It's a Question of Trust

Reflecting on the McBride/CAFOD affair, it seems to me that much of the commentary misses the point.

People are talking about what McBride did then, and whether CAFOD should or should not accept 'tainted' money.

Heavens above: if only the completely virtuous could donate to CAFOD they would be poor indeed! That's really not the issue, as I see it.

It is not what McBride did then, when employed in the ugly world of party politics; and which he may well, for all I know, have confessed and been shriven for. 

It's the fact that now, as a senior member of CAFOD, and indeed the one in charge of PR, he is publishing what he is publishing, and in the way that he is publishing it (serialisation in a mass-circulation paper at Party Conference time...) that I think is the current issue.

The analogy isn't Mother Teresa taking money from dodgy dictators: it is Mother Teresa permitting one of her senior nuns to raise money in dodgy ways.

All of which contributes to my feeling that CAFOD still does not merit my trust.

So I have been ruminating on trust.

It seems to me that there are three components of trust, in this context. One is the good intentions of the party who seeks to be trusted; a second is his or her competence; and the relative importance of each of these elements varies with the context. I would sooner trust with a scalpel over my abdomen the competent surgeon with dodgy views on the Trinity, than the completely orthodox one with a shaky hand and poor nerves... The third is integrity: that fundamental congruence between what somebody says and what he or she is and does.

In the case of CAFOD, I fear all three are in question.  I won't rehearse all the issues again, as I have bored my indulgent readers with them so many times (a click on the tag CAFOD will reveal all...).

I should reiterate that I am talking here specifically about the leadership and central organisation. I know of many good people who are completely trustworthy - and virtuous, generous and more - who support CAFOD in the parishes. 

But I fear the central question is important. Because they have forfeited trust, both by concealing and obfuscating, on the one hand, and by poor judgement and decision making on the other, I have no confidence in the claims they make about the work they now do. It is not just a fear that they may be promoting condoms, or even working supportively with agencies that campaign for and provide abortions. 

It is also that they are engaged in campaigning and educational work: and I do not think that they are doing so from a sound Catholic, but rather a secularised, perspective.  Frankly, I am not prepared to risk money I donate to a body that claims to be Catholic being spent in ways that go against the Church's teaching, and may even be actively undermining it: their reinterpretation of Abstinence being a case in point.

My beef with CAFOD is actually very personal and very longstanding.  It starts many years ago, when I co-ordinated a project that raised significant funds for them.

I remember meeting the regional co-ordinator for a discussion towards the end of the project, at a time when the see in which we were working was vacant. During the meeting, a priest wandered in to the office. He was a big CAFOD supporter and very J&P. He was chatting idly with the CAFOD chap about why it was taking so long for the see to be filled, and said scathingly that it was because Rome was searching around for someone - anyone - who believed in Humanae Vitae. They both thought this was ludicrous.

At that moment, I realised that I had been a dupe.  Here I was, working to support a Catholic Charity, only to see that, at least in its local incarnation, it was not.  The regional co-ordinator, a lovely chap, had always seemed perfectly sound in our conversations heretofore. But the mask slipped, possibly because by now he felt comfortable with me, and also in the company of his priest friend. But what was behind the mask was an attitude of dissent - and habitual, casual dissent, at that, as though everyone really shared such views.

That impression was only strengthened the more I learned and attended to CAFOD's various activities and publications in the intervening years.

And this problem points higher up the chain. CAFOD's supporters often point to the fact that they are under the oversight of the bishops, so they must be all right. One would hope that such an assurance would be all one needs. But I fear that the bishops of England and Wales, collectively, and many of them individually (with some notable and honourable exceptions) have also forfeited our trust.

I do not know whether it is incompetence or a different belief-system (or both) that lead to the various behaviours and statements that undermine my trust in them; and it is probably better not to speculate.  But when one considers:

•  ++Nichol's support for Queering The Church - led LGBT Masses; 
• +Conry's extraordinary misrepresentation of Vatican ll documents, injudicious (to put it mildly) comments on confession, and support for ACTA; 
• +Arnold's failure to hold CAFOD to a Catholic line, 
• ++Kelly saying lay-led funeral services were as good as funeral Masses, and offering his Cathedral to Methodists for their 'ordination' services,  
• + McMahon's failure to hold the CES to a Catholic line, and welcoming the appointment to it of a man who, as an MP had voted consistently in ways that are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on, for example, abortion, contraception, 'gay' relationships etc.
• the collective stance in favour of Civil Partnerships, which paved the way for the SSM fiasco,
• and...

