Search This Blog

Saturday, October 22, 2011

American Life League was Right After ALL

As soon as American Life League (ALL) and Reform CCHD NOW released their latest report on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) showing how it has increased its funding of objectionable groups, CCHD went into overdrive to discredit them. All their info was rehashed, we were told, exaggerated and innacurate. CCHD had investigated. ALL has an agenda. Yada-yada-yada. Well, it appears that ALL was right after all -- at least in one recent case raised by ALL which leads astute readers to ask, "How many others." See here.

Turns out that that the NYC AIDS Housing Network lied about not violating Church teachings and that, in fact, they distribute condoms, an act that not only violates Catholic teaching, but is counterproductive in controlling AIDS as the experience in Africa shows. (The only program showing significant reduction of AIDS is the one promoted in Uganda, premarital abstinence and marital fidelity. That's the real solution to the AIDS crisis. See here. African countries with the highest rate of condom distribution also have the highest rate of AIDS.)

But I digress. The fact is that CCHD, with all their "vetting" and all their paid bureaucrats working in chanceries around the country and at the national office in D.C., can't find the material that a few activist researchers, mostly volunteers, turn up easily.

May one be forgiven for thinking that CCHD is the one with an agenda that includes funding liberal organizations and electing liberals to state and national government? How many other grantees have CCHD bureaucrats "vetted" who are actively engaged in undermining Catholic teaching and promoting liberalism? As I've written before in, "Who to believe?", CCHD is far from trustworthy.

For my part I'll stick with ALL, Reform CCHD Now, Stephanie Block, the Catholic Media Coaltion, The Wanderer, and the all the other trumpet blowers who believe CCHD is all about funneling money into Alinsky groups and electing liberals who will work to empower, not the poor, but the community organizers. It's been going on for decades. Why should we believe things have changed? I agree completely with Janet Baker of Reform D.C. Catholicism, a member of the Catholic Media Coalition who outlined the horrible treatment of Rey Flores in Chicago who tried to reform the local organization and direct money to truly worthy organizations. Rey was fired for doing what every CCHD officer should be doing! Here's what Janet wrote after noting the injustice to Flores from this "social justice" organization:
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. (See article.)
In 2009, I made the video below to alert folks to CCHD's corrupt agenda. Nothing really has changed despite all the huffing and puffing at the bishops' conference. Who do you trust to spend your charity dollars wisely? CCHD or yourself? When the CCHD collection comes to your parish in a few weeks, drop  an acorn in the basket. It isn't just nuts who are running things at the CCHD; the organization is an enemy of the Church.

3 comments:

  1. MA, I'm glad I read your post. There is some confusion about that article; it's mine, not Stephanie's. I just wrote to Stephanie to get it fixed, but you might want to fix your post. Here's where it originally appeared on my blog http://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com/2011/10/usccbs-lame-defense-of-cchd.html. It's also on Spero Forum.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When I saw the title, I expected it to be your article. I was surprised that it was attributed to Stephanie. Great post! I'll ask Darden to fix it on the CMC website.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why give the USCCB a pass and blame it on the underlings over there. One must consider the source of the problem, not the symptoms.

    ReplyDelete