Progressives Pout Over CCHD Funding Cessations

My friend and colleague Stephanie Block has posted an excellent article at Spero Forum picking apart the utter lack of logic displayed by US Catholic's editor Bryan Cones in his screed against American Life League, Reform CCHD Now (of which we're a proud member) and the rest of us "right-wing pressure groups".

I need not rehash Ms Block's work here; please go and read for yourselves.  I will, however, elaborate on two points.  I quote from her article..

• My favorite bit in the Cones’ article, however, is his canard that “these witch hunts” – complaints about CCHD misappropriations of Catholic money to groups that support un-Catholic positions – are all about…sex!  Who would have imagined!  “More and more it appears that Catholics in general are so obsessed with issues of sexuality that we can't even feed the poor or shelter immigrants anymore.  This crack has been thrown at pro-lifers for decades and says a great deal about the speaker (or writer).  Abortion, of course, isn’t an “issue of sexuality” – it’s an issue of personhood and civil rights.  Same-sex marriage isn’t an “issue of sexuality,” either – it’s an issue of covenantal partnership for ends that can’t be achieved in same-sex relationships.  To reduce these issues to “sexuality” betrays that not only does the writer not understand Catholic teaching but that he is himself trapped in a Freudian construct that understands everything in sexual terms. What Peter says about Paul says more about Peter than it does about Paul.

So what is being said about "Peter" - that is, Bryan Cones?  Here's a brief biographical sketch about Cones.  So he was a high school teacher.  Even as a high school teacher he was doing quite a bit of writing.  For instance, he wrote one of several brief chapters in a book entitled "Young and Catholic in America".  I believe it's the tenth.  Here's the link, detailing a conversation he had with some students.  Read the whole thing.  He admits to being gay himself and does not accept the Church's teaching that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered.  What I find particularly disturbing (although not too surprising) is the approving attitudes he meets along the way: from his bishop, pastors, etc.  At the time Cones was talking to his bishop, he did not receive from his bishop the shepherding that he needed; in other words, Cones was done a gross disservice by his bishops and later mentors.  However, Cones is not without fault here.  He knew the Church's teaching enough to dissent from it willingly.  And this, dear readers, is the history and the mental paradigm of an editor of US Catholic magazine.  Does this not explain some of the tenor behind US Catholic - when one of its leaders is living at serious variance with the Church?

Now let's look at "guilt by association".  I think we've illustrated what triggers the knee-jerk usage by Comes of that phrase.  He thinks gay unions are just fine and dandy. However, when a group like American Life League come along and point out the simple truth that homosexual relations are mortally sinful then the defense mechanism spring into action and the "guilt by association" phrases start flying.  No, Mr Comes, it's just your guilt - so why not do yourself (and your partner) a favor, break off the sinful relationship and go to Confession?  Speaking of charity and mercy, let's recognize what the Spiritual Works of Mercy (such as "admonish the sinner") are.

We find the phrase "guilt by association" in another article similar to Cones' in viewpoint and tenor.  The author writes that "Companeros decided against severing ties with CIRC, deciding that its membership in the organization was more important than giving in to CCHD's demands."  OK, that's fine.  They made a decision.  Implicit in all this whining and kvetching is a presumption that Companeros is entitled to the largess of Catholic donations without stipulation.  Not so.  The Church has not only the right but the duty to ensure that its monies are used in accordance with Church teaching.  

The article goes on to announce a new website called "withcharityforall", ostensibly to compensate for Companeros' very avoidable budget shortfall.  I freely acknowledge their right to collect these monies, provided that they are very honest with their donors as to the exact planned usage of the funds (something that CCHD has yet to learn).  At least it won't be Church money.

The site was founded by Catholics United.  As mentioned before on this blog, on that organization's board of directors is James Salt.  Read about his history here.  If there is any true "guilt by association", James Salt bears it in spades.  His resume includes "overseeing the Kansas Democratic Party's faith outreach efforts including messaging work for Governor Sebelius.."  Yep!  He helped further the career of Kathleen Sebelius, which landed her in her current position as Secretary of HHS.  Of course she used that position to foment the onerous mandate which hangs over all our heads.

Now they screech that the Catholic-donation gravy train is pulling into the station.  This train stop is long overdue.

USCCB's Lame Defense Of The CCHD

Preface: As I was writing my commentary below, Stephanie Block's commentary was published on Spero Forum.  It is excellent and I recommend that all read it.
___________________________________

Well, it had to happen.  The USCCB has come out with an attempt to rebut the American Life League's report of ongoing misuse of Catholic donation dollars by the CCHD.  The USCCB rebuttal is here.

The USCCB alleges that ALL's report is nothing but a "repackaging of past charges already addressed by CCHD".  To the USCCB: What are some examples of these "past charges" that have been corrected?  I for one see no specific examples cited in the USCCB rebuttal.  If no evidence of reform exists, I think it quite fair for ALL to broach those charges again.

One paragraph in the USCCB missive states, "They rely almost exclusively on unverified web-based information and primarily on internet sites of organizations that are NOT funded by CCHD.  These accusations are almost always made without contact with the CCHD funded groups or diocesan staff."  Again, I'd like to see some specific examples.  While we wait for such (and please don't hold your breath), let's look at some examples where the damning evidence is indeed on the CCHD grantees' websites.

