I promised myself that I’d written the last article of the year about the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) – the collection won’t be tabled, no matter how much scandal swirls around it, and the collection’s various supportive bishops and CCHD offices are scrambling to write ameliorating publicity pieces to assure fellow Catholics that despite its problems, CCHD will somehow help people who are struggling to find affordable housing, jobs, or medical care.
However, the “For the Record – The Truth about CCHD Funding” document currently on the national CCHD pages at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website is too much. Similar – in fact identical in some sections – to a 1997 CCHD document with the same name, “For the Record…” presents itself as refuting numerous “allegations.”
That would be fine – if “For the Record…” was actually addressing the allegations being made by CCHD critics. For example, here’s “For the Record’s…” first allegation: “CCHD persistently funds organizations closely associated with the pro-abortion movement.”
To which it responds ,“The Catholic Campaign for Human Development fully upholds our Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life from conception through natural death.” Well, that’s nice but the allegation isn’t that CCHD doesn’t uphold the Church’s teaching but that it’s giving money to groups that don’t.
The refutation goes on to say that CCHD’s funding criteria are that all funded projects uphold the moral guidelines of the Church. Again, this is irrelevant to the allegation. The problem isn’t that CCHD-funded projects are pro-abortion but that CCHD-funded groups
Now look, folks, this isn’t rocket science. Suppose you caught me with my fingers, covered with a lovely cloud of whipped cream, moving from a bowl to my mouth, where it disappears. “Don’t eat the whipped cream!” you cry, alleging that I have.
To “refute” this allegation, I retort, “I strongly object to unauthorized tastes of whipping cream and, furthermore, I have never had my hand in the cookie jar without permission.” See, it really doesn’t address the fact that, whatever my convictions and whatever my history with cookies, I did indeed filch a lick from the bowl.
Similarly, however proper is CCHD’s profession of moral truth and however fine its guidelines for CCHD grantees, the problem remains: CCHD persistently funds organizations closely associated with the pro-abortion movement.
Now, the CCHD critic (me) isn’t saying these groups have overt pro-abortion platforms. A few do, unfortunately, but they get weeded out pretty fast, thanks to CCHD critics. No, the critic is saying these CCHD-funded organizations are “closely associated with the pro-abortion movement.” I’ve written so much about this that my poor fingers are raw with typing (metaphorically speaking). Every Alisnkyian organization – every Industrial Areas Foundation affiliate, every Gamaliel and PICO and DART affiliate, to name a few – is aligned with political progressives. “Political progressives” stand for many things, among then abortion. There is so much hard data in print about this right now, it isn’t funny. Examine it.
Now, if CCHD wants to argue that getting universal health care (one progressive goal) is more important than the abortion of millions of children, it can do so…but I don’t see that argument as part of the refutation. I’m assuming they know it wouldn’t fly with most of the Catholic bishops or the Catholic people…though I’ve heard a few in high places say exactly that.
Whether one argues along those lines or not, the fact of funding groups that work in coalition with pro-abortion groups to accomplish various legislative ends, requires that fellow progressives be placed in office, meaning that abortion “rights” is the price paid.
Therefore, the first allegation remains unrefuted and stands as is: “CCHD persistently funds organizations closely associated with the pro-abortion movement.”
On to the second allegation: “CCHD projects are ‘fungible’ – they free up monies for organizations to spend on other activities at varience with Catholic teaching.”
CCHD’s response is that it watches the funded projects VERY closely. Grant monies are in separate bank accounts…blah, blah, blah.
OK, in that case, there’s evidently no need for CCHD to stop funding ACORN…after all, no matter how much other ACORN money was embezzled or how many convictions of voter fraud the organization has borne, we Catholics know exactly how the CCHD money was spent.
No dice, folks. Here’s how fungibility works: say ACORN has $100 before CCHD and CCHD adds $50. CCHD’s closely watched $50 is used for an unassailable voter registration drive – giving ACORN great publicity and many high fives. Meanwhile, ACORN has $100 to do its assailable work under the table, far from CCHD’s vigilent concern.
Before you argue, “Well, at least we got $50 of wholesome voter registrations,” consider that it “cost” society $100 of unwholesomeness to obtain. Had CCHD not contributed $50 to ACORN, ACORN would presumably still need its moral “front” and would have had to use some of its $100 for good, leaving less for the objectionable. Meanwhile, CCHD could have found an organization without any moral baggage, compounding its good work and minimizing the evil of ACORN.
Therefore, the second allegation remains unrefuted and stands as is: CCHD funding to certain organizations “free(s) up monies for organizations to spend on other activities at varience with Catholic teaching.” It does; it has.
The third allegation is: “The Catholic Campaign for Human Development does not fund direct service to the poor, and therefore is not worthy of designation as a Catholic charityy.”
