CWN: Liberal group sees ‘McCarthyism’ in criticism of CCHD

Some topics are like the proverbial “third rail”.  Touch it and DIE.

In the case of some topics, touch it and those involved in the thing you are touching KILL YOU.  Wellllll… they aggressively go after you from positions of power.

This has certainly been the case for some who have been so audacious as to touch the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

The US bishops took some steps to reform the CCHD, which once – still?- had -has? connections to questionable groups (e.g., ACORN and the Industrial Areas Foundation).

Frankly, discussion of the controversial CCHD is as much of a fever swamp as discussion of some aspects of the SSPX.

I don’t like the fever swamp.

I will post the story but impose moderation on the comments.

From CWN:

Liberal group sees ‘McCarthyism’ in criticism of CCHD

Critics of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) are engaged in “McCarthyism” that interferes with the Church’s efforts to help the poor, according to a report from a Washington-based liberal group.

The CCHD, the official poverty-fighting effort of the US bishops’ conference, has drawn criticism for decades because of its ties to radical organizations that attack Church teachings on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. But a 24-page essay released by Faith in Public Life complains that these criticisms are examples of “guilt by association and other tactics from the McCarthy-era playbook.”

A small but well-financed network has emerged as a relentless opponent of the bishops’ social justice campaign, which has long been recognized as one of the most influential funders of grassroots community organizing,” charges the report.

The report, entitled “Be Not Afraid,” is endorsed by dozens of prominent Catholic individuals and organizations, including two past presidents of the US bishops’ conference: Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza of Houston and Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane (both now retired). The statement is also endorsed by a number of former staff members of the US bishops’ conference.

What a mess.

I am pretty sure that some US Dioceses do not take up collections for the CCHD.


Comment moderation is switched on.  Try to get your well thought out, pithy comment past Cerberus.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, The Drill, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. acardnal says:

    I haven’t donated money to the CCHD collections in years. IMHO, it is still not fixed.

  2. I do not support the CCHD and will not until there is credible reports of real reform, which seems unlikely anytime soon. I assume that the issues remain significant in that liberal groups are so strenuously defending them. There are good, safe alternatives.

  3. Cantor says:

    A number of years ago the Diocese did take up the collection. Reviewing the published list of recipients, there were several issues. There were a few possibly questionable names on the list, but what stuck out was that every contribution (most of them, $25,000) was to “enable” or “support” or, heaven forbid, “empower” the various organizations. Nobody was “buying” a new food service truck or “building” homeless shelters or “doing” anything.

    The icing on the cake came when we realized that among all the recipients not a single one was even located in our state! We now have our own appeal for local charities.

  4. Joseph-Mary says:

    Will never give a cent. Our parish does not seem to take up the collection so that is good. They cannot be trusted. Sick and tired of this sort of garbage.

  5. tjg says:

    My only comment is that I agree with you Fr. Z. What a mess.

  6. av8er says:

    The term “McCarthyism” is just another term that looses potency every time a group uses it for sensationalism. Just like “racist” and “Nazi”.

  7. Johnny Domer says:

    One thing we law students learn in our first year is the legal concept of estoppel. Basically, in contracts, if you make representations that you will behave in a certain way, and your contracting party expends resources in reliance on your statements, that other party is entitled to the resources it expended if you fail to follow through on your promises. That other party is “estopped” from acting in a more productive fashion because you didn’t live up to your promises. It’s a legal concept embodying basic ideas of fairness.

    I think this concept helps us to understand the “third rail” treatment of things like CCHD by liberals. The bishops have allowed liberals to run these longstanding Catholic institutions (e.g. Catholic universities, hospitals, publications) in a less-than-great manner for 3 or 4 decades. In fact, many of these bishops actively encouraged these liberals in how they were running their organizations.

    Now, there’s a new breed of bishop in the United States. The Paul VI and early JP2 bishops are all gone, and they’re replaced by late-JP2 and Benedictine men–on the whole, a much better crop. These men start asking questions, criticizing the libs, stating the obvious reality that their pet institutions are totally off base.

    Though I fully disagree with these liberal groups, I can understand their reaction. “What do you mean we aren’t Catholic? The bishops never questioned us for 30 years following the Council! Who are you guys to tell us that we’re off base?”

