September 11, 2013 (
LifeSiteNews.com) – Catholic charity has always been, first and foremost, the responsibility of the Catholic faithful, who in living their Christian lives must follow our Lord’s commandment to “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12). PRI’s president, as the recipient of the Blessed Frédéric Ozanam Award from the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, and who has himself helped to found a number of charitable organizations, has a deep appreciation for this aspect of the Christian calling and a profound respect for those who are involved in such work.
As Pope Benedict wrote in Deus Caritas Est, such an exercise in charity “needs to be organized if it is to be an ordered service to the community” (“Deus Caritas Est,” 20). And among the most important of such organized charities, as noted in the Kinshasa Declaration, is the “diocesan Caritas . . . [which] unlike the other organizations of lay groups or religious congregations, [is unique] in being the official organ of the bishop
for the service of charity.
Thus the African bishops, in concert with the universal Church, underline the indispensable role of
the bishop in his diocese in overseeing both the giving and receiving of charity through the official organs of the Church.
This reasonable request—that all the official charitable organs of the Church, including CRS, respect and submit to the authority of
the bishop in his diocese—constitutes a major stumbling block for CRS. After all, it receives most of its funding from an organization—USAID—that forbids it to discriminate in favor of one religion over another. Were “Catholic” Relief Services actually to attempt following the Church’s dictates and carrying out its government-funded programs through
the bishop in his diocese, it would shortly thereafter lose its government funding.
This same consideration accounts for the failure of CRS to favor Catholics in its hiring policies and to preferentially serve the population whose name it bears. It bewilders African bishops that a “Catholic” charity does not hire Catholics to carry out programs to help fellow Catholics. Muslim charities help fellow Muslims, they point out, and Baptist charities help fellow Baptists. What they don’t realize is that the Muslim and Baptist charities rely upon private funds, but that grants from USAID come with nondiscrimination clauses attached. Let CRS begin hiring only Catholics, and complaints of “bias” in the hiring would be quickly leveled and, if not corrected, contracts would be cancelled.
In fact, it is to
avoid the appearance of favoring the Catholic Church in any way that CRS does not work, modestly and efficiently, out of the existing Catholic network of chanceries and parishes. Instead, like the other secular humanitarian organizations that it partners with, it sets up an expensive, freestanding headquarters in the countries and dioceses in which it operates. It may, as a matter of courtesy, inform the local bishop of its activities in his diocese, and it may from time to time, send a private donation his way, but it will not submit to his lawful authority. It
can’t, if it wants to continue to receive a half billion dollars from the U.S. Treasury each year.
CRS goes to great lengths to spin these necessities into virtues. To explain why it does not preferentially serve Catholics in its programs, it loftily boasts of responding “on the basis of need not creed.” To explain why an ostensibly Catholic organization does not preferentially hire Catholics, it speaks of hiring on the basis of professional qualifications. Such claims sound plausible until you understand that they have been
imposed on CRS by its principal donor, USAID.
An authentic Catholic charity would understand that it is a guest in the diocese of the local bishop and would work under his authority. It would hire faithful Catholics and, while not turning away anyone in need, seek above all to serve its fellow Catholics. That approach would surely please the vast majority of CRS’ private donors, even if it would displease its enormous public one. And it is an approach that St. Paul specifically endorsed in his letter to the Galatians: “So then, while we have the opportunity, let us do good to all,
but especially to those who belong to the family of the faith. (Galatians 6:10)
What kind of an organization does CRS want to be? Does it want to fundamentally restructure society as many of the secular humanitarian organizations obviously do? Does it want to prattle on endlessly about fighting for a more just or a more democratic society like the other humanitarian NGOs? Or does it want to be a physical expression of the personal encounter with the love of Christ which moves us, as the Cardinal Sarah stated, “generously and freely towards the most disadvantaged so as to give witness to the Trinitarian love.”
Are its employees satisfied to be seen by the supposed beneficiaries of its actions as merely extensions of USAID and the anti-life ideology that it spreads? Or are they seeking a personal relationship with God through prayer and the frequenting of the sacraments so that they can be true witnesses of the love of Christ and not fall into political or social activism or secularism?
