In a recent interview with John Burger of Aleteia, Dr. Carolyn Woo, president of Catholic Relief Services, doubled down on CRS’s commitment to maintaining dues-paying memberships in contraception and abortion spreading organizations, providing funds to abortion and contraception distributing organizations, and retaining the employment of a vice president who is a homosexual activist in a same-sex “marriage.” During the interview, Dr. Woo was asked, “CRS has been criticized by some for failing to live up to Catholic standards in some ways. What has been done in response?” Characterizing the just criticisms of concerned Catholics as “attacks,” Dr. Woo replied with three points.
“The type of attacks come in three forms. The first is: Why do we work with other organizations which don’t follow Catholic Church teaching?…
So when we have responsibilities for these types of activities, for the scope of these activities, if we don’t reach out to other partners who have coverage of those territories, we are basically leaving a big swath of population unattended. … If we don’t collaborate with other agencies, we are leaving those people without any hospitals or clinics or access to those medications.
Sometimes it’s, “Why do you belong to certain associations?” For example, the Cambodia Medical Association. It’s just like the American Medical Association. It’s very large, it covers all kinds of medical specialties, from malaria to nutrition to family planning. We belong because we need to find out what is the best treatment nowadays for nutrition and malaria and TB and chronic diseases. We do not attend the sessions for family planning. In fact, our Church partners use our membership to attend the sessions of the Cambodia Medical Association because we all need to know the parts that relate to us.
And also when we participate in family planning conversations, it’s to present natural family planning. If we are not there making our case, believe me, it would go away. Nobody would even ever know that there is something called Natural Family Planning, and that it works. CRS oftentimes is the only voice to say, “Wait a minute; this is our approach It’s different from yours, and this is our evidence that it works.” So we are actually making the voice of the Catholic approach acceptable in these secular organizations.”
In the first bolded comment, Dr. Woo categorically states that if CRS does not collaborate with other agencies, CRS is leaving people without any hospitals, clinics or access to medicine. This statement is completely false. The work of development and aid is an industry where corporate entities compete for grants. CRS is competing with World Vision, CARE Inc., Save the Children, the Futures Group, and a host of other similar organizations for grants from the Federal government and high-dollar foundations. If CRS was not willing to collaborate with enemies of the Body of Christ, CRS would not be able to obtain as many grants, but those grants would be won by other entities who would in turn provide the exact same service CRS would no longer be providing. So, the hospitals, clinics and medications would still reach people, the only difference is that the providers would be entities other than CRS.
The second and third bolded statements in Dr. Woo’s response are self-contradictory. In the first place, Dr. Woo claims that CRS does not attend the Cambodia Medical Association’s sessions for family planning, but then she starts talking about what happens when CRS participates in family planning conversations. Both statements cannot be true.
Furthermore, Dr. Woo misstated the deep concern pro-life leaders have had with CRS’s dues-paying membership with a Cambodian organization. Dr. Woo mentioned the Cambodia Medical Association, however consistent concerns have been with CRS’s dues-paying membership with MEDiCAM. What Dr. Woo knows about MEDiCAM (because Michael Hichborn personally explained and provided documented proof to Dr. Woo in November of 2012) is that CRS has indeed been involved in the development of MEDiCAM’s policy papers, which included plans for the expansion of access to abortion providers, the training of abortion providers, and the distribution of all forms of birth control, especially abortifacients.
Here is some of the information provided directly to Dr. Woo:
Dr. Sok Pun represented CRS on the Steering Committee of MEDiCAM in 2011.
During MEDiCAM’s 2011 Annual General Meeting, Dr. Pun participated in a discussion on MEDiCAM’s position paper for 2011. As you can see in the screen capture below from MEDiCAM’s agenda, Dr. Pun represented both CRS and MEDiCAM’s Steering Committee in the discussion on that policy paper.
According to the minutes from the entire meeting, Natural Family Planning was NEVER a part of any of the discussions, and there are no objections to the radical abortion-expanding agenda of the meetings themselves. Furthermore, the draft of the policy paper, produced as a result of the meeting in which Dr. Pun participated, likewise never mentions NFP nor does it raise objections to the expansion of abortion. What it DOES recommend, however, is to:
- raise awareness of legalized abortion so as to lure more women to abortion clinics
- train health providers on how to commit abortions
- increase the number of so-called “safe” abortions in conjunction with the Millennium Development Goals.
- promote intrauterine devices as the most “cost-effective” form of birth control.
And those recommendations made it right into the policy paper for 2011. There is no record of objection from CRS and there is no record of introducing NFP as an alternative by CRS, either.
Dr. Woo knew all of this because the documents were personally hand-delivered to her and explained in great detail, and yet, in this interview she denied that CRS participated in conversations pertaining to family planning with the Cambodia Medical Association (which she misstated and likely meant MEDiCAM.)
