jump to navigation

Voris – why can’t CRS only direct money to Church efforts…… July 25, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, Society.
comments closed

…….or those of groups who pose absolutely no moral problems for the Church?  Why do Catholic Church charities seemingly find it absolutely necessary to give money to entities like CARE that pose such massive potential for scandal?

I’ll drop the topic for today after this, but Michael Voris, who was singled out for attention by CRS in their PR campaign, makes some very salient points:

More here from Catholic News Roundup:

CRS makes further response to CARE scandal July 25, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

I had a figure from CRS come by and attempt to refute some of what I said in my last post.  I think it was a rather niggling response, since CRS has certainly caused scandal, and scandal is a very grave matter in itself.

Scandal is not a PR matter.  It’s not a funding concern.  It’s a serious sin in and of itself.  Causing scandal can cause people to be confused about what the Church believes, it can cause people to fall into error, it can even cause people to leave the Faith.  Our Blessed Lord made clear what a gravely sinful matter scandal was when he said in Matthew 18:6 “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

CRS has made alot of counter claims in regard to this CARE donation, but they have not countered the fact that they were warned this donation to CARE would cause scandal.  Given that, CRS had a great responsibility to decide whether the good that would come from the donation would outweigh the scandal caused by it. They decided it would, but seems to me like a foregone conclusion.  They also had the responsibility to try to ameliorate that scandal.  So, what great steps did CRS take to fend off this grave scandal?  OH.MY……….they updated the mission statement on their website.

CRS has consulted with Dr. John Haas of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, an expert in moral theology who is a member of the bishops’ pro-life committee, to review our grants (including grants with CARE) and he found that none of them constitutes support of or involvement in immoral activities. However, he cautioned CRS of the risk of scandal if people become confused and wrongly assume that CRS was endorsing a partner’s position on other issues. [that is not exactly what he said] To address this, CRS posted a statement posted our Mission Statement on our website, titled ‘The Catholic Values of CRS.

Wow.  The immense lengths to which CRS went to avoid the grave sin of scandal.  They actually updated a web page.  My stars, what will they think of next?

And not only that, they added a section “The Catholic Values of CRS!”  Are those the same values that led a spokesperson from CRS to claim just last year that they would never, ever so much as breathe a word about Jesus or mention the Gospel while performing their charitable work, that to do so would be counter to everything they believe in?  Does CRS not recognize that anyone can claim to hold “Catholic” values, but that the proof is actually in our actions?  How many new age apostate gaia-lovin’ sisters claim to be “Catholic?”  Are they?

I’m sorry, I’m skeptical of the “Catholic values” of CRS. I’m skeptical of an organization that would dole out millions of dollars given in good faith by Catholics to a radical pro-abort group like CARE, whose CEO is one of the most demonic abortion advocates in the world right now.

You know who else is skeptical of CRS’ Catholic values?  The Holy Father.  CRS is part of Caritas International, and the Holy Father has been engaged in a great struggle to try to get Caritas to once again possess a Catholic character and……..Catholic values.  The Holy Father has been greatly disappointed with the dominant secularist and progressivist characteristics of Caritas.  I do not believe CRS, the US arm of Caritas, is substantially different from its parent organization.

As I said before, I haven’t given money to CRS for years.  I don’t believe faithful Catholics can do so in good conscience for myriad reasons, some of which I’ve brought up in the posts today, many of which I haven’t.  I think the institutions of Catholic charity – in this country in particular – are badly broken.  They Holy Father does not disagree – when in Germany this year he decried the plethora of “structures” in the Western Church which have wonderful facilities and lots of money but no heart, no Catholic soul.  You may disagree, you may even work for CRS and believe ever so strongly that it’s a wonderful Christian organization, but I’m afraid I will continue to disagree.

As I said, words are easy, it’s actions that matter.

CRS digs a deeper hole – National Catholic Bioethics Center warned against CARE grant July 25, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, horror, scandals, sickness.
comments closed

Lots of interesting things in this follow-up post by LifeSiteNews.  First of all, since LifeSiteNews broke the story last week about Catholic Relief Services (CRS) making a huge donation to pro-abort, pro-contracept, pro-lots of bad things CARE, CRS has been pushing back claiming that LifeSiteNews had the wrong data, that CRS had not given money to any pro-abort or other immoral activities at CARE, that the money was for a water treatment project, that the money was “not fungible” (for the first time ever, non-fungible money!), and most importantly that the National Catholic Bioethics Center had reviewed their grant and found it perfectly, wonderfully compliant with Catholic morality.

Not so fast, says LifeSiteNews today: they interviewed John Haas of the bioethics center and he said he had lots of problems with the grant:

Dr. Haas told LifeSiteNews that when he reviewed the proposed donation to CARE it was “of grave concern to me.” 

While Haas noted that the NCBC assessment did not dispute that CARE’s project was laudable nor that the monies were non-fungible, he opposed the grant because of the scandal it would cause. His main concern was the stridently pro-abortion stances taken by CARE’s president and CEO, Helene D. Gayle.

