CRS disputes LifeSiteNews Article

  • Thread starter Thread starter zab
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zab

Guest
newswire.crs.org/crs-disputes-lifesitenews-article/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=crs-disputes-lifesitenews-article

An article by LifeSiteNews caused a stir earlier this week by reporting that Catholic Relief Services contributed 5.3 million dollars to a charity (CARE) that funds contraceptive and abortion services. I was quite concerned about this being that we give a montly contribution to CRS. I emailed them through their website expressing my concern and told them that I would suspend my monthly contributions until they stopped sending money to CARE. I received a prompt reply stating much of what was written in the link above. After considering that CRS, being mindful and faithful to the teachings of the church, came to their decision after careful study and consultation with Dr. John Haas of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), I have decided to continue with our monthly contribution. I hope others who have been disturbed by the LifeSiteNews article will get all of the facts and think this through clearly before withholding further donations from a wonderful Catholic charity.
 
The $5.3 million in question was used by CARE for water and sanitation programs in four Central American countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua), for food and nutrition programs, as well as water and sanitation in Madagascar; and for food and nutrition programs in Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...
 
whtich means5.3 million was freed up in CARE’S coffers to use for other activities.CRS could have found another organization to dig wells.this is the same as giving money to planned parenthood to preform activities other than abortion,it frees money up to kill unborn babies.
 
I can understand the concern of whether or not CARE is using the funds for the projects that they were intended for. But I am satisfied with the response that CRS has given to this concern. I have no reason not to trust their decision.
 
april32010 said:
whtich means5.3 million was freed up in CARE’S coffers to use for other activities.CRS could have found another organization to dig wells.this is the same as giving money to planned parenthood to preform activities other than abortion,it frees money up to kill unborn babies.
Click to expand...
It depends, would these projects have gone forward without the grant? If yes then the money is essentially fungible and the grant immoral. If no, then the money was not fungible and the grant potentially moral. Since I don’t know the answer to that question I withhold judgment at this time.
 
zab said:
The $5.3 million in question was used by CARE for water and sanitation programs in four Central American countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua), for food and nutrition programs, as well as water and sanitation in Madagascar; and for food and nutrition programs in Zimbabwe
Click to expand...
How does Dr John Haas know the money that is donated from Catholic Relief Services to CARE is not fungible and does not go in one pot?

Why have a risk in where the donations are going when Catholic Relief Services could donate only to charities that have record of not funding birth control or abortion? I would not donate to Catholic Relief Services because of risk, small or big, of that money going to another organisation that could fund birth control or abortion

Catholic Relief Services get millions from the Gates foundation which promotes abortion and contraception
 
_Abyssinia said:
How does Dr John Haas know the money that is donated from Catholic Relief Services to CARE is not fungible and does not go in one pot?

Why have a risk in where the donations are going when Catholic Relief Services could donate only to charities that have record of not funding birth control or abortion? I would not donate to Catholic Relief Services because of risk, small or big, of that money going to another organisation that could fund birth control or abortion

Catholic Relief Services get millions from the Gates foundation which promotes abortion and contraception
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that in order to help provide for the necessary programs for water and sanitation, food and nutrition, it is difficult to find such an organization that does everything all by themselves that is line with Church teaching. They must at times collaborate or form partnerships with other groups in order to provide the necessary assistance where there is great need. CRS has stated : CRS alwas has taken very seriously decisions we make about the groups with which we collaborate or form partnerships to ensure that we are not violating the Church teachings. We do not fund, support or participate in any programming or advocacy that is not in line with Church teaching, including artificial birth control. I may not like what the Gates foundation does regarding providing funds for artificial birth control and abortion services. But I don’t see why CRS should refuse to accept 21.8 million dollars from them that is designated* “to help small farmers in central and east Africa protect cassava- a critical source of food and income- from two spreading pandemics that are decimating as much as 70 percent of crop yields.” ***
 
Hi Zab…couldn’t have said it better myself, so I won’t. Many thanks for your clear explanation.
 
zab said:
I think the problem is that in order to help provide for the necessary programs for water and sanitation, food and nutrition, it is difficult to find such an organization that does everything all by themselves that is line with Church teaching. They must at times collaborate or form partnerships with other groups in order to provide the necessary assistance where there is great need. CRS has stated : CRS alwas has taken very seriously decisions we make about the groups with which we collaborate or form partnerships to ensure that we are not violating the Church teachings. We do not fund, support or participate in any programming or advocacy that is not in line with Church teaching, including artificial birth control. I may not like what the Gates foundation does regarding providing funds for artificial birth control and abortion services. But I don’t see why CRS should refuse to accept 21.8 million dollars from them that is designated* “to help small farmers in central and east Africa protect cassava- a critical source of food and income- from two spreading pandemics that are decimating as much as 70 percent of crop yields.” ***
Click to expand...
Do not agree. There are many charities that are providing water, food etc that are not funding abortion and contraception. Catholic Relief Services could choose to donate to those charities instead

Catholic Relief Services should say no to money from the Gates foundation as a matter of principal upon Catholic teaching. Catholic Relief Services is not struggling financially, their revenue was $918 million in 2009

crs.org/about/finance/pdf/AR_2010.pdf
 
_Abyssinia said:
Do not agree. There are many charities that are providing water, food etc that are not funding abortion and contraception. Catholic Relief Services could choose to donate to those charities instead

Catholic Relief Services should say no to money from the Gates foundation as a matter of principal upon Catholic teaching. Catholic Relief Services is not struggling financially, their revenue was $918 million in 2009

crs.org/about/finance/pdf/AR_2010.pdf
Click to expand...
I would like to know the names of those charites and to know if what they do is comparable to the contribution and work that CRS supplies. It is easy for me or anyone else to criticize without having engaged in deep study and evaluation of this subject as CRS has taken the consideration and time to do.
 
april32010 said:
lifesitenews.com/news/american-life-league-president-slams-catholic-relief-services-doublespeak i have thought it thru clearly,and i do not buy it.Dr. John Haas must not now what the word fungible means.how can giving 5 million plus not free up other funds in the organization ? that absurd!
Click to expand...
Fungible, smungible. Not all funds are fungible.This money was not. Many other grants are not. 5.3 million freed up to do abortion or contraceptive work? Where is the evidence that CARE increased immoral activities this much?