...but alas the list could go on and on... but considering these, it is fair to say that my trust is undermined.

Prayer and fasting are clearly the first priority. But beyond that, we do have a duty to speak out: both to ensure that others are not misled, and in the hope that the Nuncio will be able to keep the Holy Father properly informed, so that he does not place his trust where it may not be honoured.

At such times, as I have remarked before, the only other thing to do is throw myself back on the promises of Our Lord, in particular those in the Tu es Petrus:

Et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.

And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her (The Church).

I hate to say this, but...

...CAFOD are yet again calling their right to be associated with the Church into question.

Is it ignorance or incompetence? Or worse?

Did nobody there have the {sense/guts/wisdom} to tell their Head of Media and PR, Damian McBride, that to publish the kind of book he has just published sits rather ill with CAFOD's published values.

I don't know Mr McBride, and have no insight into his motivation, so I pass no comment on that. But I do think that CAFOD, who regularly ask Catholics in this country to put their hands in their pockets and support them as a Catholic Charity, should - and indeed must - do much better than this.

If this were the only question mark over CAFOD, I would almost certainly draw a veil over it. But it seems to be part of a pattern of playing fast and loose with their proclaimed Catholic values that I think is profoundly problematic, as I have mentioned before...

But am I not as guilty of detraction myself, in publishing this post?

I have thought long and hard about this, but do believe that it is necessary, as CAFOD (and its trustees, including, alas, some bishops) have been immune to previous calls to clean up their act; and there is a real risk that many will give money to them on the basis of a misunderstanding (I had almost said misrepresentation), that they are trustworthy and competent.  I think the evidence suggests that is not a safe assumption, and it behoves people to look closely at them and make an informed decision.

For myself, I think there are other more reliably Catholic organisations which merit support, such as Aid to the Church in Need.

More on EF and pro-Life

I have been thinking more about yesterday's post, and wish to add a few things. One is that I am not claiming that people who attend the EF are necessarily more likely to do good works or support charitable organisations than people who attend the OF.  Rather my contention is that they are likely to support different types of charities.  In the OF, many support CAFOD, and Amnesty International (in support of the whole Justice and Peace agenda) as well as excellent organisations such as the SVP.

CAFOD  and AI (who are now actively pro-abortion) are problematic from a Table d’Hôte point of view.  But they are socially acceptable and much-lauded by OF people. EF people are more likely to support specifically pro-Life organisations, in their caring, educational and political work, as well as excellent organisations such as the SVP.

The second point on which I wish to elaborate is that the horizontal (community) focus of the OF can and does lead to real problems, at least from a Table d’Hôte point of view.  Many innovations are introduced that are clearly contrary to the law of the Church, and yet because people like them and priests feel that pastoral sensitivity trumps the law of the Church (or in some cases because they fear that to follow the law would lose them their flocks) they continue.  That simply does not happen in the EF (though I am not saying it is not prone to other problems - but hey are problems less in keeping with the dominant trends in society, and therefore less of a serious risk on a large scale).  If my assumption of intrinsic links between right prayer, right belief and right action is correct, that is clearly problematic. 

Finally, there is a different disposition fostered by each.  The OF is the Easter People orientation.  The EF is the Church Militant.  I think of this in terms of the Mysteries of the Rosary.  The OF seems to focus predominantly on the Glorious Mysteries: the Resurrection and the Descent of the Holy Spirit; the Sorrowful Mysteries are in the dim and distant past.  The EF sees that we are still living in this vale of tears: that our joys (as Our Lady’s) and our luminous insights are shot through with the prescience of the Passion, and that, whilst we are indeed  confident of Our Lord’s victory over sin and death, we are not complacent about our own.  Again, I think these perspectives may influence how we engage with the great evils of our time: the Church Militant sees that fighting is our job.

CAFOD-Bashing?

Reflecting on yesterday's post, I was wondering if I was just indulging in CAFOD-bashing.  (For overseas readers, I should explain that CAFOD is the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, the official aid agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales).  


Some of the complaints I have against them go back quite a long time, and perhaps it is time to forgive and forget.