Dr. Woo’s interview with Aleteia continues …
“The second one is that people accuse us of making contraceptives available or abortion and so on, and that is just absolutely not true. CRS refrains from any of those activities. There are grants where it may require the distribution of contraceptives. We refrain from participating in those grants. Or we seek special waivers so that we do not participate in those parts.”
Here are just a few of the recent findings against CRS:
- In 2011, noted Theologian Germain Grisez exposed CRS’s publication of a condom-promoting flip-chart with the standing order that CRS’s logo not be included on the charts.
- On September 6, 2012, Life Site News revealed that CRS had written several of its own documents (not just one, as CRS continues to insinuate) promoting condom use.
- In February of 2015, The Lepanto Institute published government documents showing that CRS implemented a Planned Parenthood-Style sex education program called “My Changing Body.”
- In March of 2015, The Lepanto Institute and Population Research Institute both researched and confirmed that CRS facilitated the implementation of a contraception-promoting program called Healthy Choices II in Kenya. CRS’s own reports (obtained through the Freedom of Information Act) confirmed that CRS indeed implemented the contraception-promoting program as written.
- In March of 2015, CRS confirmed that it was responsible for the implementation of a condom-promoting video series called “Shuga,” however contradicted its own reporting documents to the government by claiming that the implementation was done by one partner and without CRS’s knowledge. The documents obtained through a FOIA request showed that CRS facilitated the training of 11 partner organizations in “Shuga methodology, and all 11 partners implemented the strategy.”
In each of these cases, CRS was provided with grant money for the implementation of each of these programs and documents.
The last point Dr. Woo makes in response to concerned Catholics gives the appearance that CRS is going to retain the employment of a same-sex “married” vice president:
“Number three,…CRS has a senior person who is in a civil gay marriage, and the question is, “Is that a violation of Church teaching?” I just want to say we are working through this. Gay marriage, of course, is a very complex issue. The Church is very clear that marriage as a sacrament is a between a man and a woman open to procreation. There’s also the Church teaching on natural law. Those are the teachings. … Does it mean that the Church should not employ anyone who is in a gay marriage? Are we giving a blanket No?… If it’s not a blanket No, are there particular positions, such as positions that are ministerial in nature, positions which relate to the formation of the faith of young children at school? … While the teaching is clear, as it translates into practice there has not been defined a common approach for dealing with employment, particularly when the position is non-ministerial, when the person is not a Catholic, when the agency is not a school. So we’re in that area when there have been various steps forward, but not a clear path.
Civil marriage is protected by the State of Maryland and 36 other states, as well as DC, so we’re also dealing with a new intersection between in this case state law and Church teaching where the practice is being defined.”
For one thing, “gay marriage” is not a complex issue when it comes to the Church. It is an abomination before the eyes of the Lord. No matter which governments pretend to enact such a thing as law, what legal frameworks are erected around it, or what material consequences may arise from standing against it, the fact remains that Truth is Truth and evil must be opposed by the Catholic Church both in Her members and in Her institutions. There are plenty of other secular organizations that would be more than happy to employ a same-sex “married” executive, but such does not belong in Catholic institutions. Catholic Relief Services must remember that it is Catholic above all else, and that its first duty is to maintain the integrity of the faith. However, given its history of compromise by funding organizations that commit abortions, perform sterilizations, and distribute contraception, it’s willingness to help create policy papers that spread abortion without raising a hand in protest, its creation of documents that promote condoms, and its facilitation of contraception-promoting programs, it should come as no surprise that CRS would compromise its Catholic faith in favor of a more secular approach to aid and development with regard to a same-sex “married” vice president, either. So, perhaps it’s time for CRS to drop the charade and remove the word “Catholic” from its name. If obtaining government and foundation money is more important to CRS than bringing souls to Christ, or at the very least, not opening doors to wolves seeking to devour the faith of those CRS claims to serve, then it should continue its work as merely “Relief Services.”
This response is well spoken in every point and counter point that has been addressed. As a Catholic it literally disgusts me to the point of righteous anger in regard to another individual who represents another Catholic organization whose fruits I pray will wither as the perverse “fig tree”.
Until that happens these wolves in sheep’s clothing will continue to spin their deceptions as the Church hierarchy among others continues to allow and facilitate one after another sign of the diabolical disorientation in this evil age.
I have heard about this for several years and this is the first time I have seen a comprehensive report confirming it. It makes me sad to think this happens and those responsible try to rationalize it away so they can get money. It reminds me of the Planned Parenthood office in our city that did not perform abortion on site but did refer women to other cities. We still prayed there for many years.
The place closed this past year.
The trouble with grants is you must read them carefully. To bad rich Catholics
do not give grants with the stipulation that the acceptance depends on no affiliation with organizations that do not follow Catholic principles.
