Print Article | Email Article | Write To Us

Daily News

Campaign for Human Development Answers Charges (2381)

Is the bishops’ anti-poverty program complicit with practices against Church teaching?

11/18/2011 Comments (9)
USCCB

– USCCB

WASHINGTON — From the bishops’ perspective, the fight against poverty is daunting enough without wasting time and resources defending their record.

But one pro-life organization continues to question whether resources that come from the wallets and pocketbooks of faithful Catholic should be directed to anti-poverty agencies with other agendas.

As most dioceses this weekend take up the annual collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the bishops’ domestic anti-poverty, social-justice program, the Campaign is again drawing the ire of critics who allege that the program funds agencies involved in activities contrary to Church teaching on abortion, contraception and same-sex “marriage.”

However, officials with CCHD say they have strengthened the screening process that vets social-service agencies seeking grants, and now they are strongly challenging a recent American Life League report, which alleges that 55 agencies funded in 2010-11 were in conflict with Church teaching.

Sacramento Bishop Jaime Soto, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ CCHD subcommittee, said in a telephone interview that the American Life League report contained false and misleading information. He said the 212-page report contained recycled charges, often outdated, gleaned from Web searches and not verified with the particular agencies or local bishops.

“Our work is done in what is today a highly polarized political environment,” Bishop Soto said. “Any effort to practice and preach the Gospel will be challenged, whether from the left or the right, from political organizations or from the government itself.”

Michael Hichborn, director of the American Life League’s Defend the Faith project and the report’s author, said that the CCHD is not taking his organization’s concerns seriously. He took issue with the CCHD staff’s rebuttal of the charges by ALL and the other member groups of the Reform CCHD Now Coalition, and asserted the problem reflected undisclosed partisan ideological agendas.

“The crux of the issue, and why things continue to be a problem, is because the (CCHD) staff is either not being honest with the bishops or not being honest with themselves over the nature of the problem,” Hichborn charged. “CCHD is more interested in how far they can go in not crossing the line and not protecting Catholic funds. Once you start asking those questions, you’ve already crossed the line.”

Since 2008, American Life League and other vocal critics, including Bellarmine Veritas Ministries and Human Life International, have questioned the thoroughness of CCHD’s process for vetting grant applications from agencies involved in anti-poverty programs. In 2010-11, CCHD funded 218 organizations with grants funded through a national collection that netted about $9.5 million.


11-Month Investigation

Last year’s American Life League report, released weeks before the annual CCHD collection at Sunday Masses prior to Thanksgiving, raised considerable controversy when it detailed a list of funded organizations accused of participating in activities opposed to Catholic teaching. The report called for a complete overhaul of the bishops’ anti-poverty program.

CCHD officials responded with their own 11-month investigation, which led the organization to rescind five grants to agencies that reportedly violated their agreements not to engage in practices antithetical to Church teaching or to form coalitions with organizations whose stated missions run counter to Catholic principles.

The internal review led to the Oct. 26, 2010, release of a 15-page document entitled ”The Review and Renewal of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development”, which affirmed the CCHD mission statement, but also added new layers of screening to ensure grant recipients’ adherence to Catholic teaching.

The reforms included a preference for grant applicants with overt Catholic identities, a rewritten application enumerating specific positions that exclude groups from receiving funds, increased collaboration between CCHD and other offices in the bishops’ conference, the establishment of an independent review board and ongoing consultations with a moral theologian.

Officials also confirmed that dioceses and the national CCHD office jointly investigate any potential problems with grant recipients. The local bishop is also briefed on the grant applicants and must sign off before they receive any funds.

“CCHD has done very good work over the years, and it is exercising even greater vigilance now in promoting Gospel values and making sure the funded programs comply with them,” Bishop Soto said. “I’m seeing people who receive the funding have a better understanding of what their work has to be to reflect the hope and vitality of the Gospel.”

However, the American Life League says serious problems remain. Its report, released in October, says that 55 CCHD-funded groups are involved in activities contrary to Church teaching and that 40 are actively involved in coalitions with such activities. Those estimates would mean that the number — 51 to 55 — and percentage — 21% to 24% — of offending groups increased from the previous year.


Condom Giveaway

Hichborn, the report’s author, said 35 grantees profiled in this year’s report were not included in last year’s analysis. Hichborn said the new guidelines and protections that CCHD enacted last year are sound, but there have been problems with implementation.

