A
_Abyssinia
Guest
President of Human Life International Fr. Shenan Boquet disagrees with Dr John Haas, he says in the Lifesitenews article the money that goes to CARE is fungible
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
I think Don Robert has done a good job explaining this. I do not know who is right or wrong, I suspect the one closest to this would be right. I do not trust Life Site News as they have earned my distrust and I believe to have a major anti-catholic bias. I also would be slow to criticize without hard evidence. I have tried to find other sources, but they all link back to LSN.
Also, did anyone notice that the money they give is not the money you donate? It is federal funding. If anything, I would think that the attempt to write the grant for federal funds to be used in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching is worthy of praise.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Two people are saying different things about the fungibility of the money that goes to CARE. Catholic Relief Services reputation is now tarnished by this, when they did not have to take the risk, they could of donated to many charities where there is no risk of abortion or contraception funding
It is an awful excuse from Catholic Relief Services director Rivera that the money they give only is given to CARE projects that are in line with Catholic teaching. How does he know where the money is going, and it is wrong to give money to an organisation that is hostile to anti abortion legislation and promotes contraception even if there is proof the money they give only goes to projects that are in order with Catholic teaching
Z
zab
Guest
One thing is for sure, the reports on this topic that have come through LifeSiteNews as well as another controversial Catholic internet site have caused a great stir. I think it is awful that if the scathing reports that we have been hearing turn out to be misleading but result in a huge decline in donations given to a good Catholic charity. If it is true that this has caused a stir even in the Vatican, as reported from one scathing report, then the Vatican should make some comment about it. It comes down to who you believe, who you trust. I choose to continue giving my donations to CRS until the Vatican has a say in this matter.
T
Tigg
Guest
What do the letters CARE stand for? With an actual name, it would be easier to verify if the blogs are correct in saying that they also lobby for abortion.
P
pnewton
Guest
Cooperative for Assistance and Relief EverywhereWhat do the letters CARE stand for? With an actual name, it would be easier to verify if the blogs are correct in saying that they also lobby for abortion.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Why is the Lifesitenews report misleading? Catholic Relief Services do donate to CARE, CARE do promote contraception and are hostile to anti abortion legislation. As to whether the money Catholic Relief Services donates to CARE is used for promoting contraception their are different opinions
A
april32010
Guest
because lifesite is pure EVIL
A
april32010
Guest
Biiii
A
april32010
Guest
BECAUSE LIFESITE IS PURE EVIL
P
pnewton
Guest
Let me quote some of the language used in this news article.BECAUSE LIFESITE IS PURE EVIL
American Life League President slams Catholic Relief Service’s ‘doublespeak’
The Catholic Relief Services’ latest scandal…
… the CRS’ funding of CARE is “ghastly.”
Perhaps this is why even giant charities like Catholic Relief Services take steps to facilitate contraceptive use …
- After all, the American Catholic Church already has a history of teaching one thing while permitting another.*
Now, if we are going to talk about not being misleading, where is the rather significant point that the funds “donated” to CARE were *not *donations. They were federal funds that CRS received then gave to CARE, along with the grant instructions on what these funds would be used for.
If anything, this article reinforces my opinion of LSN as an editorial blog with an decidely anticatholic bent. I quoted the stuff that I find reflects this. Others may have more trust in LSN than I do, for whatever reason.
A
april32010
Guest
new thread on this topic forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9554424#post9554424 that is bringing up some new thoughts on the the subject.i am not sure of rules or better,manners of whether they should be merged.mod decision ?
Z
zab
Guest
First of all, I did not say that the LifeSiteNews article is misleading. CRS has said that the LifeSiteNews article published “inaccurate and incomplete information about our relationship with the humanitarian agency CARE…” newswire.crs.org/crs-disputes-lifesitenews-article/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=crs-disputes-lifesitenews-article What I did say, basically, was that** if **the article (and other reports) are misleading, then it could result in a severe decline in donations given to a worthy cause, and that would be an awful thing. It is not easy knowing all of the truth here. I have come to my decision not to withhold my further contributions to CRS because I have listened to both sides of this issue and the response from CRS to these scathing reports has made sense to me. I have not seen anything that convinces me that CRS is “making a deal with the devil” see Tigg post #24.
A
april32010
Guest
"But when LifeSiteNews contacted Dr. Haas he revealed a very different picture.
Dr. Haas told LifeSiteNews that when he reviewed the proposed donation to CARE it was “of grave concern to me.”
While Haas noted that the NCBC assessment did not dispute that CARE’s project was laudable nor that the monies were non-fungible, he opposed the grant because of the scandal it would cause. His main concern was the stridently pro-abortion stances taken by CARE’s president and CEO, Helene D. Gayle.
Reading from his submission to CRS, Dr. Haas said:
“On the anniversary of Roe v Wade in 2009 [Gayle] called on President Obama to rescind the Mexico City Policy and fund abortions abroad. She issued this call on the very day hundreds of thousands of pro-life demonstrators including many bishops called for the reversal of Roe v Wade. Her testimony and statement are both posted on the website of CARE.
“Even though the grants going to CARE are for very laudable and indeed life-saving initiatives, I believe that these very strong public positions taken by the President of CARE in complete opposition to the policies and positions of the US Catholic Conference of Bishops would certainly give rise to legitimate theological scandal if not confusion as to why the Bishops would fund such an organization.
“I think even some bishops would take exception to the grant to CARE if they were aware of the strong public advocacy of abortion and the positions at odds with those of the bishops.”
