Lepanto and PRI catch CRS running contraceptive program

[pnewton]

Supporters of CRS should be real careful about saying “end justifies the means”.

Might I ask who said this? I know I did not and cannot remember any other** supporter** of CRS making this statement.

 

[pnewton]

1. I am not concerned with organizations, I am concerned with souls.

I believe we all are. I also think we are all concerned with life, both the unborn and the born, the poor and the starving, the diseased and dying. We cannot place souls over life, or life over souls, as either would be a false dichotomy.

Catholic Relief Services receive episcopal oversight. This is critically important for those Catholics who want to serve the Church, lest they allow their own judgments of what is and is not morally acceptable when applying moral laws run become unbalanced. I would note that pretty much all of the groups critical of Catholic Relief Services are not themselves subject to the same episcopal oversight. As they are smaller, there is less of a need. However, they are still subject to the same temptations and dangers as all humanity.

 

[zab]

1. The whole issue boils down to money, plain and simple. CRS obtains 70% of its nearly $1 billion income from the Federal government. CRS says they have to be involved with pro-abortion and contraception-spreading organizations in order to do development work. This is only partly true … what CRS MEANS is that it cannot do development work without working with and funding pro-abortion and contraception-providing organizations IF IT WANTS TO GET GOVERNMENT MONEY. The organizations I mentioned above do not partner with such organizations to do the same development and aid work CRS does. CRS is selling out, and that is what is at the heart of this whole thing.

What it all boils down to- You disagree with CRS accepting government money. This is mentioned over and over in various places on the internet. From the Lepanto Institute Facebook page.
"CRS says they’re looking into the “My Changing Body,” matter … but what’s really at issue is CRS taking government money to begin with.
You also do not like the idea of Catholic charities giving to people who may be enemies of Christians- it says so on your description of “What is the Lepanto Institute”. Are we not taught as Christians to “love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you.”
" The Lepanto Institute was created to present the facts regarding organizations that claim the name Catholic or even Christian, but are acting in opposition to the teachings of our Blessed Lord and His Holy and Immaculate Church. Sadly, organizations like Catholic Relief Services, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the Catholic Health Association and many others are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Christ…"
So the heart of the matter is that some do not like Catholic charities accepting government money. But “New rules issued by Pope Benedict XVI for the governance of Catholic charities will not prevent such charities from accepting government funding, so long as the funding does not entail conditions that conflict with church teaching, said the second-highest official of the Vatican office in charge of applying the new legislation…” catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1205102.htm

CRS is working very hard to ensure that they uphold Catholic teaching in all their programming.

 

[zz912]

I believe we all are. I also think we are all concerned with life, both the unborn and the born, the poor and the starving, the diseased and dying. We cannot place souls over life, or life over souls, as either would be a false dichotomy.

We absolutely do place souls over life. If there comes a point when we must choose between death and sin, we must choose death. And those are not a dichotomy. Many martyrs testify to this reality.

No matter how much good can come from one program, we cannot participate in that program if it involves sin.

 

[pnewton]

We absolutely do place souls over life. If there comes a point when we must choose between death and sin, we must choose death. And those are not a dichotomy. Many martyrs testify to this reality.

This is one extreme. The other would be to discontinue all pro-life activity as it does not pertain to evangelism directly. Do you think this would be wise? You gave the example of martyrs. I can also give the example of burning heretics, taking their life to try and save their soul. There is a false dichotomy because as Catholics today, almost always we do not have to choose between whether we fight for the value of life or saving of souls.

Now there is one connection that Jesus made that applies to salvation. He said that whether we do certain acts of charity, feeding and clothing the hungry, visiting the sick and imprison, does affect our salvation. So, not only is charity not the, either/or, portrayed above, it is a both/and.

No matter how much good can come from one program, we cannot participate in that program if it involves sin.

This depends on what you mean by “involve sin”. Any program of man will “involve” sin, as men are basically sinful. Even in the best of situations, one faces the possible sin of pride.

If you mean that the program itself is sinful, then I totally agree. However, I note the USCCB, specifically, those bishops that oversee CRS, do not deem that the program is sinful. If you do, and apply the statement above to them, then it is only a point that begs, the question.

 

[MHichborn]

Catholic Relief Services has responded, and they confirmed that Shuga (the condom-promoting video series produced by MTV) was in fact implemented under their watch. However, the narrative CRS provides as to how and why Shuga was implemented is contradicted by CRS’s own reporting documents to the government.