    One of the best examples of this was when the National Catholic Reporter had one of its writers respond to some statement by Bp. Finn criticizing the paper. This person basically ignored Bp. Finn’s criticisms, acted disrespectfully towards him, and then recalled with fondness how one of Finn’s predecessors had always supported the paper. Finn was painted as some Johnny-come-lately who was upsetting the established order of things; how dare he employ some definition of Catholicism that 40 years of his predecessors had never thought to use. Essentially, Finn is left out to dry because he had lousy predecessors who didn’t do their jobs in overseeing the NCR.

    It’s the same with CCHD. Their reaction is understandable. “What do you mean we can’t give money to ACORN?! We’ve been giving them money for decades, and nobody ever criticized it! In fact, you bishops never even questioned our decisions of how to allocate money until a few years ago!”

    Now, the bishops have to clean out the Augean Stables that their predecessors left behind. I don’t envy them their labors.

  8. Phil_NL says:

    There’s another name for ‘guilt-by-association’, and that’s ‘scandal’. And any organisation run by the Catholic Church (in pars or in toto) should be beyond suspicion of scandal as well. Let alone an organisation for which collections are taken up in parishes or dioceses. Simple as that.

    Secondly, as a general rule, the Church should steer well clear of any organisations that have a political agenda. Chances are too great that such an agenda would either go against the teachings of the Church in areas where they are binding, or extent into areas that are the terrain of prudential judgement (which also hurts your standing among the faithful; while – to name a fictious example – a campaign for immigration amnesty would not go against the teachings of the church, the church should still stay well clear of such endeavours, as many faithful would think it a good idea to limit or even halt immigration, and are perfectly in their rights to come to that judgement).

    In all, much better to ditch collections for ‘human development’ in the material sense altogether, and take up collections for human development in the spiritual sense. A.k.a. missionaries.

  9. MikeM says:

    The whole idea of the Church funding (non-Catholic) “community organizing” groups doesn’t sit right with me. If the poor/marginalized need something, we should be going to them to provide what we can, not paying for them to ask someone else. And, to the extent that the Bishops should be organizing people to bring about social change, they should be focused on organizing their own flocks.

    The Church can’t expect to get satisfactory results by outsource providing a Catholic Christian influence on society to non-Catholics. It seems like that’s shirking one of the responsibilities Christ gave us. If the Church has money to spend on organizing, it should be directed in-house. It’s not like we have no room to improve on that front, anyway.

  10. jflare says:

    OK, so, I’ve skimmed through the report from Faith in Public Life. Essentially, they’re peeved that various traditional-leaning organizations won’t stand aside and allow them, Faith in Public Life, to define Catholic teachings as they, Faith in Public Life, might wish. Odd that they’d be so determined to believe that we should be so stiffly concerned about their appraisal. They seem to think that simply because an organization calls itself “Catholic”, raises lots of money, and distributes the funding according to that organization’s interpretation of Catholic faith, we ought to be thrilled to death.

    I think they forgot something important: No Catholic organization has the ability to define what an appropriate interpretation of Catholic faith might require. While a bishop does, to a degree anyway, even that must be held to account to the Church’s sacred Tradition, not merely the particular bishop’s views at the time.

    I think Faith in Public Life most likely will have a very difficult time in the next many years. I and many others intend to keep pressing on various Catholic organizations to be as faithful to Catholic teachings as they can stand.

  11. DisturbedMary says:

    Looking at the list of endorsing organizations and endorsing individuals, they are the recognizable peace and justice diehards . Cannot imagine this willbe any more effective than the nuns on the bus activism.

  12. ckdexterhaven says:

    I read the Faith in Public Life document. The first thing I noticed is that the word “conservative” is used extensively, always as a pejorative…while the word “liberal” is not present.

    “Rev. John Coleman, S.J., an author and prominent lecturer at Catholic universities……..Coleman also pointed out that some Catholic leaders have aligned themselves with right-wing groups like Focus on the Family and evangelical leaders known for their hateful rhetoric.”

    There is a case study part of the report, with one entitled “a Rejection of Alinsky Style Organizing”… containing a strong defense of Saul Alinsky. I’m sure it’s just an oversight, but the authors neglected to mention that Alinsky dedicated his book, ‘Rules for Radicals’ to Lucifer.

  13. Gail F says:

    Johnny Domer is correct, I think — people involved with CCHD are not doing anything new. They are doing exactly what they have always done (and been praised for doing). They are shocked at suddenly being told it is wrong by people who “take that old-fashioned stuff seriously.” The same is true with Catholic colleges and universities, which have steadily moved away from being Catholic. Many of them have even redefined what Catholic means “for today,” or “for them” or “in the 21st century.” They do not see anything wrong with doing this, in part because they’ve been doing it for so long.

