On March 6, the Lepanto Institute and the Population Research Institute published a 130-page report summarizing the findings of their joint, year-long investigation into projects that Catholic Relief Services was carrying out in three African countries. Prior to the publication of that report, Michael Hichborn and Steven Mosher, heads of their respective organizations, sent a cover-letter and the executive summary of the report to every bishop, archbishop, and cardinal heading a diocese in the United States.
The letter respectfully asked each bishop to review our report. We identified a number of morally questionable aspects of the projects we investigated and asked the bishops to reach out to either Lepanto or PRI for clarification if they had any additional questions about our findings. In a spirit of fraternal charity, we asked the bishops to “encourage CRS to, once and for all, end their involvement in such projects.”
The first bishop to respond to this letter was Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico. His response, dated March 8, follows:
Dear Sirs:
As a former, two-term member of the Board of Directors of Catholic Relief Services and a current member of the Catholic Relief Services Foundation Board, I can assure you that your findings on the ethical actions of CRS are in error. CRS has consistently sought the judgment of prominent, well-respected moral theologians in those activities that may have moral ramifications, including using money received from USAID and PEPFAR. In each case, the theologians assured CRS and us board members that there is nothing being done by CRS that is immoral or unethical. Furthermore, Mr. Sean Callahan, Executive Director of CRS, is a man of the highest moral principles, in whom I have complete confidence. Your persistent persecution of this wonderful organization, which helps millions of people every year throughout the world, is deplorable. I pray that you might gain the prudence to cease and desist.
Sincerely yours in the Lord,
Archbishop John C. Wester
In response to Abp. Wester’s letter, the Lepanto Institute and Population Research Institute have issued the following statement:
It is saddening, but unsurprising, to see a bishop yet again uncritically dismiss the facts regarding projects being carried out by CRS. It is clear from the context of Abp. Wester’s letter that he did not read the contents of the report, which was published two days before his letter. Nor is he basing his opinion on any kind of contemporaneous moral analysis. Despite having no familiarity with our detailed and exhaustive report, and the moral analysis that was done by our prominent and well-respected theologian, he “assures” us that our “findings on the ethical actions of CRS are in error.”
Abp. Wester accuses us of “persistent persecution” of CRS, calling our published reports on their activities “deplorable.” First of all, it’s hard to imagine that the published concerns of two faithful Catholic organizations regarding a monolithic, billion-dollar-a-year institution constitutes a “persecution” of any kind. For our part, we have consistently applauded the good that CRS has done, but refuse to close our eyes to CRS’s “deplorable” insistence upon implementing government-funded projects that violate the spiritual well-being of vulnerable women and girls.
Abp. Wester insists that “prominent, well-respected moral theologians”—whom he does not name–have reviewed the projects we mentioned in our report and concluded that “there is nothing being done by CRS that is immoral or unethical.” Since CRS has not, to our knowledge, published the results of such a review, we have no way of knowing on what Arb. Wester bases his claim.
We feel compelled to ask if these unnamed theologians were made fully aware of all elements pertaining to these projects? Were they told about the CRS document in Cameroon that promoted masturbation as a form of ‘safe sex’? Were they informed that CRS’ referral network in the KIDSS project included several contraception peddlers? Did they know that one of the network members is an organization whose logo is an icon for abortion (a pregnant woman with an ‘X’ through the location of the baby) that admits to taking girls to obtain abortions and openly lobbies for the liberalization of abortion laws? Were CRS’s in-house moral theologians informed that the DREAMS project – which CRS led the implementation of in several countries – was designed specifically for the increased use of contraception? Were they told that this goal was a requirement for the project, and that all participating organizations – CRS included – were mandated to ensure that every aspect of the project was implemented, including the promotion and provision of contraception?”
If the answer to any of the above questions is “no,” then whatever moral analysis they submitted would be unreliable. If the answer to any or all of the above questions is “yes,” and CRS’ in-house moral theologians nonetheless defended these CRS programs, then an independent, outside agency must be brought in to clean house as Dr. Germain Grisez recommended a decade ago.
Dr. Christen Brugger, a highly credentialed, well-known and well-respected moral theologian reviewed our report and concluded that it “established beyond reasonable doubt, clear examples of five expressions of grave evil-doing” on the part of CRS.
CRS claims, both directly and through Abp. Wester, that it has thoroughly reviewed from the standpoint of Catholic moral theology, the projects identified in our report. In the spirt of full transparency, we now formally request that CRS publish such reviews. Since Abp. Wester has full confidence in these moral reviews, we ask that he join us in asking for their publication.
The letter Hichborn and Mosher sent to the heads of all dioceses in the United States is as follows:
Your Excellency/Eminence
Thank you for your leadership in the Church. It is because of your key role in the spiritual and temporal governance of the Church, including its charitable works, that I’m sending you the Executive Summary of our new report: Catholic Relief Services: A Collaborative Investigation Conducted by the Lepanto Institute and the Population Research Institute in Cameroon, Zimbabwe, and Lesotho.