Thank you for this report. Unfortunately our diocese recently held a collection for Catholic Relief Services.
Shelah Hockman
Michigan
Another “huge ” heartbreak to me by the Catholic church. I have encouraged so many people to contribute to CRS as a truly great charity. We have suffered so terribly from the molestations by religious that, at the age of 62, I’m seriously considering not supporting the only church I really thought I knew and loved. This totally breaks my heart!
MaryPat,
Please do not lose heart in Holy Mother Church. She has been betrayed, just as Our Lord was. Pray and fast very much, especially for bishops and priests … many souls will be lost if we don’t fast and pray for them.
God bless,
Michael
Where are the shepherds? I am going to write to mine, please write to yours.
Let your diocese know that as long as they raise money for CRS you cannot donate to their other programs because if CRS is so corrupt their other programs might be corrupt as well.
Does this apply to local Catholic Charities as well? I am talking about Catholic Charities in St. Louis, Mo
Thank you so much for exposing this. It is sad to see a large ‘Catholic’ organization fall so far from the teachings of the church. It is apparent that the leadership doesn’t wish to right the ship anytime soon. They need our prayers.
May I compliment Lepanto for its in-depth investigative journalism in this case. having read about it and, for example, the scandal in Germany where our Church funded pornography I have no doubt that because of light-fingered supervision this scandal is replicated all around the world. People, with presumed allegiance to our Church, are being paid large sums of money to supervise these disbursements in accordance with the wishes of our Church. Surely our Church should ensure close, direct supervision of these disbursements!
God bless you! God bless you abundantly for your fidelity to the Truth and your courage and your Wisdom. I wrote a comment to Aleteia re the article about Woo and CRS. They blocked it. No matter. Your incredible journalistic endeavor here states it all so well, it cannot be topped. Kudos to you. Ms. Woo needs to resign. Catholic Relief Service needs to remove “Catholic” from its official name. God bless you.
It saddens me to see this but sure appreciate knowing the truth – thanks for having the courage to report your findings and for not backing down. I can relate given some troubling observations during a couple of years serving on an advisory board for a regional Catholic Charities affiliate. Let us all pray for a return to authentic Catholic charity.
Friends, I think we must consider things in perspective. Doing God’s work in this world is not easy, and the Church itself has been known to have to deal with strange bedfellows, so to speak. I find nothing wrong in what Dr. Woo has said about having to collaborate with other secular organizations. To say that she is lying by saying these places would have hospitals, just run by different organizations seems to me like petty fault finding. If the problem is them working with those organizations, then is it okay for them to fold and leave those other organizations to run the hospitals? That it maintains homosexuals in its employ to me is also a good thing. Jesus, who sat at the table with tax collectors and prostitutes, would not support our ostracizing any sinner for sin. Let’s look at home Jesus converted the tax collector? He went over to his house for dinner, established a relationship of recognition and friendship, and the person was so moved by Jesus that he adopted His principles even though they were diametrically opposed to His own. Jesus did not evangelize by exclusion. Thankfully, neither does CRS. CRS, following the example of Jesus, gets into the trenches where very few of us go, to meet those people whom the sin of the world has particularly marked. And it carries on the very difficult task of bringing hope. It is not in the spirit of our own sense of charity to discredit the great work that it does on these grounds, as though the path of holiness was all thorn-less roses. And on the meeting minutes on the policy statement, though Sok Pun was in attendance, the minutes do not record anything he said, make no mention of him at all. So if he said anything about Natural Family Planning, the minutes did not report it. They register neither his support nor his objection to anything that was said, so I don’t think we can make anything of his participation in that meeting. What i know about CRS makes me proud of it. One of my students is from Haiti and students having a discussion during the break were talking about matters religion, where one student spoke very negatively about the Catholic Church and the sex abuse scandals. This student from Haiti passionately came to the Church’s defense saying that that is all the news talks about but that the church in Haiti has CRS, and she spoke very powerfully about what CRS has done there for her family, her people in general. So who cares if they have a gay marriage activist calculating their budget? Who cares that they work with other organizations that do not follow the Catholic way? The work is great and the laborers are few so maybe it takes them where it can get them, but God bless it’s beautiful work.
Jesus did not have practicing and unrepentant homosexuals go out and preach the Gospel!!!! What a bunch of lukewarm malarkey you have written which our Lord says is worthy of being vomited! Does never speaking about the Good News to sinners constitute doing Jesus’s work? Light cannot cohabit with darkness. You are misinterpreting Pope Francis. He speaks so ambiguously that anyone wishing to disobey the teachings of the Church can delude oneself that the Church does not teach what She does through such language. Sorry, the Pope is not saying what you think.
Also, stoing contraceptives which will be used to destroy the lives of poor families makes all the food and other relief vain and useless. Poison in the food and other aid provided to the poor is not beneficial.
