People are overwhelmed by the number of worthy, charitable causes in the world. Researching, selecting, contacting and donating can be time consuming. This is one big reason why charities like the United Way are successful.
Here in the United States, two big efforts operated by the bishops’ conference (USCCB) are Catholic Relief Services and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. On paper, they both look good. It does not take much investigation however, to uncover a long history of problems in the CCHD. They continue supporting causes which are directly opposed to Catholic teaching in abortion, sexuality and other areas. As a result of increased public awareness, some improvement has been made but very serious problems remain with little apparent effort other than PR to address them. Many, including myself, have urged folks not to support the CCHD during the annual appeals.
The argument is made that recipients of CCHD funds do much good, in addition to some immoral acts. Further, CCHD funds can be given with stipulations that they not support those immoral acts. This is naive and more than a bit disingenuous. Firstly, money is fungible. Secondly, it builds and strengthens immoral organizations. Thirdly, it is cause for scandal.
“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.
So that is a BIG “NO” to material cooperation with evil (even if it is remote) through the CCHD (Catholic Campaign for Human Development).
The CRS (Catholic Relief Services) has not had the historically terrible track-record of the CCHD. In my mind, they had done a lot of good and I have donated. Unfortunately, it now appears that CRS is following in the footsteps of the CCHD and can no longer be blindly trusted by faithful Catholics.
Michael Hichborn has an excellent, well researched piece at the Lepanto Institute:
Here are just a few of the recent findings against CRS:
- In 2011, noted Theologian Germain Grisez exposed CRS’s publication of a condom-promoting flip-chart with the standing order that CRS’s logo not be included on the charts.
- On September 6, 2012, Life Site News revealed that CRS had written several of its own documents (not just one, as CRS continues to insinuate) promoting condom use.
- In February of 2015, The Lepanto Institute published government documents showing that CRS implemented a Planned Parenthood-Style sex education program called “My Changing Body.”
- In March of 2015, The Lepanto Institute and Population Research Institute both researched and confirmed that CRS facilitated the implementation of a contraception-promoting program called Healthy Choices II in Kenya. CRS’s own reports (obtained through the Freedom of Information Act) confirmed that CRS indeed implemented the contraception-promoting program as written.
- In March of 2015, CRS confirmed that it was responsible for the implementation of a condom-promoting video series called “Shuga”, however contradicted its own reporting documents to the government by claiming that the implementation was done by one partner and without CRS’s knowledge. The documents obtained through a FOIA request showed that CRS facilitated the training of 11 partner organizations in “Shuga methodology, and all 11 partners implemented the strategy.”
In each of these cases, CRS was provided with grant money for the implementation of each of these programs and documents.
The last point Dr. Woo makes in response to concerned Catholics gives the appearance that CRS is going to retain the employment of a same-sex “married” vice president:
“Number three, …CRS has a senior person who is in a civil gay marriage, and the question is, “Is that a violation of Church teaching?” I just want to say we are working through this. Gay marriage, of course, is a very complex issue. The Church is very clear that marriage as a sacrament is a between a man and a woman open to procreation. There’s also the Church teaching on natural law. Those are the teachings. – Does it mean that the Church should not employ anyone who is in a gay marriage? Are we giving a blanket No?… If it’s not a blanket No, are there particular positions, such as positions that are ministerial in nature, positions which relate to the formation of the faith of young children at school? … While the teaching is clear, as it translates into practice there has not been defined a common approach for dealing with employment, particularly when the position is non-ministerial, when the person is not a Catholic, when the agency is not a school. So we’re in that area when there have been various steps forward, but not a clear path.
Civil marriage is protected by the State of Maryland and 36 other states, as well as DC, so we’re also dealing with a new intersection between in this case state law and Church teaching where the practice is being defined.“
For one thing, “gay marriage” is not a complex issue when it comes to the Church. It is an abomination before the eyes of the Lord. No matter which governments pretend to enact such a thing as law, what legal frameworks are erected around it, or what material consequences may arise from standing against it, the fact remains that Truth is Truth and evil must be opposed by the Catholic Church both in Her members and in Her institutions. There are plenty of other secular organizations that would be more than happy to employ a same-sex “married” executive, but such does not belong in Catholic institutions. Catholic Relief Services must remember that it is Catholic above all else, and that its first duty is to maintain the integrity of the faith. However, given its history of compromise by funding organizations that commit abortions, perform sterilizations, and distribute contraception, it’s willingness to help create policy papers that spread abortion without raising a hand in protest, its creation of documents that promote condoms, and its facilitation of contraception-promoting programs, it should come as no surprise that CRS would compromise its Catholic faith in favor of a more secular approach to aid and development with regard to a same-sex “married” vice president, either. So, perhaps it’s time for CRS to drop the charade and remove the word “Catholic” from its name. If obtaining government and foundation money is more important to CRS than bringing souls to Christ, or at the very least, not opening doors to wolves seeking to devour the faith of those CRS claims to serve, then it should continue its work as merely “Relief Services.”
Please read the whole piece: CRS President Doubles-Down on Funding Contraception Providers, Employing Same-Sex “Married” Executives.
There is no hope that the CCHD and CRS will amend their ways as long as faithful Catholics continue to contribute. There are many smaller, but clearly faithful, groups to which your charity could be directed.