However, I really don't think so.  I work on the (quite possibly delusional) assumption that if I am thinking like this, others may be too.


For that reason, and because it seems to me that CAFOD has betrayed the trust of many who gave (and many who still give) to it based on its claim 'CAFOD seeks to exercise a role consistent with its Catholic character,' I think that CAFOD really needs to do three things:


Firstly, admit that they have got some things wrong: specifically and without reservations (none of the 'sorry if we have been misunderstood' type of rubbish);


Secondly, apologise for the errors;


Thirdly, reform, so that they are totally aligned with Catholic social, moral and liturgical teaching and praxis.  That may involve changes in personnel, policy and practice.

Until they do that, those of us who mistrust them will find it very hard to be convinced that they are worthy of support, and will continue to examine them with a prejudicial eye...

Prejudicial, in that we have made our judgement (based on evidence) and until we see reason to reverse it, it is likely to stand.

CAFOD's Remit...

Fr Ray Blake raises some interesting points about CAFOD leaping on the anti-Boris Island bandwagon.  I think he makes a good case.

The Thirsty Gargoyle responds, linking CAFOD'S concerns to the Holy Father's words about concern for the environment relating closely to concern for people.  I think he makes a good case, too.

However, I would have less sympathy for the first and more for the second if CAFOD were to:

a) Align its teaching and praxis more closely with the teaching of the Church in all other areas;

b) Support the pro-Life movement in this country (as well as be proactively pro-life overseas), as after all, our country's record on these issues undermines our ability to offer moral leadership abroad - indeed leads to us exporting a culture of death to many of the countries CAFOD is meant to be helping.

Follow tags at the side for CAFOD if you want to understand my prejudicial approach to this...

Support Good Counsel Network and this intrepid walker....

David Aron wrote to me:

I am doing a solo long distance walk to raise money for the Good Counsel Network. I am walking the Thames Path Way (184 miles) in eight days (Fri 07 Oct 11 - Fri 14 Oct 11), carrying all my own kit and provisions.

As David says, the walk is to raise money for the Guild of Our Lady of Good Counsel, and any money you were thinking of giving to CAFOD would be used by GCN in ways that fully accord with Catholic teaching... Here's what they say:

The Guild reaches out to help expectant Mothers and new Mothers in difficult circumstances, through a helpline, a free advisory service, practical help, friendship and moral support. It also promotes the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the sanctity of human life and love through education.

The web link is: www.justgiving.com/davidaron

You don't have to support David: the full range of options is:

• David Aron
  £556.00
  raised so far
• Conor Carroll
  £200.00
  raised so far
• Johanna Hendrickx
  £192.88
  raised so far
• Gaelle Hendrickx
  £72.15
  raised so far
• Mike Marshall
  £40.00
  raised so far
  
  

Lenten Alms - but not to CAFOD

On this the first Sunday of Lent we are yet again exhorted to 'give up so that we can give.' In particular so that we can give to CAFOD. Yet again, we won't be be giving to CAFOD, but rather to other charities that are more consistent in their Catholic Identity, such as Aid to the Church in Need.

In case anyone doesn't know of the reasons for concern with CAFOD, I summarise them here.

First, here is a blog post I posted 2 years ago:

CAFOD (the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development - supported by the Bishops of England and Wales) has a policy statement available from its www site which states clearly:

"It is important that people understand that abstinence and being faithful to one life-long partner in marriage, when both know they do not have HIV, are the surest ways to avoid infection through sexual activity," and further: "that CAFOD neither funds nor advocates the supply, distribution or promotion of condoms."

This is all, as CAFOD proudly proclaims, because "CAFOD seeks to exercise a role consistent with its Catholic character."

All well and good, the Catholic in the pew (who funds CAFOD on the basis of its being Catholic) might think.

But on the same site, we find another document (HIV Prevention From the Perspective of A Faith-Based Development Agency by Ann M. Smith, Jo Maher, Jim Simmons, Monica Dolan) which states, inter alia:

"abstinence can be used to mean:
Delaying the age of first sexual encounter. Evidence suggests that the abstinence aspect of ABC campaigns has been most successful among young people, for whom delaying the age of sexual debut was an important risk reduction strategy
Not having sex until the person is in a more stable relationship
Choosing to have sex only within a long-term committed relationship
Not having sex until marriage
As a mutually agreed and free choice (one of a number of possible options) by and between HIV discordant couples
As a preferred option for a specified period in a person’s life ."

