November
22, 2013
Most
Rev. Michael Bransfield
Bishop
of Wheeling - Charleston
1300
Byron Street
Wheeling,
WV 26003
Dear
Bishop Bransfield;
Subject: Catholic Campaign for
Human Development
In a recent commentary by Diane Taylor of New Zealand Catholic
Women's Association, she stated “Children are the victims of child abuse or
human trafficking, as they never have been before. Parents, grandparents, relatives and friends
are also victims. In the case of natural disasters, children are now in need of
immediate attention, to be saved from the clutches of traffickers and
pedophiles. This is right now claimed by those in the Philippines. (PA)
(Agenzia Fides 14/11/2013)
But what of their
traffickers? This question needs to be
asked. How were they educated – by
pornographic programs at all levels – maybe starting in schools? The matter of victims themselves becoming
aggressors needs to be investigated and the truth told. Ends solely justifying means has always been
a problem but never an authentic solution.
UN Agencies have long
foisted harmful programs onto an ever-increasing number of unsuspecting
countries. Their solutions are part of
the problem. The results of the
so-called solutions have now become more and more apparent. Problems these programs/initiatives purport
to fix have only dramatically increased.
A legitimate claim can be made for the huge increases in sexual slavery
and child prostitution as examples.
For decades “childhood
education and healthcare” programs have meant increases in violation of
children’s/youth’s consciences.
Violations have occurred via more and more pernicious, exploitative
“programs.” Erroneous ideas have
consequences, especially when put into practice, as do harmful solutions to
problems.
Government-funded
education and health programs have served to enable various providers of sexual
devices while also providing ruthlessly erotic programs.
We in the US are subject to the same
problems. Government programs expand
with each passing year. Some bishops are
now even accepting the Common Core curriculum for education in our Catholic
schools. Government grants going to our Catholic charities such as the Catholic
Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) increases pressure on them to fund
organizations with anti-life agendas.
While CCHD grants have not gone to organizations that directly provide
abortion or contraceptives, CCHD money has gone to grantees that politically
support these social evils. In an effort
to repackage itself and regain donor confidence, the Campaign added the word
“Catholic” to its name in 1998 and produced a new set of guidelines emphasizing
the sanctity of life and disqualifying organizations from CCHD funding whose
primary or substantial thrust was contrary to Catholic teaching. However, the CCHD has made only
minor funding corrections in response to these guidelines.
In an article by Stephanie
Block regarding the CCHD, she states, ”The Catholic Campaign for Human
Development is an annual collection of the United States Catholic Conference of
Bishops. It was launched in 1970 with
three purposes. The first and best understood of these is the funding of
economic self-help projects run by the poor as a way of addressing domestic
poverty. The second purpose is the
support of social change. The CCHD’s
founding resolution stated that “the magnitude and complexity of poverty in the
U.S. in a time of rapid social change...calls for the creation of a new source
of financial capital that can be allocated for specific social projects aimed
at eliminating the very causes of poverty....There is an evident need for funds
designated to be used for organized groups of white and minority poor to
develop economic strength and political power in their own community....”
Lastly,
the collection is intended to fund educational programs that will raise the
level of awareness among middle and upper classes of the plight of the
poor. The founding resolution committed
the Campaign to “lead the People of God to a new knowledge of today's problems,
a deeper understanding of the intricate forces that lead to group conflict, and
a perception of some new and promising approaches that we might take in
promoting a greater spirit of solidarity…”
To
bring about social change, at least one third of CHD grants have been used to
fund Alinsky-style, broad-based community organizations. Most of these are based on institutional
membership. The largest of the
Alinskyian organizations is the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF)x with a
network of over 60 local affiliates, the Pacific Institute for Community
Organizing (PICO)x with about 35 affiliates, Gamaliel with over 40 local affiliates,
and Direct Action and Research Training Center (DART)x with a dozen
local affiliates. ACORN, another
Alinsky-style network based on individual membership rather than institutional
membershipx also receives a percentage of CCHD funding. Besides training their membership to take
civic action, these groups seek an ultimate restructuring of government,
education, job training and placement, healthcare, housing, and social service
provision. They are also theologically
liberationist, promoting concepts of “class struggle,” consensualized “truth,”
and a politicized spiritual life, assessing imperfect, troubled economic or
socio-political structures to be root causes of evil rather than a consequence
of human actions, taken by free and responsible persons.
The
educational programs of the CCHD are also liberationist. An older CHD publication, “Sourcebook on
Poverty, Development and Justice,” produced by the CHD during the tenure of Sr.
