Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Catholic Relief Services - Funding Contraception

That's the upshot of what LifeSiteNews has reported.  In 2010, the Catholic Relief Services gave $5.3 million to CARE, an organization that is unabashed about its goal of doling contraceptives and abortifacients to women in developing countries.  CARE is also a lobbyist for abortions.  Dr. William Marshner of Christendom College is correct in saying that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for such funding.  CRS has made plain that they intend to keep on funding CARE.

There is no doubt that the USCCB, through CRS, is undermining the bishops' current battle against the HHS contraception mandate.  How can they claim to oppose contraception on one hand, and yet on the other hand fund an organization that will take that money and use it to dispense contraception?

If I've said this once, I've said it a million times.  USCCB needs to be abolished in its entirety.


  1. you're 100 per cent right. CRS shps our money overseas to Africa to people whose immorality has left them with AIDS when we need that money here in our country to fight abortion, gay marriage and other stuff the Democrazy party is forcing down our throas. keep the money here to keep our Catholic schools open, keep our parishes from closing, also get rid of that collection every year that goes to the "retirement" of those rebel nuns if they can afford a luxury bus, let them pay their own way

    1. Anonymous, the collection for SOAR (Support Our Aging Religious) to my knowledge has no official ties with LCWR. That bus extravaganza came courtesy of George Soros. If it's any consolation, at least Catholic money didn't pay for that schlock.

  2. Catholic Relief Services, in communion with the Church, strictly upholds Catholic moral teaching. All of the CRS programs and all of the funds used by CRS are entirely consistent with Church teaching. Faithfulness to Church teaching always has been and always will be our policy.

    CRS always has taken very seriously decisions we make about the groups with which we collaborate or form partnerships to ensure that we are not violating the Church teachings. We do not fund, support or participate in any programming or advocacy that is not in line with Church teaching, including artificial birth control.

    These concerns about grants and partnerships, including the concerns over CARE, were raised to CRS last year. The agency undertook a thorough review of all partnerships together with Dr. John Haas of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC). After careful review, their report came to three main conclusions:
    1. None of the activities listed suggest support of or involvement in immoral activities. In the terminology of moral theology, there is no material cooperation with evil.

    2. None of the funding from CRS was fungible. That is, there is little to no risk of the grant funds being used either (i) for purposes outside those outlined in the grant request or (ii) for freeing up money in the receiving organization for immoral purposes by virtue of their having received the grant from CRS.

    3. The NCBC found that there could be a risk of controversy or scandal over such partnerships if people become confused and wrongly assume that CRS was endorsing a partner’s position on other issues. To avoid any misunderstanding, such as the Lifesite news article, CRS worked with the Bishops and the NCBC to address this risk through internal and external communications on our work, and continues to do so. This is spelled out in a statement posted below our Mission Statement on our website, titled The Catholic Values of CRS:

    CRS does promote abstinence and Natural Family Planning as embraced by the Church. You can find more details at

    1. To my readers: Mr Rivera is Director of Communications for CRS.

      Mr. Rivera, do you understand how the funding structures of not-for-profits work? Because of my 10+ years of hands-on financial management of several nfps, I know something of the topic. There are two basic pools of money that any publicly-funded nfp must consider. There are the restricted funds, such as those that CRS may supply to CARE. These grants are extended with conditions, usually that they be restricted to specific purposes. Let's say for example that CRS might give to CARE to provide the poor with dental care. CARE might have a budget that isn't fully funded by CRS grants. Either other grants must come in or CARE's second pool of money comes to play - the unrestricted funds or general operating funds (often called gen-op for short). These come from grants/donations that are not ear-marked for specific purposes. Their use is at CARE's discretion. Often these funds are used to pay for administrative expenses. It is to CARE's advantage, obviously, to have its gen-op funds freed up as much as possible.

      Thus, when CRS donates to CARE's dentistry program and budget, CARE is able to shift monies into its gen-op pool to spend elsewhere - such as its contraception and abortifacient programs. I find it difficult to accept your second point, for that would insinuate that CRS somehow had oversight over CARE's entire budget. Even if that were so, the fact that CRS is willing to look the other way while a grant recipient engages in activities that are not only immoral but downright murderous is most troubling. At the very least, it means that CRS is way too cavalier in striking hands in squalid associations, or really doesn't abhor the aberrant activities of CARE.

  3. You are so right, Janet. The USCCB is beyond repair -- and it isn't just their "charities." They are advancing the bogus global warming nonsense with all its pantheistic nonsense about Mother Earth. I wish they loved Holy Mother Church and her teachings with the same zeal as they love the wetlands and the rain forests.


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.