Be Faithful "might mean fidelity to:
A single, mutually faithful partner, whether in marriage or in a long-term committed relationship
Serially monogamous relationships (provided a degree of stability exists within these relationships. What this means for individuals will vary, depending on current practices and alternative possibilities)
A strategy of reducing the number of partners
A strategy of reducing the instances of casual sex
A strategy of consistency in condom use if this is a person’s risk reduction option, given that condom failure is more often attributable to their inconsistent or incorrect use."

"The available evidence suggests that condom promotion has been particularly effective for identifiable groups at highest risk of HIV infection (e.g. sex workers) and who may have few if any other options for reducing risk.[snip] Thus an important component of this third strand of a nuanced ABC must be that C also stands for Choice. An imperative that becomes “Choose what you can change today; choose what you want to change for tomorrow” is informed by sound epidemiology and also compatible with the gradualist theological understanding referred to earlier. "

Is it me, or is there in fact a degree of promotion of condoms in the foregoing?

And is not 'abstinence' so proudly touted in the first policy document given a wholly new - and wholly unCatholic - meaning in the second?

I'll be choosing other Catholic charities for my alms this Lent...

Second, here is a summary of some of the other reasons for concern:

• For years, the faithful were funding (to the tune of some £60,000 a year) the life of Julian Filochowski as Director of CAFOD, who was in a 'committed' homosexual relationship with an 'ex'-priest , and homosexual activist, campaigning against Church teaching;
• Filochowski's successor was found, despite earning a significant salary (doubtless justified as living in London is so expensive) to be living rent-free in the house of a Labour MP - the expenses of which were being paid by the tax-payer;
• CAFOD's prayers are regularly very flakey, eg last year's Lent prayer: 'Spirit of God... Work through us so our vision becomes reality.' Contrast with 'Thy will be done...' which is what Christ taught us to say;
• CAFOD has recently appointed Damian McBride to run their media operation: best known for his outrageous smear campaigns against opposing politicians while working for Gordon Brown (which caused his untimely departure from No 10);
• CAFOD has a habit of cosying up to the Labour Party generally, not known as the greatest bastion of support for Catholic Social or Moral teaching.

So as I say, I think alms could better be sent elsewhere, notwithstanding the heroic work of many CAFOD workers: overall the organisation simply isn't trustworthy. There's something about taking money under false pretences, (ie pretending to be Catholic but then re-defining that to mean something other than what people in the pew believe it to mean),that I find truly repugnant.

CAFOD surpass themselves...

I would really love to believe that CAFOD has appointed Damian McBride to run their media operation because he is truly sorry for his outrageous smear campaigns against opposing politicians while working for Gordon Brown (which caused his untimely departure from No 10).

But even if that is the case, as I really hope it is, why is it so dispiriting to see yet another croney from New Labour taking a senior position in the Catholic bureaucracy?

Do the punters in the pew really want to be funding his salary, after years of funding Filochowski's (and his dissident lover) about which we were kept in ignorance by a complicit hierarchy?

After all, we've only just had a collection to support the CES, complete with ex-Labour MP Greg Pope who has such a strong anti-Life voting record...

But it will be CAFOD collection time again soon, and all we, like sheep, will be led astray.

Non Praevalebunt

Every now and then, I am tempted to despair. Naturally optimistic by nature, I look around and it sometimes seems too much:

The CES Scandals, taking the Catholic out of Catholic Education, and promoting the culture of death;
The various CAFOD Scandals, including but not limited to condomania and bankrolling dissent
The Soho Masses Scandal
The Vaughan School Scandal
The Birmingham Oratory crisis
Connexions in Catholic Schools facilitating abortions for our children,
The widespread capitulation on contraception
The closure of seminaries, religious houses, parishes
The lack of the most rudimentary education and formation in the Faith in so many areas
The inability or worse of the bishops to address these and other issues effectively

...and so on.

And then I look in the mirror: at my own inadequacies in addressing any of these issues, or even addressing the basic obligations of my state of life; my habits of sin and reluctance to go to confession, ... and so on.

At such times all I can do is throw myself back on the promises of Our Lord, in particular those in the Tu es Petrus:

Et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.

