John Haas: I advised Catholic Relief Services not to fund CARE

[zab]

The National Catholic Bioethics Center comments on the relationship of NCBC with CRS:
ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1263

When The National Catholic Bioethics Center carefully reviewed the sub-grant relationship with CARE, it came to the conclusion that the grants would likely save lives and that the funds could not be made available through an agency other than CARE because of the personnel and institutions they had in place. The NCBC also concluded that the money could not be used for any other purpose than that for which CRS had given it. Indeed, it would be illegal to do so. Consequently the NCBC came to the conclusion that providing such a grant would be acceptable through the application of the Principle of Material Cooperation.
At the core of the NCBC analyses was the belief, based on the facts provided by CRS, that the grants provided would be used exclusively for good purposes that could not be effectively realized by CRS otherwise.

 

[zab]

The National Catholic Bioethics Center comments on the relationship of NCBC with CRS:
ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1263

When The National Catholic Bioethics Center carefully reviewed the sub-grant relationship with CARE, it came to the conclusion that the grants would likely save lives and that the funds could not be made available through an agency other than CARE because of the personnel and institutions they had in place. The NCBC also concluded that the money could not be used for any other purpose than that for which CRS had given it. Indeed, it would be illegal to do so. Consequently the NCBC came to the conclusion that providing such a grant would be acceptable through the application of the Principle of Material Cooperation.
At the core of the NCBC analyses was the belief, based on the facts provided by CRS, that the grants provided would be used exclusively for good purposes that could not be effectively realized by CRS otherwise.

 

[manualman]

Yeah, much better to let people starve than be caught with a vague failure of not upholding Catholic teaching.

False dilemma and you are FAR too smart not to see it. CRS can quite simply spend its money on relief organizations that feed the hungry and DON’T advocate that they sin at the same time.

 

[markomalley]

The National Catholic Bioethics Center comments on the relationship of NCBC with CRS:
ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1263

You should have cited the rest of the release:

However, there is another dimension to the Principle of Material Cooperation: the consideration of the risk of scandal. Even if cooperation with an evildoer to achieve some great good were morally legitimate it still could not be done if the action of the Catholic would lead others to believe that the Catholic Church were indifferent to the evil, such as, for example, contraception.

In this case, the NCBC was gravely concerned about the risk of scandal that could arise from a Catholic agency cooperating with an organization that consistently took such strong public positions at odds with the Catholic Church, such as advocating contraception and abortion. We strongly cautioned CRS of the problems of misunderstanding that could arise with a grant to CARE and urged them to repudiate the public advocacy of abortion and contraception by the leadership of CARE. Incidentally, at its website, under Frequently Asked Questions, CARE now states: “CARE does not fund, support, or perform abortions.” The NCBC welcomes that statement which could not be found at the website of CARE when the review was done. At that time there was, however, the congressional testimony of the President of CARE, Dr. Helene Gayle, calling for the rescinding of the “Mexico City Policy,” which forbids the use of U.S. foreign aid for abortions. That statement is still at the website. It was because of such public positions antithetical to the positions taken by the U. S. bishops that the NCBC thought that there should be a public repudiation of such CARE positions by CRS. CRS responded to our concerns about the risk of scandal by incorporating into their mission statement the following:

As a part of the Universal Church, Catholic institutions are our partners of preference in our work. To reach all those who need our help, we also participate in humanitarian initiatives undertaken by a wide range of groups, such as governments, other faith communities and secular institutions. Although some positions and practices of these institutions are not always consistent with the full range of Catholic teaching, CRS’ association with them is always and only focused on activities that are fully consistent with Catholic teaching. Furthermore, CRS neither facilitates, endorses nor enables any violation of those teachings. CRS and its board of bishops and laypersons have a careful review system to ensure fidelity to Catholic moral teaching and to ensure that all funds under CRS’ direct control are used only for purposes complying with that teaching​

The trouble, the way that I see it, is not that CRS donated money that is fungible, but that, since money is donated to CARE in an unrestricted fashion from other sources, that other money can be freed up because of CRS’ grant. The only way that this could be prevented is with completely isolated accounting systems. Isolated on both the revenue and expense sides of the ledger. There its no indication that this is the case.

 

[zab]

You should have cited the rest of the release:
However, there is another dimension to the Principle of Material Cooperation: the consideration of the risk of scandal. Even if cooperation with an evildoer to achieve some great good were morally legitimate it still could not be done if the action of the Catholic would lead others to believe that the Catholic Church were indifferent to the evil, such as, for example, contraception.

