U.S. bishops’ relief agency gives $5.3 million to major contraception-providing charity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Santo_Subito
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MHichborn said:
See my previous post. What one purchases or does not purchase is irrelevant to a provision of funds to an enemy of the Church by a Church agency. Exchanging money for goods is not the same as funding organizations whose philosophy towards the poor is that the best way to eliminate poverty is to prevent poor folks from reproducing.

Think of it this way … would you be upset if you found out that CRS gave a $5.3 million grant to the KKK for some stated “good” project?
Click to expand...
The work of CARE does not compare with the work of the KKK. This just goes to show you what some people will try to pull out of a Dong.
 
zab said:
The work of CARE does not compare with the work of the KKK. This just goes to show you what some people will try to pull out of a Dong.
Click to expand...
No? The KKK simply claims that it wishes the entire world was white. CARE is actually doing the dirty work by eliminating poverty with contraception, concentrating its efforts in Asia, India, and Africa. CARE equates food and water relief with the distribution of condoms, IUDs, and hormonal contraception. KKK is the enemy that professes its hatred in the public square, while CARE is the enemy that greets with a hand-shake and a smile, while quietly poisoning food and drink.

CARE’s apparent “good” is tainted by its motives to spiritually poison the people it purports to help. Can you honestly call an organization that seeks to feed the belly while poisoning the soul “good?”
 
MHichborn said:
As some who earned a degree in economics, I feel obliged to address the claims being made by CRS that the money granted to CARE was not fungible. The case that CRS is making is that the grant it gave to CARE was for a project that CARE would not otherwise have performed and had not originally included in its own budget. In addition to this, because the project itself was for something that was not morally objectionable and would not be spent on morally objectionable things, the grant money itself was not fungible.

Here’s the problem. Fungible assets (which include money) do not exist in a mere moment in time or in a vacuum. As CRS pointed to the “preponderance” of it’s work as a way of justifying granting CARE money over granting Planned Parenthood money, CRS must likewise take into account the TOTALITY of the work the organization does.

CARE stated specifically on its website that it integrates “reproductive health” into all of its emergency services. This is to say that the overall philosophy of the organization is to equate birth control and fertility reduction as EQUAL with providing food and water.

So, if anything that CARE purchased with the $5.3 million CRS gave it expands the organization by opening offices, hiring personnel, helping with fundraising or assists CARE in gaining access to Catholic areas BECAUSE of its relationship with CRS, then wittingly or not, formally or remotely, CRS is MATERIALLY assisting an enemy of the Catholic Church, regardless of the alleged good CARE may do.

THIS is the true meaning of fungibility. And CRS and the NCBC totally misses this point.
Click to expand...
in CARE’S own words “In many countries, natural disasters and conflict threaten and reverse progress in family planning. The need for family planning and reproductive health services is particularly acute in disaster and conflict settings where health systems may have collapsed, supplies are scarce, and conditions are hostile to pregnancy and childbearing. Over the past five years, CARE has responded to 123 natural and conflict- related emergencies. CARE is a founding member of the Reproductive Health in Emergencies Consortium, and in 2012 adopted sexual and reproductive health as one of four focal areas for our humanitarian response, along with food, shelter and water. CARE is committed to providing the Minimal Initial Service Package for Reproductive Health as part of our emergency response work wherever appropriate and feasible. Working in challenging environments such as Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad and Pakistan, CARE has trained providers, built supply chains and addressed gender and governance issues, and in every setting has increased family planning use, particularly with long-acting methods.” link care.org/campaigns/mothersmatter/downloads/FP-Summit-Report.pdf and given CARE’s presidents enthusiasm for abortion i can only accept their word that they do just that.we are talking about true believers here.
 