And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her (The Church).

trades description legislation

I would love to see a suite of actions started against those organisations (Schools, Aid Agencies, Education Services) which use the title Catholic to persuade Catholics to support them, but are non- or anti-Catholic in their practice.


Any takers?...

CAFOD's Prayer: May Our Will Be Done

It's been a bit of a while since my last post - last year's resolution to slow it down a bit has been honoured! - but on reading CAFOD's leaflet for Family Fast Day, I thought a comment was needed.

The CAFOD Lent Prayer is the kind of thing you would expect - but I was struck by this: 'Spirit of God... Work through us so our vision becomes reality.'

It seems from this that CAFOD see God as an instrument for achieving the vision for reality they have fixed on, rather than seeing themselves as the instruments God may choose to use to accomplish His purpose.

In fact, strikes me as practically the antithesis of Christian prayer: 'Thy will be done.'

Or is it just me?....

What is it with CAFOD?

I think it's time for the bishops to undertake a root and branch review of CAFOD. After the faithful found out that they had been bankrolling the former director living with his ex-priest, activist and dissident boyfriend for years, and that Cafod was ambiguous, to say the least, in supporting Church teaching regarding condoms, we now learn that the new director, despite earning a significant salary, is living rent-free in the house of a Labour MP - the expenses of which are being paid by the tax-payer.

Surely it is time to clean out Cafod!

Who was that?

Listeners to the Today programme this morning were treated to comments on the Holy Father by "Martin Prendergast, from the charity Catholics for Aids Prevention and Support and Dr William Oddie, the former editor of the Catholic Herald."

Funny that the BBC did not mention that Martin is a former priest (ie someone who has either mistaken or abandoned his vocation, by definition), a homosexual activist, who has been living for 25 years as 'partner' (there's a terrible euphemism) with Julian Filochowski, ex-Director of CAFOD, the Bishops' rather flakey international aid agency...

Incidentally Dr Oddie had all the facts and reason on his side.

CORRECTION: His name is Pendergast.

Schizoid CAFOD?

CAFOD (the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development - supported by the Bishops of England and Wales) has a policy statement available from its www site which states clearly:

"It is important that people understand that abstinence and being faithful to one life-long partner in marriage, when both know they do not have HIV, are the surest ways to avoid infection through sexual activity," and further: "that CAFOD neither funds nor advocates the supply, distribution or promotion of condoms."

This is all, as CAFOD proudly proclaims, because "CAFOD seeks to exercise a role consistent with its Catholic character."

All well and good, the Catholic in the pew (who funds CAFOD on the basis of its being Catholic) might think.

But on the same site, we find another document (HIV Prevention From the Perspective of A Faith-Based Development Agency by Ann M. Smith, Jo Maher, Jim Simmons, Monica Dolan) which states, inter alia:

"abstinence can be used to mean:
Delaying the age of first sexual encounter. Evidence suggests that the abstinence aspect of ABC campaigns has been most successful among young people, for whom delaying the age of sexual debut was an important risk reduction strategy
Not having sex until the person is in a more stable relationship
Choosing to have sex only within a long-term committed relationship
Not having sex until marriage
As a mutually agreed and free choice (one of a number of possible options) by and between HIV discordant couples
As a preferred option for a specified period in a person’s life ."

Be Faithful "might mean fidelity to:
A single, mutually faithful partner, whether in marriage or in a long-term committed relationship
Serially monogamous relationships (provided a degree of stability exists within these relationships. What this means for individuals will vary, depending on current practices and alternative possibilities)
A strategy of reducing the number of partners
A strategy of reducing the instances of casual sex
A strategy of consistency in condom use if this is a person’s risk reduction option, given that condom failure is more often attributable to their inconsistent or incorrect use."

"The available evidence suggests that condom promotion has been particularly effective for identifiable groups at highest risk of HIV infection (e.g. sex workers) and who may have few if any other options for reducing risk.[snip] Thus an important component of this third strand of a nuanced ABC must be that C also stands for Choice. An imperative that becomes “Choose what you can change today; choose what you want to change for tomorrow” is informed by sound epidemiology and also compatible with the gradualist theological understanding referred to earlier. "

Is it me, or is there in fact a degree of promotion of condoms in the foregoing?

And is not 'abstinence' so proudly touted in the first policy document given a wholy new - and wholy unCatholic - meaning in the second?

I'll be choosing other Catholic charities for my alms this Lent...