CRS to revise HIV-prevention document in response to news agency's concern [CWN]

[_Abyssinia]

We know CARE supports and promotes Artificial contraception. CRS does not.

CRS is giving money to CARE and that money could be used by CARE to promote contraception. President of Human Life International Fr Shenan Boquet says the money is fungible. It is an unnecessary risk when there are many other charities

 

[zab]

CRS is giving money to CARE and that money could be used by CARE to promote contraception. President of Human Life International Fr Shenan Boquet says the money is fungible. It is an unnecessary risk when there are many other charities

We are just going round and round in circles.

 

[MHichborn]

I don’t see a disparity. The CRS document that you linked to stated that “Where appropriate, Michael [a CRS consultant] also incorporated new ideas into the manual for the staff at the center to consider.” … “The final first draft of the manual was translated into Vietnamese by Mr. Bui Quoc Phong and was introduced to the staff of the Dong Tam Center as a resource manual.”

Way to cherry-pick the information, there ZAB. Why don’t you include the more pertinent information, such as this on page 8:

A number of people have helped with the writing and review of this manual including: Shannon Senefeld, Senior Technical Advisor for HIV, CRS Headquarters, Natalie Kruse-Levy, CRS Southeast Asia Regional HIV Technical Advisor; Prakash Nellepalli, HIV Technical Advisor, CRS Headquarters; Daphyne Williams, CRS HIV Technical Advisor; Devon Dunsmore, International Development Fellow with CRS Vietnam and Andrew Wells-Dang, CRS Vietnam Representative.

Or the fact that Michael Rosati was working with CRS employee Kristin Weinhauer in drafting the manual:

In coordination with the CRS HIV and Health Program Manager, Kristin Weinhauer, the first draft of this manual was drafted by Michael Rosati, a CRS consultant.

Or how about the fact that after the first draft was written, it was then handed off to CRS Vietnam:

At this time, the manual was handed off to the CRS Vietnam HIV and Health Program Manager

And that CRS Vietnam then handed it off to CRS HQ in Baltimore:

In spring 2009, the draft manual was reviewed by a CRS global technical review team coordinated through CRS headquarters

Who then handed it back to CRS Vietnam for final revisions:

It was handed back to CRS Vietnam for additional changes at this time. The final
first draft of the manual was translated into Vietnamese by Mr. Bui Quoc Phong and was introduced to the staff of the Dong Tam Center as a resource manual.

And that in the end, CRS Vietnam is the agency that made all the final reviews and revisions … never once handing the document back to the “outside consultant” Michael Rosati, as the CRS interview statement indicates:

The CRS Vietnam HIV and Health Program Manager and Program Coordinator conducted three week long sessions, one per month with the Dong Tam Center staff to review and revise each section of the manual. This was done both to finalize the manual as well as to provide a forum for staff at the center to conduct a thorough review of their operations. In cases where actual practice at the center differed from international best practices, the discrepancy was discussed and resolved by either changing the operations of the center or adjusting the operating procedures in the manual. Changes were reviewed in the next week session with staff and additional changes implemented or changed within the manual.

THAT is the disparity. This was not something that was completely conducted by some outside consultant who failed to implement CRS’ changes … that is a false claim. CRS was involved in the writing through Kristin Weinhauer, it was reviewed by CRS HQ, and it was revised and finalized by CRS Vietnam.

 

[zab]

Way to cherry-pick the information, there ZAB. Why don’t you include the more pertinent information, such as this on page 8:

Or the fact that Michael Rosati was working with CRS employee Kristin Weinhauer in drafting the manual:

Or how about the fact that after the first draft was written, it was then handed off to CRS Vietnam:

And that CRS Vietnam then handed it off to CRS HQ in Baltimore:

Who then handed it back to CRS Vietnam for final revisions:

And that in the end, CRS Vietnam is the agency that made all the final reviews and revisions … never once handing the document back to the “outside consultant” Michael Rosati, as the CRS interview statement indicates:

THAT is the disparity. This was not something that was completely conducted by some outside consultant who failed to implement CRS’ changes … that is a false claim. CRS was involved in the writing through Kristin Weinhauer, it was reviewed by CRS HQ, and it was revised and finalized by CRS Vietnam.

Any point that you are trying to make gets overshaddowed by your rude manner of addressing me. And if you treat me in this manner, it is predictable that you would treat others in this manner as well.

 

[MHichborn]

Any point that you are trying to make gets overshaddowed by your rude manner of addressing me. And if you treat me in this manner, it is predictable that you would treat others in this manner as well.

Well, I apologize if you thought I was being rude, that certainly was not my intent.

The term "cherry-picking" means “to select the best or most desirable.” In that sense, I was saying that the quote you selected out of the CRS document was the “most desirable” for you because it did not include any of the information regarding CRS involvement in the document itself.

