U.S. bishops’ relief agency gives $5.3 million to major contraception-providing charity
- Status
Z
zab
Guest
As far as facts go, NCBC has spoken well of CRS, recognizing that it at times associates and works with other organizations.
M
MHichborn
Guest
Irrelevant. The very heart of the problem is that CRS is paying ITS OWN, FUNGIBLE MONEY to an organization that is heavily engaged in the promotion of contraception, while at the same time CRS claims that it 'does not “fund, support or participate in any programming or advocacy that is not in line with Church teaching, including artificial birth control.”
Clearly, CRS DOES do these things, and now it is trying to justify doing something it claims that it doesn’t do.
Z
zab
Guest
Clearly what is clear to you is not clear to me.
Z
zab
Guest
…and your arguments have not been strong enough to convince me.
M
MHichborn
Guest
Is CRS a dues-paying member of CORE Group, or is it not?
Does CORE Group promote contraception, or does it not?
If the answer is in the affirmative to both of these questions, then the following is not true:
“We do not fund, support or participate in any programming or advocacy that is not in line with Church teaching, including artificial birth control.”
The reason this statement is not true is for the simple fact that membership fees directly fund the organization, and the organization itself promotes contraception.
I
iloveangels
Guest
You’re correct. It’s just a lot of self-justifying blabber, but a lot of people have trouble seeing through that, which the authors of the blabber well know and are taking advantage of. And people don’t like to admit these things because they violate their basic perceptions about what the Church is supposed to be doing, so they do a little “mental reservation” and bless it off.
But look, if people don’t want to see the truth for what it is, let them pay. I"m not having any of it. I don’t need to pay for such nonsense. There are other places to donate locally.
I
iloveangels
Guest
This kind of stuff, along with the child abuse scandal and the LCWR mess, shape up the sideshow that helps people leave the Church. It’s sheer corruption and manipulation of the laity.
The Catholic Church is supposed to be a RELIGION, not a social service organization, an ultra-liberal political organization, a club for perverts or an international aid society.
The Catholic Church is supposed to be a RELIGION, not a social service organization, an ultra-liberal political organization, a club for perverts or an international aid society.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
At the time of her intitial statement, it was thought that the abortion was a licit, indirect abortion.
After the complete facts were made, Sister Carol issued this statement;
Jim
I
iloveangels
Guest
This isn’t the only case, by far.
And it’s only a tiny, tiny piece of the whole issue.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I am sceptical, if it was an indirect abortion I doubt Bishop Olmsted would of revoked the Catholic status of the hospital, which is major
The marvelous equivocations of Sister Carol Keehan
in Phoenix, which had been sanctioned by Bishop Thomas Olmsted for violating the ERDs.
The bishop has the authority to interpret the ERDs. Bishop Olmsted, exercising that authority, had determined that St. Joseph Hospital violated them. Yet the CHA—which, we are told, acknowledges the bishop’s authority—disagrees. In an effort to explain her way out of this glaring contradiction, Sister Keehan told America that the CHA certainly acknowledges the bishop’s authority. “But can we have a difference of opinion? Absolutely.”
Do you see how quickly the ground shifted? In her bow to episcopal authority, Sister Keehan referred to the diocesan bishop as an “authoritative interpreter” of the ERDs. Now she refers to the bishop’s opinion. But if someone speaks with authority about a question, he does not merely deliver an opinion; his word is decisive.
Perhaps what Sister Keehan really means is that the bishop has the authority to issue his own opinion? That would be a meaningless concession. It’s a free country; we all have the right to voice our opinions on any topic, whether or not those opinions carry any weight. And yet, meaningless as it is, that does indeed seem to be what Sister Keehan is saying. Speaking to Our Sunday Visitor about Bishop Olmsted’s decision to pull the “Catholic” label from St. Joseph’s Hospital, she said: “We deeply regret what he did, but we never thought he didn’t have the right to do it.”
Why does the CHA “deeply regret” the bishop’s action? Obviously because the organization thinks he was wrong to discipline the hospital, since (as the CHA has already claimed) the hospital did nothing wrong. But how could the bishop be wrong, if his judgment is decisive?
In the world of sports, an athlete might question a referee’s call—that a ball was in bounds, say, when the player felt sure it was out—but acknowledge that the referee has the final say. The referee’s call stands, and the game proceeds on that basis, even if the aggrieved player remains convinced, in his heart of hearts, that the ball was out of bounds. Sister Keehan seems prepared to concede the same sort of authority to a diocesan bishop: He has the authority to enforce his judgment, even if it is wrong.
But the authority of a Catholic bishop is not the same as the authority of a referee. In the world of sports, athletes are bound by an agreement to abide by the referee’s decisions. They are not, however, asked to believe that the referee has some special power or insight that enables him to make better judgments. In the Catholic Church, on the other hand, the faithful believe that because of his grace of state, because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the bishop is better suited to make a decision on matters of faith and morals—and in this case, on the interpretation of the ERDs. So when a bishop makes a judgment about the application of the ERDs—and especially when the bishop takes formal action on the basis of his judgment, as Bishop Olmsted did—he is not merely issuing one opinion among many. He is settling the question.
