CCHD Report Recommends, “Be Not Afraid” to Support Pro-abortion Groups

Rockford, Il – 6-12-2013 – (ProLifeCorner.com) – by Rockford Pro-Life Initiative – The Catholic Campaign for Human Development, known for funding organizations that support abortion, contraception, and attacks on the family, recently had a report issued on its behalf and signed by former CCHD staff members.

The report titled, “Be Not Afraid” claims that in order to continue the mission of social justice organizations that support the murder of babies in the womb, support contraception and the redefinition of marriage, they must and will continue to be given Catholic money.

This report is stunning in its ability to completely ignore the mass murder of children in the womb and its attempt to blame Catholics, who defend the right to life for all of God’s children, as lacking charity.

This report is an attempt to convince Catholics they should “Be not Afraid” to support groups that promote the culture of death as long as these groups are doing some kind of “social justice” work.

In this report Bishop Robert Vasa is attacked for not helping the poor enough and the atheist radical Saul Alinsky is held up as a model of living the social justice message.

In the past, the Catholic Campaign for human Development has given tens of millions of dollars to groups that attack human life and based on this report it appears that they will continue to do so.

Those who wrote this pro-CCHD report that attacks Bishop Vasa and holds up Saul Alinsky know full well in the opening page dedication of Alinsky’s most famous book, Rules For Radicals, Alinsky boldly states, “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Please consider sending a note of encouragement and thanks to Bishop Robert Vasa for his continued love for the poor, children in the womb and authentic Church teachings. phawkins@srdiocese.org

Dear STJPII,

Here is why the distinction is relevant.

Let's say a law is proposed in a state to remove any and all restrictions on abortion. No restrictions on late-term abortions, no parental notification, no licensing of abortuaries, no requirement to have qualified medical personnel commit the abortions, nothing.

And let's say that there are people who oppose this proposed law and they begin organizing, forming a broad-based coalition group to fight the proposed law called Citizens Against Insanity (CAI), and begin drawing organizational support. So, the local Catholic pro-life groups join with CAI, work with CAI, even share resources with CAI in the campaign against the proposed law.

And it turns out that there is a local anti-abortion homosexual group that also endorses, and gives money to, CAI (there ARE homosexuals who oppose abortion). And the other board members of CAI are just so pleased with themselves to have recruited the endorsement of the homosexual group, that they appoint one of its members to the board. And of course, along with its anti-abortion stance, the homosexual group also fights FOR homosexual marriage.

Now we have an association between local Catholic pro-life groups and a group (CAI - which is all about opposing insane abortion laws) that has a pro-homosexual marriage organization associated with it, and an official from the group on its board. In fact, this “pro-life” group, CAI, even receives funding from the pro-homosexual marriage organization.

There are some that would make the argument that Catholic pro-lifers shouldn't be involved with a group like CAI at all, even though CAI is about trying to prevent a further broadening of the abortion license, not about homosexual marriage, because some of the people and organizations who support and fund CAI are pro-homosexual marriage.

I understand their point, although I'm pretty sure I disagree with it.

To the degree that these are the associations about which CCHD speaks, they have a point.

However, in the past, when I've read these claims from CCHD, I've also read the specifics of some of these associations, and they often go far beyond this sort of association.

Nonetheless, to the degree that it's possible, critics of the CCHD should try to make distinctions between the above-described associations and those that actually seek to make the Church complicit in evil. Unfortunately, from what I've seen in the past, CCHD and many of its associated groups aren't transparent about the nature of their interrelationships between various organizations.

As well, many of the actual activities of CCHD are, frankly, political in nature, and seek to implement solutions to poverty and injustice that employ prudential means that are not de fide Catholic teaching. In other words, their ends are often unassailable, but their means are legitimate topics for debate. The CCHD folks often speak as if their methods, their prudential judgements of how to alleviate poverty, are the only ones available, or worse, are actually necessary conclusions from de fide teaching.

Again, more transparency is what is required, along with a little humility, that their means are not the only possible ways to alleviate poverty and promote justice. They have claimed a monopoly on the mantle of social justice in the Catholic Church in the United States, but their ways represent only one perspective, and it is a narrow political perspective. And sometimes, the means they endorse arguably violate just laws, especially regarding immigration.

That the bishops have generally endorsed them doesn't mean squat. The bishops’ prudential judgements of the past few decades have shown that the bishops have the collective prudential wisdom of a flock of sheep. Dumb sheep, at that. From their collective pastorals concerning economics to their collective action, reaction, and then immoral over-reactions to the entire homosexual child molestation crisis, the bishops have shown that the quickest way to properly travel from Point A to Point B is to ask the bishops’ conference for directions. And then take the opposite path.

sitetest

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.