A
_Abyssinia
Guest
CARE promotes contraception, here is a screenshot of a document
http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/contraception_care2-640x457.jpg
CRS to revise HIV-prevention document in response to news agency's concern [CWN]
- Status
http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/contraception_care2-640x457.jpg
Z
zab
Guest
We know CARE supports and promotes Artificial contraception. CRS does not.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR NOTICE
Please stay on the topic of the original post
Please stay on the topic of the original post
M
MHichborn
Guest
CRS produced a document which specifically stated, “Do not forget to provide information on local condom provision."
No matter how you cut it, that is condom promotion!
You state that CRS does not support or promote artificial contraception, but in light of the existence of an official CRS document, produced by CRS staff, reviewed by CRS directors, and funded by CRS HQ in Baltimore … your claim is not factual!
What I want to know is, how does such a document that so blatantly promotes access to condoms get written by and pass through so many higher-level CRS staff and STILL get published to begin with?
To date, no one seems willing or able to answer that question.
Z
zab
Guest
They did and they are correcting it
See Post #1 Catholic Relief Services has announced that it is revising one of its documents on HIV prevention."CRS does not purchase, promote or distribute condoms, nor do we provide funding to …
M
MHichborn
Guest
Why are you ignoring the huge, revolting elephant in the middle of the room?They did and they are correcting it
What I want to know is, how does such a document that so blatantly promotes access to condoms get written by and pass through so many higher-level CRS staff and STILL get published to begin with?
Clearly, this is an issue that reaches far beyond just that one document … and there’s no way that this was a mere “oversight.” CRS PEOPLE wrote that document!!! The problem isn’t JUST the document … IT’S THE AUTHORS, REVIEWERS, AND APPROVERS who are very clearly the problem!!! Personnel is policy!
Z
zab
Guest
Insults and shouting do nothing to get your point across. You have your opinion and I have mine. And I will wait to hear what the official opinion on this is.
Z
zab
Guest
Wrong. I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to your opinion. I don’t shout at you or treat you like you are stupid for ignoring things or for not understanding my point of view.
M
MHichborn
Guest
You may be entitled to an opinion, but you are not entitled to manipulate the facts in order to suit your own point of view. Consistently, you claim that CRS does not promote contraception, while simultaneously acknowledging that CRS produced a document that does indeed promote condoms use. But you do this in individual posts, which separate the matter as if they are two completely different issues … they are not.
And when your claim that CRS does not promote artificial contraception, and the CRS document that promotes condom use is referenced to counter this, you simply blow it off and reiterate the line that “CRS is correcting the document.”
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The real issue at hand is how did such a thing pass muster to begin with and make it to publication … and though you are willing to express an “opinion” on just about everything else, you refuse to address this essential question, saying that you will wait for the “official opinion” on that.
Incidentally, I’ve not said anything to insult you, even if my posts express a certain level of exasperation with your rationalizations.
M
MHichborn
Guest
Look, either CRS is promoting the use of artificial contraceptives, or it is not. One cannot acknowledge that CRS created a document that instructs its employees to inform clients where to obtain condoms while simultaneously claiming that CRS does not promote artificial contraceptives … it is logically self-contradicting.
But the larger issue at hand is the question I’ve asked several times, now:
“How did an official CRS document that tells CRS employees ‘Do not forget to provide information on local condom provision,’ which was written and reviewed by upper-level CRS staff, and funded by CRS HQ get to the point of publication with said condom promotion in it to begin with?”
This question is central to what this document is, and speaks of an even larger problem at CRS than the mere existence of said document. Ergo, merely “revising” the document is an unfitting response to the problem.
Z
zab
Guest
Years ago, I was a volunteer in a Catholic ministry under the leadership of a Catholic nun and many Catholic volunteers who did not follow Catholic teaching. Oh, they would give the Church’s teaching then they would proceed to say that the Church teaches us to follow our conscience and from their they would support an uninformed conscience. This is not what I perceive CRS to be doing.
CRS has a mission statement that fully supports Catholic teaching and they strive to live their mission by continuously reviewing their programs and documents. Not all of their employees, many who have experience in charitable social work are Catholic. CRS says that they instruct their employees on Catholic teaching and their employees are expected to abide by the teachings of the Church in performing their duties with CRS. It is understandable that some things, such as the condom instruction on the HIV prevention document, could have gotten included and overlooked. But to CRS’s credit, they take this criticism seriously and make the necessary corrections.
