of their staff and organizations do.
 
Well Planned Parenthood International doesn’t seem to be a partner with CORE Group.
coregroup.org/our-network/partners
And it straight up lied when it claimed that half of their funding went to family planning and if you open the link and go to the chart all the way at the end it isn’t even close!

Maternal and Child Health $567,734
Nutrition and Food Security $514,496 -
Family Planning $87,499
Tuberculosis $49,252
Malaria - $89,004
Pandemic Influenza $18,793
Polio 14,7444
Match In-kind $1,300

None of the other resoures it sited as evidence promoted abortion contraception as family planning methods. There were articles that said in poorer countries it is best to space children out every three years but it didn’t recommend to contracept. Family planning doesn’t necessarily mean contraception and abortion like Planned Parenthood wants you to think it does.
AND AND AND
Life Stride is no friend to Catholics
 
In 2010 Pope Benedict conceded that there can be single cases in which the use of a condom may be justified like in the prevention of spreading HIV he added that this is not the true and proper way to defeat HIV. Instead what is necessary is the humanization of sexuality.
 
In 2010 Pope Benedict conceded that there can be single cases in which the use of a condom may be justified like in the prevention of spreading HIV he added that this is not the true and proper way to defeat HIV. Instead what is necessary is the humanization of sexuality.
no he did not.
 
and you do not need to tell me to go read it,i have.nuance much.
 
Well Planned Parenthood International doesn’t seem to be a partner with CORE Group.
coregroup.org/our-network/partners
And it straight up lied when it claimed that half of their funding went to family planning and if you open the link and go to the chart all the way at the end it isn’t even close!

Maternal and Child Health $567,734
Nutrition and Food Security $514,496 -
Family Planning $87,499
Tuberculosis $49,252
Malaria - $89,004
Pandemic Influenza $18,793
Polio 14,7444
Match In-kind $1,300

None of the other resoures it sited as evidence promoted abortion contraception as family planning methods. There were articles that said in poorer countries it is best to space children out every three years but it didn’t recommend to contracept. Family planning doesn’t necessarily mean contraception and abortion like Planned Parenthood wants you to think it does.
AND AND AND
Life Stride is no friend to Catholics
Re-read the article … the family planning bit is $87,499, but the article also illustrated how CORE Group integrated “family planning” into Maternal and Child Health, which came to $567,734. That’s a grand total of $655,233, which is just about half of the overall budget.

Also, if you read through the article and click through the links and browse the CORE Group’s website, you’ll find that they are all about modern contraception, which is directly against Catholic teaching.
 
CRS responded to the Life Site News article on it’s membership in the CORE Group: newswire.crs.org/crs-disputes-lifesitenews-article/

It’s funny that CRS actually didn’t refute any of the accusations, nor did they point out any inaccuracies. All CRS did was confirm that it is, in fact, a dues-paying member of the CORE Group, that the CORE Group does, in fact, push contraception, and then CRS attempts to justify CRS’s membership by pointing to the alleged good stuff they do through this membership.

However, it should be pointed out that CRS contradicts itself IN ITS OWN STATEMENT!

First of all, CRS attempts to deflect the truth of the matter by claiming the following regarding it’s membership in the CORE Group:

We see our membership in the CORE Group as a means of demonstrating our faithfulness to Church teaching. Some networks to which CRS belongs include members which do not uphold all tenets of Catholic teaching.We acknowledge our differences, air our disagreements on these issues and contribute our Catholic voice to the conversation.

Did you see the neat little slight of word? First it talks about its membership in the CORE Group, but then talks about how CRS belongs to some networks that include other members that promote immoral actions. THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM WITH MEMBERSHIP IN THE CORE GROUP!

What is at the heart of the problem is that the CORE Group ITSELF is promoting contraception, and CRS is a dues-paying member of IT!