“The CCHD staff in Washington, D.C., consistently points to the bishops and say that all the bishops have to sign off on this. But that does not mean that the bishops have all the information. My understanding is that the bishops are very busy shepherding their own flocks and don’t have time to look into all this information.”

“When something like this comes up, (the bishops) have to rely on the reporting of the CCHD staff, and when you have a staff wanting to continue funding for these organizations and they tell the bishops, ‘Don’t worry. This is just Web-based research,’ they’re not even considering the accusations,” Hichborn said.

Stephen Phelan, communications director for Human Life International, said that “it is not clear that whoever is responsible for vetting grantees is aware of the policy or is given clear direction in how it should be implemented.”

Some examples of problematic grant recipients cited in the ALL report included Centro Campesino in Owatonna, Minn., an immigrants-rights group that was granted $35,000 but was found to be distributing condoms. The bishops’ conference subsequently pulled the organization’s funding. Officials said CCHD revoked a California agency’s funding to provide HIV-AIDS services after initiating its own inquiry.

However, critics say there are still many offending grant recipients. W.H. Marshner, a theology professor at Christendom College in Front Royal, Va., wrote a letter, dated Oct. 13, to American Life League’s executive director, Paul Rondeau, where he said ALL’s “well-organized report” documented at least 11 cases, where in his judgment, the grantee had done or promoted an immoral activity.

Marshner also wrote that the ALL report documented at least 13 solid examples of grantees being affiliated with coalitions that sponsor or advocate actions and positions that the Church does not approve of. Marshner said those grantees “ought to be defunded, and yet they are not.”

“There are dozens of examples of these kinds of problems documented in ALL’s report, which is why we, and several bishops, are still concerned about the CCHD’s ability to implement an authentic renewal of their grant-making procedures,” said Phelan, who did not name the concerned bishops.

Jeffrey Mirus, president of Trinity Communications, said CCHD has not always exercised extreme care in vetting grant recipients.

“The reason, most likely, is that the CCHD is staffed by social justice advocates who have been formed as much in the liberal/leftist tradition (represented, say, by the Democratic Party) as by a deep understanding of the full scope of Catholic social teaching,” Mirus said.


Unverified Information

CCHD fired back at ALL in a memo posted on the USCCB website. Except for one case, CCHD said the groups mentioned in the report had not violated their agreement to refrain from morally problematic activities.

The memo said the ALL report relied almost exclusively on unverified Web-based information, often outdated, and that the accusations were “almost always made” without contact with the CCHD-funded group or diocesan staff.

In some cases, CCHD said, agencies were listed on other organizations’ websites without their knowledge or consent, but were still criticized in the ALL report as materially cooperating with those groups.

In one case, the Immigrant Worker Center of Ohio sent three interns to attend a meeting of the United States Social Forum, a gathering of social-justice activists which grew out of the World Social Forum process. According to the ALL report, the Social Forum hosted dozens of workshops promoting abortion, homosexuality and Marxism. One of the primary purposes of the forum, according to ALL’s findings, was to generate cross-issues advocacy.

As a result, the ALL report cited the Immigrant Worker Project of Ohio as an offending organization, which Tony Stieritz, director of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati’s Catholic Social Action Office and Commission, said was unfair.

Stieritz said the Immigrant Worker Project’s representatives attended the forum to speak about their particular issues — immigrant rights — and not to advocate for same-sex “marriage” or “family planning” services.

“Nobody really sees their involvement (at the forum) as actually cooperating with evil,” said Stieritz, whose office coordinates CCHD-funded activities at the local level.

Stieritz said the archdiocese monitors its local grantees for any signs of inappropriate activity and affiliations and noted that the archdiocese recently warned local agencies not to affiliate themselves with a local funding organization, similar to United Way, which listed Planned Parenthood as a founding member.

“This is something that we do need to take seriously because these are Catholic dollars that we want to make sure contribute to the Church’s mission and don’t contradict that in any way,” Stieritz said.

“Again, it is something to be taken seriously, but I don’t agree with the way some of these national groups go about it, in the sense of trying to create a scandal about it.”


Root Causes

But Hichborn stands by his research methodologies, saying that he follows research standards endorsed by the Department of Defense and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Hichborn said he and his research partner are both certified in those standards and that they combed through primary-source material such as board minutes, annual reports and published news reports.

Hichborn also denied CCHD statements that he and other critics simply do not approve of the organization’s mission statement.

“We have told them repeatedly that American Life League does not dispute the stated missions and goals of CCHD. The only reason we got into looking at them was because they were funding organizations that promote abortion, homosexuality and birth control.”