Here’s a link to CRS’s response.

Here’s a link to my analysis of CRS’s response with additional information.

 

[zab]

Catholic Relief Services has responded, and they confirmed that Shuga (the condom-promoting video series produced by MTV) was in fact implemented under their watch. However, the narrative CRS provides as to how and why Shuga was implemented is contradicted by CRS’s own reporting documents to the government.

Here’s a link to CRS’s response.

Here’s a link to my analysis of CRS’s response with additional information.

The content on the SAIDIA FY2011 report does seem to conflict with what CRS has said.

 

[pnewton]

From the CRS explanation:

The SAIDIA FY2011 annual report to CDC correctly notes that the video was used as part of the abstinence and be faithful (AB) activities in FY2011*, but stopped at the end of quarter three when CRS learned the materials were being used and were not appropriate for use within our programming*.

lepantoinstitute.org/crs-implemented-condom-promoting-video-series/
Exhibit A, you will notice where this problematic program was mentioned and was being phased out. This is in agreement with the CRS statement:

Subsequently, only one secular CRS partner, Movement of Men Against AIDS in Kenya (MMAK), used Shuga as part of their abstinence and fidelity programming and only used it for a very short period of time.

When CRS learned MMAK was using these materials that were not in line with Catholic teaching within its abstinence and fidelity programming, CRS specifically instructed all partners not to use Shuga and informed CDC that SAIDIA would not use this video within our abstinence and fidelity work.

Again, we have a case where good Catholics caught a problematic video in 2011 and one of their conditions of cooperation was that they could not go against Catholic principles. This is why episcopal oversight is so valuable.

 

[MHichborn]

From the CRS explanation:

lepantoinstitute.org/crs-implemented-condom-promoting-video-series/
Exhibit A, you will notice where this problematic program was mentioned and was being phased out. This is in agreement with the CRS statement:

Again, we have a case where good Catholics caught a problematic video in 2011 and one of their conditions of cooperation was that they could not go against Catholic principles. This is why episcopal oversight is so valuable.

Try reading that again in context with CRS’s other documents: lepantoinstitute.org/crs/crs-confirms-implementation-of-condom-promoting-video/

You cited the part where CRS said only ONE of their partners implemented Shuga, but then failed to address the fact that CRS’s annual report said that ELEVEN of CRS’s partners implemented Shuga. That’s not a small matter … both statements cannot be true.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you decided not to address the fact that CRS claims to have told CDC that they won’t implement Shuga because of it’s grave immorality only to file a grant application 7-10 months later saying that they are considering using both Shuga I and II. If it was so gravely immoral, why would they tell PEPFAR that they’re considering its further use?

Oh … and let’s not forget that CRS’s reporting documents indicate that Shuga was phased out in the third quarter of that year … just like seven other non-EBI programs were phased out. No mention of it being immoral … just that they phased out several non-EBIs.

Those discrepancies are not small, and they contradict CRS’s current narrative.

 

[zab]

Try reading that again in context with CRS’s other documents: lepantoinstitute.org/crs/crs-confirms-implementation-of-condom-promoting-video/

You cited the part where CRS said only ONE of their partners implemented Shuga, but then failed to address** the fact that CRS’s annual report said that ELEVEN of CRS’s partners implemented Shuga**. That’s not a small matter … both statements cannot be true.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you decided not to address the fact that CRS claims to have told CDC that they won’t implement Shuga because of it’s grave immorality only to file a grant application 7-10 months later saying that they are considering using both Shuga I and II. If it was so gravely immoral, why would they tell PEPFAR that they’re considering its further use?

Oh … and let’s not forget that CRS’s reporting documents indicate that Shuga was phased out in the third quarter of that year … just like seven other non-EBI programs were phased out. No mention of it being immoral … just that they phased out several non-EBIs.

Those discrepancies are not small, and they contradict CRS’s current narrative.

Well, the FY2011 did not actually say that they implemented Shuga. When you are dealing with facts you shouldn’t be changing the words. It said that 22 staff from eleven partners watched the training video and then all eleven partners implemented the “strategy”. It didn’t say they implemented the program or Shuga, but that they implemented the strategy. Perhaps the strategy was as CRS has said.

 

[MHichborn]

Well, the FY2011 did not actually say that they implemented Shuga. It said that 22 staff from eleven partners watched the training video and then all eleven partners implemented the “strategy”. It didn’t say they implemented the program or Shuga, but that they implemented the strategy. Perhaps the strategy was as CRS has said.