But here’s the contradiction. Noted above, CRS admits that it is a member of the CORE Group. And we know that the CORE Group is promoting contraception. But at the end of the statement, CRS says:

As clearly stated on our website, “although some positions and practices of these institutions are not always consistent with the full range of Catholic teaching, CRS’ association with them is always and only focused on activities that are fully consistent with Catholic teaching. Furthermore, CRS neither facilitates, endorses nor enables any violation of those teachings.

This is patently FALSE! By paying dues to the CORE Group, CRS is INDEED “facilitating, enabling, and endorsing” the contraception-promotion that CORE Group does by fact of its membership dues, and the lending of its name as a board member and intimate relationships.
 
Re-read the article … the family planning bit is $87,499, but the article also illustrated how CORE Group integrated “family planning” into Maternal and Child Health, which came to $567,734. That’s a grand total of $655,233, which is just about half of the overall budget.

Also, if you read through the article and click through the links and browse the CORE Group’s website, you’ll find that they are all about modern contraception, which is directly against Catholic teaching.
Catholics have their own version of family planning and call it family planning as well. The term “Family Planning” doesn’t have to mean that abortion and contraception are the only ways to plan a family like the secular world makes you to believe it is.
 
Catholics have their own version of family planning and call it family planning as well. The term “Family Planning” doesn’t have to mean that abortion and contraception are the only ways to plan a family like the secular world makes you to believe it is.
When you read CORE Group’s documents, it is clear that they are talking about artificial contraception when they are talking about family planning.
 
no he did not.
Thank you for pointing this out for me to look into further and correct my post.

Let’s look at the Pope’s remarks and see what he actually said.

Seewald: . . . In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

Benedict: . . . In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. [EMPHASIS ADDED] Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

Note that the Pope’s overall argument is that condoms will not solve the problem of AIDS. In support of this, he makes several arguments:
  1. People can already get condoms, yet it clearly hasn’t solved the problem.
  2. The secular realm has proposed the ABC program, where a condom is used only if the first two, truly effective procedures (abstinence and fidelity) have been rejected. Thus even the secular ABC proposal recognizes that condoms are not the unique solution. They don’t work as well as abstinence and fidelity. The first two are better.
  3. The fixation on condom use represents a banalization (trivialization) of sexuality that turns the act from being one of love to one of selfishness. For sex to have the positive role it is meant to play, this trivialization of sex—and thus the fixation on condoms—needs to be resisted.
So that’s the background to the statement that the press seized on:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality. [EMPHASIS ADDED]

There are several things to note here: First, note that the Pope says that “there may be a basis in the case of some individuals,” not that there is a basis. This is the language of speculation. But what is the Pope speculating about? That condom use is morally justified? No, that’s not what he’s said: that there may be cases “where this [condom use] can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way to recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed.”

In other words, as Janet Smith puts it,

The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.

At least this is the most one can reasonably infer from the Pope’s remarks, which could be phrased more clearly (and I expect the Vatican will be issuing a clarification quite soon).

Second, note that the Pope immediately follows his statement regarding homosexual prostitutes using condoms with the statement, “But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

By “a humanization of sexuality,” the Pope means recognizing the truth about human sexuality—that it must be exercised in a loving, faithful way between a man and a woman united in matrimony. That is the real solution, not putting on a condom and engaging in promiscuous sex with those infected with a deadly virus.

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms#ixzz22VNnsWTd
 
mike,in the spirit of full disclosure could you tell us what is your affiliation is with ALL.i’m still pretty hot over jim rivera posting here without telling of his postion with crs.
 
mike,in the spirit of full disclosure could you tell us what is your affiliation is with ALL.i’m still pretty hot over john hass posting here without telling of his postion with crs.
Sure thing. I am the director of Defend the Faith for American Life League, and the host of the American Life League Report: www.all.org/youtube

Incidentally, my posting here is an expression of my own thoughts and do not necessarily constitute the thoughts or actions of American Life League.
 
thank you,but given the times of your posts it would appear they are during working hours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top