april32010 said:
in CARE’S own words “In many countries, natural disasters and conflict threaten and reverse progress in family planning. The need for family planning and reproductive health services is particularly acute in disaster and conflict settings where health systems may have collapsed, supplies are scarce, and conditions are hostile to pregnancy and childbearing. Over the past five years, CARE has responded to 123 natural and conflict- related emergencies. CARE is a founding member of the Reproductive Health in Emergencies Consortium, and in 2012 adopted sexual and reproductive health as one of four focal areas for our humanitarian response, along with food, shelter and water. CARE is committed to providing the Minimal Initial Service Package for Reproductive Health as part of our emergency response work wherever appropriate and feasible. Working in challenging environments such as Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad and Pakistan, CARE has trained providers, built supply chains and addressed gender and governance issues, and in every setting has increased family planning use, particularly with long-acting methods.” link care.org/campaigns/mothersmatter/downloads/FP-Summit-Report.pdf and given CARE’s presidents enthusiasm for abortion i can only accept their word that they do just that.we are talking about true believers here.
Click to expand...
My turn … DING, DING, DING!!!
 
further along in this work “put reproductive rights, women’s empowerment and gender equality at the center of programming and policy”/COLOR i have to believe that this is a priority with this organization.
 
further along in this document “put reproductive rights, women’s empowerment and gender equality at the center of programming and policy” i have to believe this is a priority with this organization,that i have seen this is their policy with anything they do.i can’t believe that the program this 5.3 million went to,that there wasn’t someone dispensing contraceptives there.this in their dna.these are people if they invite someone to a banquet,if there isn’t enough food,they don’t send out someone to get more bread,they kill the guests.
 
mhichborn said:
care is the enemy that greets with a hand-shake and a smile, while quietly poisoning food and drink.care’s apparent “good” is tainted by its motives to spiritually poison the people it purports to help. Can you honestly call an organization that seeks to feed the belly while poisoning the soul “good?”
Click to expand...
ding,ding,ding and ding,ding, ding.
 
zab said:
On the CARE website, it says that they do not fund, support or perform abortions.
Click to expand...
(shrug) … CARE’s President and CEO actively lobbied Congress and the president to overturn the Mexico City Policy (which forbids funding overseas organizations that perform abortions) and CARE is partnered with the second largest international abortion provider in the world, Marie Stopes International. They don’t HAVE to fund or perform abortion, because their friends do it for them. But they DO support abortion as a right, as Helene Gayle (CARE’s CEO) so blithely illustrated.
 
MHichborn said:
CARE’s apparent “good” is tainted by its motives to spiritually poison the people it purports to help. Can you honestly call an organization that seeks to feed the belly while poisoning the soul “good?”
Click to expand...
Many years ago, I used to support CARE, one of the oldest and most respected international relief angencies in the world. But I ceased to support CARE when they started to support artificial contraception. Instead I chose to support the other oldest, most respected international relief agency, Catholic Relief Services. I can honestly say that I believe CRS seeks to perform their charitable works while keeping in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church and I call that “good”.
 
zab said:
Many years ago, I used to support CARE, one of the oldest and most respected international relief angencies in the world. But I ceased to support CARE when they started to support artificial contraception. Instead I chose to support the other oldest, most respected international relief agency, Catholic Relief Services. I can honestly say that I believe CRS seeks to perform their charitable works while keeping in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church and I call that “good”.
Click to expand...
And so we come full circle. Are you suggesting that it’s good that you don’t contribute to CARE, but somehow, for CRS, it’s ok?
 
MHichborn said:
And so we come full circle. Are you suggesting that it’s good that you don’t contribute to CARE, but somehow, for CRS, it’s ok?
Click to expand...
Are you questioning the goodness of my actions because I contribute to CRS?
 
zab said:
Do you own any Microsoft products? How about the browser on your computer ? If so , then by your logic you are supporting the Gates Foundations ability to contributes millions to contraceptive and abortion services. DONG!
Click to expand...
I’m returning to the conversation a bit late, but I appreciate the point you are making here.
Ethical spending is a tremendous challenge these days and we need all the information we can get to make sound decisions. It would be helpful to continue to build a list of companies as potential boycott targets on a different thread so that we do not become distracted from our concerns about CARE and CRS.
There are so many fronts on which we need to be fighting these days. Thank you for the reminder. 🙂
 
zab said:
I hope that you will one day come to understand.
Click to expand...
Re-reading your last comment, I think you misunderstand. I am not questioning your giving to CRS. What I am questioning is that you say that you cannot give to CARE because you have come to understand that CARE is doing pretty awful things now, but somehow … it’s ok for CRS to give to CARE. THAT’S what doesn’t make sense to me.

I love what the Apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians: “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top