M
MHichborn
Guest
Several different stories on CRS broke today, and all of them seem to confirm that there is an institutional problem that needs a swift resolution.
According to various news stories:
According to various news stories:
*]CRS released a statement that the condom-promoting document it produced was "written in 2009 by outside consultants” who failed to carry out “CRS staff prescribed revisions“.
Source - Catholic Relief Services Responds to Criticism Over HIV Document, Employees
*]Life Site News found SEVERAL more documents produced by CRS that promote condom use.
Source - Caught red-handed: Catholic Relief Services documents promote condoms
*]As it turns out, the document that CRS claimed was "written in 2009 by outside consultants” who failed to carry out “CRS staff prescribed revisions“ isn’t true. Societas Restituo published a screen caputre of the CRS document in question, where it explains that the first draft of the document was written by consultant Michael Rosati (who, the document indicates, was familiar with CRS’ policies because he had worked with CRS before) and two CRS employees, Kristin Weinhauer and Tran Thi Linh Giang. But after he wrote the first draft, it left his hands and went to CRS HQ and then to CRS Vietnam for final revisions.
Source - New Evidence: Multiple CRS Documents Promote Condoms
CRS needs to be investigated and its staff needs to be completely evaluated if this is going to be resolved.
M
MHichborn
Guest
Several different stories on CRS broke yesterday, and all of them seem to confirm that there is an institutional problem that needs a swift resolution.
According to various news stories:
According to various news stories:
*]CRS released a statement that the condom-promoting document it produced was "written in 2009 by outside consultants” who failed to carry out “CRS staff prescribed revisions“.
Source - Catholic Relief Services Responds to Criticism Over HIV Document, Employees
*]Life Site News found SEVERAL more documents produced by CRS that promote condom use.
Source - Caught red-handed: Catholic Relief Services documents promote condoms
*]As it turns out, the document that CRS claimed was "written in 2009 by outside consultants” who failed to carry out “CRS staff prescribed revisions“ isn’t true. Societas Restituo published a screen caputre of the CRS document in question, where it explains that the first draft of the document was written by consultant Michael Rosati (who, the document indicates, was familiar with CRS’ policies because he had worked with CRS before) and two CRS employees, Kristin Weinhauer and Tran Thi Linh Giang. But after he wrote the first draft, it left his hands and went to CRS HQ and then to CRS Vietnam for final revisions.
Source - New Evidence: Multiple CRS Documents Promote Condoms
CRS needs to be investigated and its staff needs to be completely evaluated if this is going to be resolved.
Z
zab
Guest
“Several” is an exaggeration. There are two from the controversial LifeSiteNews but your blog is not an acceptable news source.
M
MHichborn
Guest
Can you rectify the disparity between what CRS claimed in its news statement about its condom-promoting document and what Societas illustrated with its screen-capture of the CRS document in question without assassinating the messenger?
Also, the LSN article pointed out six new documents, and one previously-reported document from 2008:
A 2008 CRS flipchart promoting condom use;
A CRS-Published HIV/AIDS and Sex Ed program for kids age 8-12 called “Windows of Hope”;
A 2007 CRS-Published document titled, “We Stop AIDS”;
A 2012 CRS program (similar to We Stop AIDS) titled, “In Charge!”;
A 2010 CRS-Published document promoting “safe sex” titled “Quality Care Giving in the Context of HIV”
A 2008 Handbook for Counselors;
and CRS’ PANI Evaluation in India.
Z
zab
Guest
The Societas is not a trusted news source and at least one of its board members has demonstrated exaggeration, and a tendency to spam forums, therefore, I haven’t paid much attention to anything from the blog.
M
MHichborn
Guest
Then read CRS’ own document and compare what it says on page 11 regarding how the document was created with the Catholic News Agency story that quotes a CRS representative who claims that the document was created by an outside consultant who did not implement CRS’ prescribed revisions.
Can you rectify the disparity between what the CRS rep says and what the CRS document says?
Z
zab
Guest
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.”
- Status