“For the Record…” defends the unique perspective of CCHD and I, one critic among many, have also defended this perspective – if it is understood properly (see Block, “Parish Social Justice,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, July 2002).
The proper understanding boils down to this: associations in defense of righteous causes, behaving rightously (e.g., molotov cocktails are no-nos) are valid and worthy of Catholic support.
Therfore, the real allegation CCHD must address is: “CCHD supports associations that either have causes antithetical to Catholic teaching OR that – in the case of many of the major Alinskyian organizing networks – fail to define their causes, although examination shows that they are aligned with the progressive political, which includes un-Catholic positions. For this reason, they are not worthy of designation as a Catholic charityy.”
Allegation four reads: “The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded seven California groups, whose participation in a larger coalition that was not funded by CCHD, Mobilize the Immigrant Vote [MIV], indicates their support for activities not in keeping with Church teaching.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Oh, wait. “For the Record…” defends the indefensible by saying:
- We only fund groups in accord with Church teachings. (OK, that may be your intention but, clearly, we have a problem here, Houston.)
- “Only” six of the seven are currently funded by CCHD. I’m not impressed…
- The local bishop approved CCHD funding these groups…meaning, I guess, that the bishops had better stand behind CCHD or they’re going down. Nice. To which I say, the bishops are busy people. I would guess the majority of them have (foolishly) trusted their CCHD staff to make funding recommendations that they, largely, rubbberstamp.
- The six groups weren’t “consulted” about MIV’s un-Catholic ballot iniatives. Well, then these groups should be defunded for incompetence. If I join a coalition (such as Reform CCHD Now), I’m going to keep an eye on them and distance myself vocally and publicly if they suddenly support legislation to fund Planned Parenthood, say. Sheesh, people!
- The MIV site contains a disclaimer that all its partners don’t endorse its ballot initiative. Yes, now it contains that statement. It was put up after Catholics complained about CCHD-funded groups associating with MIV.
- In fact, Coalition LA, one of the six groups, produces its own, Archdiocese of LA approved, voter guide. The truth is, there are several Coaltion LA Voter Guides floating around, representing different elections. I have in my hand one for a March 7 election, that reads: “VOTE NO….No on Prop 22: Prop 22 seeks to deny basic rights to gays and lesbians by defining marriage as only the union of a man and a woman.” Etc. I’m assuming this isn’t the one approved by the Archdiocese. Ahem.
Therefore, the fourth allegation remains unrefuted and stands as is: “The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded seven California groups, whose participation in a larger coalition that was not funded by CCHD, Mobilize the Immigrant Vote [MIV], indicates their support for activities not in keeping with Church teaching.”
Of course, I would add the CCHD funds a LOT of groups that participate in larger coalitions and associations supporting activities that aren’t in keeping with Church teaching (see Block’s “Catholic Campaign for Human Development in Chicago,” concerning 2009 CCHD grants in Chicago, Spero News, 11-13-09; or “Money Laundering and the CCHD,” concerning CCHD grants to California Alinskyian organizing networks 1996-2005, Spero News, 11-12-09; or “Why I Don’t Contribute to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development,” concerning CCHD funding of the Arlington Diocese’s Industrial Areas Foundation affiliate, VOICE, Spero News, 10-22-09).
Allegation five: “The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded LA CAN and the San Francisco Organizing Project, which promoted activity contrary to Church teaching.”
Allegation six: “The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association, both of whom produced voter guides which took a position contrary to Church teaching.”
Allegation seven: “The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded Prebel Street and the Woman’s Revitalization Project, both of whom are involved in activity contrary to Church teaching.”
I’ve lumped these last three allegations together because Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, who exposed these six grantees for what they are has done an excellent job in responding to CCHD’s non-refutation. (See bellarmineveritasministry.org) CCHD will not be funding two of these groups, two others are “under review,” and two are being defended. See also: USCCB response to Bellarmine Veritas Ministry.
Here’s my point: why are the laity being pushed into a position of having to scrutinize every last CCHD grantee and create a public stir to get these wretched groups defunded? Clearly, we are demonstrating a strong “progressive” bias among these grantees…a bias that has horrible consequences for the pro-life work of the Church, not to mention a host of other moral and social teachings.
Bishops, dear bishops, we want to help the poor, too. We, too, want to strike at the root causes of poverty and transform hearts and minds to serve the Gospel and to serve Christ in the poor.
However, what CCHD intends by such words is demonstrably different from what Catholics mean by them.
Stephanie Block is the editor of the New Mexico-based Los Pequenos newspaper and is a founder of the Catholic Media Coalition.
Link:http://www.lospequenos.org/CommunityOrganizing/ParishSocialJustice.pdf
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Google+