Meanwhile, Phelan said there is a “profound philosophical disconnect” between the CCHD’s core mission and how they go about addressing it, “which is why the CCHD gives almost all of its money to secular groups whose work is based on a very different anthropology, or view of the human person.”

Jerry Schmutte, a member of a Catholics United for the Faith chapter in Milwaukee, said in a phone interview that he would rather see the money being donated to Catholic organizations.

“Why not spend those millions of dollars raised in the collection on inner-city Catholic schools that teach the faith, the whole faith, not part of it. At least, they would be under direct Catholic supervision,” Schmutte said.

Rey Flores, director of Better Catholic Giving, is also critical of the CCHD model. Flores was previously the director of the CCHD program in the Archdiocese of Chicago until he left that post last November. He generated controversy for reforms that included specifically asking grant applicants where they stood on the issues of abortion, same-sex “marriage,” and “family planning” programs. Flores told the Register he also began awarding grants to organizations that promoted pro-life causes.

“We want to teach people about authentic social justice,” said Flores, who calls Better Catholic Giving a “lay education and accountability organization.”

“I think CCHD has literally been coopted by secular community organizations that just see us as a feeding trough and a bottomless source of funding for their activities,” Flores said.

Mirus noted that there is nothing contrary to Catholic social teaching in making contributions to organizations which seek to raise community awareness of the plight of the disadvantaged, and to advocate for change. Part of the backlash, he suggested, should be dismissed as conservatism, not Catholicism.

“From the point of view of Catholic social teaching, the question is probably, ‘What degree of entanglement is permissible when attempting to further some good purpose?’” Mirus said.

“Catholic social teaching would indicate which points of advocacy are immoral or contrary to the common good. Obviously, direct involvement in this sort of advocacy (or in the actions advocated), such as abortion or same-sex marriage, is immoral. But if the connection to the immoral advocacy is unintended, indirect, imprecise and fairly far-removed, then it will often be morally permissible. In that case, prudence would determine whether the connection or perceived connection would do more harm than good,” Mirus said.

Meanwhile, Bishop Soto said CCHD carries out important work in the areas of human relief and social justice.

“We have to commit to moving the CCHD goal forward, which is keeping a true sense of human development that raises the dignity of the human person,” said Bishop Soto, who added: “People are going to question our work. When there are legitimate questions raised, we will investigate them.”

Register correspondent Brian Fraga writes from New Bedford, Massachusetts.

 

 

 

Filed under abortion, american life league, catholic campaign for human development, cchd, homosexuality, usccb

Comments

Post a Comment

There are some underlying problems here, whatever the facts regarding any particular grantee.  CCHD is right to focus on small community agencies since these are more effective in helping people to build on the community’s own resources to improve the capacity of individuals, families, and neighborhoods to care for their own and thrive economically. 

The principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social teaching supports such a non-governmental, bottom-up approach.  Big agencies like Catholic Charities, though Catholic in name and under direct oversight of the bishop in each local Church, receive most of their funding from the government.  They become agents of government policy, with all the problems we are seeing now when grants supporting key functions like adoption impose conditions and immoral actions that are clearly contrary to the Church’s teaching.

But small community development agencies and projects are weak in areas like accountability and are subject to turf conflicts among indigenous leaders, among other problems.  The problem for CCHD is that it is itself too centralized and too removed from what goes on at grassroots level. 

The Church has a profound obligation to help the poor and downtrodden, and finding fault with the way it goes about doing so should never be an excuse for stinginess or Scrooge-like reliance on government programs that by their nature lack the virtue of charity - the love that wills the good of the other as other for the other’s own sake.

At the same time, we must take seriously the testimony of leaders in faith-based community development like the Protestant minister Robert Lupton (see his recent “Toxic Charity”). He argues that most church-sponsored charitable efforts from food pantries to “mission” junkets of young people to poor countries to build wells or houses, etc. do more harm than good.  He argues above all for a focus on results rather than intentions - how much do we know about how or whether CCHD funding actually develops communities or relieves poverty as distinct from making donors and volunteers feel good?

