In the interest of full disclosure, organizations to which I belong have joined Reform the CCHD Now coalition. The Reform the CCHD Now coalition is calling for a boycott of the annual Catholic collection, asking that there be greater transparency in the grants process and more authentically Catholic criteria for choosing grantees.
“We support without qualification our Catholic bishops,” said Stephen Phelan, Communications Manager for Human Life International, in the release. “We are confident that many of them will support this call for greater transparency in the CCHD, and to a deep reform in the organization. In this campaign we are asking that the CCHD reconsider its philosophy and practices.”
As I said, organizations to which I belong have joined Reform the CCHD Now coalition and I’m glad they did but I’ve been this route before – not the boycott but the call for reform. Twelve years ago, another group prepared an extensive Commentary on the CCHD – including quite detailed objections to its funding ACORN – that resulted in refreshed guidelines and an expanded name…but no very substantive changes in its funding pattern. [See the Wanderer Forum Foundation, Commentary on the Campaign for Human Development, 1997 and Commentary on the Industrial Areas Foundation, 1998: www.wandererforum.org, publications section.]
The big problem in reforming the Catholic Campaign for Human Development is that oversight of its grant-giving is only part of the problem. The CCHD has two functions: grant-giving and education. Therefore reform of the CCHD must address problems on both fronts.
Now, concerning its grants, the CCHD is funding political groups that organize in churches for progressive political power, which, in the progressive world includes abortion and homosexual “rights” – explaining why a pro-life group such as Human Life International and the American Life League want it reformed. Obviously, therefore, any reform of the CCCHD must be able to identify these progressively networked groups and must absolutely stop funding them.
Is Lent a forced abstinence?
Pakistani Christians raped and burned for refusing conversion to Islam
So let’s make it simple: never fund organizations with indefinite agendas. The ecumenical group that claims it’s all about “building relationships” and providing a “civic education” that will be determined by “house meetings” could be supporting anything. CCHD grants should be given to groups with very specific, local goals rather than those hankering after spectacular national, political power-grabs.
Another remedy would be to assiduously defund coalitions that include institutions supportive of intrinsic evil – like abortion. Is there a Unitarian Universalist among the member institutions? They formally support a woman’s “right” to kill her pre-born child. Any alliance with such an institution is fraught with peril. One would think that was obvious.
But the problem of CCHD isn’t addressed once Alinskyian organizations have been defunded. Current CCHD funding guidelines are grounded on a faulty understanding of the Catholic charity. To listen to these people, one would think poverty is nothing but a dearth of money and government services. Without a robust grasp of the root causes of poverty, how can CCHD begin to address those root causes?
Which brings us to the second thrust of the CCHD – education. If CCHD funding guidelines are deficient, it’s because the people who developed them were thinking with a secular worldview. Unfortunately, that same worldview troubles the educational material disseminated by the CCHD – they are written from the perspective of a faulty (uncatholic) philosophy of charity. New educational materials that are authentically Catholic must be part of any reasonable reform of the CCHD.
So, while I generally applaud the enthusiasm of those who call for reform of the CCHD, I’m guarded. Cosmetic CCHD reform was attempted in 1997-98. It failed because it didn’t address the inconsistencies of the CCHD’s philosophy with Catholic teaching…and that is going to take a radical conversion.
Stephanie Block is the editor of the New Mexico-based Los Pequenos newspaper and a founder of the Catholic Media Coalition.
RSS
Mary Ann Kreitzer, President
Les Femmes
Catholic Media Coalition
Dear Rey,
I was disappointed to see your response to Stephanie's article at Spero.com and I wonder if you really believe some of the things you wrote. Do you really think, for example, that those of us you met with in Chicago are "groups whose motivations and objectives are rooted in partisan politics?"
I would suggest, rather, that it is CCHD that has illustrated a solid commitment to partisan Democratic politics. The latest Bellarmine report on six CCHD grantees participating in an immigration voters' project in California illustrates it. They worked together against parental notification and traditional marriage, two Democratic agenda staples. This is typical of CCHD grantees. Don't you find that alarming? Should concerned Catholic simply ignore it?
Do your also really believe that we are not motivated by "faithfulness to Catholic teaching and concern for the poor?" You write as though CCHD is the only alternative for addressing poverty, but that is simply silly. Many of us, whom you dismiss so uncharitably, have long histories working with organizations that serve the poor - really serve the poor, vs. using the poor as pawns to advance the liberal agenda and elect pro-abortion Democrats like Loretta Sanchez.
It was a privilege and blessing to meet you and Bob in Chicago. I thought at the time it was a good-faith meeting. Which is one reason I'm so disappointed to see this personal attack on faithful Catholics who love both the Church and the poor. I suspect now its only purpose from the Archdiocese perspective was to buy time and convince us that we shouldn't boycott -- without any commitments on your part at all. Since the charm tactic failed you seem to have switched to attack mode and a dishonest attack at that.
The thing that bothers me most about your response is that it seems to be pulled straight out of Rules for Radicals - i.e. demonize your opponent. You've called us "hateful" and accused us of being "deceitful detractors" without producing one shred of evidence or addressing any of our legitimate concerns. Isn't that hateful and deceitful? It makes it difficult for me to believe that you were writing "In Christ's love." In fact, your letter illustrates rash judgment, calumny, and lack of charity.
None of us has any animosity toward you and your associates in Chicago. We do, however, have a problem with the partisan politics at the USCCB which is demonstrated in spades by the CCHD and has been for years. Stephanie addressed it well in her response to your letter.
We will continue to tell the truth about CCHD and reveal its networks that advance abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, and other moral evils. You don't help the poor by funding that kind of moral poison.
I don't mean to be sarcastic here just honest. In view of your comment at the Chicago meeting, I notice that the Catholic Social Ministry Gathering is being held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel on Capitol Hill in February. Is that a four or five star hotel? If you'll be there I'd be glad to pick you up and take you over to the Missionaries of Charity facility on Wheeler Rd. or we could go visit their hospice center for AIDS patients or Centro Tepeyac crisis pregnancy center. None of these are funded by CCHD but I suspect they all are much more effective at helping the poor than the community organizing groups being funded in Chicago.
Sincerely,
Mary Ann Kreitzer
"The first law of history is not to dare to utter falsehood; the second, not to fear to speak the truth."
Pope Leo XIII