Thank you for the write-up! Any one who loves God and the Catholic faith will be disturbed by the practices that has been highlighted in the research. It is a shame to CRS!
Nothing should be entertained that contravenes our faith. The souls of the person is very important than the sanctity of the physical body. Grants with stringent conditions should be allowed to pass. I was at a training of Parish Child Protection Teams last month and the issue of use of contraceptives came up. Participants reported that some NGO were making the church based health facilities difficult by facilitating contraceptive services e.g.with girls and condoms to boys in Basic Schools. I only responded by reminding participants on the Catholic Church stand on abortions and contraception. So I am shocked to health a catholic church body was condoning and conniving the practices in other countries.
My advice is that we Catholics should increase our giving habit so that CRS should not be tempted to accept grants with stringent measures. Thank you and God help us!
Increase? Just the opposite, my friend! THey have forgotten that the first mission of the Church is to save souls. Physical relief, though important, pales in comparison to saving souls from damnation. While CRS harbors a sodomite within its ranks, and a prominent one at that, they cannot be rewarded with one penny of our money. There are plenty of other charities that are faithful to Christian morality; divert your donation dollars there.
All the same garbage happens with and in many Catholic charities and institutions worldwide.
This includes in Canada, where all kinds of Catholic funded “Catholic” charity bureaucrats participate in a host of anti-familty, anti Catholic activities and partnerships with full knowledge in doing so.
The Bishops who nominally appear, but are not actually in charge, of such charities actively and/or silently participate and” go along to get along” to keep the funds flowing.
Political correctness abounds and is priority one. There is little or no courage to either change or challenge their own secularized Catholic bureaucracies.
Never mind to address the government or other secular “partners” of these “Catholic” charities, whose price for their cooperation requires either the ignoring of, or the removal of various references to Catholic teaching and insists on the silence of Catholics participating, including laity, priests, Bishops and Cardinals.
This is rampant in Canada and I think in the Western Church in general and on a track to get much worse.
I stopped giving to CRS, CCHD and Bishops annual appeal years ago outside of Maronite Bishop’s charity. I had to send Two letters to CRS to get them to STOP sending me literature. I contacted Maronite Bishop of Brooklyn NYC who is listed on the board or CRS asking him to cut off CRS from funding as well. PLEASE Boycott CCHD, CRS liberal bishop’s annual appeal etc. and send these org. letters to Why you are doing this and to have them STOP sending you fund request letters. ONLY the cut off of money will dissuade them from Woo’s apostasy at CRS..
I received a response to an email concerning this issue and received a bit of nasty slander that those bringing these things to light were only looking for donations -“they would go out of business if they didn’t have things to criticize.” The picture of Lepanto’s contributors luxuriating in donations received while making up critiques is risible – as was the further statement that you & others ‘don’t represent the Church’. It was the sort of evasive tapdancing that bishops who promoted clerical sodomy engaged in for years.
Let me put this bluntly: Michael Hichborn commits a grave sin when he (1) attacks private individuals who are doing the work of the Church through CMS or thrid-party vendors who are contracted to perform a service for the Church; (2) publishes their private information and home addresses for the express and implied purpose of encouraging his readers to attack these private individuals, humiliate them publicly, seek them out at their home addresses that he publishes, physically or emotionally attack them, hurt them and, yes, Michael Hichborn wants other perople to kill them in my opinion.
That is why he publishes home addresses. That is why he publishes the names of private individuals. Michael Hichborn, in my opinion, wants to incite his fellow travelers to commit murder. He would be thrilled if that happened in my view. There is no other reason why he deploys this sinful tactic.
Look at these comments! All of you immediately respond by spewing hate at the persons Michael identifies. Guess what. This is how Al Quaeda and ISIS came into being.
Jesus weeps when he views this website.
I think satan would appreciate your way of thinking because his greatest achievement in these evil times is that people think he does not exist thereby allowing many deceived souls to live in grave sin as they go skipping and dancing merrily on their way to hell unless they and we confess in the sacrament of penance, have a purpose to amend their lives in repentance and convert themselves to the truth. And by the way, satan believes in God also; however, he hates God and each and every person that God has created as he works tirelessly to get us all to choose eternal damnation. Keeping all public sins and sinners in darkness is the perfect plan that leads many toward hell. I guess that satan has seduced and convinced a multitude and we should just leave them in that state because of that false charity. Not only are the sinners affected, but the continuing scandal makes prey of all others who are influenced by public sinners. Shall we be silent and silenced by that which masquerades as charity when it is really a lack of charity because it leaves those in sin who might be corrected? An indiscreet silence is an increasing error that leads souls to hell. In our particularly evil age, satan has seduced many by calling what is good , evil and that which is evil , good. Onward Christian soldiers!