Reading from his submission to CRS, Dr. Haas said:

“On the anniversary of Roe v Wade in 2009 [Gayle] called on President Obama to rescind the Mexico City Policy and fund abortions abroad. She issued this call on the very day hundreds of thousands of pro-life demonstrators including many bishops called for the reversal of Roe v Wade. Her testimony and statement are both posted on the website of CARE.

“Even though the grants going to CARE are for very laudable and indeed life-saving initiatives, I believe that these very strong public positions taken by the President of CARE in complete opposition to the policies and positions of the US Catholic Conference of Bishops would certainly give rise to legitimate theological scandal if not confusion as to why the Bishops would fund such an organization.

“I think even some bishops would take exception to the grant to CARE if they were aware of the strong public advocacy of abortion and the positions at odds with those of the bishops.”

And the quote that puts it all in perspective:

Haas was referring to the fact that while the US Bishops were advocating for the Mexico City Policy, CARE was publicly opposing it. The Mexico City Policy ensured agencies in receipt of US funding could not divert the money to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions.  It was enacted in 1984 under Ronald Reagan, and has since been rescinded by Democratic administrations and reinstated by Republicans.

The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, does it?  The bishops advocate for one thing, and then the myriad bureaucracies the bishops have created turn around and do the exact opposite thing.

Allow me to rebut a few other of CRS’s defensive claims:

  1. All money is fungible.  If you give CARE $5 million to build a water supply system, CARE now has $5 million from other funding sources to spend on abortion that would have gone to the water system.  This claim is idiocy, and has been shot down hundreds of times in other venues in different circumstances.
  2. CARE is a radically, stridently pro-abort and pr0-contracept agency.  They are thoroughly politicized (as most charities that receive government funding are……….ahem) and have a very long history of taking stands antithetical to the practice of the Faith.
  3. You can never morally cooperate with evil, even if the act you conduct with that evil is nominally “good.”  Funding such a stridently amoral organization as CARE is gravely immoral, no matter the end.  The donation to CARE, by the way, represented 25% of CRS donations in 2010!!
  4. The National Catholic Bioethics Center has its own problems.  They have made some “decisions” regarding ethical issues that I think are really difficult to reconcile with an orthodox practice of the Faith. So, if they are shouting scandal………..wow.

CRS is in spin control mode.  They’re trying to save themselves and keep their donations intact.  I haven’t given to CRS or Catholic Charities or any of the large, govenment funded Catholic charities for years, and I certainly don’t plan to now.  I advise all faithful Catholics to find other charities to support -the mainstream Catholic charities are just too progressive, too politicized, too dependent on government funding, and too morally compromised to support.

I do find it interesting how CRS is sort of aping Obama in their response to this crisis – they’re lashing out, blaming their critics and demanding apologies, in spite of the evidence.

When will Dallas Diocese implement fidelity oaths for teachers, catechists? July 25, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, General Catholic, priests, scandals.
comments closed

They’re all the rage.  Several dioceses around the US have implemented “fidelity oaths” for their teachers and catechists, which really means 1-2 page statements of agreement with Church belief.  That may seem invasive and annoying to some, and a few progressive type teachers have quit, but given the crisis in the Church and the rampant apostasy, isn’t this a sensible solution to try to improve catechesis, especially of young people?  And isn’t having “progressive” teachers quit in a huff a feature, not a bug?

The Atonement Academy in San Antonio is probably one of the most faithful, orthodox Catholic schools in the state, and they require teachers to sign an oath that they believe what the Church believes.  That school has been very, very successful – it is difficult to get into, the demand is so great for its doctrinal orthodoxy.

Here in Dallas, while there have been attempts at improving formation for teachers and catechists, many problems remain.  I have heard story after story from parents, people going through RCIA, former students, etc, regarding the many problems with catechesis at a local level.  Our local level.  I’ve written on this story numerous times in the past.

The plural of anecdote is “data.”  Since Bishop Farrell has made improving catechesis one of his highest priorities (as he himself has stated), it would seem logical for the Diocese to follow the lead of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, Bend, OR, and some others in implementing these oaths.  I should remind that such used to be commonplace, and there is presently a requirement from the Vatican for all theology professors at Catholic universities to have the mandatum (a formal listing of their theological training and approval from an accredited source to teach theology), even if this requirement is incredibly widely ignored (but that, too, may be changing).  Heck, for 40 years or more all priests were supposed to swear the anti-modernist oath, but that’s fallen by the wayside.  The point is, oaths of this sort have been used repeatedly throughout the history of the Church, especially in times of doctrinal crisis.  I don’t think there is any question that such a crisis exists today.

I pray serious consideration is being given, at the diocesan level, to implementing these oaths.  I know Bishop Farrell has many ties to the Archdiocese of Washington, perhaps those connections could play a role in moving the Dallas Diocese in that direction.  The progressive worldlings will scream and howl, but that is a good thing, too – it would identify just who the progressives are, or at least the most vociferous ones.  I don’t think I need to list how progressives are generally in the vanguard of rejecting all manner of Church Doctrine.

Anyway, for those at the chancery who read this blog – and I know you do! – please consider that there is probably no step towards insuring doctrinal orthodoxy in our teachers and catechists that is easier to implement, and as effective, as these oaths.  The effects of such implementation tend to be very clarifying.