Josephine Dunne, SHCJ (CHD Education Coordinator) is a collection of essays
explaining the foundational liberation theology of the CHD and its preference
for “liberating education.” “Liberating education,” for Dunne, was a process
quite distinct from traditional western education, which she typed as “being
institutional, self-serving and divorced from developmental needs, forcing the
learned to look elsewhere for meaning and causing institutional education to be
in many cases the experience of irrelevance.
Catholic education in the U.S. seems to have shared in this
deficiency.” In its stead, Dunne
offered a “new theory of catechesis” that included values clarification and a
threefold pedagogy, which she termed transference, reflection, and
action-living (see-judge-act), lived out by the learner in a “continual
dialectical interrelationship.”
Recent
CCHD-produced educational materials continue to use see-judge-act
pedagogy. While see-judge-act
methodology is not necessarily manipulative, it is often designed to lead
participants to pre-determined conclusions.
Session 1 of “Poverty and Faithjustice,” for example, presumes that
any adequate response to poverty will require fundamental changes in the social
and economic structures of the United States. JustFaith, the most recent educational
program used by the CCHD, continues in the same vein as its predecessors.”
In an article from the American Life League they state: "We are encouraged by and wish to acknowledge CCHD’s positive
steps," added Michael Hichborn, director of ALL's Defend the Faith
project. "Still, with over 20
problematic grantees that continue to receive Catholic funds, we cannot
recommend participation in the program. CCHD's vetting process has yet to
fully adhere to its established guidelines."
Hichborn offers two examples of current CCHD grantees not worthy
of "a single cent" of Catholic funding: Community Action Board (CAB)
and Syracuse Cooperative Federal Credit Union. CAB admits it pushed for the establishment of family planning services in
public schools. SCFCU, founded by the Socialist Party USA's 1988 vice
presidential candidate, gave donations to Planned Parenthood and supports
homosexual activism.
Bishop
Bransfield, I urge you and other bishops to be more active in pursuit of positive
changes to the CCHD. The other day on our Catholic Radio Station, WDTF, here in
Berkeley Springs, Father Larry Richards came out with a statement during one of
his programs saying, “When we die we will be judged by our sins of omission the
same as our sins of commission.” If you
know Father Larry he is one who pounds his fists on the pulpit and when he
talks, people listen.
I had to check this out and do some self-study. From the Catholic Dictionary it states,
"Omission" is here taken to be the failure to do something one can
and ought to do. A person is guilty if
he neglects to act under circumstances in which he can and ought to act. The degree of guilt incurred by an omission
is measured like that attaching to sins of commission.
In another statement: James 4:17 declares, "Anyone, then, who
knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." A sin of omission is a sin that is the result
of not doing something God’s Word teaches that we should do. It is generally
used in contrast with the corresponding phrase “the sin of commission,” or sins
that a person actively commits. Paul
juxtaposes the two concepts in Romans 7:14-20.
He decries his tendency toward both types of sin.
In the New Testament, the classic example given by Jesus is the account
of the Good Samaritan. After a man had
been beaten and left in need of help, the first two men to pass by—a priest and
a Levite, both of whom knew better—failed to act. The third man, a Samaritan, stopped to show
compassion to the man in need (Luke 10:30-37). Jesus used this example to teach
that we are to likewise help those in need.
By doing so, he clearly communicated that it is sinful to avoid doing
good, just as it is sinful to pursue what is evil.
Jesus further describes the sins of omission in the parable of the
sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-46.
The goats, those who are sent away by Christ, are those who saw others
hungry and thirsty, but did not provide food and drink. They are those who saw others in need of
clothing, who were sick or in jail but did nothing to clothe or comfort
them. These are all examples of sins of
omission. There was no sin committed
against these needy people—they were not intentionally starved or deprived of
their clothing. But the sin of omission
was committed when those who could have provided for them chose not to.
Finally, the apostle Paul provides a summary statement that
explains why we should do what is right and refrain from sins of omission: “Let
us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a
harvest if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9).
When we do the will of our heavenly Father (Matthew 12:50), we avoid
sins of omission and live productive, fruitful living pleasing to God (Romans 12:1-2).
With a very few exceptions, the bishops are
ignoring the CCHD problems just like the priest and a Levite ignored the man
who had been beaten and left in need of help.
As
Father Larry Richards said, “When we die we will be judged by our sins of
omission the same as our sins of commission.”
Ignoring the children who are the victims of child abuse or human
trafficking, ignoring the Alinsky-style networking, ignoring the heretical
Catholic education in the U.S and ignoring the funding of organizations with
anti-life agendas has to be a sin of omission.
I will continue to pray daily for all bishops, and you are one I
especially mention.
Thanking
you in advance,
Jim
Fritz
No comments:
Post a Comment
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.