I wrote an article last month that was published on Spero Forum and Defend Life.  In it I examined some Maryland-based CCHD recipients.  In the case for "Out For Justice", I pointed out where the very act of CCHD's funding of Out For Justice put them in partnership with the Open Society Institute.  I then pointed out how the very website addresses themselves made plain that "People Acting Together in Howard" and "Partnership for Renewal in Southern and Central Maryland" are branches (respectively) of the Industrial Areas Foundation and the Gamaliel Foundation.  Of course both these organizations - in their own websites - state quite openly their national affiliations with their Alinskyan parent organizations.

Here's a very confusing paragraph in the USCCB rebuttal: "Groups which work on legitimate issues were listed as 'partners' or 'members' of another organization which allegedly took actions in conflict with Catholic teaching. The CCHD funded group had never agreed to be a partner nor was a member of the other organization and had not participated in the development of an offending policy and was not even aware of the position that they were alleged to support. CCHD groups have asked that their names be removed and have protested the identification of their group with a policy that they had no role in developing, approving or advocating."  Some clarification is in order.  To wit:

• If a CCHD group was unaware of an aberrant position taken by another "partner" or "member" organization, how could they have known that they should "protest identification"? (Refer to underlined portion.)
• If indeed they were aware of another groups' anti-Catholic position and their name was misappropriated, why would not a CCHD group have initiated stronger action, such as a lawsuit?  At the very least, one might have hoped that they would post a disclaimer on their own site.
• Again (the perennial question), what are specific examples of such victimized CCHD groups?  Also please cite the actions they have taken to correct those unfortunate identifications.

Here's some more smoke and mirrors. "Other accusations involve several CCHD funded groups offering sessions on their good work at a large meeting of thousands of people and a thousand other workshops, including some workshops and other activities in conflict with Catholic teaching.  In researching these allegations with local dioceses and groups, there was no evidence of CCHD funded groups supporting or participating in the objectionable workshops or activity, but rather they shared their own experiences on issues of common concern with the Catholic community and CCHD."  I don't know of any conference, etc that offers a "thousand other workshops".  Usually these affairs offer maybe ten or twenty of them on given days during the conference.  By the very act of joining in a conference, an organization lends to other organizations the credibility (or lack thereof) of its reputation to that of the other organizations; conversely it assumes some credibility (or lack thereof) of the others.  Do the bishops think us so naive as to not realize that?  In fact, would they be so blithe if the CCHD were giving a workshop just down the hall from a Ku Klux Klan or neo-nazi workshop?  I think not.

Let me now call to all our minds an instance were indeed there was a real, authentic attempt to reform a diocesan CCHD program.  In August 2010, Rey Flores, who was then the CCHD Director for the Archdiocese of Chicago, did initiate some real reforms.  He rooted out a number of local grant recipients who were involved in anti-Catholic activities and replaced them with some pro-life pregnancy centers.  However, the old progressive cartel in the archdiocese, led by liberal priests, rose up to dismantle the reforms and to return the Chicago CCHD to its function of siphoning Catholic dollars to progressive organizations.  Flores himself was fired.  So much for "real reform" of the CCHD!  We heard not so much as one peep from the national CCHD office about this debacle in Chicago.  By the way, if ever there was a flouting of true social justice, it would be the treatment meted out to Rey Flores, who was fired for doing what he should have been doing - directing Catholic monies to worthwhile charities.  Where was the justice due to Flores, when he, a father of a young family was fired and had to scramble for another job to feed his children?

It is my serious contention that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development is beyond reform.  It is a blight upon Catholicism that should be abolished as soon as possible. At the very least, it should be stripped of the name "Catholic" (which it did not have originally) and expunged from the Church.  Let's boycott any and all future collections and starve this nefarious beast.

Part 5 Of Ms Block's CCHD Series

Here it is.  Please read it.

As you read these and other posts regarding the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, please realize that this organization is not worthy of one penny of your hard-earned money.  Instead, search out a truly worthy charity that actually engages in the Works of Mercy.

Gamaliel Foundation Displays Its Double-Talk

Before I begin, I ask you to read the following articles written by my two Catholic Media Coaltion colleagues.  The topic is the Gamaliel Foundation, a progressive organization portraying itself as a "faith-based, community-organizing" outfit.  One of the writers, Stephanie Block, has done an enormous amount of research on these "community-organizing" groups.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=48102
http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2011/02/soros-money-funds-faith-based-community.html
http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=48203
http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2011/02/gamaliels-useful-theology.html

Someone, presumably associated with the Gamaliel Foundation, has commented on the two "lesfemmes" posts.  I direct your attention now to the second of the four links above and ask that you study "Gamaliel's" comment carefully.  He starts off with a quote from the bishops in 1986, "No one may deny the right to organize without attacking human dignity itself." 

As I read the four articles, I saw no talk of denying anyone "the right to organize".  What the two authors did was merely make public some facts about Gamaliel that reasonable people would deem to be unsavory.  How does that "deny the right to organize"?

What Gamaliel attempted to do with this statement was to demonize the two authors by trying to ascribe to them malicious motives.  This is quite a common trick of progressives, an employment of the non-sequitur fallacy.  One example of this is found in pro-abortion talking points.  We want to eliminate the murder of babies, so they shriek that "we don't care if women die". 

However, I do suppose we bloggers and writers have denied Gamaliel and his/her bunch several things, to wit:

• The ability to define the terms of conversation about such matters.
• The ability to change definitions of words willy-nilly
• The lack of scrutiny of their own shady sources of funds
• The ability to insinuate progressive/liberal thinking into the Church without challenge

For these so-called "denials" I and my colleagues proclaim "MEA CULPA!