Not quite … here’s the actual quote: “11 partner organizations were trained for two days on Shuga methodology and all these eleven partners are now implementing the strategy.”

The “strategy” refers to the “Shuga methodology.”

 

[MHichborn]

It didn’t say they implemented the program or Shuga, but that they implemented the strategy. Perhaps the strategy was as CRS has said.

You need to understand that the use of the word “strategy” is programmatic lingo and has a very specific meaning in the development industry. Shuga is identified as a part of HVAB “strategy,” while curricular programs like Healthy Choices are considered “Evidence Based Behavioral Interventions” or (EBI). In the FY 2011 annual report, it refers to the phasing out of Shuga specifically, but on the preceding page it says, “During the last quarter, there was a transition of the HVAB strategy to evidence-based behavioral interventions (EBI).” As a result, 8 HVAB strategies were phased out, and the SAIDIA project used only FMP and HC I and II, because they were EBIs, whereas Shuga, and the other 7 programs were “HVAB strategies.”

 

[zab]

Try reading that again in context with CRS’s other documents: lepantoinstitute.org/crs/crs-confirms-implementation-of-condom-promoting-video/

You cited the part where CRS said only ONE of their partners implemented Shuga, but then failed to address the fact that CRS’s annual report said that ELEVEN of CRS’s partners implemented Shuga. That’s not a small matter … both statements cannot be true.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you decided not to address the fact that CRS claims to have told CDC that they won’t implement Shuga because of it’s grave immorality only to file a grant application 7-10 months later saying that they are considering using both Shuga I and II. If it was so gravely immoral, why would they tell PEPFAR that they’re considering its further use?

Oh … and let’s not forget that CRS’s reporting documents indicate that Shuga was phased out in the third quarter of that year … just like seven other non-EBI programs were phased out. No mention of it being immoral … just that they phased out several non-EBIs.

Those discrepancies are not small, and they contradict CRS’s current narrative.

I find it interesting the offensive way that you try to get your points across. There is a lot of wordiness in most of your accusations for people to read through and sort out, not to mention posts like this. If you would just stick to the facts without injecting accusations and insults you might get better results.

 

[pnewton]

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you decided not to address the fact that CRS claims to have told CDC that they won’t implement Shuga because of it’s grave immorality only to file a grant application 7-10 months later saying…

The original document you linked

lepantoinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/FOIA-documents_full.pdf
The top says this was for a period of time in 2009, when the program period started in 2008, not seven months after the statement in 2013 you respond to, or after the statement you posted they were going to phase this controversial video out, or after when they made it clear to their partners that they would follow Catholic teaching.

Maybe why that one bishop did not want to meet with you is because he believes the matter resolved. It seems to me that this matter has been. I suspect that people being what they are another matter will pop up. Maybe someone will cut and paste part of another grant to file a new grant without vetting it. Maybe some new partner will not be properly examined. Or maybe some do-gooder will start something contrary to Catholic teaching, and it will continue until the problem is caught and then it will be stopped. This is why we have bishops overseeing CRS, as well as other Catholic organizations.

Did everyone catch that the KC in Virginia picked a pro-abortion politician to lead a St. Patrick’s Day parade. Their priest removed any association with them from his parish and the bishops backed the removal. This is a good example of what I am saying. Yet I would never say that I am going to abandon the knights because they are pro-abortion.

 

[zab]

You need to understand that the use of the word “strategy” is programmatic lingo and has a very specific meaning in the development industry. Shuga is identified as a part of HVAB “strategy,” while curricular programs like Healthy Choices are considered “Evidence Based Behavioral Interventions” or (EBI). In the FY 2011 annual report, it refers to the phasing out of Shuga specifically, but on the preceding page it says, “During the last quarter, there was a transition of the HVAB strategy to evidence-based behavioral interventions (EBI).” As a result, 8 HVAB strategies were phased out, and the SAIDIA project used only FMP and HC I and II, because they were EBIs, whereas Shuga, and the other 7 programs were “HVAB strategies.”

There is a lot of things the that the average person needs to understand when trying to sort through all of this on both sides. And that is why it is difficult for me to figure out.

 

[pnewton]

I find it interesting the offensive way that you try to get your points across. There is a lot of wordiness …

One way I deal with long arguments with many points is to address only one of them, maybe two. That is not enough to satisfy others, but if I look at the major points and find them lacking, I will usually quit and not pursue the other things that will inevitably arise. I am not so bold as to think I will convince someone else.