In her January 18 letter to Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the president of the US bishops’ conference, Sister Keehan appeared to affirm that Catholic understanding of episcopal authority:
CHA has always said to sponsors, governing board members, manager and clinicians that an individual Bishop in his diocese is the authoritative interpreter of the ERDs. We explain that a Bishop has a right to interpret the ERDs and also to develop his own ethical and religious directives if he chooses.
Again the words seem clear. But within days the CHA president was singing a different tune:
But Sister Keehan told Our Sunday Visitor that even though CHA didn’t agree with Bishop Olmsted’s assessment, they have always believed strongly in the importance of following the ERDs and in the bishops’ authority to interpret them.
Here the blatant contradiction arises again. An “assessment” may carry a bit more authority than an “opinion,” but Sister Keehan is still indicating that she thinks Bishop Olmsted was wrong—even while she says that the very same Bishop Olmsted had the authority to settle the question.
The public statements of Sister Keehan cannot stand up to even rudimentary logical analysis. But perhaps logical consistency was not her goal. In her letter to Archbishop Dolan, she sought to calm the fears of American bishops that the CHA was disregarding their authority. (It is revealing that she told America she did not expect that letter to become public.) In her subsequent public statements she has sought to reassure her supporters that she is not buckling under episcopal pressure.
By the way, Sister Keehan displayed her talent for equivocation again in her conversation with Our Sunday Visitor, when she tried to explain why the CHA has thrown its support behind the Protect Life Act, now pending before Congress. The Protect Life Act is designed to eliminate the funding for abortion that was contained in the Obama health-care reforms—which the CHA strongly supported, in spite of the US bishops’ opposition. During the debate on ObamaCare, the CHA argued that the bill did not provide taxpayer support for abortions; now the group is endorsing a bill that would eliminate that support. How can the contradiction be resolved?
“We are not supporting [the bill] because we think there was federal funding of abortion in the Affordable Health Care Act,” she said. “But we support anything that advances and strengthens our pro-life agenda.”
Not coincidentally, the “pro-life agenda” of the CHA failed to coincide with that of the US bishops last year, when the bishop encouraged opposition to the sweeping legislation that the CHA endorsed. Now the CHA has endorsed the Protect Life Act in an obvious bid to mend its tattered pro-life credentials. And Sister Keehan has written to Archbishop Dolan to mend the CHA’s tattered claim of loyalty to the American hierarchy. Anyone seriously concerned about the direction of the CHA would be well advised to look beyond the bland reassurances Sister Keehan has offered, and notice how much she failed to concede.
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=768
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Well, in the article I posted, they included the letter Sister Keehan sent to then Archbishop Dolan.
The articles you’re posting, don’t include Sisters own words except for one tidbit, but they don’t provide a source where she made it.
Her letter more accurately reflects her position.
Oh, and BTW, EWTN has misquoted Sister Keehan before and she went on The World Over with Raymond Arroyo, to correct him.
He merely used a false statement reported in the secular media, which she pointed out was false and they had never even spoken with her.
Anyway, I still respect her.
After all, unlike most of us, she’s in the trenches providing health care to the poor and disenfranchised, while we just talk about it.
Jim
Z
zab
Guest
I have to admit, the information about CRS envolvement with CORE is most troubling.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Mother Teresa helped the poor but she did not question the authority of the Bishops.
I am sure Sister Carol Keehan has done good work in health care, but she also supported ObamaTax putting aside the concerns raised by the Bishops about conscience rights and abortion funding. She defended an abortion and I see nowhere publicly that she has said that was wrong.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
I
iloveangels
Guest
I don’t respect the nonsense she’s involved in. If I had done it, I wouldn’t be able to look in the mirror for the rest of my life.
T
Tigg
Guest
Thank you for taking the time to expose the blatant inconsistencies. You’ve done a great job, but alas, sometimes even logic and fact won’t convince - what is also needed is a spiritual discernment and the recognition of morally reprehensible actions. Just maybe, down the road, since we’re seeing more and more encouraging signs of reform, this too, will lead to a cleansing.
I
iloveangels
Guest
I’m not telling anybody else what to do or not do, but I’m not paying for this. Not one red cent.
Thank you for taking the time to expose the blatant inconsistencies. You’ve done a great job, but alas, sometimes even logic and fact won’t convince - what is also needed is a spiritual discernment and the recognition of morally reprehensible actions. Just maybe, down the road, since we’re seeing more and more encouraging signs of reform, this too, will lead to a cleansing.
I
iloveangels
Guest
We need to get out of this and get out of this now, or it’s going to be used against us politically in an even more egregious manner.
The Catholic Church is a religion, not primarily a social service agency.
The Catholic Church is a religion, not primarily a social service agency.
- Status