But I digress … can you speak to the disparity between CRS’ claim that the condom-promoting document was written by an outside consultant who failed to implement CRS’ prescribed revisions and the explanation the document itself gives for CRS involvement in the creation of the document?

 

[zab]

Well, I apologize if you thought I was being rude, that certainly was not my intent.

The term "cherry-picking" means “to select the best or most desirable.” In that sense, I was saying that the quote you selected out of the CRS document was the “most desirable” for you because it did not include any of the information regarding CRS involvement in the document itself.

But I digress … can you speak to the disparity between CRS’ claim that the condom-promoting document was written by an outside consultant who failed to implement CRS’ prescribed revisions and the explanation the document itself gives for CRS involvement in the creation of the document?

I really don’t care to get into the knit-picky cross examination of trying to slam CRS because some instruction about condom use got put into the HIV prevention document. Not too long ago there was also some clarification that had to be made regarding the words of Pope Benedict XVI over what he said regarding the use of condoms. I believe CRS when they say that they do not fund, distribute or in any way promote the use of condoms (in particular for the use of artificial contraception) .

 

[zab]

I really don’t care to get into the knit-picky cross examination of trying to slam CRS because some instruction about condom use got put into the HIV prevention document. Not too long ago there was also some clarification that had to be made regarding the words of Pope Benedict XVI over what he said regarding the use of condoms. I believe CRS when they say that they do not fund, distribute or in any way promote the use of condoms (in particular for the use of artificial contraception) .

lol, I meant nit-picking

 

[MHichborn]

I believe CRS when they say that they do not fund, distribute or in any way promote the use of condoms (in particular for the use of artificial contraception) .

Just curious … since you believe CRS’ claim that it does not promote the use of condoms, how do you account for the (at least) 6 CRS documents in the Life Site News Article that promote condom use?

 

[zab]

Just curious … since you believe CRS’ claim that it does not promote the use of condoms, how do you account for the (at least) 6 CRS documents in the Life Site News Article that promote condom use?

I believe that I have already answered that. Whatever “promotion” there was had to do with AIDS prevention not promoting artificial contraception. I read an article or two where top Catholic officials from Africa stated that they did not believe that the use of condoms had any effect on the prevention of AIDS (I would assume that they based this on seeing some kind of statistics) and I believe this is the official position of the Church. However, we do have the comment from Benedict XVI which would suggest that it is possible to have a little understanding of the use of condoms with regards to AIDS as a “first step” in having a concern for protecting the life of another.
I would rather let Cor Unum, the Pontifical Council that the Church has established to oversee Catholic Charities to make the judgement on this matter. However, it does seem to me that CRS is listening to constructive criticism and does attempt to make changes when necessary.

 

[zab]

I believe that I have already answered that. Whatever “promotion” there was had to do with AIDS prevention not promoting artificial contraception. I read an article or two where top Catholic officials from Africa stated that they did not believe that the use of condoms had any effect on the prevention of AIDS (I assume they based their remarks on some kind of statistics). I also believe that this is the official position of the Church. However, we do have the comment from Benedict XVI which would suggest that it is possible to have a little understanding of the use of condoms with regards to AIDS as a “first step” in having a concern for protecting the life of another.
I would rather let Cor Unum, the Pontifical Council that the Church has established to oversee Catholic Charities to make the judgement on this matter. However, it does seem to me that CRS is listening to constructive criticism and does attempt to make changes when necessary.

 

[zab]

… can you speak to the disparity between CRS’ claim that the condom-promoting document was written by an outside consultant who failed to implement CRS’ prescribed revisions and the explanation the document itself gives for CRS involvement in the creation of the document?

From CRS:

CRS Resources and Materials
Over the past few years, CRS has produced thousands of documents related to our work, some of which tell our story for a general audience and many others of which are more technical and are aimed at a specialized professional audience. These are written by technical experts on our staff or consultants. All of these documents go through a review process, but sometimes mistakes slip by an editor reading hundreds of pages of text. When that happens, we want to hear about it and correct it. We were recently made aware of a document on HIV prevention among drug users in Vietnam that contained some unacceptable references to condoms. That document was taken out of circulation. To be thorough, we are reviewing all of our documents that mention condoms and have temporarily removed them from the website while we conduct this review to ensure that any additional mistakes are rectified immediately. Some of those documents, particularly those produced prior to the revision of our HIV guidelines last year, contain language related to condoms that was permitted at the time, but which is no longer permitted under revised guidelines developed with the USCCB in our ongoing effort to ensure that we are fully consistent with Church teaching. Under these guidelines, some CRS documents will continue to mention condoms: that is, they will give scientifically accurate information about condoms (including failure rates) as part of an explanation that abstinence and fidelity are the best methods for avoiding infection and preventing transmission of the virus. Find* responses to questions raised about specific documents*.