Why is CRS a member of this abortion-expanding operation?

[MHichborn]

Recently, there have been discussions on Catholic Relief Services’ $5.3 million grant to the radically pro-abortion organization CARE, and its membership in the condom-promoting CORE Group. But THIS latest revelation is flat INEXCUSABLE!

And ANYONE think of any possible justification for this?

Here’s the article about it:
**
Catholic Relief Services Doubles Down on Support For Pro-Abortion Groups **

redstate.com/svkenney/2012/08/14/catholic-relief-services-doubles-down-on-support-for-pro-abortion-groups/

 

[april32010]

what is their problem

 

[JM3]

The article assumes much. There is no proof that CRS is paying $3,000 for membership. MEDiCAM does not have any information on what Dr. Sok Pun is paying for membership. Being a member does not mean that you agree or follow what MEDiCAM wants. It could be as innocent as Dr. Pun being the only one giving the Catholic view. Perhaps, charity in thought should be your first judgement and not your last.

medicam-cambodia.org/membership/details.asp?orgID=63

 

[po18guy]

I have contributed to CRS for years. However, since their leadership change, I have had a bad feeling about them. Their statements in defense use far too many weasel words. Frankly, they sound just like the past USCCB support of questionable organizations.

Since there are many excellent alternatives to CRS, those will get my money.

A couple to think about that are absolutely saving lives:

bishopgassis.org/

missionariesofafrica.org/

 

[MHichborn]

The article assumes much. There is no proof that CRS is paying $3,000 for membership. MEDiCAM does not have any information on what Dr. Sok Pun is paying for membership. Being a member does not mean that you agree or follow what MEDiCAM wants. It could be as innocent as Dr. Pun being the only one giving the Catholic view. Perhaps, charity in thought should be your first judgement and not your last.

medicam-cambodia.org/membership/details.asp?orgID=63

Did you follow the links, or did you just read the article and draw your own conclusions?

According to the article in CRS’ membership:

1. CRS is a “full member” of MEDiCAM - medicam-cambodia.org/membership/members.asp?mtype=Full%20Members
2. “Full Members” with a budget greater than $1.3 million pay $3,000 per year - medicam-cambodia.org/membership/index.asp

CRS, no doubt, has a budget greater than $1.3 million. Dr. Sok Pun is listed as the contact person … not the member.

You said, “Being a member does not mean that you agree or follow what MEDiCAM wants.”

This is completely irrelevant. CRS is a dues-paying member, and therefore giving money to an organization dedicated to the spread of abortion.

You said, “It could be as innocent as Dr. Pun being the only one giving the Catholic view.”

Still irrelevant … see above.

You said, “Perhaps, charity in thought should be your first judgement and not your last.”

My question to you … “What charity does MEDiCAM have for the preborn babies it is promoting the wholesale slaughter of, and how is CRS’ lending of its name, its money, and its leadership (Kenney’s words) to this abominable organization anything less than despicable?”

 

[april32010]

The article assumes much. It could be as innocent as Dr. Pun being the only one giving the Catholic view.

i would assume that they would know the Catholic view. and i would say it’s disingenuous to state otherwise.

 

[JM3]

Did you follow the links, or did you just read the article and draw your own conclusions?

Did I not supply a link to the membership page?

According to the article in CRS’ membership:

1. CRS is a “full member” of MEDiCAM - medicam-cambodia.org/membership/members.asp?mtype=Full%20Members
2. “Full Members” with a budget greater than $1.3 million pay $3,000 per year - medicam-cambodia.org/membership/index.asp

CRS, no doubt, has a budget greater than $1.3 million. Dr. Sok Pun is listed as the contact person … not the member.

Did anyone bother to contact Dr. Pun and ask?

You said, “Being a member does not mean that you agree or follow what MEDiCAM wants.”

This is completely irrelevant. CRS is a dues-paying member, and therefore giving money to an organization dedicated to the spread of abortion.

You said, “It could be as innocent as Dr. Pun being the only one giving the Catholic view.”

Still irrelevant … see above.

You said, “Perhaps, charity in thought should be your first judgement and not your last.”

My question to you … “What charity does MEDiCAM have for the preborn babies it is promoting the wholesale slaughter of, and how is CRS’ lending of its name, its money, and its leadership (Kenney’s words) to this abominable organization anything less than despicable?”

Do you let the lack of charity of others dictate your charity?

 

[JM3]

i would assume that they would know the Catholic view. and i would say it’s disingenuous to state otherwise.

Disingenuous - insincere, deceitful, dishonest, slyly deceptive or misleading, typically by means of a pretense of ignorance or unawareness.

Many do not. Do you?

The article is bad journalism. A witch hunt against CRS. This is what I object to.