    The whole “do not ally with groups who work against you” idea is foreign to them. The way they see things, you ally with people who do what you want on a particular issue DESPITE the fact that they are simultaneously working against you on others — to them, this is compromise and working in good faith with others. Only working with people who support all the same things as you is to them being narrow-minded and exclusive. I have tried to point out the difference between working with a group that does not agree with you and working with one that actively opposes you, but the distinction seems to genuinely puzzle some people. They really don’t see why they shouldn’t work on housing issues with a group that gives a lot of money to, and even lobbies for, abortion — because you’re not talking about abortion right now, you’re talking about housing. Add this to the propensity for liberal/progressive groups to have secretive ties to other groups (to get grant money targeted to a certain issue, say, one group starts a second group with the same board members and headquarters — and each group can then say it does nothing that the other one does, even though they are the same people) and you end up where we are.

    The whole idea of “a small but well-financed network” opposing the bishops is a hilarious example of projection. Many, many progressive organizations can be described this way, in part becausee they have been around so long and have attracted big donors, while many organizations opposing the status quo are new, poor, formed by individuals or groups of like-minded people with no budgets or donors, and spread their message by free or cheap grassroots campaigns. Progressives see these movements as huge looming threats because, IMHO, they project their own well-developed structures, methods, and strengths onto opponents and are alarmed.

  14. robtbrown says:

    Included in the list of those who endorse the document are Bps Leibrecht and Gumbleton, as well as the LCWR.

  15. wmeyer says:

    In the archdiocese of Atlanta, the archdiocese does ask annually for a collection for the CCHD, and I assume that most parishes comply. I recently queried the archdiocese as to whether any funds given in the Archbishops annual appeal were given to CCHD, and received from the Director of Justice and Peace Ministries for the Archdiocese this response:

    “In answer to your question, no monies from the Archbishops Annual Appeal are designated for CCHD.”

    The Archdiocese, however, does contribute to Catholic Charities of Atlanta, and I still need to query them as to who the recipients of their grants may be.

  16. Choirmaster says:

    The underlying assumption in the article is that a “social justice campaign” that specializes in “grassroots community organizing” is appropriate and effective for realizing the “Church’s efforts to help the poor.” I, on the other hand, am highly suspect of the terms “social justice” and “community organizing” since I equate those terms with values that are contrary to Christian charity and organizations that would persecute the Church.

    In a sense, the article is true. If I’m not mistaken, McCarthyism means zealously hunting for and exposing subversive elements within an organization. More specifically, persons within the organization that hold values contrary to the ostensible values of the organization, and those same persons are actively engaged in an effort to undermine those values. Since the terms listed above make me suspicious that the CCHD does not agree with me on the means and ends of Christian charity, and is therefore working against it, I would be more likely to give time, treasure, and talent to an organization that seeks to correct the CCHD, or at least detach it from the Church, or—better yet—to an organization that truly is charitable.

    And wasn’t McCarthy rather on the right track? It was before my time, but looking back from my vantage point I find it hard to blame him for over-zealousness.

  17. Such irony. McCarthy was a faithful Catholic and a very. good. man. Today there are signs that people are grasping the results of McCarthy’s integrity, truthfulness and courage as the spread of the errors of Russia become more and more obvious, and the hateful propaganda spread about him.

  18. Moro says:

    When the ACORN-CCHD connection was first revealed, some people in my former parish opted to put acorns in the collection basked for CCHD. Perhaps a business card with a brief blurb explaining why one won’t give to CCHD should be issued by various pro-life groups to drop in the basket instead of money.

  19. Cathy says:

    Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that a Catholic Campaign for Human Development, if it is Catholic, would be wholly invested in building Catholic Schools, Catholic Hospitals, new Catholic Parishes for all the new Catholic Converts, and new Convents for all the consecrated religious offering their lives to serve these Catholic ventures! Instead, CCHD seems to have a very intimate lineage with groups that find Catholic Human Development anathema. As opposed to calling the CCHD to account, “McCarthyism”, I call it Catholic Common Sense!

  20. Peggy R says:

    The only necessary response to those who cry McCarthyism: “McCarthy was right.”

  21. Fr AJ says:

    Thankfully our Diocese stopped taking up the CCHD collection a few years ago. When we did take it up, I tried to discourage people from giving to it.

  22. Phil_NL says:

    Well said, choirmaster.