In this case, the NCBC was gravely concerned about the risk of scandal that could arise from a Catholic agency cooperating with an organization that consistently took such strong public positions at odds with the Catholic Church, such as advocating contraception and abortion. We strongly cautioned CRS of the problems of misunderstanding that could arise with a grant to CARE and urged them to repudiate the public advocacy of abortion and contraception by the leadership of CARE. Incidentally, at its website, under Frequently Asked Questions, CARE now states: “CARE does not fund, support, or perform abortions.” The NCBC welcomes that statement which could not be found at the website of CARE when the review was done. At that time there was, however, the congressional testimony of the President of CARE, Dr. Helene Gayle, calling for the rescinding of the “Mexico City Policy,” which forbids the use of U.S. foreign aid for abortions. That statement is still at the website. It was because of such public positions antithetical to the positions taken by the U. S. bishops that the NCBC thought that there should be a public repudiation of such CARE positions by CRS. CRS responded to our concerns about the risk of scandal by incorporating into their mission statement the following:

As a part of the Universal Church, Catholic institutions are our partners of preference in our work. To reach all those who need our help, we also participate in humanitarian initiatives undertaken by a wide range of groups, such as governments, other faith communities and secular institutions. Although some positions and practices of these institutions are not always consistent with the full range of Catholic teaching, CRS’ association with them is always and only focused on activities that are fully consistent with Catholic teaching. Furthermore, CRS neither facilitates, endorses nor enables any violation of those teachings. CRS and its board of bishops and laypersons have a careful review system to ensure fidelity to Catholic moral teaching and to ensure that all funds under CRS’ direct control are used only for purposes complying with that teaching

​

The trouble, the way that I see it, is not that CRS donated money that is fungible, but that, since money is donated to CARE in an unrestricted fashion from other sources, that other money can be freed up because of CRS’ grant. The only way that this could be prevented is with completely isolated accounting systems. Isolated on both the revenue and expense sides of the ledger. There its no indication that this is the case.

Do not imply that I was trying to hide anything. I was posting to the issue at hand. It is also a board rule that we not quote the entire article. And I did post the link for you to easily read.

 

[markomalley]

Do not imply that I was trying to hide anything. I was posting to the issue at hand. It is also a board rule that we not quote the entire article. And I did post the link for you to easily read.

The issue at hand was whether or not Haas advised CRS not to provide a grant to CARE. The extract you cited was not the crux of the issue. The extract you cited, because it left out the critical part that I included, left one with the impression that NCBC did not, in fact warn CRS when yet did.

I am not implying anything about your motivations. I am stating that you should have included the critical portion of the NCBC release, even at the expense of snipping out another portion of the release, whatever your motivation.

 

[zab]

The issue at hand was whether or not Haas advised CRS not to provide a grant to CARE. The extract you cited was not the crux of the issue. The extract you cited, because it left out the critical part that I included, left one with the impression that NCBC did not, in fact warn CRS when yet did.

I am not implying anything about your motivations. I am stating that you should have included the critical portion of the NCBC release, even at the expense of snipping out another portion of the release, whatever your motivation.

"The NCBC does not “approve” or “make” grants. That is the task and the responsibility of the board and the officials of CRS. The NCBC submits its ethical analyses when requested as part of the grant review process of CRS. The NCBC does its consultations in confidence. However, since CRS made its involvement public, the NCBC would like to address the situation in greater detail for the sake of clarity." Dr. John Haas

 

[zab]

The trouble, the way that I see it, is not that CRS donated money that is fungible, but that, since money is donated to CARE in an unrestricted fashion from other sources, that other money can be freed up because of CRS’ grant. The only way that this could be prevented is with completely isolated accounting systems. Isolated on both the revenue and expense sides of the ledger. There its no indication that this is the case.

“*Some have said that CRS was incapable of restricting the use of their funds to the good works which were being done by CARE. Money used for those good works would “free up” funds to be used for immoral purposes. However, the grants given by CRS do not go into some general pool of funds that can be moved around or used for other purposes. This would be in violation of the grant agreement and of federal law, specifically the Code of Federal Regulations 226, which requires that federal funds going to non-governmental entities can only be used for the purposes for which they are given. The NCBC concluded that great care was taken by CRS to see that funds were used only for the purposes designated, i.e., assisting the poor, the malnourished, and the starving.” *Dr. John Haas