Saturday, October 22, 2011

CCHD's Pathetic Excuse For Vetting

Remember how the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, in the afterthroes of the ACORN scandal, promised us that all was hunky-dorry with its "vetting process"?  Well, you'll be shocked (just SHOCKED, I tell you!) to learn that this wonderful vetting process isn't as wonderful as it was cracked up to be !  Surprise, suprise, suprise!!

Lifesite News has details of the NYC AIDS Housing Network, a current CCHD grantee, and its flagrant violation of CCHD guidelines.  In its distribution of condoms, it violates Catholic teaching regarding contraception.  NYC AIDS Housing Network allegedly lied to the CCHD when applying for their grant.

The USCCB wrote about this group on their Facebook page, "During the time it was funded by CCHD, the organization went through the same rigorous vetting process that included the support of the bishop. If at any point the the dioceses or CCHD had found evidence that the organization was in any way involved with condom distribution, the grant would have been immediately canceled. There was no evidence of this."  However, the group was listed as a condom distributer on a governmental website.  How is it that this "rigorous vetting process" failed to determine that?  Additionally, private investigators phoned the group and were told that they indeed distribute condoms.  I suspect that these investigators did not expend much effort to learn that information; could not the CCHD vetting crew have at least done as much due diligence?

Moreover, on September 22nd, Michael Hichborn of American Life League met with senior CCHD officials to discuss these findings with them.  At the time, they remained adamant in dismissing Hichborn's findings, preferring to rely only on their perfunctory phone call to the NYC AIDS.  One can reasonably assume that such was the "rigorous vetting" to which they subjected all their grant applicants - so much for their due diligence with the hard-earned money donated to them by the Catholics in the pews.

Let's take a look now at the CCHD Grant Agreement.  On that pdf, please go to page 5.  Of interest is Section G-2.  It says, "In the event of termination of this CCHD grant, USCCB shall provide Grantee written notice of such termination and of the cancellation of any portions of the grant that remain to be paid. USCCB may, in its discretion, require Grantee to  refund to USCCB the full amount of the CCHD grant and to transfer title to USCCB of any property purchased by the Grantee with CCHD grant funds."   Will the CCHD leaders have the decency to demand return of the money?  I think not, but not because they lack courage.  I think in many ways they are of like mind with the leaders of NYC AIDS and all the progressives who strive to undermine our Christian moral underpinnings.

Please boycott the CCHD and let's help bring this monster down.


  1. I'll agree with you on one point. It's CCHD's money, and thus they can decide whatever stupid hoops you have to jump through to get it. If NYCAHN lied to them, they should refund the money, and let everyone know that church teachings are incompatible with stopping the spread of AIDS. Of course, we kind of already knew that in 2009 when the Pope said that condoms aggravate the AIDS crisis while en route to Africa. And before you tell me how effective abstinence-only sex-ed is, I have two words, "Tripp" and "Johnston".

    That being said, your level of outrage is illustrative of the misplaced priorities of many in the church, both in leadership and laity. If you could pick ONLY ONE of the following scenarios, which would you pick?

    1) Change history so that Bishop Finn reported Fr. Ratigan to the police. Google "Bishop Finn indictment" if you don't know what I'm talking about. You could even attribute the miracle to John Paul II or Mother Theresa to further speed them to sainthood if you like.


    2) NYCAHN refunds CCHD's money tomorrow, AND stops distributing condoms.

  2. Thomas, the last part of your comment illustrates beautifully the fallacy of false dichotomy.

  3. You didn't answer the question.

  4. Also, it should be noted that Bishop Finn DID report Fr. Ratigan to the police.

  5. Pardon me for not being specific. What I should have said was "Change history so that Bishop Finn waited less than five months to report Fr. Ratigan to the police, thus avoiding embarrassing the church for the umpteenth time and avoiding a criminal indictment." And ANSWER THE QUESTION!

  6. Thomas, you really need to learn some manners if you're going to have comments published on my blog. Let me reiterate that this is MY blog. If I say that I am not going to humor any false dichotomy tricks, then that's the way it's going to be. Don't like it? Tough toe-nails! How dare you address me in the imperative on my blog? Please take deep breaths as you read this - you do not determine the rules of conversation and engagement here. Got that?


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.