Does Save The Children Australia(SCA) fund abortions?

medicam-cambodia.org/membership/details.asp?orgID=93

Does the Catholic Church fund abortions?

medicam-cambodia.org/membership/details.asp?orgID=4480

By your judgement, the answer to both would be yes. Therefore, there must be something missing in your judgement.

Is charity disingenuous?

 

[MHichborn]

JM3:
Not in the least, and you completely missed my point. Charity doesn’t mean to be lacking in rational thought or prudential judgment, nor does it mean “being nice.” There is a serious injustice taking place when a Catholic agency gives money to an organization so completely set on the spread of abortion, and righteous indignation is most appropriate here. There really is no excuse for it. Read Sirach 12:3 - "No good comes to those who give comfort to the wicked, nor is it an act of mercy that they do. and Sirach 12:5 - “No arms for combat should you give them, lest they use these against you; Twofold evil you will obtain for every good deed you do for them.”

 

[MHichborn]

Disingenuous - insincere, deceitful, dishonest, slyly deceptive or misleading, typically by means of a pretense of ignorance or unawareness.

Many do not. Do you?

The article is bad journalism. A witch hunt against CRS. This is what I object to.

Does Save The Children Australia(SCA) fund abortions?

medicam-cambodia.org/membership/details.asp?orgID=93

Does the Catholic Church fund abortions?

medicam-cambodia.org/membership/details.asp?orgID=4480

By your judgement, the answer to both would be yes. Therefore, there must be something missing in your judgement.

Is charity disingenuous?

Bad journalism? The author fully documented every claim … how can this be bad journalism? If you want to see bad journalism, turn on CNN or MSNBC, or read the New York Times.

What you object to seems to be the fact that a Catholic charity is the subject of someone’s research, and that research turned up some very unsavory items. While I agree that this is upsetting, that does not invalidate the information. Judas’ betrayal of Jesus was upsetting … but it happened. The heresy of Arius, and the fact that nearly 80% of the Church had fallen to his heresy is upsetting … but it happened. And pointing these things out is NOT a witch-hunt … they happened, and they happened because the devil is the enemy of Christ and His Church and he will do everything in his power to pervert, twist, and rot all that is good. So the charitable thing is to find the rot, expose it to the light, and strengthen that which the devil has attempted to destroy.

It’s like finding rot in the foundation of a wooden building. You cannot strengthen the foundation while the rot is still there. You have to strip it away completely before you can add new lumber, or else the rot will simply spread to the new lumber, rendering the foundation twice as rotten as before.

 

[JM3]

Bad journalism? The author fully documented every claim …

It turns out that CRS is a member of an organization called MEDiCAM and as a member, pays about $3,000 in membership dues.

The link goes to the membership fee area. Why? Where is the link to the CRS budget that shows it paid $3,000? Notice the word ‘about’. What does that tell you?

Furthermore, CRS is listed as a 2011 member of MEDiCAM’s steering committee.

No, Dr. Pun is.

Dr Sok Pun co opted by Mr. Prakas

Where is the interview with Dr. Pun on what exactly was dicussed and his, or her, contribution to that discussion?

What remains as a question is why would Catholic Relief Services ever consider paying membership fees to an organization so clearly committed to furthering the values of abortion culture?

No proof is given that CRS paid such fees, only innuendo.

So, the author did not document every claim. This reeks, to me, of McCarthyism.

 

[JM3]

Sirach 12:3 - "No good comes to those who give comfort to the wicked, nor is it an act of mercy that they do. and Sirach 12:5 - “No arms for combat should you give them, lest they use these against you; Twofold evil you will obtain for every good deed you do for them.”

Matthew 5

42: Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.
43: "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44: But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45: so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46: For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47: And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48: You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[MHichborn]

Matthew 5

42: Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.
43: "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44: But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45: so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46: For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47: And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48: You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

2 Corinthians 6

“‘Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?”

 

[MHichborn]

The link goes to the membership fee area. Why? Where is the link to the CRS budget that shows it paid $3,000? Notice the word ‘about’. What does that tell you?

No, Dr. Pun is.

Where is the interview with Dr. Pun on what exactly was dicussed and his, or her, contribution to that discussion?

No proof is given that CRS paid such fees, only innuendo.

So, the author did not document every claim. This reeks, to me, of McCarthyism.

What more proof do you need? CRS is listed as a “FULL MEMBER” of MEDiCAM. Not innuendo … this is documented on MEDiCAM’s website.

Full Members that have a budget greater $1.3 million pay dues of $3,000. CRS is a Billion dollar organization … clearly, their budget is greater than $1.3 million. Ergo, CRS pays $3,000 in dues. Also … there are no non-dues paying “Full memberships,” and still … CRS pays dues.