The report is the result of a year-long field investigation of Catholic Relief Services projects we conducted in three African countries. We were specifically looking at certain CRS projects, funded by USAID/PEPFAR, that targeted girls and young women from 10 to 24 years of age with “Sexual and Reproductive Health Services”. These “Services” include pornographic sex education, and the promotion and provision of condoms and long-acting contraceptives (IUDs, Depo-Provera, and contraceptive implants.)
Our investigation and analysis were guided from beginning to end primarily by two papal documents: Caritas in Veritate and Pope Benedict’s 2012 motu proprio, “On the Service of Charity.” The questions that we asked about the CRS projects, following Pope Benedict’s truly clear direction in the latter, were these:
- Did these charitable projects in Africa follow Catholic principles or did they involve commitments which negatively affect the observance of those principles? (1 3) Here we were looking chiefly at Catholic moral theology governing human sexuality.
- Were local diocesan Bishops in Africa allowed to exercise their legitimate authority over “the activities and management of these projects to ensure that the norms of the Church’s universal and particular law were respected.” (4 § 3) (cf. canons 1300 CIC and 1044 CCEO).
- Were the intentions of the American faithful, who make donations and bequests in the understanding that these funds will only be used in accordance with Church teaching, being respected in these African projects? (4 § 3)
- Did CRS take care to ensure that it selects its personnel from among persons who share, or at least respect, the Catholic identity of these works? (7 1).
- Did CRS take care to ensure that the African faithful—and here we are talking about little girls—are not led into error? And a related question: Did CRS, while presenting its activities as charitable, use methods or material at odds with the Church’s moral theology? (9 § 3).
- Finally, did CRS receive financial support from institutions, in this case USAID and PEPFAR, that pursue ends contrary to Church’s teaching? Related to this is the question: Did CRS receive funding for the implementation of initiatives – even in part – whose ends are not in conformity with Church teaching? (10. § 3).
The answer to this last point is, quite obviously, yes on both counts. USAID and PEPFAR pursue ends, among them “increasing contraceptive prevalence,” and “increasing the contraceptive mix,” that are clearly not consonant with the Church’s teaching. Furthermore, as will be illustrated in the executive summary, CRS is a lead implementing partner in the USAID/PEPFAR-funded project called DREAMS, which has the firmly stated goal of increasing the use of contraceptives among adolescent girls and young women.
The answer to all the remaining questions, however, is no. The CRS projects we investigated are at odds with the Church’s teaching and do, we believe, fail to adhere to Pope Benedict’s 2012 motu proprio, “On the Service of Charity.” We believe the enclosed Executive Summary, and the much longer report that is available online, conclusively demonstrate this.
We respect the good that Catholic Relief Services does in many of its other works—those that do not involve cooperation with USAID/PEPFAR’s fertility reduction and contraceptive promoting goals. But what does it profit the Church if its charitable arm, intending to save lives, instead leads souls into error and causes them to be lost?
If you have any questions after reviewing the report, either of us would welcome the opportunity to discuss them with you in more detail. Our fervent prayer is that you will encourage CRS to, once and for all, end their involvement in such projects.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Steven Mosher Michael Hichborn
President President
Population Research Institute Lepanto Institute
I life in Diocese of Santa Fé. Archbishop Wester promotes mass migration, endorsed Fr, James Martin homosexual book, Binding Bridges, and has participated in a convention of radicals in Albuquerque promoted LBGT values and women’s ordination. He was handpicked by his predecessor Archbishop Sheehan who on diocese website tape praised Webster for being on 20 committees at the USCCB. According to the tape, Sheehan said that he selected Webster as his successor with the help of two prominent cardinals, most likely McCarrick and Wurel. No mention of the Holy Spirt. The deceased Archbishop Sheehan wanted to retire in New Mexico and consequently wanted a man who would make sure it happened. This archbishop failed to act on about eight scandals, including the convicted Fr. Superasio from CA (25 counts of child molestation. I was part of group that worked to keep St Katherine Drexil’s Indian School open in Santa Fé. I met Sheehan and asked for his support. He said he had no control over the situation. Later, I received a packed in the mail from the sister’s lawyers, wanting $46,000,000 for the school and included $50,000 for Archbishop Sheehan’s diocese, as he owned the entrance, soccer field, and parking lot. He lied to us at our meeting. His successor Webster is a promoter of mass migration and tells us that it is not moral to call illegal immigrants “illegals.” He is a man who is iron-fisted in cancel priest who disagree with his policies. He is in my opinion should never been consecrated a bishop. Perhaps, it was McCarrick who promoted him, as I read the biography of his installation in Utah.
I had the unfortunate opportunity to attend Mass in Santa Fe and Ab Wester was the celebrant. He let some woman dressed in an alb serve as “mistress of ceremonies” during the Mass. That told me everything I needed to know about him.
I stopped donations to CRS when I first caught wind of this. So sad but there are many other charitable organizations I will continue to donate to but not Catholic Relief Services. Thanks to your very good work.