Skip to comments.The Flim-Flam Bishops Strike Again
Posted on 10/26/2011 4:49:59 AM PDT by schmootman
Substance ought to be meaty. Against the 210 pages of a report issued by American Life League (ALL)[i] documenting scores of Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) grantees that violate, in one form or another, CCHDs own grant guidelines, CCHD issued a page-long press release[ii] and an accompanying one-page enclosure. [iii] The fact that this preemptive rebuttal was issued on September 28, 2011, several days before the ALL Report was released on October 3, 2011, may account for the paucity of its self-defense but, then again, it may not.
As we have done with prior CCHD communications, here is a response to the response:
1. CCHD argues that the ALL Report is nothing more than recycled allegations.
Recycled allegations are perfectly legitimate if they have not been addressed. Conservationists dont stop complaining about undrinkable water just because the corporation spewing chemicals into the river says it has performed numerous tests that show the water is pure, pure, pure.
But, as a matter of fact, the 2011 ALL Report is not simply last years report, repackaged, unless CCHD means that ALL continues to complain that the water is toxic.
However, the ALL Report contains scores of newly documented offenses.
2. CCHD argues that most of the ALL allegations are without merit. In one case, a clear violation occurred after the grant was approved and CCHD funding was swiftly and completely terminated. We expressed our appreciation for this information. However, other ALL allegations are without substance and our reasons for this conclusion are in the attached summary. [emphasis added]
However, the attached summary does nothing more than detail the very stringent vetting process prospective CCHD grantees must endure before receiving their awards. A detailed vetting process, filled with well-intentioned bishops and priests and ever-evolving guidelines, is a lovely piece of bureaucracy IF it results in grantees whose work conforms to Catholic moral principles.
If the grantees work does not conform to Catholic moral principles, however, the vetting process wasnt good enough.
The object to look at is not the process but the outcome.
3. CCHD argues that It is important to note serious overall problems with the accusations of Hichborn and ALL. They rely almost exclusively on unverified web-based information and primarily on internet sites of organizations that are NOT funded by CCHD. These accusations are almost always made without contact with the CCHD funded groups or diocesan staff.
Much of the web-based information, however, comes from the home-sites of the CCHD grantees. This is the material the grantee is showing the world about its work, its mission, and its affiliations. It is, in fact, contact with the CCHD-funded group.
While some web-based information is unreliable, some is source material including organizational fliers and newspaper clippings that have been posted online. The ALL Report has made the distinction between valid sources and opinion pieces. CCHD has not.
4. CCHD argues that when ALL has identified any of its grantees as working within an objectionable coalition, it is consistently misunderstanding the situation. Either the coalition listed the grantee as a member or a partner without permission, OR an over-enthusiastic staff member signed the grantee into membership or a partnership without proper authorization, OR grantees perhaps spoke at such coalition gatherings but only about their own topics, OR perhaps the materials are outdated, and anyway, the local bishop bears the final responsibility for screening grantees in his area.
If there were only one or two grantees in question, the occasional communication snafu would be entirely understandable. When, however, grantee after grantee is shown to be entangled with coalitions promoting abortion or homosexual rights, it becomes more difficult to dismiss this as an aberration.
And it is not an aberration. As has been discussed elsewhere [Catholic Campaign for Human Development 2011: Part I Guilt by Association Funding the Idaho Community Action Network. http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=61285], many CCHD grantees are actively engaged in progressive political network building. Whatever the grantees particular area of concern may be, to be part of such a political network means promoting moral evil. It really is that black and white.
5. CCHD argues that it has begun to fund new, pro-life initiatives. Thats nice so long as it isnt simultaneously funding the same old, pro-abortion, political progressives that will vitiate them. And, unfortunately, CCHD is doing exactly that.
So the issue we come back to is whether or not CCHD funds a high percentage of groups with an anti-Catholic agenda in some aspect of their work. Are the ALL allegations without substance? Look at a few of them:
CCHD gave $30,000 to the New York City AIDS Housing Network, which is listed as a condom distribution site at New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene webpage.[iv] Is this not a substantive problem for a CCHD grantee?
CCHD gave $25,000 to Michigan Interfaith Voice, an affiliate of the Gamaliel Alinskyian organizing network. Michigan Interfaith Voice has also received multiple grants from the Arcus Foundation specifically for the promotion of homosexual rights.[v] Is this not a substantive problem for a CCHD grantee?
CCHD gave $40,000 to Womens Community Revitalization Project (WCRP), which has been an associate member agency of Womens Way[vi] and long-time grant recipient of its Community Womens Fund,[vii] which only funds pro-abortion, pro-birth control organizations.[viii] Is this not a substantive problem for a CCHD grantee?
CCHD gave $40,000 to Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, which believes that those rights include universal access to abortion, as evidenced by but not limited to its membership in the abortion-advocacy groups Healthcare for All coalition,[ix] and US Human Rights Network.[x] An official representing GLAHR spoke at the Atlanta LGBT Immigration Forum that had been organized for a timely discussion about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer immigration.[xi] Is this not a substantive problem for a CCHD grantee?
CCHD gave $40,000 to Coalition LA, which printed its own voter guide, calling for votes in favor of same-sex marriage.[xii] Is this not a substantive problem for a CCHD grantee?
And if these are not substantive problems for a CCHD grantee, CCHD is a substantive problem for the US Catholic Church.
Why shoulc CCHD worry? This has been going on a long time and they just give the same excuses over and over and suffer no consequences. I remember reading articles like this five years ago on FR. CCHD knows nothing will be done to them or their money so I don’t think they are too concerned.
And it will continue as long as the sheep show up to be trimmed.
This is analogous to a parent funding a child’s private schhol tuition at a typical liberal private school; the parent is absolutely to blame for that child’s leftist indoctrination (including LGBT crap, abortion crap, explicit and perverted sex ed, multiculturalism, feminism, and white-guys-are-all-bad-ism).
You don’t show real love to someone by funding their misguided activities.
This is analogous to citizens funding a public schools; the citizens are absolutely to blame for the school’s leftist indoctrination (including LGBT crap, abortion crap, explicit and perverted sex ed, multiculturalism, feminism, and white-guys-are-all-bad-ism).
If the citizens are not at every school board meeting en masse to decry this crap, then the citizens paying the taxes are to blame.
This is why we desperately need to be praying REGULARLY for our priests and bishops. We should refrain from financially funding the Campaign for Human Development.....but prayer is key!
Salvation posts a prayer for priests on the daily Catholic Caucus thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2798011/posts