The question is whether a centralized, national funding effort under the collective auspices of the bishops is or can be the best way to help those the CCHD intends to help.  Is this what the bishops should be doing as a ‘conference,’ and is this the best way to do it?  I suspect the answer is NO on both counts.

http://ethicsculture.blogspot.com

I’m always “amused” when I see the words “immigrant rights”.  What “immigrants” are we talking about?  Are you talking about all those Hispanic people who have illegally entered the United States?  How long before it becomes some sort of social crime to criticize these people for entering the U.S. illegally.  So far, anyone who complains about the flood of “undocumented” people from anywhere south of the border is branded as a racist or whatever other names the hefty lefties choose to call them.  I wish my ancestors had as many “rights” as these people do.  I don’t recall them having all that many rights when they legally landed at Ellis Island!!  But then that was over 100 years ago.  Must have been some mental changes about the definition of the word “legal” since then I guess.

When the Bishops stop assigning their work to committees and subcommittees and begin to directly oversee everything which involves the salvation or peril of souls, then we will see real change. Unfortunately the Bishops remain clueless because they place too much trust in their delegates.

It is the way it is because that is the way the bishops want it. The CCHD and it’s corruption exist because the USCCB is corrupt. The CCHD is the creation of the acolytes of Saul Alinsky within the Catholic Church and the bishops.

Three out of four founders of the Campaign were DIRECTLY trained in Alinsky groups. This is the Guru of Obama and Hillary Clinton who dedicated his book to ‘Lucifer, the first successful rebel’.  The CHD was and perhaps is the vanguard of Alinskyite infiltration of the Church.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6404/is_4_59/ai_n28718506/pg_4/?tag=content;col1

There is no question whatsoever that the Campaign for Human Development has supported organizations that promote intrinsically evil causes, causes that have no business being associated with the Catholic Church. I for one was appalled at just who the Bishops were giving millions of dollars to. Ok live and learn and maybe donate to the food bank instead of the CHD. In correcting this problem it should be noted that the origins of virtually all messages etc. of the CHD are “secret” in the sense that they are written anonymously. These anonymous authors set the agenda for the Bishops because they have already identified and written the position papers the Bishops are called upon to endorse and even which groups will get Church monies ... kind of like voting in the old Soviet Union where there was no primary and the slate of candidates were already picked by the Party. It is long past time that just like the tracking code on a bag of chips or a can of beans the documents and position papers etc. created by the CHD have their true authors identified both before being presented to the Bishops for endorsement and afterwords so that like a can of beans if someone gets “sick” from the product we can see just who processed the food and where the salmonella got into the food chain. It would also help if each Bishop should have to personally sign off on the wholesomeness of any group that they give these monies too.

My understand of the Catholic Teaching on morals is we can never do evil to achieve a good. Feeding people, helping with medical, housing is not the priority of the church. The main role of the church is to lead souls to heaven. I cannot justify giving to CCHD in the name of “social justice” while our money is supporting these evils, abortion, contraception and homosexual agenda’s. The CCHD has shown they are not “good stewards” of our money. This is in direct parallel to our Government’s misuse of our tax dollars! I am sure that many are not aware, but WHY ARE THEY NOT AWARE OF THE EVILS that are being perpetuated in the name of “SOCIAL JUSTICE”? I refuse to give and I am struggling to give to my parish as well. I am considering giving to charities that are in line with authentic Catholic Teaching. I welcome comments if this would be a fair thing to do. Should I continue supporting my parish? Do the priests have any power in stopping this?
May you all have a Blessed Thanksgiving!

I appreciate the suggestion in this article to give to inner-city Catholic schools - I would add that with the current movement to deny government funds to Catholic agencies, to close down Catholic adoption services as just happened in Illinois, and the recent revocation of the grant for the Catholic program to help victims of sex-trafficking, etc., this money should go to help replace the loss of those secular funds and retain the Catholic programs. If the leaders of the CCHD are not willing to reform it completely, it should be closed and replaced with a truly Catholic Campaign for Human Dignity.

I want to say that on Sunday my parish did NOT take up a collection for CCHD!!! I had sent my pastor the video from RealCatholicTV on Social Injustice and….a personal email from me telling him my thoughts on this and asking that he does not take the collection this year based on the document from Christendom College and the video. He never responded to me so I did not think it was going to do anything. I went to Saturday mass and there was no collection for CCHD. I prayed for this to happen and it did! I am so surprised. Has this occured with anyone else here at their parish? Do I dare think that the CCHD has backed down and is going to stop this? Does anyone have any information on this? I am flabbergasted! I dare not approach my Pastor on this as last yesr he was not happy with me when I did. So….what happened? I am relieved and hope many parishes did the same.
THANK YOU LORD!!!  GOD BLESS!!

Post a Comment

By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

     

Notify me of follow-up comments.