From the article:
  1. None of the funding from CRS was fungible. That is, there is little to no risk of the grant funds being used either (i) for purposes outside those outlined in the grant request or (ii) for freeing up money in the receiving organization for immoral purposes by virtue of their having received the grant from CRS.
Click to expand...
It is not that hard to write a grant that mandates an increase in moral activity (poverty relief) in the amount that is granted.
 
Fungible means flexible use for purposes of exchange: Cash is fungible, except when legal or other barriers exist, e.g., you cannot take your rent money and spend it on dope (or, in practice, on poisonous pills that promote promiscuity and pollute the planet). Successful grant requests lead to resources that must (legally/contractually) be devoted to the particular projects spelled out in the grant proposal, i.e., the recipient (e.g., CARE ) can’t legally move the money around at its whim.

You could, for example, have an entity that is devoted to two purposes, call them Φ and Ω. If all of the entity’s funding comes from grants, and they never get grants for activity Φ, they would not be able to do that activity, i.e., they would not be able to take money given to them to do Ω and spend it on Φ.

On the other hand, if CARE is devoted to two purposes/missions, call them Φ and Ω, and some of its money comes from grants that are flexible, and some does not, it would not be surprising to see that the amount of flexible funding spent on any one mission increased as the inflexible funding for the other mission increased. I hope that CRS and the bishops understand this, and look very closely at the specifics of this and similar situations.

Godspeed,

Don Roberto
†
 
_Abyssinia said:
Do not agree. There are many charities that are providing water, food etc that are not funding abortion and contraception. Catholic Relief Services could choose to donate to those charities instead

Catholic Relief Services should say no to money from the Gates foundation as a matter of principal upon Catholic teaching. Catholic Relief Services is not struggling financially, their revenue was $918 million in 2009

crs.org/about/finance/pdf/AR_2010.pdf
Click to expand...
By taking the Gates Foundation funds, that much less money is going towards immoral causes.
 
Don_Roberto said:
Fungible means flexible use for purposes of exchange: Cash is fungible, except when legal or other barriers exist, e.g., you cannot take your rent money and spend it on dope (or, in practice, on poisonous pills that promote promiscuity and pollute the planet). Successful grant requests lead to resources that must (legally/contractually) be devoted to the particular projects spelled out in the grant proposal, i.e., the recipient (e.g., CARE ) can’t legally move the money around at its whim.

You could, for example, have an entity that is devoted to two purposes, call them Φ and Ω. If all of the entity’s funding comes from grants, and they never get grants for activity Φ, they would not be able to do that activity, i.e., they would not be able to take money given to them to do Ω and spend it on Φ.

On the other hand, if CARE is devoted to two purposes/missions, call them Φ and Ω, and some of its money comes from grants that are flexible, and some does not, it would not be surprising to see that the amount of flexible funding spent on any one mission increased as the inflexible funding for the other mission increased. I hope that CRS and the bishops understand this, and look very closely at the specifics of this and similar situations.

Godspeed,

Don Roberto
†
Click to expand...
Thank you for your explanation. The last paragraph was especially helpful. 🙂
 
Don_Roberto said:
Fungible means flexible use for purposes of exchange: Cash is fungible, except when legal or other barriers exist, e.g., you cannot take your rent money and spend it on dope (or, in practice, on poisonous pills that promote promiscuity and pollute the planet). Successful grant requests lead to resources that must (legally/contractually) be devoted to the particular projects spelled out in the grant proposal, i.e., the recipient (e.g., CARE ) can’t legally move the money around at its whim.

You could, for example, have an entity that is devoted to two purposes, call them Φ and Ω. If all of the entity’s funding comes from grants, and they never get grants for activity Φ, they would not be able to do that activity, i.e., they would not be able to take money given to them to do Ω and spend it on Φ.

On the other hand, if CARE is devoted to two purposes/missions, call them Φ and Ω, and some of its money comes from grants that are flexible, and some does not, it would not be surprising to see that the amount of flexible funding spent on any one mission increased as the inflexible funding for the other mission increased. I hope that CRS and the bishops understand this, and look very closely at the specifics of this and similar situations.

Godspeed,

Don Roberto
†
Click to expand...
thanks Don Roberto.well done.
 
zab said:
I would like to know the names of those charites and to know if what they do is comparable to the contribution and work that CRS supplies. It is easy for me or anyone else to criticize without having engaged in deep study and evaluation of this subject as CRS has taken the consideration and time to do.
Click to expand...
marysmeals.org

foodforthepoor.org

networkagainstmalaria.org

habitat.org

matercare.org

missionariesofthepoor.org

projectultrasound.org

hli.org

Bioethics charities

jp2sri.org

soundchoice.org

iacoccafoundation.org
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top