In this case, I find the time frame quite satisfying.

 

[zab]

One way I deal with long arguments with many points is to address only one of them, maybe two. That is not enough to satisfy others, but if I look at the major points and find them lacking, I will usually quit and not pursue the other things that will inevitably arise. I am not so bold as to think I will convince someone else.

In this case, I find the time frame quite satisfying.

Me too. As far as trying to figure it out, I am really not impressed with the aggressive attempt to go through newswires to put out such alarming claims, especially after corrections have been made.

 

[MHichborn]

The original document you linked

lepantoinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/FOIA-documents_full.pdf
The top says this was for a period of time in 2009, when the program period started in 2008, not seven months after the statement in 2013 you respond to, or after the statement you posted they were going to phase this controversial video out, or after when they made it clear to their partners that they would follow Catholic teaching.

Maybe why that one bishop did not want to meet with you is because he believes the matter resolved. It seems to me that this matter has been. I suspect that people being what they are another matter will pop up. Maybe someone will cut and paste part of another grant to file a new grant without vetting it. Maybe some new partner will not be properly examined. Or maybe some do-gooder will start something contrary to Catholic teaching, and it will continue until the problem is caught and then it will be stopped. This is why we have bishops overseeing CRS, as well as other Catholic organizations.

Did everyone catch that the KC in Virginia picked a pro-abortion politician to lead a St. Patrick’s Day parade. Their priest removed any association with them from his parish and the bishops backed the removal. This is a good example of what I am saying. Yet I would never say that I am going to abandon the knights because they are pro-abortion.

You’re mixing up the timeline. I’ll try to simplify it for you:

1. This statement, "11 partner organizations were trained for two days on Shuga methodology and all these eleven partners are now implementing the strategy“ is from the 2009-2010 annual report (Year 2 of the SAIDIA project).
2. The acknowledgement that Shuga was phased out in the third quarter of the year came from the 2010-2011 annual report (Year 3 of the SAIDIA project). That report was submitted in September of 2011.
3. CRS claims that it was at this time that they told CDC that Shuga did not comply with Catholic moral teaching, and they would not be using Shuga.
4. This statement came from CRS’s grant application for year 5 of the grant. However, the proposal was submitted in April 27, 2012: “SAIDIA is considering Shuga I and II to help address the gap particularly in ages 17-19 years. Shuga I and II addresses issues of multiple concurrent partnership, peer pressure, alcohol and substance use and status knowledge among youth.”

Conclusion: April 27, 2012 is 7 months after September of 2011, when CRS is alleged to have told CDC that they will not use Shuga. However, because CRS said that they phased out Shuga in the third quarter of that year due to its immoral nature, we back up 3 months from September, which puts us in June of 2011 when Shuga was phased out. That is roughly 10 months from the time CRS said they were aware that Shuga was bad and told the CDC that they wouldn’t use it, to the time that they submitted a grant application saying they are considering using Shuga series I and II.

So … there are two important questions that need to be answered:

1. Why did CRS say that only one partner implemented Shuga when their own report says that 11 partners implemented it?
2. If CRS knew that Shuga was immoral as early as June of 2011 and as late as September 2011 … why did they tell PEPFAR in a grant proposal that they were considering using both Shuga I and II in April of 2012, 7 to 10 months later?

 

[anthony022071]

Me too. As far as trying to figure it out, I am really not impressed with the aggressive attempt to go through newswires to put out such alarming claims, especially after corrections have been made.

If CRS was implementing evil programs when the so-called corrections were made,or if they are still implementing them or colluding with organizations that do it,then corrections were not made. The evidence against CRS is not just in documents,but also what has been found out in on-the-ground investigations and in interviews with people involved with the programs.

 

[pnewton]

If CRS was implementing evil programs when the so-called corrections were made,or if they are still implementing them or colluding with organizations that do it,then corrections were not made. The evidence against CRS is not just in documents,but also what has been found out in on-the-ground investigations and in interviews with people involved with the programs.

I am skeptical of “on the ground” interviews when those doing the interviewing have an agenda. The accusation that money is a negative influence is not exclusive to CRS. Again, this is why we need the Church overseeing legitimate ministry. It is the Catholic thing to do. I am very traditional when it comes to respecting the authority of the Church.