    I think the only difference lies in the fact McCarthy would probably have believed that it was possible to rid certain organisations of hostile elements. When it comes to the ‘social justice’ crowd, I very much doubt that; these kind of organisations are so culturally and politically leftist that they are beyond saving.

  23. Athelstan says:

    Johnny Domer,

    You hit the nail on the head – especially in making the analogy to estoppel. A great post.

    And speaking as a former Kansas Citian:

    Finn was painted as some Johnny-come-lately who was upsetting the established order of things; how dare he employ some definition of Catholicism that 40 years of his predecessors had never thought to use.

    True. Boland let the inmates run the asylum. Sullivan did much worse.

    And Finn ended up being a shock to the system. By that point, they had come to feel entitled.

  24. tcreek says:

    One priest’s opinion
    First Things Magazine, November 7, 2008
    On the Square
    Obama and the Bishops
    By Fr. Richard John Neuhaus

    Scroll half way down for excerpts.

    The Campaign for Human Development (CHD) is an annual collection in parishes, usually on one of the last two Sundays in November. It used to be called the Catholic Campaign for Human Development but the Catholic was dropped, which is just as well since it has nothing to do with Catholicism, except that Catholics are asked to pay for it. …

    Ten years ago, CHD was exposed as using the Catholic Church as a milk cow to fund organizations that frequently were actively working against the Church’s mission, especially in their support of pro-abortion activities and politicians. …

    What most Catholics don’t know, and what would likely astonish them, is that CHD very explicitly does not fund Catholic institutions and apostolates that work with the poor. …

    Yes, that’s bizarre, but the history of CHD is bizarre. The bishops could really help poor people by promptly shutting down CHD and giving any remaining funds to, for instance, Catholic inner-city schools. In any event, if there is a collection at your parish this month, I suggest that you can return the envelope empty—and perhaps with a note of explanation—without the slightest moral hesitation.

  25. flyfree432 says:

    Being a parish employee, I can choose who our religious education students raise money for. We decided last year to drop support for the Rice Bowl campaign that raised an average of $400 in the past years. When I called to tell them that we were going to opt to raise money for our local crisis pregnancy center instead, well, let’s say their response was angry. They refused to take us off their mailing list and kept sending us boxes of the “rice bowls” even though we refused shipment twice.

    Our parishioners responded to our new fundraising campaign by giving more than $2000.

  26. Magash says:

    “Community organizing” is the key word here. Organizations that actually help people do not engage in community organizing. One engages in community organizing to get the government to participate in income redistribution.
    CCHD is specifically prevented from giving money to parochial groups. That is they cannot give money to Church organizations, or any faith based organizations. How many secular organizations actually engage in corporal works of mercy vs. things like income redistribution, population control, environmentalism (as opposed to environmental stewardship) and such things?
    This whole program is a scandal but nothing will happen to kill it until the Holy See organizes a Visitation to take a look at it. As a matter of fact I think its past time to petition the relevant Congregation. Petitions to the USCCB is useless. Like many of the activities of the USCCB under the control not of the bishops, but the USCCB bureaucracy, this program is firmly under the control of left wing dissidents, and will not be changed from within.

  27. cheerios in my pocket says:

    Still struggling with our Bishop on this one, and still trying to reach as many people as possible to stop funding this collection and close CCHD once and for all. I have not read the article, but when I put “faith in public life” into my computer, I found the President is presbyterian (sp?), others that are odd, and this one especially struck me…

    Tom Chabolla is the Assistant to the President at Service Employees International Union. Previously he served as Associate Director of Programs for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

    Isn’t SEI Union one of the Alinsky “main” groups?

    Uhm, Fr. Z., is there not some way to stop this? Will not one Bishop stand and say enough is enough?

  28. SKAY says:

    Peggy R said–
    “The only necessary response to those who cry McCarthyism: “McCarthy was right.”

    Thank you for the information about Mr. Chabolla and his interesting associations cheerios in my pocket. SEIU is bussed in (complete with signs) when the Democrats need an insta-mob.

  29. BTW my Mom was screaming about this and refused to contribute to the CCHD fund, gosh, I think back when I was in high school. Was that 40 years ago? Am I ‘misremembering’? Does anybody know how far back this thievery goes?

  30. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    There exists no legitimate division between “social justice” and the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. There is no reason for any division to exist between “social justice” and the protection and promotion of traditional marriage and the family.

    As Catholics we are certainly called to both – to work and sacrifice on behalf of those in need, and to live and promote the Church’s teachings on life and marriage.