The evidence suffices for the conclusion.

 

[JM3]

The evidence suffices for the conclusion.

Lumen Gentium 14…He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

 

[po18guy]

Lumen Gentium 14…He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

Red herring! This has absolutely nothing - zip, zero, nada, to do with the poor choices that CRS leadership apparently continues to make.

Please stay on topic.

This thread is about poor prudential choices on the part of CRS decision makers. Is CRS the only charity in the world? Are Catholics mandated to contribute to CRS under the pain of mortal sin? Why this blind loyalty to CRS? Are they above examination? Are they infallible?

Your position is most curious.

 

[MHichborn]

Lumen Gentium 14…He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

I’m not sure how you are defining charity. Is presenting evidence that contains a conclusion somehow discharity? If that is the case, then all detectives and investigators are bound for the netherworld.

 

[JM3]

Red herring! This has absolutely nothing - zip, zero, nada, to do with the poor choices that CRS leadership apparently continues to make.

Please stay on topic.

This thread is about poor prudential choices on the part of CRS decision makers. Is CRS the only charity in the world? Are Catholics mandated to contribute to CRS under the pain of mortal sin? Why this blind loyalty to CRS? Are they above examination? Are they infallible?

Your position is most curious.

You come upon a person who has been murdered. Should a judge convict you for that murder, because you were there? If the murderer is found to be someone you work with, are you guilty by association? Is the company? If the murderer is a relative, are you also guilty?

Is CRS a member of MEDiCAM? Yes.

Did CRS pay $3,000 for its membership? The article gives no proof of this, but makes the assumption that it did only on the fact that it is a member. Does this sound charitable?

What does CRS do in MEDiCAM? The article does not even explore this. It only throws out the accusation that CRS is funding abortions. Is this logical? What, in common sense, would support such a conclusion?

If you accept the article as it is written, then you must also say that the Catholic Church is funding abortions, as it is also a member.

medicam-cambodia.org/membership/details.asp?orgID=4480

I am not trying to support CRS. I just can’t understand supporting a conclusion based on a logical fallacy.

What ever happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’?



Show me the CRS budget that proves they are directly funding abortions and with full knowledge. Then I will recant. But if you insist on using innuendo as proof or base your charity on hearsay, then I will say so.

 

[JM3]

I’m not sure how you are defining charity. Is presenting evidence that contains a conclusion somehow discharity? If that is the case, then all detectives and investigators are bound for the netherworld.

When the evidence is circumstantial, then the conclusion to condemn is uncharitable.

 

[po18guy]

You come upon a person who has been murdered. Should a judge convict you for that murder, because you were there? If the murderer is found to be someone you work with, are you guilty by association? Is the company? If the murderer is a relative, are you also guilty?

Is CRS a member of MEDiCAM? Yes.

Did CRS pay $3,000 for its membership? The article gives no proof of this, but makes the assumption that it did only on the fact that it is a member. Does this sound charitable?

What does CRS do in MEDiCAM? The article does not even explore this. It only throws out the accusation that CRS is funding abortions. Is this logical? What, in common sense, would support such a conclusion?

If you accept the article as it is written, then you must also say that the Catholic Church is funding abortions, as it is also a member.

medicam-cambodia.org/membership/details.asp?orgID=4480

I am not trying to support CRS. I just can’t understand supporting a conclusion based on a logical fallacy.

What ever happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’?



Show me the CRS budget that proves they are directly funding abortions and with full knowledge. Then I will recant. But if you insist on using innuendo as proof or base your charity on hearsay, then I will say so.

You are still deflecting the questions. The problem is not that someone has exposed what appears to be poor judgment - the problem is the apparent poor judgement on the part of CRS.

As to focusing solely on the article: Can an apparently drunk person report a fire? Why attack the drunk person if something is burning? Let’s check the fire first and then deal with any drunkenness later.

Let’s forget the article and look at the defense that CRS has raised. It is replete with weasel words. Truth is easily stated in a clear and coherent manner. I am not seeing that from CRS. They have failed to establsih a prima facia defense. They should be above reproach, without even the appearance of impropriety.

Bottom line: It appears that CRS has lurched farther left, and is walking hand-in-hand with anti-life forces while claiming, essentially, that “we feed those poor whom our partners don’t kill” Until this is properly refuted, I have a moral obligation to withhold my charitable finds from them and send them elsewhere.

p.s. I now know why I suddenly began receiving multiple solicitations from CARE. Who shared my name and address with them, hmmm? The whole thing just stinks. When something stinks, you don’t apologize for the stench - you clean it up, as is occurring with the folks over at the USCCB.