It is logically incoherent to say, as CRS currently does, that it is only necessary that the organization's employees recognize that CRS is officially Catholic. Clearly, a Hindu employee of CRS is not going to be “frequenting the sacraments.
[1]” And a former CRS-Madagascar director, who happened to be Jewish, is not going to start going to Confession and being a “true witness of the love of Christ. If Cardinal Sarah of Cor Unum suggests that employees of Catholic charities should be going to Mass, then those same charities, including CRS, are going to have to start hiring Catholics—faithful Catholics.
These are two fundamentally different visions of what Catholic charity should be. The first, which is espoused by many current CRS employees, is essentially secular and humanitarian. The second, which is espoused by the Church, is sacred and Trinitarian. The Kinshasa Declaration seems to be speaking directly to CRS about its close relationship with USAID when it warns: “We can thus not let ourselves be absorbed by those with powerful means – financial, of the mass-media, and of a great manipulative capacity – [who] want to spread, under the cloak of a so-called progress and of the vision of an allegedly universal man, a philosophy of rights that we cannot accept.”
Taken together, the transcripts of the interviews we carried out in Madagascar, the more diplomatic but equally revealing speeches given by African bishops at Kinshasa, and the brief but incisive
Motu Proprio issued by Pope Benedict XVI lead to a single conclusion: The official Catholic charities of the North are, at least to many of their supposed “beneficiaries,” no longer recognizably Catholic. They have devolved into humanitarian relief organizations that are, in their day-to-day operations, indistinguishable from their secular counterparts. Fundamental structural reforms are required to bring them into conformance with Church teaching.
In Paragraph 10 of the Kinshasa Declaration, the assembled African bishops called “upon our representatives . . . to draw the attention of other members of the
Caritas family [to our concerns].” There is no sign, however, that “other members of the
Caritas family,” in particular CRS, have taken meaningful cognizance of the concerns expressed by the African bishops at this meeting. And, if they have, it is certainly true that they have not shared these concerns with
us, the members of the “Catholic community of the United States of America,” to whom the international humanitarian agency CRS supposedly belongs.
In fact, the only reference to the Kinshasa meeting that a search of the CRS website brings up is a press release entitled, “
Catholic Church in Africa 'outraged’ by Congo Violence.” As its title suggests, this one-page release highlighted an armed clash in the Congo that occurred simultaneously with the Kinshasa meeting. It mentioned only in passing that “The bishops met November 20-22 on the work of Caritas on the continent.” That is the
only reference to the Kinshasa meeting, the results of which the African bishops
specifically asked to be conveyed to the “other members of the Caritas family”!
CRS continues to engage in the pretense that there is nothing wrong with its current business model. Here is what a representative of CRS told one member of that American Catholic community who wrote to express concern that at least
one African bishop was not at all happy with the American organization:
“We are unaware of any bishops that CRS works with in Africa having refused to work with CRS. We have a very good working relationship with all of our partners around the world, including the Church, and meet with the bishops regularly to consult on our work and partner on projects.”
This is, purely and simply, a fantasy. For real-life examples of how far removed it is from reality, remember the remarks of the bishops, priests, and other Catholic officials with whom we spoke in Madagascar, including the president of the Madagascar bishops’ conference. Almost to a man, they were incensed at the “unequal,” “non-horizontal,” “infantilizing” working relationship that they had with CRS – when they even
had a relationship. As for the “regular” meetings, recall the remarks of the president of the Malagasy Bishops’ Conference about CRS operating out of his sight and behind his back in his own diocese. Recall the complaints about how it had taken
two years for the Malagasy bishops to wrangle a meeting with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)/CRS, and how they had wanted that meeting not for the purpose of congratulating the USCCB/CRS on the “good working relationship” enjoyed by all, but to air their grievances against CRS and to fundamentally alter the one-sided relationship they had with that organization.