    A Marxist approach to the problems of the poor and oppressed would be very different from an authentically Catholic approach. The Marxist approach would tend to emphasize government-based interventions in favor of the poor, and to downplay education and life-skills programs run by churches in which the poor are provided the necessities of life, and trained in Catholic doctrine. Such a program would be anathema to a Marxist, “even though the poor are being given handouts, they are being poisoned by the repressive, patriarchal, and reactionary attitudes of the Catholic Church. It would be better for the poor to starve than to be fed with such backward, bourgeois attitudes as marriage, tradition, chastity, honor, responsibility.”

    And so social justice advocates who have been infected with the poison of Marxism will view many of our Catholic values as reprehensible, and will view the State – the government – as the source and summit of righteousness and nobility, and of course, the glorious hope for change on behalf of the poor.

    Social justice advocacy groups and individuals who advocate government handouts, but don’t support efforts to restore traditional marriage or to condemn abortion ought to make the Spider-sense of every Catholic tingle.

    Abortion is a key Marxist value – all Marxist-Socialists seem as fiercely devoted to abortion, as a miser is to his gold – and in every country in which a Marxist-Socialist government has been in power, abortions increase in number exponentially. During the Soviet era, the average Russian woman would undergo eight abortions over her lifetime. And in China, where they have had the one-child rule in effect, women found to be pregnant with a second child are routinely arrested and forcibly aborted by government agents. Friends of mine travel to China to assist with women in hiding in safe houses, until they can deliver their babies. All done in secret – mustn’t let the authorities find out or these babies will be killed.

    The long-and-short of it is: if you encounter a “Catholic” social justice advocate who favors primarily government handouts, and who is not a promoter of what the Church teaches is the best way for children to grow and thrive – traditional marriage, and who goes along with abortion, or who is reticent about condemning this hideous practice, then what you have come across is a Catholic who thinks like a Marxist, and not truly like a Catholic at all.

    There are lots of these out there. Lots. And many don’t realize that they have been infected by Marxism; they are certain that they are simply Progressive Catholics.

  31. jflare says:

    I understand your angst all too well. I WOULD like to mention a possible silver lining to this cloud though, both for you and for everyone.
    Unless I’m gravely mistaken–and I could be–the CCHD collection DID receive a fair bit of discussion amongst the bishops at one of the last two large gatherings of the USCCB. They didn’t outright toss it–to my regret and that of many others–but some of the bishops HAVE begun refusing to collect for this in the first place, while others have called upon the CCHD administrators to get their act a specifically Catholic sense.

    They’d do best to simply close it down, I would say, but at least we’re making a little progress.

  32. Supertradmum says:

    I have always been of the opinion that Catholics should get involved in local charities which are in good standing with the Church. I do not agree with sending money to these big groups which have no accountability to us in the pew. One can list many such groupings which support anti-Catholic activities. Many are involved not only in “women’s reproductive health” but blantantly socialist propaganda and methods. Many of us boycott CAFOD here, but trying to get the hierarchy to change policies has been impossible.

    Supporting a charity should mean that we do not merely throw money at groups, but get down and dirty working at home, in food pantries, clothing drives in parishes,driving the poor to Church,etc.

    If someone wants to support an excellent charity, Aid to the Church in Need is the best and has received awards for long admin costs.

  33. Folks, while I agree that the report by Faith in Public Life contains unhelpful, inflammatory rhetoric, the core message on the authenticity of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development is accurate. Undermining the CCHD is undermining the Bishops. The CCHD was formed by the Bishops consistent with Catholic teaching and is run by the Bishops consistent with Catholic teaching. The Bishops are also fed up with fringe organizations impeding the Bishop’s efforts with the CCHD. According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops website :

    “The USCCB, CCHD and CCHD grantees are frequently subject to exploitative scrutiny by organized pressure groups and their peers, like the American Life League (ALL), operating to further narrow viewpoints and aims.

    CCHD staff and dioceses throughout the country investigate all claims made against grantees responsibly, but prudence demands taking account of these groups’ consistent track record of misreporting. In the interest of promoting the genuine Review and Renewal of CCHD, and after repeated attempts at constructive communication, CCHD has decided against further engagement with ALL and its associate groups at this time.

    As Bishop Stephen Blaire, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Bishop Jaime Soto, chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee on CCHD have noted:

    “Despite significant progress, some things don’t change. The American Life League continues to attack CCHD and the USCCB. ALL continue[s] to recycle allegations that CCHD funds many organizations that are in conflict with Catholic teaching. They simply do not agree with CCHD’s mission and how we apply our guidelines and requirements.”

