This has been an ongoing battle. It didn’t start with public accusations, it started with research and information fed back to the CCHD about where the money was going, meaning what causes were supported by those dollars. It is undeniable that some grants were going to places that were inappropriate for Catholic dollars to go. The proof of this is that the CCHD recalled some grants and ceased funding to certain organizations. There was a hole somewhere in the vetting process, such that if that vetting process was sound, these organizations would never have received a dime.
The glaring problem is that these organizations who received the funds were openly advertising what they were doing. It was not a secret, and so obvious that a simple visit to the organizations website would immediately set off Catholic alarm bells. So it begs the questions, how were they vetted and by whom were they vetted?
This is where the CCHD song and dance routine comes in. Okay, they weren’t as careful as they should have been - we all make mistakes. Point is, when the mistake is clearly pointed out, there is an expectation that it will not be repeated. CCHD admitted their mistake and then went on to claim the process was being looked at for improvement so the mistakes wouldn’t happen again.
Have they? According to some sources, nothing at all has changed, it’s business as usual. CCHD has still not revealed what it’s vetting process is. Compare this with another large charitable organization - United Way. You can walk into any UW local office and ask to see how it was determined that X charitible organization got X amount of dollars. They will show you the paperwork with the names of the people who served on the decision board and the summary of their votes. Are we getting that from CCHD? Why not, are these things secret? What makes them secret?
Every one of these questions is valid, and a charitable organization that knows what it is doing and expects to raise money knows that. The more open they are, the more confidence they inspire. Conversely, the more secretive they are, the more they promise to fix what’s broken and continue making a mockery of their donors, the more they will suffer from low donations and lack of confidence.
Many years ago, investigations revealed that many charitable groups were using the donations to fund extravagant salaries, furnishings, travel, etc. After donations fell dramatically, they scrambled to reduce that amount to something acceptable and now it’s common for their literature to spell out what percent of donations go to overhead, and typically it’s 10% or less now.
As it regards any organization that funds activities contrary to the Catholic faith, there are really only 3 possible answers CCHD can give as regards grants made to them.
- They were given a grant and should not have been
- They were given a grant and did not spend any of the grant on activities contrary to the faith
- They were given a grant, made assurances the money would be spent in ways that did no go against the faith but lied and spent it that way regardless.
The first indicates a vetting problem. Since we can’t know who vets nor how, we are expected to take their word for it they vet properly. Hard to accept that when every year we see a list of places funded that should not have been.
The second brings up questions of separation of funds. If the recipient is an organization that, for example, sponsors teaching programs of abstinence as well as using birth control, and only the Catholic dollars fund the abstinence program, doesn’t it have the same effect as donating to the bc program, since it frees up other funds to bolster that program? No clear answer from CCHD on this question.
The third is something beyond the CCHD’s control, but it should serve as a warning to them, a kind of blacklist of people who deceitfully accepted funds and should be banned from receiving any more, at least for some time. Yet accusations abound of charities doing exactly this and still receiving funds year after year.
It’s not realistic to expect people to use their God-given reason to see the truth of the gospel, then NOT use that same reason to see the obvious problems with CCHD’s vetting process. When you add the element of secrecy and an unwillingness to be up front with information when disparities are pointed out, and you also add the element of sanctimony on the part of those in the decision making process who want to condemn the messenger rather than fix the broken message, it stinks!
CCHD could fix this overnight if they really wanted to or had nothing to hide. Open the vetting process and invite a couple of their largest critics to sit in on the process, active vote or not. Catholics, meanwhile, are faced with the problem of taking this highly secretive group on faith alone, or putting their charitable monies to work with someone they personally vet. One way, you have reasonable assurance your Catholic dollars go where you want them to go; the other is a roll of the dice.
Which way does reason tell you to go?
And just for the record, I don’t think the Bishops are actively participating in this, but they do own the responsibility for it. I believe they are delegating the legwork of this program to the people they pay to administer it, and it is they who are lacking and not giving the Bishops the truth when it comes to final approval. So I pray that the Bishops will respond to this flap by asking some tough questions and inspiring more faith by either their own further involvement or more openness.