Some may conclude that CRS’ refusal to acknowledge its problems—and even its uncharitable attacks on its critics—are merely typical bureaucratic stonewalling. We disagree. We believe that the CRS leadership understands, perhaps better than the African bishops, and perhaps even better than the bishops who serve on its board, what is at stake here. They understand the risks, both to their funding and to their careers, of acknowledging their past failures and embarking upon a process of reform. They understand that extricating CRS from the smothering secular embrace of USAID will result in the loss of perhaps two-thirds of the organization’s funding. They understand that re-establishing its identity as a truly Catholic charity means giving up its current pose as a humanitarian NGO and reintegrating it into the Catholic Church under the direct control of the bishops.
They understand that CRS, if it is to be an authentic Catholic charity as demanded by the
Motu Proprio, “On the Service of Charity,” will cease to exist in its current form.
Recommendations
1. That the non-profit corporation known as Catholic Relief Services be dissolved.
2. That the charitable activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) be carried out by an office, known as International Catholic Charities (ICC), located in the USCCB itself.
3. That all programmatic activities carried out by ICC be done in concert with the bishop in the local diocese where the program is located, under his guidance, approval, and supervision.
During our month-long investigation of CRS activities in Madagascar, our investigator interviewed a number of bishops and clergy in country, many of whom leveled serious charges against CRS. These ranged from promoting abortifacient contraception and a failure to hire Catholics, to wasteful spending habits and a refusal to work through the local ordinary. Here are a series of quotes from these interviews:
Promoting and Distributing Contraceptives and Abortifacient Drugs
“Even in my own diocese! Without my knowledge,...they [CRS] were working on an artificial contraception project here...And, then, the Catholic people around here heard about it and said: “What’s that all about? That’s supposed to be ‘Catholic’??” So, there you have it: They [CRS] were following the instructions of USAID.’” Archbishop Désiré Tsarahazana of Toamasina (Tamatave)
“Well, one thing for sure, you can go into the most remote, middle-of-nowhere place now and you’ll find it well stocked with abortifacient products. And, you know, they [the community health workers under CRS] are giving the shots (depo provera) now!” Fr. Jean Jagu, Vicar at SMM Church in Brickaville
Failure to Hire Catholics
“I’m not sure why, and I don’t want to exaggerate, but maybe 70% of its staff, or even more – is not Catholic; they’re not Catholic… I do understand that about CRS’s commitments to the U.S. Government…but, the question that remains is: Why are there so few Catholics on CRS’s staff…that I don’t understand so well.” Archbishop Désiré Tsarahazana of Toamasina (Tamatave)
“CRS has a very bad reputation here in the diocese: most of its employees are Protestants!” Diocesan Priest
“The problem here in Madagascar is that CRS is staffed by Protestants.” Fr. Jean Aimé, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Toamasina
“Maybe CRS’s participation in artificial-contraception-promotion programs is the reason that CRS mainly hires Protestants, who have no objection to family planning. If CRS hired Catholics, some of those Catholics might object more strongly to CRS’s participation in that kind of thing.” Fr. Liva, SMM, Pastor, St. Thérèse Parish, Tamatave
Refusal to Work Through the Local Bishop and Through the Local Church
“You know, CRS works outside of the Church. It has the name ‘Catholic’ Relief Services but [laughing] doesn’t work, really, with Catholics. Even the personnel of CRS are nearly all Protestant.” Father Jean Joel, Director of Bureau de Coordination des Actions Sociales.
“We [the Montfort Fathers] might have the same name [Catholic] but we’re not in the same family.” Fr. Jean Jagu, Vicar at SMM Church in Brickaville
I had been here in Tamatave for already more than three years, and, maybe this was partly my fault, but, I didn’t even know where the CRS office in town was! … So, when I got back to Tamatave I did go over to their office and, to my great surprise – have you seen it? – it’s a very big office and organization!...