    As the official anti-poverty agency of the Catholic bishops in the United States, CCHD is accountable to them and operates at the highest levels of fidelity to Church teaching, integrity and transparency in its mission to provide critical support to poor persons. CCHD monitors grant recipients through an exacting reporting process in cooperation with the local diocese. Only groups that have received formal approval from the local bishop may receive a CCHD grant.

    CCHD requires of each grantee the highest standards of accountability and conformity with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. If a group commits offenses against Catholic moral teaching, or undermines the Church’s defense of the unborn or her promotion of the family, a grant qualification is rescinded.

    These most exceptional cases cannot vitiate the excellent work done by hundreds of local community organizations to support leadership development, empower immigrants, protect poor communities from the effects of environmental degradation, catalyze equitable access to health care and housing, generate economic development and job growth, and promote the life and dignity of all.

    As we wrestle with the effects of the economic crisis, the Church’s apostolate of justice will continue with increased intensity as CCHD donors in the parish pew and CCHD grant recipients work together to overcome poverty and injustice.We invite you to visit and see our Facebook page and Twitter to learn more about the genuine work of CCHD to help persons out of poverty.”

  34. jflare says:

    When I read something like this, I can’t decide whether to scream or groan. Put most simply, yes, the CCHD DOES answer to the bishops. Sadly, the bishops, themselves, all too often don’t seem to me nearly as concerned about holding CCHD or other efforts by the Church to account to actual Catholic teaching.
    I remember rather well when CCHD, these two bishops, and ALL had their ‘discussion” some months ago. I recall being disgusted with the bishops and CCHD. ALL and other groups asked that CCHD personnel–and the bishops who oversee these efforts–be transparent and frank about where monies went and how the expenditures matched with Catholic teaching. Instead, ALL and others suffered being accused of being “narrow” in their viewpoints and aims. Oddly, such a charge didn’t seem to include any explanation of how the two organizations faired relative to actual Catholic teaching, say from the Catechism.

    It’s precisely because of the lack of transparency, the provable expenses given for efforts that clearly and directly contradict Catholic teaching that many, myself included, refuse to give to CCHD efforts.

    If the bishops are stewards of the resources we give them, so too are we stewards of the resources we have as individuals. If I can’t be confident that an organization will use my money appropriately, I will not give money to that organization.
    Especially in the case of the CCHD, I may be more responsible by giving money directly to my local food bank. ..Or in the case of my parish, the St Vincent DePaul Society, which does something quite similar.

  35. Dave N. says:

    The CHD wines and dines the bishops lavishly every year at their November gathering to help ensure that they get what they want. Your contribution dollars at work.

    It’s your duty as a steward to be responsible in your giving.

  36. mdhichborn says:

    Aside from the fact that this “report” was created by an organization with ties to Planned Parenthood (as if that isn’t enough in and of itself to completely discredit the report in total; see here:, the “report” is full of glaring inaccuracies and omissions. For instance, the Land Stewardship Project and Companeros were NOT cut off from CCHD funding because of their membership in coalitions that had OTHER members that promoted same-sex marriage, but because they refused to leave coalitions that had themselves taken official positions supporting same-sex marriage. BIG difference!

    Additionally, the “report” freely explained our charges regarding the Gamaliel Foundation’s relationship with FIRM, but ended with the fact that we accused Gamaliel of lying about its relationship to the CCHD, failing to mention WHY we at American Life League leveled those charges to begin with. I’ll fill in the missing details for you … After Gamaliel told CCHD that they “severed all ties with FIRM in 2010”, we found documents on Gamaliel’s OWN website proving that it was on FIRM’s executive committee in 2011 (a full year AFTER the time it had allegedly “severed all ties with FIRM”). We also found a set of FIRM’s own meeting minutes showing that Gamaliel was nominated for FIRM’s executive committee for 2012. Telling CCHD that it “severed all ties with FIRM in 2010” while housing documents on its own website proving otherwise (and then later password protecting this information so people couldn’t see the evidence we linked to) seems to constitute a lie to me. You can see the evidence for yourself at the link following. I’d LOVE an explanation for this, but hey … why let facts get in the way of a good lie?

    This “report” is nothing short of an apologetics piece attempting to convince Catholics that they should be giving funds and prestige to organizations working for abortion and homosexuality, just because they pretend to help the poor.

Comments are closed.