While the CRS release mentions the NCBC concern that scandal could be caused by the CARE grant, it fails to mention that Haas believed CARE should not be funded. The CRS release says only: “The NCBC found that there could be a risk of scandal over such partnerships if people become confused and wrongly assume that CRS was endorsing a partner’s position on other issues. To avoid any misunderstanding, such as the Lifesite news article, CRS worked with the Bishops and the NCBC to address this risk through internal and external communications on our work, and continues to do so.”
In the report to CRS, Haas added: “In my opinion because CARE is so well known and so high profile and because the advocacy of abortion has been so strong and public and in such opposition to the position of the bishops, scandal would be unavoidable.”
Haas was referring to the fact that while the US Bishops were advocating for the Mexico City Policy, CARE was publicly opposing it. The Mexico City Policy ensured agencies in receipt of US funding could not divert the money to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions. It was enacted in 1984 under Ronald Reagan, and has since been rescinded by Democratic administrations and reinstated by Republicans." gee,CRS left something out lifesitenews.com/news/john-haas-i-advised-catholic-relief-services-not-to-fund-care
Dr. Haas told LifeSiteNews that when he reviewed the proposed donation to CARE it was “of grave concern to me.”
While Haas noted that the NCBC assessment did not dispute that CARE’s project was laudable nor that the monies were non-fungible, he opposed the grant because of the scandal it would cause. His main concern was the stridently pro-abortion stances taken by CARE’s president and CEO, Helene D. Gayle.
Reading from his submission to CRS, Dr. Haas said:
“On the anniversary of Roe v Wade in 2009 [Gayle] called on President Obama to rescind the Mexico City Policy and fund abortions abroad. She issued this call on the very day hundreds of thousands of pro-life demonstrators including many bishops called for the reversal of Roe v Wade. Her testimony and statement are both posted on the website of CARE.
“Even though the grants going to CARE are for very laudable and indeed life-saving initiatives, I believe that these very strong public positions taken by the President of CARE in complete opposition to the policies and positions of the US Catholic Conference of Bishops would certainly give rise to legitimate theological scandal if not confusion as to why the Bishops would fund such an organization.
“I think even some bishops would take exception to the grant to CARE if they were aware of the strong public advocacy of abortion and the positions at odds with those of the bishops.”
While the CRS release mentions the NCBC concern that scandal could be caused by the CARE grant, it fails to mention that Haas believed CARE should not be funded. The CRS release says only: “The NCBC found that there could be a risk of scandal over such partnerships if people become confused and wrongly assume that CRS was endorsing a partner’s position on other issues. To avoid any misunderstanding, such as the Lifesite news article, CRS worked with the Bishops and the NCBC to address this risk through internal and external communications on our work, and continues to do so.”
In the report to CRS, Haas added: “In my opinion because CARE is so well known and so high profile and because the advocacy of abortion has been so strong and public and in such opposition to the position of the bishops, scandal would be unavoidable.”
Haas was referring to the fact that while the US Bishops were advocating for the Mexico City Policy, CARE was publicly opposing it. The Mexico City Policy ensured agencies in receipt of US funding could not divert the money to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions. It was enacted in 1984 under Ronald Reagan, and has since been rescinded by Democratic administrations and reinstated by Republicans." gee,CRS left something out lifesitenews.com/news/john-haas-i-advised-catholic-relief-services-not-to-fund-care
Z
zab
Guest
april32010;9564006http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/john-haas-i-advised-catholic-relief-services-not-to-fund-care [/quote said:
A
april32010
Guest
yes you could have John,you could have mentioned that John Hass had recommended not funding CARE.and the reasons why,you know full disclosure.not disassembling.
P
pnewton
Guest
Let me propose an analogy, that may or may not apply.
Let us say the local high school was promoting contraception and availability of abortion to its students. Now the local priest steps in to object. He insists that they promote abstinence education. The school says that they will not fund that, but that they will allow it if it is indepenently funded. Would that parish be commiting sin by donating money for abstinence eduation to the school just because the money we fungible? (that is, the school could have used its own funds).
Let us say the local high school was promoting contraception and availability of abortion to its students. Now the local priest steps in to object. He insists that they promote abstinence education. The school says that they will not fund that, but that they will allow it if it is indepenently funded. Would that parish be commiting sin by donating money for abstinence eduation to the school just because the money we fungible? (that is, the school could have used its own funds).
T
Tigg
Guest
Do we have a moral theologian on this thread?
I personally see no difference between this and the CCHD scandal exposed earlier in the year by the ALL 200+ page report that proved Catholic money could be used to promote evil. Did the USCCB exempt CRS from the organizational rules of their other arm which states that no grantee may participate in, or promote activities which contradicts Catholic moral teaching? Doesn’t this too, put the Church in proximate danger of formally cooperating with evil? I thought a moral good must give **no **appearance of evil. I would love to see the accounting of these flexible (or not) funds. Clearly CARE is committed to more than one goal - the other of which no Catholic can defend. What guaranty do the bishops have that any portion of this $5.3 is not blood money?
I personally see no difference between this and the CCHD scandal exposed earlier in the year by the ALL 200+ page report that proved Catholic money could be used to promote evil. Did the USCCB exempt CRS from the organizational rules of their other arm which states that no grantee may participate in, or promote activities which contradicts Catholic moral teaching? Doesn’t this too, put the Church in proximate danger of formally cooperating with evil? I thought a moral good must give **no **appearance of evil. I would love to see the accounting of these flexible (or not) funds. Clearly CARE is committed to more than one goal - the other of which no Catholic can defend. What guaranty do the bishops have that any portion of this $5.3 is not blood money?
- Status