Just this year CRS held a very big meeting here in town – a “capacity-building” meeting or something, at a hotel here – and I heard about it only accidentally, when I was up in the [town] of Diego, and somebody told me about the meeting to be held [in my own town]. I was embarrassed; I didn’t know anything about it. Archbishop Désiré Tsarahazana of Toamasina (Tamatave)
“You never see ‘them’ [CRS] en brousse [in the bush]. They drive in…and then they disappear.” Fr. Jean Jagu, Vicar at SMM Church in Brickaville
“That’s what really hurts me. How to work with those CRS people?... But, you know, as soon as I speak of a ‘partnership’ with them, then everybody runs away and hides.” Archbishop Odon Razanakolona of Antananarivo, [the Capital City of Madagascar]
“The archbishop recently told one parish not to bother applying to CRS for aid, because it wouldn’t work, and if it did, the reporting/accounting procedures would be impossible for the parish to fulfill. He directed the parish to BUCAS [Bureau de Coordination des Actions Sociales] instead.” Fr. Jean Noël Rakotondrazafy
Wasteful Spending Habits
“And then, the money that CRS gets: a large part of it goes towards administration, while they make us work like dogs. And then they collect two-thirds…and they give us crumbs. They are the ones who need to explain: Why do they receive such big salaries?” Archbishop Odon Razanakolona
“They [CRS] were only good for providing big cars and big salaries and c[a]n’t see that they accomplished much.” Fr. Jean Jagu
“Yes; one time, for ‘visibility’ purposes, they [CRS-Madagascar representatives] came in here [to my office] and asked me to put up this thing, this sign, with “USAID” on it; to put it up behind my desk. I threw them the hell out of my office: ‘Take your sign and your money out of here. I don’t need it. I’ve lived in my poverty; leave me in my poverty.’” Archbishop Odon Razanakolona
CRS Claims at Odds with Views of Local Bishops
Compare the above quotes from Malagasy bishops and clergy, who have long experienced how CRS operates on the ground in their country, with what CRS says about its policies:
- “As a pro-life organization, CRS programming does not include the promotion or distribution of artificial family planning or the distribution of abortifacients in any country in which we work.
- “Committed to our Catholic identity, we review all organizations via a vetting process that begins with our local Bishops in-country.”
- “Serving the poor and the Church to bring God’s love to neighbors in need, while promoting the dignity of life from beginning to end, is a PRIVILEGE for CRS.”
The Catholic Church in Madagascar would have trouble accepting any of these claims. Local clergy distainfully refer to CRS as the so-called “Catholic” Relief Services, complain that it is violating Church teaching on the Life issues, and suggest that, instead of standing in solidarity with the local Church, it is instead practicing a kind of economic apartheid.
Malagasy Bishops Complained Privately to Carolyn Woo Last Year -- to no avail.
CRS claims that “we are open to and welcome correction, presented to us in the spirit of Christian charity and with the intention of helping us better animate the Gospel mission of serving the poorest and most vulnerable around the world.”
But it then goes on to attack PRI for airing the grievances of the Catholic Church in Madagascar: “In substance and tone, these recent unrelenting attacks do not manifest this spirit. They attempt to cause division in the Body of Christ. This is harmful to the Church and to the pro-life cause.”
The truth is somewhat different.
In September 2012 Carolyn Woo came to Madagascar at the request of the Madagascar bishops, who had been trying to arrange a meeting with the head of CRS for several years. At that meeting they told Dr. Woo of their concerns about CRS’ activities in their dioceses.
Nothing happened.
It is thus no surprise that some months later, their patience exhausted, they shared their frustrations with CRS with us. Some months have gone by since then and we, too, have been disappointed by the lack of corrective action on the part of CRS.
CRS’ quarrel is not with Population Research Institute, but with the Catholic Church of Madagascar.
It is CRS’ activities there, in Madagascar, that are, to quote CRS’ own words, “caus[ing] division in the Body of Christ [and are] … harmful to the Church and to the pro-life cause.”
Catholic Relief Services, for the love of God and the unity of the Catholic Church, heal thyself!
This piece is republished with permission from the Population Research Institute
The revised Tier One Training Manual – copyrighted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and published with the assistance of a Department of Health and Human Services grant – notes that 'it is important to be alert for homophobic remarks among the staff. If any are made, discuss in a non-judgmental way how these kinds of remarks may make a young gay resident feel.'
